Sitting of 14 March 1997

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

Business of the House: Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 18th March to enable the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Building Societies (Distributions) Bill
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Hayhoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sex Offenders Bill
11.5 a.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill is an important measure which forms part of our wider strategy to protect the public against the menace of sex offenders who prey on children. The Bill falls essentially into two parts. Part I places a requirement on those who have committed sex offences against children and other serious sex offences to notify their name and address, and any subsequent changes, to the police. Part II makes it an offence for British citizens and those resident in the United Kingdom to commit certain sex acts abroad against children.
Paedophiles are markedly different from other criminals. They tend to be highly manipulative and clever, and their offending behaviour often intensifies with the passage of time. One of the problems of dealing with hardened paedophiles is that they do not consider their behaviour to be wrong—rather the opposite, they do not always understand or accept efforts to stop their activities. This makes them especially dangerous.
546
There is no underestimating the harm they do to their young and vulnerable victims and, while no measure can prevent all sexual offences against children, the Government are committed to doing everything within their powers to prevent such abuse. This Bill is a significant step towards that goal.
I should like to explain in more detail the purpose of Part I of the Bill. Requiring convicted sex offenders to inform the police of their name and address, and any subsequent changes is to ensure that the information on convicted sex offenders contained within the police national computer continues to remain up to date. This will help the police to monitor the offender's whereabouts and to identify suspects and quickly locate them if a crime is committed, and should also act as a deterrent to potential re-offenders.
The notification requirement will apply to all those who are convicted in any part of the United Kingdom of a qualifying offence. It will include those who in England and Wales are cautioned for any of those offences. The qualifying offences are set out in Schedule I. These cover sexual offences involving children; and also the most serious sexual offences against adults, all cases of rape and attempted rape, and those cases of indecent assault for which a sentence of 30 months' imprisonment or more has been imposed. It includes child pornography offences, but not consensual sex offences between teenagers or adult homosexuals.
The requirement to register changes of name and address with the police applies indefinitely to those convicted of the most serious offences; namely, those who have received a sentence of imprisonment of 30 months or more. Those who receive shorter sentences of imprisonment are required to register for a finite period—10 years if the sentence is more than six months, seven years for a sentence of six months or less. Non-custodial penalties and cautions will attract a notification period of five years. Those are rightly significant requirements. Registration periods need to be long enough to reflect the long-term offending pattern of paedophiles.
Clause 2 of the Bill provides details of how the notification requirement will work. An offender must register any change of name or address within 14 days either by personal attendance at a police station or by written notice to the police. We have, following discussion in another place, amended these requirements to require an offender who has more than one home, or who regularly visits another address, to register those other addresses as well as his main residence.
It is vital to the registration scheme that offenders actually comply with these rules. We have therefore, in Clause 3, made failure to comply with the requirement, or false notification, a criminal offence. The penalty is a fine of up to £5,000 (level 5 on the standard scale), or up to six months' imprisonment, or both. This is a severe penalty, which was increased following representations received from a number of bodies including those concerned with the protection of children and the police. It should assist the courts in those cases where offenders repeatedly try to evade the registration requirement.

547
The notification requirement will, in addition to catching offenders convicted after commencement, include those convicted of a relevant offence before commencement and who are still in contact with the criminal justice system; for example, those in prison or still on probation. We did consider extending the requirement to cover all those who have ever been convicted of a relevant offence but we concluded that as many offenders would not have had any contact with the criminal justice system for many years, it would be impractical to do so.
Provisions relating to young offenders are contained in Clause 4. It has been suggested that young offenders should be excluded from the registration requirement altogether. The Government are opposed to this approach. One must remember that registration is not a punishment but a measure to secure public protection from those who have committed serious offences. Indeed, some under-16s have been responsible for horrific sexual crimes. Nonetheless, we do accept there should be some recognition that for some offenders who are still young there is, perhaps, a greater chance of rehabilitation. The periods of registration, be they five, seven or 10 years, are halved for offenders under 18, and a custodial sentence cannot be imposed for non-compliance.
I hope that I have made clear the key details of the notification requirement. Before moving on, I should like briefly to mention a subject that attracted a great deal of attention in another place. It has been suggested that the Bill does not address the vital issue of what will actually be done with the information which is collected under the Bill. Some form of statutory obligation has been proposed whereby the Secretary of State should issue regulations, or a code of practice, on how and to whom the information should be disseminated and disclosed. We have given careful thought to this, and have in particular taken account of the views expressed by the Association of Chief Police Officers. The view of the police, which we strongly endorse, is that any warning system must form part of an overall strategy for managing the risk posed by paedophiles. They have argued that this needs to cover information-sharing between agencies, ongoing risk assessment and a variety of preventive and investigative measures tailored to the circumstances of each specific case.
We have therefore decided that, rather than adding a provision to the Bill, we will consider with the police and the other relevant agencies, in the light of current practice around the country, what form such a strategy might take. This does not preclude the idea of a code of practice at some future date, although it may be that a Home Office circular would provide a better and more flexible way forward. I can assure the House that we will keep a close eye on how the registration scheme is working, and consider what measures may be required to improve it.
Having looked at the measures being taken to protect children from sexual abuse in the United Kingdom, I now turn to Part II, which deals with the activities of British citizens and United Kingdom residents who commit offences against children abroad. The
548
Government are seriously concerned that people from this country are among those who travel to countries for the sole purpose of sexually abusing young children there: so called "child sex tourists". They bring shame on this country, and we must make sure that they cannot use our country as a hiding-place.
Clause 7 of the Bill makes it an offence in England and Wales or Northern Ireland to commit, in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, the offences listed in Schedule 2. These include rape, buggery, and indecent assault where the victim is under 16. In addition, child pornography offences will also be covered.
The jurisdiction of the courts would be extended in this way only where the conduct concerned would be a criminal offence both in United Kingdom jurisdiction and in the territory of the state where it was committed. This is the so-called dual criminality test.
Clause 8 contains the Scottish provisions. They are framed slightly differently from those applying in the other United Kingdom jurisdictions because of the differences in Scots law. For instance, several of the offences caught by the Bill in Scotland are common law rather than statutory offences. But the effect is essentially the same in all three jurisdictions.
These provisions will supplement the other activities the Government are undertaking to discourage child prostitution and exploitation worldwide.
I believe the best place for prosecutions still remains the country in which the offences are committed, and if a British tourist is accused of abusing children overseas, we would look to the authorities in the country concerned to prosecute him under their own laws. However, for offences as obnoxious as these, it is right to make the necessary commitment to bring perpetrators to justice here in cases where extradition is not feasible.
These proposals are a significant step forward in our continuing fight against those who abuse children. It is one of a number of initiatives designed to protect children from abuse. The Crime (Sentences) Bill currently before Parliament contains additional measures designed to increase public protection from sex offenders. Courts will be required to impose a mandatory life sentence on offenders who commit a second serious sex offence such as rape, attempted rape or unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13. This will ensure that such criminals will not be released unless and until it is safe to do so. And all sex offenders will receive extended supervision after release for a minimum of 12 months or 50 per cent. of sentence, extendable up to 10 years at the courts' discretion. We are also seeking views, in a separate consultation paper, on the detailed proposals for a prohibition on convicted child sex offenders from seeking to work with children.
We are determined to tackle the vile threat posed by sex offenders, particularly sex offenders who target children. The present Bill is the centrepiece of our present policies in this regard. It will provide the police with the means to keep sex offenders in their sights, with tough penalties for those offenders who fail to register. This will make it more difficult for paedophiles

549
to commit further offences, and assist the police in tracking down the culprit if further crimes do occur. This will be a major step forward.
Part II of the Bill is also a radical departure, designed to protect children abroad, by ensuring that so-called child sex tourists can be held accountable in this country for their behaviour while abroad.
We have the opportunity today to improve the lot of abused children, in this country and abroad, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Match.)
11.19 a.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, the Bill will create yet another list of sex offenders with child victims. I believe that there are already six lists. I am concerned that the Bill does no more about the control of sex offenders than secure the address of their main residence.
Part II of the Bill introduces a necessary, but probably unworkable, provision for the trial in the United Kingdom of offences committed overseas. This extension of extra-territorial jurisdiction is welcome in theory; but I see great difficulties in practice. As a simple example, bringing witnesses from the Philippines would be expensive, and that would be only one of the difficulties.
I return to the ideas behind Part I of the Bill. Paedophilia is a sexual preference. It cannot be cured. The approach needed is one of control and self-control. I am impressed by the approach taken by the charity Action on Child Exploitation, of which I am a patron. AChE recommends a register of all suspected paedophiles and child sex abusers. The register would be supervised by a tribunal which would have the power to adjudicate upon appeal. The approach by AChE meets the real issues involved in dealing with sex offenders. Between 5 and 10 per cent. are prosecuted. Ninety per cent. are not charged, and of course that 90 per cent. would not have to register with the police under the Bill. But many of their names are on the six other lists and without any chance of review.
To measure the real scale of this problem, we have to recognise that 10,000 children are registered in England as being at risk of sexual abuse. This anomaly, in which the victim is put on a register but not the perpetrator, has to be sorted out. If that sounds a rather illiberal stance from these Benches, I shall now make the case that it is good for civil liberties, adults and children. The wider and more inclusive register which AChE proposes extends control to more perpetrators. That has to be good for children. For the adults, the possibility of appeal to the tribunal gives suspected perpetrators a chance to remove their names from the register if proved to be wrongly recorded. They cannot do that at present with the six existing lists. That has to be good for adult civil liberties.
That said, I return to the Bill. Part I will work if sex offenders have the confidence to register and re-register. It probably boils down to the reception at the police station given to the first offenders who attempt
550
to register. That will be critical. If it leads to public exposure, others will not risk registering and will go underground. Clearly, the police of all ranks will have to give some serious thought to this and some may have to overcome prejudices.
I do not support community notification. That is often quite counter-productive in the control and resettlement of offenders. However, I inevitably support the development of increased supervision and counselling services for paedophiles and other sex offenders. These people have to understand that their sexual preference is not viable and that they must control their unfortunate natural urges. In addition, parents have to work on the way they run their families and bring up their children. Some children are very much more vulnerable to abuse than others. A huge national debate is needed among all adults about the standards and methods of parenting. The current lack of parental confidence must be reversed.
I conclude with the complaint that the Bill deals only with sex offenders with child victims. I think I have that right but I am prepared to be corrected. It should at least take in those who are convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a mentally handicapped woman—that is, the sexual abuse of a vulnerable person. That is something which we can carry over to a lively Committee stage.
11.25 a.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, although it is a Friday, and although the Bill is not as radical or far-reaching as the Crime (Sentences) Bill, it is nevertheless astonishing that only two noble Lords are speaking from the Back Benches today. I intend to speak only to Part I and very briefly to Part III.
It may be that in broad terms Part I is desirable or, if not positively desirable, at any rate a lesser of two evils. All the same, it does affect civil liberties and challenges to some degree the philosophy underlying the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Moreover, judging by United States experience and, to a lesser extent so far, experience in the United Kingdom, is there not a danger of lynch law coming into play? Theoretically, of course, the information supplied to the police will remain secret as far as the general public are concerned. This may well prove to be the case in large urban areas, but in rural areas secrets are much more difficult to conceal from the public at large, particularly over a five-year period or longer.
I turn to the detail of the Bill. One of the problems is the very wide range in terms of seriousness of sexual offences covered. They do apply not only to sexual offences involving children, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, imagined. It is almost certainly right and proper that the most heinous sex offences should be covered by Part I of the Bill. But, for example, a 20 year-old man who goes to bed on one occasion with a 15¾ year-old girl who happens to look and act like someone of 17 or 18 would also be caught by the Bill. Is that right? Then again, indecent assault upon a woman under the age of 18 is also covered. As we all know, indecent assault varies enormously in terms of

551
heinousness, from acts every bit as bad as rape at one extreme to standing excessively close to a girl on the London Underground at the other extreme—unpleasant for the victim but unlikely to be traumatic. Yet the perpetrator, were the girl to be 17 or under, would be caught by the Bill.
It may be argued that these variations are catered for by linking the length of the registration period with the police to the length of the sentence served. As far as the most serious offences are concerned—those which attract a sentence of 30 months or more—I have no quarrel with what the Bill provides. But is it really right that a nine-month sentence should attract a 10-year registration period and a sentence of 14 days' imprisonment a seven-year registration period or that a conditional discharge or even a caution should attract a five-year registration period?
One other matter puzzles me. Clause 9 allows Part I of the Bill to be extended to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Surely these territories, which are not part of the United Kingdom, normally formulate their own criminal law which they may or may not wish to harmonise with that of the United Kingdom. Westminster does not interfere. Why should there be an exception in this case? I shall be interested in the noble Baroness's reply.
11.29 a.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I wish to ask a question which I do not think the noble Baroness answered in her explanation, to which I listened with great care. I have also searched through the Bill to see whether I could find any reference to it. I am anxious to know what provisions there are in the Bill for a paedophile who goes abroad, particularly one who takes up residence in Europe. I notice that the clause dealing with notification requirements refers to the offender's address within the United Kingdom. That appears to imply that if such a person goes, for example, to France or Germany he would not be under any obligation to notify the police of his address in those countries.
That leads me on to a further point which I want to put to the Minister. Has there been any discussion within the European Union about common notification and the exchange of information between police forces throughout the whole Community? It seems to me logical that if we are going down this road and find that these provisions are necessary to give protection to the community, they should apply throughout the whole of the Continent of Europe and not just within the boundaries of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, touched on this point when he referred to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Surely, as rules of this kind are harmonised within the European Union, we should be in touch, if we have not been already, with our colleagues throughout the Community to move towards a system where the registration of paedophiles will be universal throughout the Continent. If the European Union is extended later, countries coming into it would automatically comply with the same
552
requirement. I shall be extremely grateful if the noble Baroness will deal with this point when she comes to reply to the debate.
11.30 a.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I welcome the Bill as a very important step in the protection of the public and in the protection in particular of vulnerable children. The secretive nature of child abuse is demonstrated by the overwhelming flood of disclosures which have been made in very recent times. It is difficult to believe that this is an entirely new phenomenon. Increasingly we read of child abuse on the widest possible scale. The happenings at the Bryn Estyn home in Wrexham where I live convulsed the people of that town. I myself knew many of the care assistants who worked there. It is now the subject of an inquiry by Sir Ronald Waterhouse which is ongoing. Some of the people I knew have proved to be whistle-blowers who have come out well in that inquiry.
The point I wish to make is that although I lived in the community not a hint of misconduct was ever heard about what was happening there. It demonstrates the highly manipulative nature of sex offenders of this type to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred in her opening remarks. My noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie referred to the fact that paedophiles cannot be cured, only controlled. That took my memory back to a man whom I represented many years ago who conceded that his whole life had been made miserable by his compulsive obsession with young boys. I recall that he told me that aversion therapy made no difference to him. He had undergone voluntarily a scheme whereby photographs of young boys were shown to him and then he was injected to make him sick. He said that his compulsions were not changed at all. He would still walk across the road to pass by a young boy even though he did not even speak to him. He recognised that his obsession was a source of great trouble to him. Since I was involved defending him your Lordships will appreciate that he had failed to control that obsession and he was in trouble once again.
Sexual offences are notoriously complex, and different circumstances do arise. There is a possibility that an offence can be one-off and will not be repeated—not perhaps the paedophile offence but some of the other offences set out in the schedule. Certain offences are registrable, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, pointed out, even when an act is consensual and therefore victimless. I question whether there should be a blanket approach to registering every offence. It may be that an injustice will be created in individual cases and that rehabilitation will be prevented.
I propose that a requirement to register be part of the sentencing process of the court. It would be for the court to decide, after receiving reports, assessing the risk to the public and hearing representations, whether a particular individual ought to be required to register. After all, it is a significant encroachment on liberty since failure to register, and failure to continue to register on a change of address, are proposed as criminal offences. My view is that a decision to register made by the court carries more weight as a punitive measure than the automatic

553
registration envisaged in the Bill. I respectfully disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I believe that it should be a punishment that a person be required to register. No doubt, in the vast majority of the cases referred to in the schedule registration would be required, but it may be that in the individual cases referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, such a provision may not be necessary.
I also query whether automatic registration should apply to cautions. It is curious that a non-statutory procedure, which is what a caution is, governed by a Home Office circular, should find its way into legislation of this type. Surely, if a person is deemed to be a risk to the public then a caution is inappropriate in the first place. If a particular individual is not a risk and a caution is appropriate, then why should he then be registered? I shall pursue that matter at Committee stage.
My main criticism of the Bill is that registration is not enough. It is of little use to register unless the information is properly collated and disseminated to the agencies which need to know, such as the education services, social services, health authorities and police forces around the country. What the public expect from the Bill is that there should be a central paedophile register and that the information which it contains should be properly monitored and responsibly distributed. Information concerning paedophiles is currently stored, as my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie said, on no less than six lists held by government and public bodies. There are something like 25,000 names on the paedophile intelligence database of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. There are unknown numbers registered with the Department of Health consultancy service index and also on List 99 of the Department of Education.
The government proposal is that the information collected by registration will be stored not on a separate paedophile or sex offenders' register, but on the existing Phoenix database on the police national computer. While that is instantly accessible by all police forces and by National Criminal Intelligence, it is not perhaps the central register that the public had been led to expect would be the result of the Bill. There is therefore no specific control of this information envisaged. I welcome the suggestion of the noble Baroness today that a Home Office circular will be issued in order to put some sort of framework around the use of the information, but in my view it is not enough.
If there is to be proper protection I suggest that the following measures are required. First, a regulatory framework will ensure that the use of the information is carefully controlled for the prevention of crime and not open to vigilante abuse which might disastrously affect innocent people. Secondly, there should be a code of conduct which will define with precision the circumstances in which information can be released to interested bodies, including schools, voluntary organisations and, in exceptional circumstances, even to parents and the general public. I disagree with those who say that in no circumstances should the public be told. There may be particular instances where neighbours should be informed of the danger that is posed to their
554
children by convicted paedophiles who live close to them. But there are real dangers if there is wide public access to this sort of information. That is why a code of conduct is essential to ensure that it is only in specific cases that such information would be distributed.
I suggest that there should be as well an overall strategy for sharing information between agencies, conducting risk assessments and taking other preventive and investigative measures as has been proposed by the Association of Chief Police Officers. I do not believe that the Home Office circular to which the Minister referred is a sufficient safeguard. Finally, I suggest that there should be a controlling commissioner who can ensure that the collection, collation and distribution of the information follows the regulatory framework that I have put forward and the code of conduct which should be laid down.
I recognise the dangers of vigilante action. I suggest that the harassment of registered persons should be a specific and quite serious new criminal offence punishable by imprisonment. We must not allow the Bill to be used by vigilante groups who seek to attack people attempting to rehabilitate themselves and make something of their lives. It is not acceptable that newspapers such as the Manchester Evening News and the Bournemouth Evening Echo should compile their own lists of paedophiles. In my own area, the headlines of the local newspaper, the Evening Leader, in relation to a probation or remand hostel in the town of Ruabon, caused great public disquiet. It is very easy to inflame emotions, but it does a considerable disservice to the community. Arson is not unknown in such circumstances. Newspapers should be prevented from publishing their own lists.
Registration is not a complete answer to the paedophile problem because perhaps only 10 per cent. of paedophiles are convicted. Many others are known to the police but, through their deviousness, avoid conviction. We must maintain our vigilance at all times.
Finally, I welcome Part II. It is perhaps unfortunate that convictions registered abroad or made abroad will not be registrable on the proposed register. I recognise that there will be difficulties of proof relating to convictions for offences that are charged in this country relating to conduct abroad. Nevertheless, these provisions mark the disquiet and distaste that all of us feel for the shame that is brought upon this country by sex tourists who go abroad to indulge their fantasies. I welcome the Bill.
11.42 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for her clear and concise exposition of the provisions of the Bill and to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. The Minister was right to draw our attention back to the Home Office consultation document, Command Paper 3304 of June last year, on the sentencing and supervision of sex offenders. She was also right to draw our attention to the fact that this Bill is only one of a wide range of measures, some of which have resulted in legislation (but not quite all), which we must consider together if

555
we are properly to consider the role and potential effectiveness of this Bill. The White Paper referred to the need for improved DNA sampling. There is a Private Member's Bill to deal with the necessary amendments to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
The issue of notification to employers of previous offences, particularly offences against young children, and now against vulnerable adults, has been a matter of debate in this House on the Police Bill. That Bill is still in Committee in the Commons and my honourable friends are tabling amendments to the relevant part of it in order to strengthen its provisions—in some cases by limiting its application. Another Private Member's Bill seeks to end the improper use of victims' statements as a form of pornography in prisons.
The issue of supervision, which was the most important issue raised by the White Paper, is a subject of the Crime (Sentences) Bill. The paradox is that that Bill, as at present drafted, restricts post-release supervision rather than increasing it. The Minister and I have been in discussion on that part of the Bill following the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. I acknowledge straightaway, even before the matter is debated on Report on Tuesday, that the Government have moved some way towards the improvement and extension of supervision arrangements from those which were originally provided in the Bill. They have moved in some way back to the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 in terms of the restoration of the role of the Parole Board. However, it is a paradox that, although that White Paper gives great prominence to supervision, the Government's original proposals restricted it.
I turn now to the role of registration, which is the subject of this Bill. It is right that we should consider the registration of sex offenders as one, but by no means the most important, element in the range of provisions for the sentencing and supervision of sex offenders.
Therefore, let us consider this Bill not only in its own right but also in context. That context includes the question of limitation, which is inevitable in a Bill which refers to the registration of convicted offenders. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, recognised, the problem with the sexual abuse of children is that there is a high level of abuse but a low level of conviction. That is for all sorts of reasons, including, as the noble Lord rightly said, the fact that it is a secret crime. If I remind noble Lords that in 1994–95 the charity Childline received no fewer than 18,000 calls from children about abuse—but not always sexual abuse—one can see that the number of cases which do not come to court is very much larger than the number of cases which do. Without in any way underestimating the importance of dealing with potential reoffending by convicted offenders, we should not give the message that this will be a uniquely effective way of dealing with the large proportion of child abuse which is not perpetrated by convicted offenders.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, referred to the other registers which exist to protect children. I refer to the Department of Health consultancy index, to List 99
556
which is held by the Department for Education and Employment and to all of the registers of children at risk rather than those relating to the offenders who place them at risk, of which the noble Earl rightly reminded us. Unless we can be sure that those other registers are co-ordinated with the registration process proposed in this Bill, it is difficult to see how the Bill will be fully effective in dealing with the problems which it is supposed to address.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, surprised me by saying that he disagreed with the Minister when she said that registration was not a punishment. I should have thought that the Minister was right and that the fundamental principle which we should be addressing in our detailed consideration of the Bill is that it is about the protection of children rather than the additional punishment of offenders. If offenders need to be punished additionally, they should be punished by the courts, not by a registration process. If the courts are being too lenient on sex offenders, that must be dealt with in itself. I am not saying either that the courts are being too lenient or that they are not; I am saying that that must be dealt with by the courts and not by a subsequent registration process. That must be the principle on which we address the detail of the Bill.
However, there are many aspects of the Bill that cause me concern, despite my fundamental support for its objective: the protection of children against abuse. My first concern is that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. In this respect I agree with him. It seems to me that a blanket registration based on conviction, whose period is determined by the severity of the sentence, is less likely to be effective than a registration requirement that is imposed by the judge at the time of sentencing. I do not suggest that registration should be an additional punishment—I hope I have made clear that I am very much opposed to that—but the protection of the public should be the concern of the judge at the time of conviction. The judge should express an opinion about subsequent registration. After all, it is he who has much better insight into the nature of the offence and the offender than is available to the police subsequent to the release of that offender.
Next, one comes to the whole question of offences committed by young people. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, is right—I am afraid that the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, is wrong—that the Bill includes offences committed by young people, including consenting sex offences and age of consent sex offences. That arises only because of the peculiarity in the law that the age of consent for the purposes of homosexual offences is different as between young men and young women. I understand the desire of the Government not to reopen the whole debate on the age of consent, and I do not do so. However, it has led to the anomaly that these offences are included in the Bill and probably should not be. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, also referred to acts of gross indecency that cover a very wide range of offences.
The Children's Charity Consortium takes the view that young offenders should not be in the Bill at all. Certainly that view should be canvassed in Committee, should there be a Committee stage.

557
Another problem that has been raised by a number of charities concerned with the protection of children is the failure of the Bill to include overseas offences in the registration process. There is a perfectly good precedent for this in the Football Spectators Act. This issue should also be addressed in Committee.
I am worried about some of the commencement provisions. I do not say that all spent offences should be included in the scope of this Bill and that people who were released from prison some time ago should be subject to registration. However, we must give careful thought to the fact that a Bill which can apply only to the future will not cover the vast majority of offenders at large in the community.
I am also worried, as is the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, about the inclusion of cautions, which are a non-judicial process, that may result in people refusing to accept them and an increase in the workload of the courts. Some of the charities who are concerned with the protection of children have asked for greater detail on the register; for example, the domestic profile of the household and whether it includes children.
Perhaps more important than any of the other points that I have made about Part I of the Bill is the issue of the use of and access to information. That relates back to the point about the register's relationship to other registers already in existence and the question of how the police are to control and implement necessary access to the register. A register is of no use unless people are protected by it. I agree entirely with those who say that there should not be general public access. I also entirely agree with those who say that the thought of vigilantes and newspaper registers is abhorrent. I do not believe that we should go in the direction of the United States, where, for example, in New Jersey what is called Megan's Law has led to hugely excessive discrimination against those who have already served their sentences. That would breach the principle of the legislation—which the Minister recognises—that registration is not intended to be a punishment. If it became available in the community it would be a punishment. If for that reason alone, it would be ineffective because registration would not take place.
I say nothing about Part II of the Bill. We welcome it. I believe that we should pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who is not able to be in his place, for his efforts over a considerable period to ensure that we have this. Of course, we do not oppose the Bill. As my honourable friend said in another place, this Bill will play its part in a more comprehensive response to child abuse. It is sad that it comes at a stage of this Session and this Parliament when it is highly unlikely to have the detailed scrutiny in Committee and on Report that it deserves, but as it stands we shall not seek to oppose its passage.
11.56 a.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, albeit only a relatively small number of speakers have contributed this morning, we have had an interesting debate on a Bill which is a key part of the Government's wider strategy to protect the public. When opening the debate I sought
558
to provide the House with an explanation of the main provisions of the Bill. There have been a number of helpful contributions during today's debate, for which I am grateful. I shall seek to respond to as many of the points raised as possible. If I miss out anything I shall write to noble Lords.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, referred to suspected paedophiles. I hope that that was a misunderstanding on his part. We are talking about an obligation to register backed by criminal sanctions for failure to do so. It would not be possible to place an obligation on someone who had simply been suspected of paedophilia. Therefore, the Bill would not include suspects. I am grateful for the fact that the noble Earl welcomed many parts of the Bill. He said that parts of it were welcome in theory, but he had real doubts about the practice. However difficult it is, I am sure the noble Earl will agree that it is worth trying. The extraterritorial jurisdictions will give rise to difficulty, as we have always known. I join with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. One of the arguments that took up so much time before this stage was how difficult it would be to seek evidence. However, both this House and another place have come to the view that however difficult it is we should not set our face against at least attempting it.
I take seriously the point that has been raised by the noble Earl—I believe that we should take it into account when this Bill is implemented—about how those who arrive at police stations for registration are treated. I hope that that matter will be taken on board in any circular to the police about implementation of the Bill.
The noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred to discretionary registration. This would impose a very complex process on the courts in the exercise of discretion. There would need to be an appeals structure. It would make already complex provisions even more complex. We believe that it would be very costly. We also believe that everyone who is convicted of one of the qualifying offences should be kept under the eye of the police.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was concerned about the exchange of information between this country and other countries. Considerable exchange of information takes place between police forces internationally. Co-operation and mutual assistance were important elements in the joint action on combatting child sex. That was agreed by the member states of the European Union last autumn in the aftermath of the Belgian case. I think it is the Belgian case and a number of recent paedophile cases in this country that have brought to light the importance of being co-operative and exchanging information.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the information which is collected under the Bill be available, for example, to the Belgian authorities? Therefore, if a paedophile emigrates from Britain to Belgium, the Belgian police can keep an eye on him there.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I was going to refer to people who leave the country. I think the noble Lord is referring to people who commit sex offences in this

559
country. First of all, they have to serve their custodial period. They then have to serve a rather longer period of supervision than would be normal for convicted offenders. There are exceptional circumstances, when somebody is allowed, during that period of supervision, to go abroad. Those circumstances are very exceptional and are well controlled. A great deal of attention is paid to the country to which the offender is going to ensure that the supervision conditions are carried on in that country.
Let me take a different example: the person who has served a custodial sentence and completed the period of supervision and, if the person was staying in this country, would be subject to registration arrangements. Such people are of course free: they are no longer convicted persons. They would be free to travel abroad. I should like to take legal advice on this point and I shall therefore give a tentative answer. Such people are free once they have expended and spent their conviction; but if we were aware of somebody going abroad, a known paedophile, that would probably come under this joint agreement that we have with our European neighbours and that information could be passed on.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to consensual sex. I know this is a point about which he feels strongly, and it was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. They are only caught where the offender is 20 years of age or over and the victim is under 18 and that would be for homosexual acts. It would not be for consensual acts between an adult male and a female of that age. I am not sure if the noble Lord was referring to a 20 year-old male and a 17 year-old female—
Lord Monson: My Lords, if I may make clear to the noble Baroness, I was talking about a 20 year-old male and a 15¾ year-old female who looked older.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, then the age of consent would come into play and that would be an offence if we were talking about an under 16 year-old. But certainly from 16 onwards with an adult male, consensual sex would not be a qualifying offence. It would of course if it was between two males, one of whom was under 18. That would be an offence. I note that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, raised that point, too.
I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, about vigilantes and the difficulty that sex offenders would have in the community; but those injuring or threatening to injure a paedophile would be subject to all the normal criminal laws and it would be a very big step to go beyond that, which I think the noble Lord was suggesting—certainly beyond the scope of this Bill, and in the time left to this Parliament—to legislate new controls over the press.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to extension to the islands. Clause 9(1) of the Bill contains a standard provision permitting extension of operation of the Bill to the Channel Islands and to the Isle of Man. But whether the Bill should be so extended will be a matter on which the islands' authorities will advise Her
560
Majesty. This is in accordance with normal practice. I am the Minister with the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands on my particular portfolio.
Returning to the point of paedophiles convicted abroad, the Coalition on Child Prostitution and Tourism is likely to press for an amendment to be made to the Bill to require the registration of those convicted in other countries of paedophile offences. We examined options to achieve this following pressure at Second Reading in another place, but none of the options identified was without considerable difficulty, principally in respect of their practical operations. Options centring on extradition would deal with no more than the tip of the iceberg, but seeking to deal with the problem wholesale is very complex and very costly.
In his submission on 31st January to Mr. Maclean and Mr. Kirkhope, my ministerial colleagues, a Home Office official analysed these options. The recommendation then was that any move to apply registration provision in the cases of overseas convictions should be strongly resisted. That was accepted. The same difficulties of disproportionate effort in order to achieve any results apply in the case of registering addresses overseas. Difficulties focus on how the police would know whether any addresses of which they were notified were correct or false or whether the notification took place without the appropriate timescale. It would also be impossible to track the movements of these people through the European Union should an offender decide not to comply. Nor would they be picked up on their return to the United Kingdom.
Proposals to secure such a change have continued to be resisted on the grounds of impracticability. We would rely on good exchanges of information and as much co-operation between jurisdictions as possible.
A central feature of this Bill is the registration requirement in Part I. Although this will provide the police with up to date information on the whereabouts of paedophiles, much of the discussion, both here and in another place, has centred around the uses to which this information is to be put, and that is only right. The registration requirement will not be effective if it operates in a vacuum.
In reply to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie (again to correct a misunderstanding) when introducing this Bill I referred to a number of adults who would be subject to registration, not just those concerned with child abuse. I repeat what I said: registration will include those who commit sexual offences against children; the most serious sexual offences against adults; all cases of rape and attempted rape; and those cases of indecent assault for which a sentence of 30-months' imprisonment or more has been imposed. That of course includes child pornography offences but not, as I said earlier, consensual sex between teenagers or adult homosexuals.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Clearly, she is right to specify what the Bill covers. Is it not therefore

561
a mistake to refer to this Bill, as she did in her opening speech, as a Bill against paedophilia? That, surely, is only one part of what is covered by the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I stand chastened by that comment. The primary concern, when we set out on this path, was paedophiles in the community. It includes others. It was a very secret garden and the police were not aware of who the paedophiles were, and where they were. The whole point of the register started with a concern about protecting children.
The use of the information and access to the information was also touched on by a number of people. We are reluctant, as I have said, to agree to a statutory obligation of the type which has been proposed in another place. I do not think it is specifically proposed here; but if I could also add to the support we have had from the Association of Chief Police Officers, we have also very recently received a letter from the Association of Chief Officers of Probation who have also agreed with the police that this is not the time to have something as prescriptive as a code of practice but that flexibility was important. I hope noble Lords will remember that I have not ruled out that there may come a time when a code of practice would be appropriate.
The final point that was raised during the debate by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, was a concern about including cautions. I understand the point they are making; but, as they will know, cautions are only given on the basis of an admission of guilt. Therefore, if there has been an admission of guilt of any of these qualifying offences, we believe they should be subject to registration and that the police should know who they are and where they are.
All of this should form an active part of the on-going efforts by all the agencies involved in child protection. I agree that we should reflect on the way in which information is disseminated and disclosed. Such an exercise will, if it is to be meaningful, involve extensive consultation. I believe also that it would be wrong for that to hold up the important registration requirements.
I hope therefore that the Bill, containing, as it does, both the registration and the extra-territorial jurisdiction measures, will receive the endorsement of this House. This is not a threat, because we are a House that takes its own views about how long it wishes to discuss a Bill and how involved it wants to be in it, but I believe that there is a willingness in all parts of the House to see the Bill on the statute book. If we become over complex in trying to address too many issues in the Bill in Committee and on Report, we may jeopardise its future. This is a Bill that we should like to see on the statute book, and I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1997 Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1997 Representation of the People (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1997 European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 1997 European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1997

  Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1997
  12.10 p.m.
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the draft regulations and order laid before the House on 13th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these measures are uncontroversial and seek to made three improvements in the arrangements relating to absent voting at local government, parliamentary and European parliamentary elections. One set of regulations introduces changes for local government and parliamentary elections in England and Wales, and a second set extends the arrangements to European parliamentary elections in these countries but covers Scotland as well. Three measures apply the changes to elections in Northern Ireland and one deals with parliamentary and local government elections in Scotland.
  At each election a significant number of electors is unable to cast a vote because they have been unable to apply for a postal or a proxy vote before the deadline. Under the Representation of the People Regulations 1986, this deadline is noon on the thirteenth working day before polling. This means that if the election campaign is relatively short, there is very little time indeed for electors to make applications based on their inability to go to the polling station in person, and the resulting frustration and anger which these electors feel is very real.
  The draft regulations and the order relax the deadline from noon on the thirteenth working day before polling to 5 p.m. on the eleventh working day which will allow electors an additional two and a half days to make their applications. This is the maximum relaxation which electoral administrators have advised us is compatible with their discharge of the necessary administrative functions before polling day. It will not, however, mean any reduction in the extent to which electoral administrators are able to verify applications where they

  563
  feel a need to do so. This relaxation is intended to come into force seven days after the regulations are made. That means that it will be in force for the coming general election, and I believe that this additional opportunity for electors to obtain an absent vote when they need one will be widely welcomed by electors themselves and by candidates.
  The draft measures also make two other changes on the attestation of certain applications for an absent vote. First, they widen the scope for nurses to attest applications for an absent vote made on grounds of physical incapacity. Currently, an elector who applies for an absent vote on a continuing basis because of a physical incapacity which prevents their attending the polling station must have the application attested. This applies also to electors who fall ill after the general closing date and make late applications on unforeseen health grounds. The Representation of the People Regulations 1986 allow doctors, nurses and Christian Science practitioners to attest such applications but among nurses restricts the ability to attest to first level nurses. The unanimous view of the Royal College of Nursing, the NHS Executive and the UK Central (Nursing) Council is that this is now unnecessarily restrictive. Any registered nurse should be both professionally capable and professionally accountable for their actions in making such an attestation, and the regulations therefore provide for any registered nurse to make the attestation which some electors require. This will make it slightly easier for electors to get their applications attested and thereby to secure their absent vote with no loss of professional reliability.
  Lastly, the measures seek to close off a potential area of abuse in arrangements for attestations. Occasionally, albeit rarely, there have been allegations that batches of applications for absent votes for a number of constituents have been attested by the same person, seemingly with little or no knowledge of the applicants. The Government are keen to ensure that everyone who needs an absent vote should get one with the least possible inconvenience. But we must also guard against abuse of this system. The measures therefore focus on the possibility of mass attestations by requiring any doctor, nurse, or Christian Science practitioner who attests an application to confirm on the application form that they are treating or giving care to the applicant for the incapacity which forms the basis of the application. This change is drafted to come into effect for England, Wales and Scotland only, since it is already the practice in Northern Ireland and reports from there indicate that it works well.
  The two changes of practice in attestation are drafted to come into force in Great Britain three months after the regulations are made. This is in order to allow time both for a period of notice of the changes to be registered with electoral administrators, and for amended forms to be printed centrally and ordered by those electoral registration officers who obtain their stocks from the Stationery Office. As I indicated, in Northern Ireland the statement of treatment is already required, and so the sole change of practice in attestation there will come into force after seven days. This will not affect any elector's ability
  564
  to get an absent vote at the general election. Anyone who needs one should be able to get one on a one-off basis and the regulations will allow them a longer period to do that.
  There is one other small difference which I should mention between the provisions relating to Northern Ireland and those for the rest of the United Kingdom. The Northern Ireland provisions update existing electoral law in the light of changes in the definitions of residential care and nursing homes in Northern Ireland. The definitions used at present in Northern Ireland electoral law were repealed by the Registered Homes (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, and consequent updating of the electoral law of Northern Ireland is needed. This is done by the Northern Ireland regulations and order and is a technical updating not applying to the rest of the UK.
  The two sets of European parliamentary regulation simply apply to those elections the changes which I have described as applying to local government and parliamentary elections. One set of European parliamentary regulations extends the provisions in England, Wales and Scotland, and a second to Northern Ireland.
  I believe that these regulations are uncontroversial in that they increase, in time for the general election, the ability of electors to obtain an absent vote when it is needed. This should reduce the number of electors who miss the deadline, and hence reduce the number of those who wish to vote but who cannot do so.
  Secondly, the regulations introduce two focused changes in procedures for the attestation of absent vote applications, one further extending flexibility for electors and the other closing off a possible avenue of abuse. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft regulations and order laid before the House on 13th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—[Baroness Blatch.]
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, our only regret is that the Minister did not take the opportunity to announce the date of the general election and speed the Prime Minister on his way to the Palace. We support the measures.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1997

  Local Elections (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997
  12.18 p.m.
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 11th and 12th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].

  565
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these draft orders, which were laid before Parliament on 11th and 12th February respectively, are very limited in scope but necessary. The draft Representation of the People (Variation of the Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order increases the limits on candidates' election expenses at parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom and at local government elections in Great Britain to take account of inflation.
  The draft Local Elections (Variations of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 increases the limits at local elections in Northern Ireland. The proposed increase will ensure that the maxima for candidates' election expenses at local elections in northern Ireland correspond to those being proposed for England, Scotland and Wales.
  My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has power under the Representation of the People Act 1983 to vary the maximum limits on expenditure which candidates are permitted to incur. He may do so where in his view there has been a change in the value of money since the amounts were last set, provided that the variation is in his opinion such as is justified by that change.
  The limits which this order will replace are currently set out in orders which came into effect in 1994. The increase of 6.95 per cent. which is now proposed will bring the maxima in line with changes in inflation since March 1994. They will raise the amount which a candidate may spend at the next general election from £4,642 plus 5.2p. per elector in a county constituency, or £4,642 plus 3.9p. in a borough constituency, to £4,965 and 5.6p. or 4.2p. respectively. Proportional increases are also proposed for maxima at parliamentary by-elections, local elections, including ward elections in the City of London, and expenses at an election by liverymen in common hall.
  I beg to move that these draft orders be approved.
  Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 11th and 12th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committed—(Baroness Blatch.)
  Lord McNally: My Lords, whenever I see the words "election expenses" I develop a nervous twitch. Perhaps I may explain why. After I lost my seat in 1983, I was catching a Tube in London when I saw a headline in the Evening Standard. It indicated that candidates were to be prosecuted for electoral expenditure misdemeanours. I wondered which rascals they were. I got hold of the paper and saw my name as one of those about to be investigated.
  I rang my agent, who was a schoolteacher, a volunteer. She had telephoned Stockport Town Hall. I asked her, "Didn't we get the figure from Stockport Town Hall before the election?". She said, "Yes, but they made a mistake. Because of a boundary redistribution they added in a ward which you had lost and the figure they gave us was too large.". I thought that that was all right; that was the explanation.
  I was next contacted by Manchester Police, who said that they wanted to see me. I had to meet two policemen. They were dressed regularly, one in a smart suit and one
  566
  in a leather jacket. They gave me a regular grilling. To my great worry, I was suddenly facing possible charges that would debar me from public office for five years.
  I received a particularly helpful letter from the then Minister of State at the Home Office, Mr. David Mellor, which I sent on to the Manchester Police. Following due reflection, they decided that there was no criminal intent on my part and they dropped the case. However, the fact that we have such absurd contrasts in our electoral laws always sticks in my mind. We have tight and precise rules of expenditure for individual candidates, contrasted with a Liberty Hall as regards national expenditure.
  What is more worrying, and it is the reason for my intervention, is that increasingly we are seeing at local level a cynicism and an abuse of local expenditure limits which are unhealthy. It is not sensible for Parliament to pass laws which are held in contempt by parliamentarians themselves. The problem was summed up by Professor David Butler, whom everyone recognises as our leading academic authority on electoral law. He said:
  "In the last 50 years the laws regulating elections have stood still. But the practices of electioneering have been transformed.".
  I believe that he was referring to the quality of the advertisements that are now used and the mass poster advertising in constituencies. However, that can he double-edged, because I understand that Labour Members are now queuing up to ask the Conservatives to put up the "Tony & Bill" poster in their constituencies. Mass newspaper advertising, the computerisation of canvassing, e-mailing, candidates' bleepers and mobile phones, instant rebuttal units, direct mail and telephone canvassing all fall within these regulations but in real terms they are hard to explain and justify under a limit of about £8 million.
  The fact is that the £60 million or £70 million which candidates will spend at local level will be dwarfed by the national expenditure. As was pointed out the other day by the noble Lord, Lord McAlpine, in the case of the Conservative Party a deficit of £18 million is turned into a fighting fund of £40 million. From where that came we know not. There is a contrast between such precise control of local candidates and the vague and opaque nature of national funding.
  I do not wish to make too many party political points. The Conservatives have been talking about "blind" funds in the Labour Party, and I suppose that the party of Lloyd George must always tread warily on these matters. I raised the matter during Question Time the other day because I believe that as a nation we are on a slippery slope as regards election expenditure. I do not believe that we have a corrupt political system, but pressures are at work which are leading towards corruption. We have only to look across the Atlantic today to see problems about party fund-raising and to realise that, although we may not be able to deal with them with this small, technical order, whoever is occupying those Benches in the next Parliament must take a serious, all-party look at the way in which we control expenditure in our elections both locally and nationally. I hope that it will be made more transparent

  567
  and respected. In that way we shall add greatly to the credibility and standing of the political process among the public at large.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have before us some limited and focused regulations. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has gratuitously ranged over many subjects which go way beyond the regulations before us. For someone who said that he had no wish to be party political, I believe that he was gratuitously party political in much of what he said.
  I was also saddened by his remarks. For a long time electoral legislation was part of my portfolio. Therefore I know the extent to which officials in the department talk almost continuously with members from all political parties but particularly from the Liberal and Labour parties. All these subjects come under discussion and from time to time measures come before the House for agreement. Therefore, many of the issues raised by the noble Lord range way beyond the matters before us.
  We are all relieved to know that the noble Lord did not end up on the wrong side of the law, particularly as the mitigating circumstances were so obvious. It was a pity that there had to be an intervention at national level and that the matter could not be resolved locally. Electoral law is important; it is important that there are rules and that they are obeyed as far as possible. I take the noble Lord's point about rules being achievable and, as far as possible, practicable and they must have meaning. However, I return the House to the measures before it and I commend them to your Lordships.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1997
12.30 p.m.
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th February be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before the House on 13th February, be approved.
This is one in a series of financial orders covering Northern Ireland departments which come before the House each year. The draft order before us today authorises expenditure of £122 million for Northern Ireland departments for the current financial year. This is in addition to the £6,438 million voted by the House last June. The order also authorises the Vote-on-account of £2,941 million for 1997–98 to enable the services of Northern Ireland departments to continue until the 1997–98 main Estimates are brought before your Lordships later this year.
Before turning to the details of the Estimates, I should like to set them in the context of Northern Ireland's recent economic performance. Both official statistics and survey data show that the Northern Ireland economy
568
remains in good health in almost every area. Indeed, despite the breakdown of the IRA ceasefire and the impact of the BSE crisis, all indicators suggest continued improvement in 1997. This is also reflected in the figures for those in employment and those out of work. The latest available figures as at September 1996 for the number of employees in employment in Northern Ireland now stands at 573,160, the highest September figure on record. This is coupled with a rate of seasonally adjusted unemployment of 9.2 per cent., its lowest level for over 16 years. I hope the House will forgive me if I take a little personal pleasure in the fact that this rate was 13 per cent. when I arrived and it is now down to 9.2 per cent.
This is encouraging, as are the main economic indicators, which once again show very positive results for the Province. The output of manufacturing and production industries continues to rise at a rate well above that achieved nationally. Over the past five years Northern Ireland's manufacturing sector has increased its output by almost 19 per cent.—more than twice the rate of growth achieved nationally. Over a similar period there has been a significant improvement in the Province's gross domestic product relative to the United Kingdom. Of particular note is the fact that over the year to 1995 Northern Ireland's gross domestic product per capita increased relative to the United Kingdom's, while that of both Scotland and Wales decreased. It would perhaps be a remark of some prejudice to say that this does not surprise me. Allied to this there are some very favourable survey results from the local business community. Over the past year, survey evidence has shown that Northern Ireland firms experienced increased profits, greater exports and growing order books. Indeed, forecasts for the coming year are equally bright, with employment growth, a reduction in unemployment and strong rises in output expected.
All of this clearly demonstrates the impressive achievements of the Northern Ireland economy and those who contribute to it. I am confident that this performance will continue to he sustained. However, continued violence could compromise the Province's bright economic future and reverse many of the successes we have seen.
With your Lordships' permission, I now turn to the main items in the Estimates, starting with the Department of Agriculture. In Vote 1, a net increase of some £0.6 million is required. This includes some £0.3 million for national back-up aid to EU fishing projects, £0.3 million to fund additional commitments under the farm and conservation grants scheme and £0.2 million to meet ex-gratia compensation payments to sheep and stickler cow producers which were disadvantaged due to a misinterpretation of EU quota regulations. The increases are partially offset by savings in other areas.
In Vote 2, covering local support measures, a net increase of £6.3 million is sought. This includes £3.7 million for payments made from the civil contingencies fund for the 24 to 30 months bull slaughter scheme and for increased expenditure to compensate for outbreaks of animal diseases, including brucellosis, salmonella and Newcastle disease. An

569
increase of some £1.4 million, represents the carry forward of running cost underspends from 1995–96 to 1996–97, while £1.1 million is for health and safety work. Increased expenditure is partially offset by easements elsewhere within the Vote.
I turn to the Department of Economic Development, where token increases of £1,000 are sought in all three Votes. In Vote 1, some £2.6 million is sought by the Industrial Development Board for site acquisition, development and building works at Springvale in West Belfast. Some £2 million is required to meet increased claims for marketing grant support and legal costs, while a further £2 million is required to meet contractual commitments in respect of aircraft sales financing and support for the shipbuilding industry, both very important to the Province. The increases are offset by increased receipts and reduced requirements elsewhere within the Vote.
In Vote 2, a token increase of £1,000 is also sought. The major element is receipts from the sale of shares in Northern Ireland Electricity and the residual associated costs. These costs are being met out of the dividend payments and the proceeds from the sale of the shares.
Finally, in Vote 3, a token increase of £1,000 is sought by the Training and Employment Agency. An increase of £0.7 million is for capital expenditure on training facilities. Offsetting savings have been declared elsewhere within the Vote.
Turning to the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas, formerly the Office of Electricity Regulation for Northern Ireland, an increase of some £0.4 million is sought. This increase is to cover expenditure by the Director General of Gas, a new statutory appointment, and for consultancy costs incurred in the preparation of OFREG's submission on NIE's price control to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
I now turn to the Department of the Environment, where a net increase of £5.1 million is sought in Vote 1. Some £8.0 million is for roads maintenance and capital, while some £3.1 million is for additional compensation payments to Northern Ireland railways. These increases are partially offset by increased receipts and reduced requirements elsewhere within the Vote.
In Vote 2, covering housing, an increase of £10.5 million is sought. Some £7 million is to provide assistance to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, while £3.5 million is to provide private sector housing renovation grants. Gross housing expenditure in Northern Ireland is now expected to be about £608 million this year, an increase of £5 million over 1995–96.
In Vote 3, covering water and sewerage services, a net increase of some £2.5 million is sought. Some £3.3 million is for operational and capital requirements. This increase is also partially offset by additional receipts and reduced requirements elsewhere within the Vote.
In Vote 4, which covers environmental and other services, a net increase of £4.3 million is sought. Some £5.0 million is for regeneration related matters, £9.0 million represents the carry forward of running cost underspends from 1995–96 and some £6.0 million is for
570
capital works on accommodation. This increased expenditure is largely offset by additional receipts of £11.6 million and a reduction of £4.0 million in matching funding for the EU peace and reconciliation programme.
Turning to the Department of Education, a net increase of £5.8 million is sought in Vote 1. This includes some £9.6 million for grants to education and library boards, mainly for maintenance, energy efficiency measures, rates revaluation, Irish medium education, making good arson damage, the fitting of seatbelts in school buses and the cross community contact scheme. Some £0.4 million is for integrated education, £1.3 million for capital works at colleges of education and £1.9 million for student support. The increases are partially offset by savings elsewhere within the Vote. Provision for further education incorporation is included in the Estimates and in the Vote on account for 1997–98. In Vote 2, an increase of £5.5 million is sought for the teachers' superannuation scheme.
I now turn to the Department of Health and Social Services, where a net increase of £50.6 million is sought in Vote 1 for expenditure on hospital, community health, personal social services, health and social services trusts, family health services and certain other services. This includes £14.7 million carried forward from 1995–96 under the end-year flexibility scheme; £3.5 million for hospital emergency admissions and haemophilia costs; £3 million for the family health service; and £20 million to enable trusts to repay trust debt remuneration, together with transfers to and from DHSS Vote 3 to realign provision following a reappraisal of functions within the department under a senior management review.
In Vote 3 a token increase of £1,000 is sought for certain miscellaneous health and personal social services costs to reflect the corresponding senior management review transfers to and from DHSS Vote 1; £0.8 million carried forward from 1995–96; and an additional £2.6 million in respect of the EU peace and reconciliation programme.
In Vote 4, a net increase of £8.3 million is sought. This includes £11.5 million for running cost, capital and other administration pressures in the department. These increases are partially offset by reductions elsewhere within the vote.
In Vote 5, covering social security administered by the social security agency, a token increase of £1,000 is sought. This is mainly to realign provision between the individual benefits and to take account of increased appropriations in aid in respect of recoveries from the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund which finances expenditure on the contribution element of jobseeker's allowance.
In Vote 6, covering social security centrally administered by the Department of Health and Social Services, £10 million is sought. This is mainly due to increased expenditure on rent rebates and rent allowances, together with increased payments into the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund in respect of

571
the Treasury grant. These increases are partially offset by decreases in the Independent Living Fund, Social Fund and rates rebates.
Finally, in the Department of Finance and Personnel's Vote 2, an additional net amount of some £8.8 million is sought to cover superannuation and other allowances.
I hope that your Lordships have found that summary of the main components of the order helpful. We have no bottomless pockets or money-growing trees, but with the resources we have we endeavour to use our best abilities to work for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
12.43 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, it is on occasions such as this that one realises the contrast between this House and the House of Commons because I see immediately that no votes are to be sought in this debate. It is completely different in the other place.
The Appropriation Order has been known for many years as the grievance order. Every Member of Parliament would bring matters affecting his constituency into the debate. I have had occasion to read the debate on the order in the other place and at the newly constituted Grand Committee on Northern Ireland which discussed public expenditure at its two sittings. I must say to the noble Baroness that however optimistic she may feel in presenting the order, there is great despair about it in many parts of Northern Ireland because of the proposed cuts which are to take place in the immediate future and over the next three years. I regret that there are not more speakers from Northern Ireland taking part in the debate. I question the cutbacks which have taken place in the ACE programmes which will do away with 2,000 jobs. They are not highly-skilled or over-paid jobs but they are a very necessary component of keeping young lads off the street and putting into work young men and women who otherwise would find it impossible to find employment. That proposed loss of 2,000 jobs will create a good deal of anger among those in Northern Ireland.
As regards the cutbacks in education, at present it appears that all the political parties in this House are continuing to lay great stress on education. The Conservatives, the Liberals and the Labour Party are all saying how necessary education is to the future welfare of this country whereas in Northern Ireland £55 million is to be taken out of the education budget. Altogether, there are to be cuts of £296 million over the next three years. Those cuts will affect every facet of life in Northern Ireland—education, employment, hospitals and social services departments. Therefore, there is no real reason to be optimistic about the future in Northern Ireland.
I realise that the noble Baroness has a very difficult position in Northern Ireland. She carries the onerous responsibility of the major departments—the
572
Departments of Economic Development and Agriculture. Those two departments could very well be serviced by one person each rather than asking one person to deal with both departments at the same time.
I wish to speak about the vitally important matter of attitudes in Northern Ireland and the way in which the country is to be governed in the absence of either a parliament or an assembly being created there. The noble Baroness must feel very beleaguered. Over the past few years, since she took on her responsibilities, noble Lords on both sides of this House, and the Catholic and Protestant communities in Northern Ireland have all complimented the noble Baroness on the very understanding and compassionate way in which she has approached the problems of Northern Ireland. As a Conservative she has had to carry out the policies as dictated by the Conservative Government at Westminster. But in doing so she has displayed a realism and compassion that some of her predecessors have not shown over the past 20 years.
I know for a fact that the noble Baroness has travelled throughout Northern Ireland up and down the country and to places where it was very dangerous for a Minister of the Crown to go. That has happened even within the past two weeks. On many occasions, she has had to have police protection. But she felt that it was her duty to go to those areas in Northern Ireland and to speak to the people from the two communities to let them know that she had an interest in their well-being and the circumstances in which they live. That is agreed by all sections of the community in Northern Ireland. But if there has to be a Conservative Government and a Conservative Minister, then the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, has fulfilled that role in a most humane way. That is why, within the past two or three weeks, I have been absolutely amazed at what is happening in Northern Ireland.
Noble Lords may not have had their attention applied fully to events in that far-flung corner of the United Kingdom. Very little has appeared in the press here, but day after day the newspapers in Northern Ireland have been full of it. Since my wife died last year, I have had more time to concentrate on Northern Ireland. I visit the Province more regularly than I was able to do previously. On a recent visit I was absolutely amazed to read in press reports the tirade of abuse and vilification levelled at the noble Baroness, especially by an Irish newspaper known as the Irish News—a newspaper which supported me throughout my political life and for which I have always had enormous respect. But within the past month I have been very saddened to see how, day after clay, attacks are being made on the person, not the policy, of the noble Baroness.
On first reading these attacks three weeks ago, I was led to believe that thousands upon thousands of people in Northern Ireland were having sleepless nights wondering how to deal with the misdeeds of the noble Baroness. I thought to myself, "Well, I haven't heard this before, so I will make my own inquiries". I made many telephone calls and spoke to as many people as I possibly could, but none was having sleepless nights; indeed, they were all as offended as I was by the tirade of abuse being levelled at the noble Baroness. Up to that

573
point, the noble Baroness had been receiving accolades for the tremendous efforts that she has put in towards developing the Northern Ireland economy.
At the beginning of the campaign press reports were saying that the noble Baroness was being forced into resigning. It was said, "Pressure is mounting on Baroness Denton to resign; she will not be able to withstand such pressure." I could not see where that pressure was coming from. So I made further inquiries and found out that two politicians, who are seeking election in Northern Ireland, were using this case, whatever it may have been, to what they hoped would be their political advantage.
I then read a report that Mr. Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein, an organisation closely allied to the IRA and one which has brought about such despair and tragedy in Northern Ireland, had called upon the noble Baroness to resign. Could that be called legitimate pressure? It came from someone who said that if he were elected he would not take his seat in the House of Commons and, indeed, who did not in fact take his seat when he was elected for West Belfast some years ago. The other people mounting the pressure were two of what I would refer to as "clerical pranksters". We have quite a few of them in Northern Ireland on both sides of the political and religious divide. Then we had a Father McMannus, who is a well-known political prankster and features largely in today's newspapers. He has decided to bring the case of the noble Baroness to the floor of the US Congress.
If I were to believe everything that I read in the Irish News about the noble Baroness, I would not be surprised to see the matter raised at the Security Council, no doubt to the sound of tom-tom drums. Indeed, the matter would receive grave attention around the campfires from Tonga in the Pacific to Matabeleland in Africa. That is what we are told to believe is happening to the reputation of the noble Baroness. But that is not the case. It is not the way that the people of Northern Ireland view the noble Baroness.
I should like to take a few moments to tell the House what this is all about. There is a little church in Drumcree in County Armagh. It is a church that, from now on, will be identified and remembered, not as a church, but as a symbol of confrontation and division throughout Northern Ireland—now, possibly this year, in a very dangerous way, and certainly in the years that lie ahead. In 1995, two of the office staff of the noble Baroness witnessed the confrontation at Drumcree which was being screened on television. One of the ladies was very upset because she saw her husband, who is a Northern Ireland policeman, forced into that confrontation. She made some comments about it. Another female member of the staff evidently took offence at the comments that were made by that girl as she saw her husband engaged in the confrontation. That immediately created an atmosphere; indeed, throughout Northern Ireland, Drumcree has brought about an atmosphere of bitterness, hatred and resentment unequalled over many years.
The situation in the office became such that it was not possible to contain it. One of the girls involved in the dispute was transferred to another department.
574
Incidentally, she was a Catholic but her replacement was a Catholic, so there was nothing there on the part of the noble Baroness as regards being vindictive against one religion or another. The husband who was in the police was also a Catholic, even though his wife was a Protestant. So, again, the noble Baroness was not taking one religious side against the other. The girl who was transferred said that she would take her case to the Fair Employment Agency on the grounds that she had been dismissed because of sectarian differences. The Government did not defend the case, although I believe they should have done. We would then have heard both sides of the story and I would not be standing in the Chamber today telling your Lordships all about it. The girl received £10,000 by way of compensation and still maintained her job.
However, something else then happened. People in Northern Ireland saw this as a great stick with which to begin to beat the noble Baroness. The "Sir Humphreys" in the Northern Ireland Civil Service departments came on the scene. They had, on occasion, come into conflict with the noble Baroness when she was trying to do her job, which they resented. As we have seen on television, Sir Humphreys everywhere believe that they should take the decisions. They mounted the campaign against the noble Baroness. So it was not about the particular issue of the transfer of a member of staff and the Fair Employment Agency.
Perhaps I may put on record here and now the fact that I support the fair employment legislation in Northern Ireland. I believe it to be absolutely necessary. Indeed, in the 1970s, when I sat in another part of this building on the committee which brought into being the fair employment Act, I thought that it was necessary then, and, indeed, I think it is necessary now. However, I do not believe that the alleged infringement was enough to spark off a deluge of criticism against the noble Baroness and calls for her resignation.
In my opinion, the people who have engaged in the campaign—and I defy contradiction—are the civil servants who so disliked the noble Baroness trying to do her job. It is they who have mounted the campaign against her. They brought in another issue: they say that the noble Baroness actually picked her own travelling companion. My, oh my! What a strange thing to happen; that the noble Baroness should pick the girl in whom she has trust to travel with her quite regularly between here and Northern Ireland. Is that a capital sin?
I remember very well when I was the deputy chief executive in the Northern Ireland Executive, the power-sharing executive in Northern Ireland. On 2nd January 1974 the head of the Civil Service came into my office and told me that I would have to have a private secretary. I told him that I had never before needed a private secretary but he said he would submit to me a list of 10 names with CVs and that I would have to pick one. He said that if I could not pick a name out of the first 10 names, he would give me another 10. I said, "Hold on a minute. If you bring me a list with 10 names on it and I have to pick one, that means that I then have nine enemies. The people I have not picked are going to be resentful on one ground or another." I said to him, "Would you please go away and get me

575
somebody who is preferably some years younger than I am—someone whom you think or suspect may have Labour or socialist tendencies and someone who is preferably of a different religion from my own—and, what is most important of all, could you make sure that he drinks gin and tonic?"
The head of the Civil Service came back to me the following day and said, "I have got the very man." For five months in that executive, while it lasted, I had the most harmonious and friendly relationship with Mr. Alex Ireland. We had a relationship in which we trusted each other, where we knew exactly what we were doing and there was no religious or sectarian animosity. Secretaries should be in place with their Ministers. To go back to the attack we have been talking about, I believe that the whole thing is spurious and brought up simply to discredit the noble Baroness. I think the noble Baroness was quite right to pick someone whom she could trust to act as her travelling secretary. She should be commended for doing so. On the very few occasions on which I have met the lady in question, I believe she is certainly entitled to the support of the noble Baroness.
So, what was the real reason for bringing this case against the noble Baroness? I repeat: it was the Sir Humphreys. I heard—and I feel bitterly resentful about it—that when this campaign against the noble Baroness broke out one of the Sir Humphreys said to the Minister—and again I repeat that this is the Minister who has done so much for Northern Ireland—"I think you should pack your bags and leave the Province." I think it is sheer arrogance and effrontery for a civil servant to say that to the Minister that he has been serving in Northern Ireland. By the way, I should say that the Irish News, the newspaper which has carried on this bitter campaign against the noble Baroness, was itself brought before the Fair Employment Commission because it tried to dismiss its political correspondent on the grounds that he was a Protestant and it regarded itself as a Catholic newspaper. So I cannot see that it has any high moral ground on which to take this stance.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has appointed someone to review the whole circumstances of the alleged misdemeanour on the part of the noble Baroness. He has appointed a Mr. Maurice Hayes to inquire into all the circumstances of the conflict. I must say that I have great reservations about this because Mr. Maurice Hayes is an ex-civil servant himself. He knows all the people involved in the conflict and he is going to be carrying out an inquiry which concerns people with whom he served in the Northern Ireland Civil Service. How can you expect an impartial assessment and outcome of such an inquiry? Why was it that the Government, when conflict was raging in Northern Ireland about the parades, were able to bring in someone from outside on that occasion, Professor North? I believe that the appointment just made should have been a judicial one: it should have been someone with no axe to grind and no involvement with the Northern Ireland Civil Service. I would be very, very reserved about any conclusion that may be brought forward.
576
I repeat that it was necessary to bring this matter before your Lordships' House because it has not had the attention which it deserves. The Civil Service in Northern Ireland has overstepped the mark. The Irish News, a newspaper which I have so admired, has certainly overstepped the mark. If the noble Baroness is to go, let her go when governments change. There are one or two months to go before the general election. The government may or may not change. But that would be the best and most honourable time for the Minister to relinquish the position she at present holds.
1.6 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I shall not attempt to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, but I would certainly follow him in expressing gratitude to and support for my noble friend Lady Denton. First of all, I wonder whether she can confirm that in Vote 1 of Schedule 1 in the order we are discussing today the capital grants are still being utilised at the level they were all of eight years ago when I was on the sixth floor of Dundonald House, in the Department of Agriculture. I seem to recall that the happy motto of one of the farmers' unions, the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers' Association, was: "Act fast while grants last". I put this out over the media and it instantly roused the "Sir Humphreys" into saying that that was not a wise thing to do. Never mind, the grants are there for the support of the agricultural industry and I hope they are still being used to the best advantage. I was very pleased to see that there was mention of the support for marketing as well as fishing. I hope that that support is still strong and that if funding can be found it will continue to assist the fishing industry in the North.
In Vote 2 of Schedule 1 there are one or two items of particular interest to me and no doubt to the noble Baroness. It is the powerful tradition and strength of science and scientific research within the Department of Agriculture and also within the Department of Economic Development. I am thinking in particular of the veterinary research laboratory and the science divisions both in the Stony Road that is right next door to my noble friend's office and in the New Forge complex. I hope that all the funding they require will be going to those sections and that due priority will be given to it.
I am also delighted to see that forestry is mentioned in Vote 2. Everyone who is concerned in tourism will welcome this. Here I think of the wonderful Lough Navar forest drive in County Fermanagh, which will be familiar to my noble friend and certainly it was one of the high spots of visits made by all my own guests who came to the Province: they never forgot it.
I was reminded yesterday that my noble friend took up her post in January 1994, which, as your Lordships will be aware, was just after the signing of the Downing Street agreement, from which we hoped to get all-party talks and an IRA ceasefire together with other things which would follow from it. No doubt my noble friend will remember—and it may clash mildly with some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, who I see has left the Chamber—but within, I believe, one week of taking up her post my noble friend approached me and said that one of the very first things

577
a "Sir Humphrey" in the Department of Agriculture has said was: "Please, Minister, whatever you do do not follow your four or five predecessors"—who of course included me—"over the question of exploratory voyages for the fishing industry". I had said that of course there must be exploratory voyages. The fishermen danced with glee. The official then explained, "But what the Minister means to say is the following". That is lesson one of the "Yes Minister" series.
One also had to deal with milk quotas, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, drainage—which in my time changed its name to watercourse management; but thank goodness it is now back to rivers—and one matter which we see on our television screens on what we call mainland television; namely, the health status of the animal sector. At the end of 1988 one of my ministerial colleagues in another place made some "helpful" remarks to the effect that there was enormous turmoil in the fowl sector of the Northern Ireland agricultural industry. There was considerable concern on this side of the water too. I am delighted to see that the dramatis personae of that time now appear on our television screens explaining that Northern Ireland's agricultural industry still enjoys an enormously high health status.
For the past three years and a bit my noble friend has done something that I and my immediate predecessor Lord Mansfield were not able to do; namely, run two departments. From everything that I have heard and read, mainly in newspapers on this side of the water, I know that she has run those departments with great success and verve. Your Lordships may not be aware of the enormous physical, mental and intellectual strain that constant travel between this place and Northern Ireland imposes. My noble friend Lord Long assists the noble Baroness in your Lordships' House. However, attendance in this House and travel within Northern Ireland and, as regards my noble friend, throughout the world, are unique burdens to a parliamentarian and especially to Members of your Lordships' House. It is inevitable that some problems may arise, perhaps some personal problems as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has explained.
I am sure that during my five and a half years in Northern Ireland I committed several errors. I quickly learnt to say that I was sorry if I trod on someone's toes. Action was taken to remedy any errors. Toes—and a bit more than that—are trodden on in your Lordships' House and in politics. However, I found that I received huge support from the entire Civil Service within Northern Ireland and on this side of the water. I believe that no one in your Lordships' House or in the Government could have worked harder than my noble friend to serve the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland.
I hope I may take another minute of your Lordships' time to explain that in my time in Northern Ireland I looked after the Department of Agriculture. That covered the food processing and producing industries. I used the happy motto of a famous regiment in the British Army, the Coldstream Guards, nulli secundus. When I was a young recruit in the Scots Guards I was asked what that meant. I said that it meant no second helpings. That earned me a short period in detention in
578
the guardroom at the Guard's Depot in Caterharn, as it was thought I was taking the mickey. The motto means second to none. That was the motto I used for the agricultural industry and for the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland.
I recall the world's greatest food fair in Cologne in 1985. I had thought there were limits on what a Scot might do to push the interests of Northern Ireland. It was suggested to me that I should take two pipers from the Irish Guards into the exhibition hall. I said, "This is great fun but are you being serious"? They replied, "Minister, you can pull it off '. I was rather worried. The pipers entered the exhibition hall. I heard a commotion and a voice speaking in German, saying, "This is some comedy". Fortunately I had access to a microphone. I explained that it was no comedy, that the two pipers were in the Irish Guards and that I was the Minister responsible for the Northern Ireland stand and they were welcome to visit it. One of the people who made those comments was the chief buyer of a large supermarket chain in Northern Germany. Various other members of the United Kingdom delegation sniffed and tut-tutted. However, the main thing was, we were noticed.
In 1986 I went to Hanover, in 1987 to Lille, and in 1988 to Paris to try to push the interests of the Northern Ireland agricultural and food producing industries. I endeavoured to address meetings in France and Germany in the language of those countries. The message I tried to put across to the buyers and the customers was that they might look at the media and read remarks made by various politicians—such as the politicians the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has mentioned—but that the butter, milk and meat produced in Northern Ireland were of a quality second to none and that they were available in their shops at that moment. The quality of the people who produced it too was second to none.
Your Lordships may be surprised to hear of the response I received from people in Germany, France, Holland and elsewhere in Europe. They said that of course they believed that the quality of Northern Ireland produce was second to none. They asked what was new. They recognised that whatever was printed in what I call the "navel staring" media, was a case of filling column inches or forty minutes on a programme. They knew that the quality of the agricultural produce was second to none.
One day perhaps my noble friend may be able to confirm that the inward investment in industry during my time in Northern Ireland from 1984 to 1989 showed an upward curve. I wonder whether it has fallen off at all as a result of the shenanigans of the past year or two. I made an enormous number of friends during my time in Northern Ireland. Any success I achieved with the agricultural industry in Northern Ireland was entirely due to the support of the greatest team that I can ever imagine; namely, every man and woman who worked in the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland. Not one of them could have done more to encourage an industry which furnished the livelihood of people in Northern Ireland. If there were one or two who did not think that I had done a good job, they nevertheless gave me wholehearted support.

579
I believe that every one of them will give wholehearted support to my noble friend Lady Denton. She deserves that support. I salute her for what she has done. I hope that she will continue for as long as she wants. I thank her for presenting the order today. I shall not discuss matters beyond agriculture. I apologise for detaining your Lordships. I was one of the longest serving Members of your Lordships' House across the water. Fortunately my health and waistline survived that experience. I was immensely grateful for all the support and for the enormous respect and kindness that I received in the years that I spent there. I thank my noble friend for everything that she has done. I wish her well.
1.20 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, not only for her clear presentation of this appropriation order, but also, since there are the first elements of a deal with the Department of Agriculture, for her recent gracious response when I raised the question of the veterinary laboratory in Omagh. I am particularly pleased that in searching for appropriate savings in the Department of Agriculture, which has been recently plagued by a series of difficulties with food and infective disorders, it was recognised that, clearly, the closure of a veterinary research laboratory was not an appropriate area to seek savings at this time. I am glad that the Minister has reversed the decision on closure. Hers was a wise and gracious decision.
Turning to economic development, the noble Baroness was happy to report positive developments. I think it is fairer to accept her reassurance that, despite the end of the ceasefire, there has continued to be considerable inward investment in Northern Ireland. Indeed I am sure that there would have been more. It is reassuring that business people are not so fickle as we might sometimes imagine, and the work of that department continues apace. We encourage it, despite the difficulties.
Unfortunately, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, remarked, there have been some untoward comments in respect of aspects of that department. I do not know whether or not there were any regulations that were not fully observed. An inquiry has been undertaken, as was remarked by the former Ombudsman, Mr. Maurice Hayes. I am sure that he will address the issues widely. I make no comment at all about the question of regulations and their observance.
However, any suggestion that any actions, comments or decisions by the Minister might have been motivated in any fashion by sectarianism is utterly wide of the mark. In my experience of this Minister, there is not a bigoted bone in her body. Such suggestions simply make up in vindictiveness for what they lack in veritude.
It is said that politics is something of a blood sport. There is one particular cruelty that I have observed in Northern Ireland over the many years of direct rule. Those Ministers, and indeed others, who cared least and were there least usually escaped much comment. Those who are most available also find themselves most
580
vulnerable to adverse comment of various kinds. That was true of previous Secretaries of State, for example, in various situations and, sadly, in this case. May I reassure the Minister that such an attitude is not held by everyone, not even the majority of people. But it is a painful and unwholesome aspect of our provincial life.
One other unsavoury aspect of life is the return, indeed continuation, of the violence that has stained the face of our beloved Province for so long. It is clearly a matter for deep regret that public funds are again having to be diverted from the care of the sick, the elderly, the vulnerable, children and others to deal with security problems. I welcome the fact that there has been some recent relenting on the part of government over proposed cuts, at least at the level that was proposed, in the Department of Health and Social Services. I recently met the Minister for that department, and we had a positive, constructive discussion about that matter. I do not say that all the resources we should like to see are available; they are not. Some are denied as a result of security problems; some because of decisions about taxation and what is appropriate public expenditure. I welcome the fact that the proposals for 3 per cent. cuts year on year on year in health and social services have, to some extent at least, been mitigated.
I referred last evening during debate on the Education (No.2) (Northern Ireland) Order to recently proposed cuts in education spending. The matter was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. I see those cuts as quite disastrous. We are looking at cuts right across the field. Even within health and social services where, as I said, there are some constructive approaches, the amount that is available for research, as the Minister noted, was £1,000 of increase. That reflects the fact that hundreds of thousands of pounds are being taken out of research budgets in the DHSS. Indeed, the health and welfare of our universities is under serious question because university funding is being cut back.
If we examine the situation for teachers, we find figures of 500 and 600 possible redundancies, many, many thousands of children perhaps having to be moved into larger classes, and a poorer ratio of teachers to pupils. These are serious matters. There is almost unprecedented concern among parents, the community at large and the teaching profession. I fear some degree of collapse in the morale of teachers over this whole question. Teaching is a profession which in our country has tended to be undervalued in a way that is perhaps not the case in other places. I believe that teachers feel powerfully undervalued in the current circumstances.
Quite apart from teachers, we may look, for example, to the plight of classroom assistants. The introduction of the job seeker's allowance has left them unable to claim over the summer holiday periods, unable to have national insurance contributions made over that period. It has left some in a very serious dilemma, even though other staff are able to be paid over that period.
All of this suggests that the buoyant, positive and constructive picture that the Minister, with some justification, presents of the economy—it is a matter of reasonable pride for her since it is one of her own departments—is hardly applicable to education. I trust

581
that, as the financial requirements of Northern Ireland are reviewed and further addressed later this year, the needs of education will receive, as they profoundly deserve, a more sympathetic portion of the block grant.
1.27 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am conscious that one Welshman who today stands here as a wholly inadequate substitute for another Welshman must be very careful if he chooses to comment on financial matters in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I must tread delicately, like Agag, King of the Amalekites, upon eggshells, for fear I suffer the same fate as Agag, as described in the First Book of Samuel, Chapter 15, verse 32.
Like the whole House, I have listened carefully and gratefully to the noble Baroness the Minister introducing this appropriation order, and I have had the advantage of reading in Hansard the careful and detailed consideration (34 columns of it) given to it in another place so recently as nine days ago. There are just two areas on which I would be grateful for further enlightenment from the Minister.
It is immediately evident on scrutinising the order that there have been serious and almost disabling cuts in many areas of Northern Ireland expenditure. This order neither disguises nor remedies that sad situation. The regrettable but necessary shift of some £120 million back to security provision takes an inevitable toll on the resources available for more peaceful and productive purposes. But why mutilate the goose which lays the golden eggs?
At the risk of bringing even more blushes to the noble Baroness's cheek than have been there for the past half an hour, I must ask why the Department of Economic Development has been slashed. Month after month I receive from the Northern Ireland Office a report on employment figures in Northern Ireland. Month after month I am cheered by the remarkable results which are recorded in the employment field. This month's PA Consulting Group report projects a 3 per cent. growth in employment in the next 12 months, on top of steady job increases over the past two years. Yet there are to be cuts of £73 million from the training budget, with the ACE project suffering for a second year.
Training is essential to creating employment. The days when unskilled labourers went daily to their simple factory tasks or spat on their hands and picked up their picks and shovels are long gone, dead, buried, and unmourned. Northern Ireland must have a highly skilled workforce if it is to compete. And you cannot learn tomorrow's skills by sitting next to Nelly on the shop floor and picking it up as you go along. Training is essential. What then is the logic in closing the Dundonald training centre? The Parliamentary Under-Secretary in another place, at col. 994 of the Official Report for 5th March 1997, gave one of the most unconvincing replies to that question that I have ever heard. The Department of Economic Development is a proven success. As the poet W. H. Auden said: "Why spit on your luck?".
582
The other incomprehensible cut is the hardship imposed on the education budget. Education in Northern Ireland has a distinguished recent record. It was once said that the Scots had a reverence for education, the Welsh have a passion for education and the English have—no particular objection to education. In that respect Northern Ireland is Celtic, not Saxon.
Yet we hear that nearly all the education boards are in deficit, that more than 200 teacher redundancies are planned, that class sizes will increase, that the capital building programme is reduced. These comments and the devastating figures which accompany them were given by the honourable Member for North Antrim in another place. On top of that comes the serious reduction in funding for Northern Ireland's universities. I could detain your Lordships until late in the day on the question of the funding of the universities, but I will let the Chancellor of Queen's University say it succinctly, as he said it in a letter to the honourable Member for North Antrim. He refers to,
"the serious damage which will be done to Northern Ireland universities, and to the economy and Province generally, resulting from the 1996 Public Expenditure plans announced by the Secretary of State in December 1996. In his announcement he indicated that research funding for the two Northern Ireland universities is to suffer swingeing cuts of £4m (16 per cent.) from April 1997, increasing to £6m (24 per cent.) per annum from 1998. By contrast, the University system in England and Wales received additional funds".
He goes on to say a great deal more, but that will suffice.
University teaching and university research are vital to Northern Ireland's prosperity. As the honourable Member for North Antrim pointed out, potential investors always inquire what research facilities are available in the universities. This year and next they will get a dusty answer.
It may be that in the current PES round the Department of the Environment has the greatest cause for complaint. But in considering this order and the financial consequences of it, can the noble Baroness tell the House why such meagre and miserable provision is made for economic development and for education? In the words of the Private Eye cliché: "I think we should be told".
1.34 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their generous remarks. This House knows that I have become very attached to Northern Ireland. My aim has been to serve all the people in the Province to the very best of my ability—with only one exception. I do have prejudices. I have very real prejudices. My prejudices are 100 per cent. against the men of violence, beatings, bombs and bullets. If they would realise the futility of their ways, then the order I bring before the House would offer many more resources to those in need and those with ambitions.
Noble Lords have covered many areas but one which is obviously of great concern is the reductions in the ACE schemes. I share that concern. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, asked why there were cuts of such severity. As the economic development Minister, I can tell the House what a difficult battle it is

583
to fight for resources because I must always fight against that Minister fighting for education. There can be no questioning the priority of education. I fight against that Minister responsible for health. The waiting lists and the need for resources in health can never be questioned.
I assure your Lordships that I fight hard and I am pleased that the resources of the DED have been concentrated on ensuring that we continue to have available offers of real jobs and the growth of real jobs. We were able to find an extra £126 million for IDB in the last two surveys to ensure that those companies already in the pipeline were able to come to Northern Ireland. I promise your Lordships that the training of the people in Northern Ireland to take those jobs has not been put at risk. It would be absolute failure on my part if we created jobs in Northern Ireland and then people travelled into the Province to fill them. Those jobs are rightly for the people of Northern Ireland. We aim to skill in that way.
We do, however, have in Northern Ireland 7,000 registered job vacancies. They range across the whole spectrum of opportunity. It is of some concern to me that we have those vacancies because they represent for 7,000 people a reason to get up in the morning and to start on a ladder which will lead to success. I have instigated a review of the long-term unemployed which was published at the beginning of this week. It is only by employers, the community, social groups and the Government working together that we can find answers to ensure that we do not waste opportunities for people and that they are able to look forward to a brighter future.
Five thousand ACE places are available. I have asked that they be concentrated in areas where they meet the needs of the vulnerable, the needy and the under-fives. We do not have a bottomless purse but the resources we have should be directed in those areas. I shall continue to ensure that the department—described so unusually perhaps by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, as the goose which lays the golden egg—will continue to be as productive as ever. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, is no average substitute on the Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, would have to give second best on quotations without a doubt. That certainly made it much more entertaining from this side of the House.
The noble Lord asked about the Dundonald training centre. It was not an easy decision. I have met many delegations to talk about it. I was very impressed by those in training at Dundonald who brought their petitions. It is the first time I have ever had a petition in which every one was a letter in an individual envelope. Those youngsters were people who need to be cared about. We looked at the issues, we looked at the capital spend and we looked at the resources around. I can assure your Lordships that facilities are available. I am examining the accessibility of those facilities. We do not intend to take away training opportunities from these people.
There was also the question of accessibility to the veterinary centre in Omagh. I could stand and say that there would be no withdrawal of services—but were
584
they accessible to those people in the west? It was the people in the west and the farmers who made it possible for me to change my mind, because they came to me and said constructively, "We want to keep this centre open and we will pay towards the cost of the services". They offered to accept charges. There was the fact that "nominal" crept into the conversation 24 hours later, which could not be part of the opportunity. But it was a case of listening, reacting and working together. That is something that often happens in Northern Ireland.
As I say, in looking for resources for the Department of Economic Development, it is against the needs of education which are very great in Northern Ireland, because there are very high standards there. I take some issue with the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, because I believe that teaching in Northern Ireland remains a profession of which people are proud and which parents recognise. That is not always the case. I have carried out four teachers' pay reviews in England. I was somewhat shattered on one occasion to be told by a group of teachers, "All the best people have left teaching". One could see that in that group. That is not the case in England. But in Northern Ireland teaching is certainly a profession. In relation to inward investment, people are happy to return to the Province when their children are of school age because there is no better education in the world than what can be obtained there.
There was an additional £24 million for schools over the 1996–97 plans. I am pleased that my honourable friend the Minister for Education, Mr. Michael Ancram, was able only yesterday to announce an extra £2.6 million for schools and colleges of further education and an extra £1 million for health and safety maintenance. All school sectors, education and library board areas will benefit from that addition. It is intended that the £2.6 million should be allocated to the delegated budgets of schools and further education colleges. Of course, it is not enough and it is never enough. There are always great needs, but there is movement and I hope that it offers some comfort.
I take up the question of university funding. We must have a highly skilled stream of young people available to attract inward investment. Because of the demographic picture in Northern Ireland, we are at an advantage with our competitors. What worries me is whether we have enough jobs. I see many people with two degrees who are unable to use their talents as much as they should. I recognise that problem and we work to change it.
The core funding for the universities of Northern Ireland will continue to be based on the recommendations of the Higher Education Funding Council for England. A review is under way of the Northern Ireland arrangements for research support. Again, I am pleased to add to that, but not straightforwardly in the education budget. From the economic development budget there are significant contributions to the universities from IRTU, the Industrial Research and Technology Unit. It aims to relate university research to industry, which is very important. It is one of the strengths of Northern Ireland that there are no ivory towers for academics to hide in. They relate to the development of the Province.

585
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Lyell, who as a Minister was much loved in Northern Ireland. He achieved much and he is remembered with much affection. I thank him for drawing attention to the excellence of the team in the Department of Agriculture who have seen the most difficult year anyone has ever faced in the agricultural area. They have served the farmer, the processor and the consumer well. He asked whether the attitude of farmers was the same towards capital grants as it was in his day. I am told that farmers in Northern Ireland now worry more about a postal strike than the weather. So I have pleasure in assuring my noble friend that there is no lack of applications on any occasion.
I was delighted that in the final negotiations of the pay settlement we were able to find an extra £2 million for marketing grants. Again, we cannot be proud over how much agricultural produce leaves the Province without added value. We continue to work on that. We continue to fight for our fishermen. Indeed, I raised in Dublin on Wednesday the question of The Hague preference, which works against Northern Ireland fishermen. We shall continue to fight about that. We care about our forestry. Perhaps I may use the succinct phrase which becomes my noble friend rather better. The motto now is, "Plant more trees".
My noble friend Lord Lyell also drew attention to the warmth of the people of Northern Ireland. He is absolutely right. For the most part their warmth is outstanding, which has made my job so much easier and so enjoyable. I did not work all the hours which some of your Lordships have mentioned from any sense of self-sacrifice. I did so because I enjoy doing nothing else more. I wish that I could bring more resources to your Lordships' House for the people of Northern Ireland. There is one way in which I can. The end of violence in Northern Ireland would mean that everyone could benefit. We could all go on growing faster and to the advantage of those in greatest need. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Prisons (Alcohol Testing) Bill
1.46 p.m.
Baroness Berners: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It is a very simple Bill which gives the Prison Service the power to test prisoners for alcohol. It is nonetheless an important measure, and I briefly wish to highlight the reasons for its introduction. First, the power to test prisoners for alcohol consumption will supplement existing powers relating to drug testing and adjudication.
Since drug testing of prisoners was introduced under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the Prison Service has been far better placed to identify the scale of drug abuse by prisoners and so develop preventive measures to combat this. In a similar way, alcohol testing is intended to inform the Prison Service of the level of alcohol abuse.
586
Until recently the Prison Service has been handicapped in bringing sanctions to bear against prisoners who offend in this way. Prior to changes in the prison rules and young offenders institution rules made in September 1996, prisoners could be adjudicated on only if they were found in possession of alcohol or offended against prison discipline after drinking alcohol. The 1996 amendments introduced two new offences: for a prisoner to be intoxicated wholly or partly as a consequence of consuming alcohol and for a prisoner knowingly to consume alcohol.
These measures have strengthened the controls available to governors to deal with alcohol abuse. But for the offences to be proved currently requires an adjudicator to apply subjective tests as to whether alcohol has been consumed and, if so, whether that has been to the point of intoxication. Formal testing, as provided for in the Bill, will enable a reliable and objective test of consumption and so strengthen the effectiveness of disciplinary procedures.
Secondly, but equally as important, the ability to test prisoners for alcohol consumption will play a role in ensuring that prisoners who are released temporarily into the community on licence are discouraged from consuming alcohol in breach of the conditions of their licence. Temporary release on licence helps prisoners reintegrate into society and maintain close links with their families.
Prisoners are temporarily released only after stringent risk assessments. However, temporary release brings with it ease of access to alcohol. That is an obvious concern, not only to the public in general but often also to prisoners' families. Where prisoners breach the terms of their licence by consuming alcohol while on temporary release, they can cause control problems on their return to prison and for other prisoners who may be similarly tempted to breach the rules. The availability of testing for prisoners returning from temporary release to see whether they have consumed alcohol in breach of their conditions of licence will send a clear message that such abuse will not be tolerated, and it will act as a deterrent.
I said that the Bill was simple; it is also straightforward. Clause 1 amends the Prison Act 1952 by inserting a new section which will give a prison officer the power, subject to proper authorisation and the prison rules, to require a prisoner to provide a sample of breath for the purpose of ascertaining whether he or she has alcohol in their body. That power is extended to young offender institutions, remand centres and secure training centres as well as to contracted-out prisons. The circumstances of when the power may be exercised, as well as other associated matters, will be set out in prison rules. The intention of the Prison Service is to require testing by breathalyser, which has been a familiar fact of life for the general public for some considerable time. However, the clause provides for additional testing by other means. That is to ensure that advantage may be taken of future developments in technology which might at a later date make some other form of testing more efficient or cost-effective. It may also be necessary to employ other forms of testing if, for instance, the

587
prisoner is unable to supply a breath test or challenges the results of one. Similar contingency arrangements support the police in their duty to test motorists.
Clause 2 takes account of the particular arrangements that apply in contracted-out prisons and requires the requisite authorisation for testing to be given by the director of a contracted-out prison.
Clause 3 makes provision for the short title, commencement and extent of the Bill. The Bill extends only to England and Wales. However, the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill, which is currently before Parliament, makes similar provision for Scotland.
During the passage of this Bill considerable surprise has been expressed in another place that these straightforward provisions are not already a matter of law. I share that view. The concerns which now give rise to the Bill have long been known and I believe that they are widely acknowledged. First and foremost, there is the risk to the public of prisoners consuming alcohol in breach of their conditions of licence who as a result may commit further offences. There is the equal risk to all those who work in prisons and with prisoners and who should not be expected to have to encounter the violent behaviour that only too often accompanies alcohol abuse. There is also rightly concern about the effect of such abuse on the innocent members of prisoners' families and on other prisoners.
Prison is, by definition, a closed and structured environment. Unacceptable or violent behaviour associated with alcohol abuse can often have far-reaching consequences for the maintenance of good order and control. Prisoners who choose to involve themselves in alcohol abuse may have a history of drink-related offending behaviour which, if not deterred during their sentence, may perpetuate their offending on release into the community. Similar concerns have already promoted the introduction of mandatory drug testing. I referred earlier to the disciplinary procedures which are presently available to governors to deal with alcohol abuse. Since 1995, all licences for the temporary release of prisoners have contained a standard condition prohibiting the prisoner from entering a public house while on licence. In addition, governors may impose a prohibition on the consumption of any alcohol during a period of temporary release.
The Bill does not create any additional offences or place further restrictions on the granting of temporary release. However, it does provide a significant and important power to supplement those provisions as part of an integrated strategy to combat drug and drink abuse by prisoners. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.
(Baroness Berners.)
1.55 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berners, for the way in which she has introduced this important little Bill. I think of her family as being distinguished in
588
music and it is nice to know that the noble Baroness has added advocacy to the qualities of which her family can be proud.
I share the surprise of the noble Baroness who said, in effect, that we all thought that these powers already existed. It seems extraordinary that there should be perfectly adequate powers for drug testing in prisons and that there should be controls on the use of alcohol in prisons, but no facilities for testing for alcohol consumption. That leaves me to my sour point, with which the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, will be familiar, that this is a synthetic Bill. As Dennis Skinner said in the House of Commons, this is one of those Bills which uses the private Member's Bill procedure to remedy a defect in the operations of the sex, drugs and alcohol department—I beg your Lordships' pardon, I mean the Home Office—which should have been thought of before and which should have formed part of proper government legislation. However, that does not mean that this Bill is any the less necessary.
The Bill is necessary in the context of a proper assessment of the control of alcohol misuse and other misuse in our prisons. It seems extraordinary that the Prison Service, in answers to Written Questions from Members of the House of Commons, should within the past few months have acknowledged that it has no central records of the number of alcohol-addicted prisoners and no information on the finds of illicit alcohol. How can it be said that the Prison Service is taking alcohol in prisons seriously if it does not have a comprehensive view of the size and nature of the problem with which it is supposed to be dealing? After all, as the noble Baroness said, alcohol is a cause of crime and its use is correlated to the incidence of other crimes. Murder and manslaughter, for example, are often committed when under the influence of alcohol.
The Prison Service's lack of knowledge of the extent and nature of the problem means that what ought to be an objective of the service in terms of the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders must be fundamentally flawed in this respect. The Prison Service cannot be doing the job of treatment and rehabilitation unless it knows what it is trying to treat and for what the rehabilitation is intended. That includes issues such as psychiatric treatment. We have tabled amendments to the Crime (Sentences) Bill on exactly that point, but the Government have resisted them.
This is a little Bill but a valuable and necessary one. However, it should be seen in the context of the whole problem of substance abuse in prisons. It has not been. Legislation should not be brought forward in this piecemeal way, lest it be thought that this is a disciplinary measure which is for the convenience of government and the management of prisons.
I record and welcome the statement of David Roddam, the general secretary of the Prison Governors Association, who not only supports this Bill but states that prisoners themselves would support it. That is an important consideration. Prisoners are themselves at risk from other prisoners who use the weapons of drugs, alcohol, tobacco and physical violence to maintain an alternative discipline—or indiscipline—in prisons and

589
make the lives of other prisoners a misery. If that can be stopped even in small part by the passage of a Bill of this kind it is worthwhile. I support the Bill.
2.1 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for setting out the provisions of the Bill and the importance of them so concisely and helpfully. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for his support.
The Government fully support the proposals contained in the Bill. Taken together with other recent measures which my noble friend mentioned, we believe that they will facilitate and supplement Prison Service strategies designed to prevent alcohol and substance abuse.
The Bill had all-party support at all other stages in another place although it prompted some interesting dialogue about the nature of alcohol consumption in prisons and how this should be dealt with. I could speak at some length about the problems of alcohol abuse, its links with crime and the suffering visited on individuals and families concerned. I can also list the very positive efforts being made to help prisoners combat alcohol problems such as counselling, education and the involvement of Alcoholics Anonymous.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was concerned about what was being done in prisons in relation to alcohol abuse. Ninety seven per cent. of prisons have treatment or education provision for alcohol-misusing prisoners. Thirty per cent. of prisons have provision for detoxification treatment, including 76 per cent. of local prisons where the need is assumed to be greatest. Seventy per cent. of prisons provide counselling on alcohol and its related problems. Therefore, there are programmes in hand to deal with this problem.
But essentially this Bill aims to provide a tried and trusted means by which prisoners who breach rules and the trust placed in them by consuming alcohol can be detected by reliable, scientific and just means. My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, spoke of their surprise that measures to test prisoners for alcohol consumption were not already law. I am sure that this view would be shared by members of the public who might also be concerned that those imprisoned by the courts had any great access to alcohol. However, those of us who take a close interest in the problems of detaining those sentenced to imprisonment by the court, often for drink related offences, will be only too aware of the difficulties involved.
Prisoners can and will obtain access to alcohol in a number of ways. The problem is essentially one of security and the balance that needs to be struck between control and rehabilitation. Alcohol consumption is most problematic in the environment where the Prison Service is looking to prepare prisoners for release and their constructive and law-abiding return to the community. This approach quite rightly enables prisoners, subject to proper risk considerations, to be held in open prisons. At this stage, the possibility of them being released on temporary licence for several
590
days at a time, again subject to individual risk assessment, is also appropriate. The more relaxed regime appropriate in open prisons and the ability for prisoners to take temporary release to pursue work opportunities or consolidate family ties are important steps in preparing prisoners for release. In the vast majority of cases prisoners respond positively to the trust placed in them in this way.
However, the greater access to the community that these arrangements involve also carries with them greater access to alcohol. It is far easier for prisoners in open conditions to smuggle or otherwise arrange for alcohol to come into an establishment. In the case of those on temporary release on licence a prisoner is effectively placed on trust. Even in more secure establishments alcohol consumption can be a problem with prisoners displaying exceptional ingenuity in the production of illicit alcohol. These are the facts of life that the Prison Service must deal with. There are of course already preventative measures available to governors in the firm of search and confiscation powers, and these are employed to good effect. There are also provisions under the prison rules for prisoners to be punished either for consuming alcohol in prison or for doing so in breach of the temporary release licence. But, as my noble friend pointed out, the present disciplinary arrangements suffer from the lack of an objective test of whether a prisoner has been drinking and if so to what extent. The prison rules issued in September 1996 introduced a charge that a prisoner is intoxicated wholly or partly as a consequence of knowingly consuming alcohol. A second lesser charge that a prisoner knowingly consumes alcohol was also made available at that time. In the first case, an adjudicator must be satisfied, among other things, that a prisoner was intoxicated to the point of being beyond self-control for a finding of guilt to be made. In the lesser of the two offences the adjudicator must address the question of whether a prisoner's observed behaviour was the consequence of consuming alcohol. In both cases evidence may be available in the form of witnesses recording the prisoner's breath smelling of alcohol or that he or she had difficulty in walking or had slurred speech. These are essentially subjective tests open to interpretation and dispute. Your Lordships may agree that they are reminiscent of the old tongue-twister and white line tests employed by the police before the introduction of the breathalyser. The use of a calibrated form of objective testing will remove these areas of doubt and provide a strong disincentive to prisoners to seek to flout the rules.
In the same way, the introduction of alcohol testing will bolster improvements that have been made to protect the public in the area of temporary release on licence. New arrangements for the release of prisoners on temporary licence were introduced in 1995. All applications for such release are now subject to a stringent risk assessment and, where granted, all licences contain a standard condition preventing the prisoner from entering a public house. Licences may also contain a condition prohibiting the consumption of any alcohol. This may be particularly appropriate for inclusion in cases where drink has played a part in previous offending. It would be unreasonable to

591
apply this in all cases given that an occasional private drink with family and friends may be part and parcel of a prisoner's adjustment to life in the community.
Prisoners who abuse the privilege of temporary release by consuming alcohol in breach of their licence put at risk the public and often their own families. Where a prisoner returns to prison under the influence of drink prison staff can also be in danger of assault. If the prisoner's drinking goes undetected his or her behaviour can bring the privilege into disrepute and act as an incentive to other prisoners to follow suit. It is for these very sound and necessary reasons that the Bill provides for the common sense facility of testing to ensure proper detection, deterrence and punishment of breaches of the prison rules.
I would also like to say a few words about how it is intended to employ the Bill's provisions. The circumstances governing the use of alcohol testing will be prescribed by amendments to prison and young offender institution rules. Final decisions on this have yet to be made but the Prison Service will wish to build on the experience being gained through operating the provisions for drug testing introduced under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It is most probable that alcohol testing would be introduced at one or more establishments by way of a pilot study to identify any problems and areas of best practice. The intention is to make testing subject to a test of reasonable suspicion with action triggered, as at present, by observed or reported behaviour. It may also be appropriate to target testing in open prisons where preventing alcohol entering the prison is more difficult generally or in other prisons which may from time to time have a particular alcohol problem. In addition we will wish to consider the use of random testing of particular groups of prisoners. Those returning from temporary release on licence would be such a group. These arrangements will need to be carefully thought through.
In conclusion, this is a necessary and overdue measure and I am pleased to lend the Bill our support for its Second Reading.
2.8 p.m.
Baroness Berners: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their well considered response. The abuse of alcohol is always a problem wherever it occurs, but especially within closed and structured establishments such as prisons. For such places to be run effectively the necessary authority must be in place. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Bill
2.9 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is another small but, I believe, important Bill. It proposes to tackle the problem of under-age young persons drinking alcohol in the streets of our towns and cities.
592
I feel privileged to act as a sponsor of the Bill so ably piloted through another place by my honourable friend Dr. Robert Spink. I detected from the reports of those proceedings that the measure received all-party support. I trust that the same spirit will prevail today.
The Bill is designed to provide community police with a quick on-the-spot solution that can be used when young people drink alcohol in the street. Sadly, we all know of cases where alcohol has become both the cause of young people getting themselves into trouble and of doing things which they may have come bitterly to regret. Drunkenness starts so often with raucous behaviour and quickly turns into mischief, and worse—criminal activity such as vandalism, joy-riding and assault. Young people, stained with a criminal record, are at a great disadvantage as regards future prospects and careers.
In the interesting and informative Second Reading debate in another place, it became clear from examples quoted by honourable members that the problem of under-age drinking is not confined to any particular area of the country. It affects large industrial cities as well as county towns and seaside towns. I know personally of a popular and picturesque part of the Isle of Wight where groups of young people regularly gather in the evenings to drink alcohol on the pier. Residents and visitors naturally find such behaviour intimidating. The local police tell me that they would welcome the provisions of the Bill to help them sort out the problem. Only last week in the same area, of the cases involving offences by young persons, 70 per cent. were alcohol related, which is, of course, a very worrying figure.
The need for the Bill arises because there is a gap in existing powers to control young persons consuming alcohol in public places. The Licensing Act 1964 prohibits young persons under 18 from purchasing or consuming alcohol on licensed premises. Nor may an adult purchase a whisky, for instance, and hand it to a young person to consume on licensed premises. What the Act does not cover is young persons openly drinking alcohol in public places other than licensed premises. The police currently have no preventive powers to stop it. If they come across a group of young people in the park "tanking themselves up" with cans of lager or bottles of whisky, they are powerless to nip any trouble in the bud but must wait until there is a breach of the peace. Such a situation is clearly unacceptable and a damaging loophole in community policing. The Bill will close that loophole.
Clause 1 gives the police the power to confiscate alcoholic drinks, or that which appears to be alcoholic drink, from any person under the age of 18 if they are in a public place or a private place to which they have unlawfully gained access. That means the police will be able to step in early if they see youngsters misbehaving in the park, around the bus station, in a shopping mall, outside a fish and chip shop or in somebody's private garden.

593
The confiscation powers of police officers under the Bill include not only the obvious can of beer but also a bottle of ginger beer if there is reason to suppose that something stronger lurks in the bottle. A police officer will have power to dispose of anything which is surrendered to him—probably to the nearest drain and in front of the young person. The under-age person has no right to demand that the contents of the drink are analysed. But equally, having surrendered the drink, which may be a bottle of whisky, he has committed no offence. That is one of the great strengths of the Bill.
The powers of the police officer also include confiscating alcohol from persons over 18 years of age if he reasonably feels that some of the alcohol may have been consumed or will be consumed by young persons under 18. The powers of confiscation are drafted to avoid the situation of a mixed age group of teenagers quickly passing any alcohol they are drinking to the oldest member of the group who is over 18 years old and who may then keep it in his possession until the police have gone away.
Under Clause 1 the police have power to demand the name and address of any person from whom they have confiscated alcohol. That, I suggest, is a commonsense measure. Many parents are appalled to learn that their children have been indulging in that kind of behaviour and this provision will allow the police to draw it to their attention. Recently, there was a very successful police initiative at Weymouth where young people were videoed drinking in the streets. The results were shown to the parents: the effect was positive and encouraging and a good example of steering some of the problem back to parental control.
Clause 1(3) and (4) gives the necessary legal backing to the police officer's request for confiscation and for the name and address of the young person. If the young person fails to co-operate, he will first be warned that he is committing an offence. If there is still no co-operation he can be arrested. The offence is subject to a level 2 fine which currently, I understand, has a maximum penalty of £500. Clearly, the power of arrest is a last resort procedure as the whole object of the Bill is to avoid turning young persons into criminals.
Before the Bill was drafted, the Home Office carried out a wide measure of consultation of over 60 interested bodies. The result is a carefully thought out Bill, seen as the best way forward in tackling the problem of young people drinking in public places. To many, the attractive features of the Bill are, firstly, that it leaves the community police officer with discretionary power to use his good judgment and experience instead of having the duty to challenge on every occasion, including interrupting family picnics. Secondly, it gives young people the chance to mend their ways without committing an offence or becoming a criminal. Thirdly, it offers an opportunity for more parental control. Fourthly, it should remove some of the workload of the courts and all that that involves.
Under Clause 2, the Bill extends to England Wales and Northern Ireland, and, as is its wont, Scotland has chosen to incorporate similar provisions in the Crime
594
and Punishment (Scotland) Bill. I commend the Bill to the House and ask that it should receive a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—[The Earl of Kinnoull].
2.16 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I listened to the noble Earl's exposition of the Bill with great interest. Although I accept, without hesitation, that it is well intentioned and may in broad terms be useful in combating a specific nuisance, I have to suggest to my noble friend—as he is outside the Chamber—that, as drafted, it goes too far.
It is one thing when a young person is found knocking back cans of strong lager or, worse still, strong cider, on his own or with his contemporaries on a bench in the centre of town or sitting upon the steps of a church or wherever. In that case, the provisions of the Bill can certainly be justified. It is quite a different matter if a 16 or 17 year-old is with his parents at a picnic spot and a passing constable happens to spot his mother or father handing him a glass of wine or beer. Is it seriously supposed that the constable should be empowered to snatch the glass or paper cup from the young person's hand and empty it on to the grass or even knock it back himself, as Clause 1(2) seems to permit, or, far worse, confiscate every bottle and can that the parents have in their possession—not very pleasant if the family are on their way back from Calais or Boulogne with a boot full of wine, beer and spirits? Yet that is what subsection (1) of Clause 1 provides. Speaking of Calais and Boulogne, what effect will this have on our tourist trade? The French, among others, think nothing of giving their offspring watered-down wine or low-strength bière familiale from a very early age. What a traumatic introduction to Britain if, pulled up in a lay-by on their way from Dover, they are accosted by a police officer for so doing soon after setting foot in this country, perhaps for the first time. Some welcome! They might well imagine that they have landed in north Africa or the Middle East by mistake.
Finally, Clause 1(1) empowers a constable to demand the name and address of individuals, not merely the young people caught drinking, as the noble Earl seemed to suggest, but also the older people accompanying them. Why, when no offence, arrestable or non-arrestable, has been, or is being, committed? What will be done with the information so collected? Will it be kept on file at a police station for months or years afterwards? I look forward to the noble Earl's reply with interest.
2.20 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in his excellent introduction the noble Earl was quite right to detect from the proceedings on the Bill in the other place that it had all-party support. I assure him of my support for the Bill. Indeed, since this is also a synthetic Bill, which is really a Home Office Bill and not a Private Member's Bill, I think I can say reasonably that I can assure him of my party's support for it. If he wants to

595
know why, I hope that he will read, or has read, the speech of my honourable friend Geoff Ennis, the newly elected Member for Barnsley East, during the Bill's proceedings.
Mr. Ennis described the situation in a former mining village of Brierley, outside Barnsley, where he lives. That village has a pub, a club, two shops and an off-licence which is also a supermarket. In that village, particularly in the summer, a crowd of up to 50, or even 80, young people go into the supermarket to buy alcohol—beer, lager, cider or whatever—and then congregate outside the off-licence, sometimes obstructing access to people who want to go into the supermarket to buy other things and sometimes just to make a nuisance or cause noise, damage and certainly litter.
Mr. Ennis described how a nice sandstone wall next to the supermarket was knocked down by those people. He described how difficult it is for the police to deal with such a problem, because they have no power to do anything to put an immediate stop to it, unless they go to the extent, which is very difficult for community-based police, of arresting people for what is an ill-defined offence. The Earl can take that as the basis for our support of the Bill.
At the same time, I am worried about a number of aspects of the Bill. They include those referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. If we look closely at Clause 1 we see that there are many vague phrases which are brought into law. The first one of course is:
"under the age of 18".
There is the whole question of what evidence is required or is available for being under the age of 18. The Portman Group, which is a most important and valuable charity in this area, has a proof-of-age identity card. I understand that a quarter of a million young people use it. But a quarter of a million is a very small number as a proportion of the age group. It is still a major problem to produce evidence, when we do not have photographic identity cards or driving licences. I well remember at the age of 24 being at university in the USA. I had to carry my passport around with me, because the legal age for drinking was 21 everywhere except in New York. My noble friend Lord Eatwell has obviously had a similar experience. When you go into a bar it is not easy to prove the difference in age between a 21 year-old and a 24 year-old. That problem will still exist.
Then Clause 1 refers to "intoxicating liquor". That is not clear. What about low-alcohol lager, for example, which has a small amount of alcohol, or 0.5 per cent. wine, which I am occasionally reduced to drinking when my weight reaches outrageous proportions. What about the phrase:
"a person under the age of 18 who is, or has recently been, with him"?
What is "with him"? How far is "with him"?
All of those matters cause great difficulty. What about a definition of a public place? Perhaps I may again recall an American experience. State parks and national parks in the State of California have an absolute prohibition
596
on the consumption of any alcohol in a park. When I went on picnics with a very dear aunt in her late 80s and early 90s she took good care to ensure that the alcohol we took with us was concealed in thermos flasks to avoid the possibility to which the noble Earl referred of a zealous ranger coming along, arresting us and pouring away our alcohol. It is not as easy as the Bill's drafters think to find a solution to those problems.
Even so, the solution is a minor one compared with, for example, the kinds of bans on drinking in public places which have been imposed, I understand relatively successfully, by Labour authorities in Glasgow, Coventry and 31 other local authority areas. I recognise that the model by-law for those bans does not include confiscation; so would it not be better to change the model by-law, have a ban on drinking and leave it to local discretion where it is absolutely necessary rather than to have legislation of this kind?
Again, to make a more positive point, a large number of local authorities—of course largely Labour local authorities, because most local authorities are Labour—have taken a great deal of care to provide alternatives for young people, including sporting alternatives, to remove the temptation of the kind of behaviour which I have described. The Bill seems to address the symptoms rather than the causes of bad behaviour by young people. It is not that it is wrong, and we shall not oppose it, but I am not convinced that it is as unequivocally valuable as some people seem to think.
2.27 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I certainly welcome this admirable Bill and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for the thorough and complete way that he introduced it. I should further like to congratulate him on speaking so persuasively about the problems that can occur when young people drink alcohol in public.
As my noble friend has said, young people under the age of 18 are currently prohibited from purchasing alcohol in licensed premises. However, we are all aware of the increasing determination or even stubbornness of youth in the face of authority, and sadly it is a fact of life that one often sees groups of young people in many of our towns and cities quite openly consuming alcohol. Young people need to be aware of the specific risks from excessive drinking that relate to their lifestyle and of the need to minimise these risks to prevent harm to themselves and others.
One must not lose sight of the fact that for young people impressing their group of friends is an issue of the greatest significance. Regular drinking by young people poses a threat to their health and could lead to a dependence on alcohol in years to come. Equally seriously, as my noble friend has indicated, it can lead to young people becoming involved in crime: the police are able to point to the fact that a great number of offences are committed when people are under the influence of alcohol. The consequences for young people can be far reaching. For example, they may find it exciting when under the influence of alcohol to take a car for the purpose of joyriding. However, by doing

597
so they present a grave danger not only to themselves and those in the car with them but also to other innocent, law-abiding people.
Even if drinking does not lead to criminal activity, the subsequent behaviour of young people can be perceived by others as quite intimidating. Boys, or girls for that matter, of just 13 or 14 can seem very threatening if they are behaving in a boisterous or loutish fashion because they have had too much to drink.
If nothing happens when youngsters behave in this way, it can lead to the impression that the police are not in control and that can increase the general fear of crime because the public can, not unreasonably, fear that if the police are unable to control drunken youngsters they may not be able to take action against real offenders. While the police take very seriously enforcement of the existing legislation, it nonetheless means that if the police see young people who appear the worse for drink, what they can do is restricted because the young people and any adults with them are not actually committing an offence.
The Government are particularly in favour of police officers being empowered not only to confiscate alcohol where they believe it to be for consumption by someone under the age of 18, but also to dispose of it as they consider appropriate. As we are all aware, alcohol is by no means a cheap commodity and for young people it will be a particularly salutary lesson to see what for them is an item of great expense poured away before their eyes.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, young people should be encouraged to consider the many other activities available to them. A great deal of worthwhile work is being carried out in youth clubs and other similar initiatives aimed at youngsters. I am sure that the fact that young people do not consider such options plays no small part in them finding themselves with time on their hands. Parents, and society in general, can play a part in encouraging children to take part in activities such as these and thus remove the opportunity for temptations such as alcohol.
The provision of a power to the police to demand the name and address of any person from whom alcohol is confiscated is a measure with which I wholeheartedly agree. I am aware that in a recent initiative in Weymouth, children drinking alcohol were captured on video and they taken back to their parents, who were shown the video. This initiative encouraged parents to take greater responsibility for the behaviour of their children and was a great success. After all, for many young people nothing is to be feared more than the potential wrath of their parents.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, raised a number of points. I wish to emphasise that this will be a discretionary power for the police. As regards picnics, it is not intended to cover that scenario. The Home Office will be writing to all chief constables about the implementation of these provisions. It will make clear that the power that is being proposed will he permissive and that the police should use it with sensible discretion
598
and not harass those who are, for example, as the noble Lord said, having a family picnic on a beach with a bottle of wine—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that sounds a very bad precedent in law. If one wants the application of a new law to be restricted in some way, one should put that in the legislation. One should not be issuing directions to chief constables to ignore what is provided for by law.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, before the noble Earl responds, this is the second time that we have heard of such a provision. It appears in the public entertainments licences Bill, which the House will be discussing in the relatively near future, where we are advised that circulars will be issued by the Secretary of State. It is an extremely bad principle to put inadequately phrased legislation on the statute book and then to try to fill the gaps which may exist by sending circulars to those concerned.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I know that both noble Lords are greatly concerned about this aspect, which we have discussed on more than one occasion. Of course, I shall bear their comments in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, mentioned the model by-laws. He was correct in saying that the problem with them is that they give no power for seizure of the item being consumed.
Many people, including noble Lords, occasionally take a drink. However, I am sure that we all find the increasing number of young people who are now drinking alcohol a cause for concern. The Bill is a common-sense solution which will enable the police to prevent these youngsters from taking what could be the first steps on the slippery slope into a life of crime from which they may find it difficult to escape. It will, protect young people from harm and, in so doing, prevent the criminal damage and disorderly conduct which impinge on others. In doing so, it will contribute to a better society for us all. I welcome this Bill and commend it to the House.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, since this is a thinly disguised Home Office Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out, can he say why the police are being given the power to demand people's names and addresses? What is to be done with those names and addresses? Will they be kept on file or what?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I believe that the names and addresses will be used in incidents such as I described where children in Weymouth were found to be drinking alcohol, were videoed and the video was shown to the parents. As regards registers and so forth, I shall write to the noble Lord.
2.35 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, in particular to my noble friend on the Front Bench who

599
answered all the points that probably I would have been unable to answer. I am grateful in particular for the interest of the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord McIntosh. I was struck by the example of Barnsley, which presents a serious problem which the Bill will help to solve.
Although the Bill may be synthetic, it is a good Bill. If we do not have such synthetic Bills I am not sure how legislation would be brought forward. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has not suggested an alternative to a synthetic Bill. However, I shall not ask him to rise to that.
I believe that the most important aspect of the Bill is the discretionary power that it gives to community police officers. They are a great bastion of our society. They undertake work which is often unheralded. Their work with the young and everyone in the community is immensely valuable. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Contracting Out (Functions of the Registrar General in relation to authorising re-registration of births) Order 1997
2.36 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Contracting Out (Functions of the Registrar General in relation to authorising re-registration of births) Order 1997 laid before the House on 11th February be approved.
This order is made under the powers at Section 69 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. Its purpose is to simplify and improve procedures for the re-registration of births in England and Wales by allowing local registrars of births to process straightforward applications for re-registration without reference to the Registrar General.
The re-registration of births may take place in two circumstances. First, where the parents of a child were not married to each other at the time of the birth and no-one was entered in the register as the father. The second case is where the parents of a child subsequently marry each other after the registration of the birth, thereby legitimising the child. At present, an application for re-registration has to be made either directly to the Registrar General or through a local registration officer, who forwards it to the Registrar General. If an application is successful the Registrar General then sends his authority for the re-registration of the birth to the registrar concerned, who then arranges for the parents to attend his or her office to complete the formalities.
600
This proposal originates in the Green Paper, Registration: a modern service,, published in 1999 in which it was proposed that the Registrar General's authority for the re-registration of births should be devolved to local registrars. This proposals become one of a package of over 80 recommendations in the White Paper, Registration: proposals for change, published in 1990. Unfortunately, in the absence of parliamentary time to introduce a registration programme Bill, there has been no opportunity to give effect to the proposed change in the law.
Your Lordships will be aware of the significant increase in the number of children born outside marriage, which is now around 34 per cent. of all births. There has been an increase in the number of applications for re-registration made to the Registrar General. In the past 10 years the number of applications has risen by over a third from 16,000 to 21,000. It is time that a more effective way is found to deal with these rising numbers of applications and the order is a suitable mechanism for achieving this.
Section 69 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 enables a Minister to make an order contracting out the functions of an office-holder, in this case the Registrar General, subject to the assent of Parliament. That is the purpose of this order. The order would enable the Registrar General to delegate to local registrars the responsibility for authorising the re-registration of some births. I say some births because it is recognised that there are applications involving, for example, complex correspondence, court orders, disputes about paternity and questions of foreign domicile which are to continue to be dealt with by the Registrar General. If the order is approved it is intended that local registrars will be able to process straightforward applications for re-registration without reference to the Registrar General. This will reduce public expenditure and will be more convenient for those who need the service. Local registrars will be able to process most applications much more quickly and thus the public will benefit from a faster, more efficient service.
I should like to assure your Lordships that the delegation of responsibility from the Registrar General to local registrars will be underpinned by checks on the handling of applications made by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Registration. Registrars will be given guidance and instructions as to how to process applications, and a telephone helpline will be available for their use.
The order before the House is therefore a straightforward provision enabling us to improve the efficiency of the administration of the re-registration of births with significant benefits to those members of the public who use the service.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11 th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for introducing this order so clearly. Noble Lords will be aware that the re-registration of births is a very sensitive matter, involving as it does complex

601
issues of personal relationships and the even more complex and important legal issues of legitimacy and paternity. That is an issue which may be regarded as important, for example, by the hereditary Members of your Lordships' House.
It is clearly desirable that re-registration should be handled in a friendly and sympathetic manner, and this is likely to be best achieved by well trained local staff with as much informality as is possible and reasonable with respect to the legal complexities which may be confronted from time to time. In that respect the contracting out order is to be welcomed.
Nonetheless, given the important sensitivity and complexity of these issues, this order appears to be drafted in a quite extraordinarily casual manner. In particular, it is disappointing that in Clause (3), which is really the only operable clause in the whole order, it merely states:
"Any function of the Registrar General to which this Order applies may be exercised by, or by employees of, such person (if any) as may be authorised in that behalf by the Registrar General".
It says that without defining in any way who such persons or their employees might be. The Minister referred to officers in his introduction of the order, but nowhere in the order is the notion of an officer mentioned. Could the Minister tell us which rules have been laid down as to the selection of such persons? If there are indeed to be local registrars, as he has suggested, could he explain why that is not made explicit in the order?
Moreover, could he explain what the expression "or by employees of, such person" actually means? Could it be the janitor, for example? Who knows? This order does not tell us. If the employee must have a particular qualification, why is that not specified in the order, even by means of a reference to other orders or legislation?
Finally, given the serious nature of some paternity cases, it is clearly desirable that there should be clear criteria for reference of difficult cases to the Registrar General. Do such criteria exist? If so, what are they, and why are they not incorporated into the order?
This order deals with matters which are becoming increasingly important to British families. The casual drafting of this order is a misuse of the deregulation legislation. The apparently slapdash approach and especially the lack of any precision in defining procedures is a significant disservice to families, particularly to children, throughout the country.
I would invite the Minister to take this measure back and have it redrafted properly. Those of us on these Benches would then be happy to support it.
2.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, takes this view. I do not believe that the drafting is slapdash at all. The problem with all orders of this nature is that they have to be read in conjunction with the various Acts to which the order refers. While I fully accept that it is quite difficult to read through this as it stands, of course if one reads through it with reference to the Acts of Parliament mentioned in the order, then the position becomes perfectly clear.
602
The noble Lord asked me a number of questions. One related to the definition of "registrar". Of course, a lot of these definitions are contained in the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, which I have to hand here. It is rather a well-thumbed copy of it. This Act makes it perfectly clear who the registrar is and how he is appointed. The point about his employees is that they are in fact deputies employed by the registrar, so the noble Lord need have no fears that the janitor or the cleaner just in for a morning may suddenly find himself or herself being appointed as the registrar or made to stand in for the registrar. These things are very clearly laid out in the statute.
On the question of difficult cases, this is where in Clause 2 subsection (2)(a) the order refers to the paragraphs in the section of the 1953 Act. The paragraphs referred to are (a), (b) and (c) and these deal with the various different kinds of situation which may come up. As I said in my contribution, the difficult cases—and I mentioned examples such as where there is a dispute; where there is a domiciliary situation; perhaps where the father lives abroad and therefore it is necessary to check the law—will still have to be referred to the Registrar General. However, something like two-thirds of the cases are very straightforward ones where the registrar will be able to talk to and interview both the mother and the father who wants to have his name put on the birth certificate of the child. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, can be assured that if there are any difficulties or any problems then the registrar will know that in those circumstances he should refer the couple to the Registrar General. Of course, that will be part and parcel of the notes which will be going out from the Registrar General to the registrar.
I hope that I have explained the position to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. I certainly agree with him that in the modern world, with a significant number of people needing and wanting to use this service, this is a sensible way to make it easier for them so that, without the need to make application to the Registrar General and add to his workload, a couple can simply go along to the local registrar and by a very straightforward agreement have the birth re-registered.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I suggest that in future if an order of this all-encompassing type appears before your Lordships' House the notes which are to accompany it should be made available at the time when the order is to be approved in the House? The breadth of the clause and the vagueness of the clauses which we are supposed to be approving this afternoon do not really allow a satisfactory appraisal of the implications of the measure currently to be made.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord says. It is always a problem in any piece of legislation, even primary legislation, when one is amending previous Acts of Parliament with reference back towards those Acts of Parliament. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Traffic Reduction Bill
2.48 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I am extremely pleased to have the opportunity to introduce to this House a Bill which left another place with all-party support. The last words on the record there were the words of the Minister:
"I commend the Bill to the House".—[Official Report. Commons, 28/2/97: col. 590.1
I hope that spirit will take us through this afternoon's debate.
The Bill also has the support of a considerable number and range of organisations and individuals, organisations ranging from the Townswomen's Guilds to the Council for the Protection of Rural England, and to business and motoring organisations. It is supported by a petition of more than 350,000 signatories.
One would be hard put to find anyone to disagree with the proposition that road traffic needs to be reduced. I accept that is only a part of the considerations that one should give to issues of traffic, but that proposition must have very widespread support.
I believe that the value of the Bill is that it goes with the flow. It captures the spirit of the shift in public thinking, and if your Lordships will forgive the pun, it provides a vehicle for co-operation at local level towards a common goal of traffic reduction. This is not a Big Bang solution. I do not pretend that it is the last word on road traffic reduction. But if your Lordships will give it a fair wind, it will make a significant contribution to solving the problem.
Why is it desirable and necessary to reduce road traffic? I am sure that many of your Lordships can rehearse the reasons better than I can. But they are to do with health, the environment, costs and energy consumption.
Perhaps I may develop those matters a little further. Your Lordships will be well aware of the problems caused to the health of up to 15 million people who are suffering from problems caused by traffic fumes. There has been an increase in cases of asthma among children. Millions of people are breathing air heavily polluted by exhaust fumes. There may be up to 10,000 people per year dying prematurely as a result of particulates pollution. On that subject, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the work which the Government have been doing recently on air quality concedes that technical fixers, as it calls them, will not achieve the required standards by the year 2005 for two of the eight pollutants to which attention is being directed, and one of those is particulates. A combination of both technical fixers and traffic management is needed. The Government's own document defines traffic management as promoting alternative forms of transport and reducing incentives to drive, which is another way of describing traffic reduction.
Road traffic reduction is very important because traffic threatens sites of special scientific interest, and areas of outstanding natural beauty are also threatened
604
by road schemes. Global warming is another problem, and 22 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions—and carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas—come from road traffic. There are also issues of congestion and the cost to the economy.
As regards the increase in congestion, this week it has been reported that congestion levels have been increased by more then 5 per cent. in the last quarter of 1996 compared with the previous year. The forecasts of the continuation of that trend are almost beyond comprehension. I read the report on congestion alongside the reports of the horrific crashes in fog on our roads earlier this week. I cannot help thinking that problems of travelling contribute to the frustration which in itself contributes to such accidents.
All those issues are part of the reason for the support which has been given by many organisations to such measures. Among those organisations is the Confederation of British Industry. It has indicated that it views the Bill as acting to focus attention on the need for action and investment to tackle transport problems and says that this Bill will be welcomed.
The CBI has undertaken some very valuable work which it has published in a report called All Aboard! which underlines the need for an efficient and reliable transport system for UK businesses to stay competitive. Its estimates on the costs of traffic congestion range from £15 billion to £20 billion per year. It reports that individual companies have to bear increased costs due to extra time, lower reliability and higher fuel consumption. Employees bear the costs of stress and time wasted by sitting in traffic jams. Staff travelling to and from work is an area which has a knock-on effect on business. In the report, the CBI suggests setting objectives and targets at an individual business level. That is very much the thrust of this Bill in a slightly different context.
What does the Bill provide? It imposes a duty on councils which are traffic authorities to assess levels of local road traffic and to make forecasts. Councils are to make reports to specify targets to reduce local traffic or to reduce the rate of growth of local traffic. If an authority considers that targets are inappropriate, it is not forced to set them but it must say that it considers them to be inappropriate and why it does so.
Authorities are to have regard to guidance by the Secretary of State. Your Lordships may have seen what is very much a discussion draft of possible guidance. It is worth a short reference to that. The draft guidance indicates a number of headings of matters to which authorities may have regard and which will be included in the Secretary of State's guidance. It refers to examples of best practice; in other words, not reinventing the wheel. I very much applaud that. There are headings of strategies to achieve targets, directing authorities to the realities of life and the costs of measures and the effects on the local economy. I do not suggest that the effects will be dis-benefits. Certain measures may have an effect but they will have great advantages. There is reference to particular measures of restraint, encouraging cycling and walking, reducing the need to travel and so on. Most important, it has a

605
passage on consultation and who should be consulted. There is mention of district and parish councils. I know that there has been some concern that every level of local government should be involved. The consultation of local businesses is also extremely important as is that of local residents and other organisations.
Perhaps I may compare that exercise with the consultations which I know have taken place in many local authorities on Local Agenda 21s, which have involved business and residents in a very useful fashion.
The relationship between targets and bids for money is of course important. That relationship will be through the TPP process. In Committee the Minister said that he would make it clear in guidance that he expects there to be a clear direct link between the bids for resources through the TPP process and the authorities' reasons for believing that an investment would help to achieve the target.
I welcome that statement. My own local authority's TPP for the year 1997–98 opens with the statement:
"These policies give central emphasis to safety and environmental sustainability".
Therefore, that is all part of one process.
I do not suggest that this Bill is a wish list. Wish lists may be good or bad but this is not one. It contains a framework and a structure. More important, it is not anti-car. Both the AA and the RAC have indicated their support for the Bill. As one would expect, they have made comments, and the AA states:
"We do not wish to stand in its way and hope the efforts of those that have carefully steered it through a difficult path arc rewarded".
The RAC also supports the Bill. Indeed, in the notes that I have seen, it would wish us to go even further.
When I first read the Bill, the thought occurred to me that it should attract great support from motorists. Those of us who are motorists—and I am one—are not motorists all of the time. This Bill aims to make travelling, when travelling is necessary, easier; and it should be about choice as well.
That thought was echoed in a letter I received earlier this week from the Retail Motor Industry Federation. I am ashamed to say I did not know a great deal about the federation before I received the letter, but I understand that it represents over 30,000 businesses across the retail motor industry employing over 500,000 people with annual turnovers in excess of £55 billion. The federation wrote to me to say that it has supported the Bill in this form from the outset:
"It is not a question of car or no car—but rather a question of matching the car's vital role to the needs of the community".
The federation welcomes the initiative and says:
"We hope the Bill will ensure that local authorities develop strategies and introduce alternatives so that their objectives can be met".
The Bill has been promoted by Friends of the Earth, the Green Party with the support of Transport 2000. Like Members of another place, I must pay tribute to the honourable Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke North in its progress. It was introduced by my honourable friend the Member for Bath and, as I said, it has all-party support.
606
I hope that noble Lords will use the opportunity today to make clear that they want to see the Bill on the statute book. I make no bones about it. We all know where we are in the parliamentary cycle and we all know that amendments, however well meaning—indeed, amendments raising matters which should properly be raised but which could, perhaps, be left to another occasion—will actually have the effect of killing the Bill. I believe that it will be to the credit of this House to ensure that the legislation reaches the statue book. As has been said before, this is a Bill whose time has come.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Hamwee.)
3.2 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the clear explanation of the Bill that she has just given. I should declare an interest at the outset in that I am unpaid member of the Public Policy Committee of the RAC. As the noble Baroness said—and this would have come as a surprise some time ago—the RAC is not opposed to the Bill; indeed, the principles of the Bill are ones to which there can be little objection.
It is a laudable aim that there should be less traffic on our roads and we should welcome the intent to give local government more responsibility for local traffic. The potential environmental improvement is something from which we all can benefit, whether we walk, cycle or drive. In fact, most of us are not just motorists; we are also pedestrians—not I must admit in my case a cyclist—and users of public transport.
As the noble Baroness said, the challenge facing us is great. Not only do we have to stop the inexorable trend towards increasing levels of car dependence, but there will also be instances where we have to go beyond that and reverse the trend completely. That is not an easy task and realism in tackling it is essential. Investing in public transport is also vitally important. However, public transport will not provide a direct substitute for the car in many cases. People who live in rural areas and young mothers with children cannot be expected to give up their cars for many trips. Elderly people are often physically unable to rely, for example, on buses. Even so, we must not shrink from the challenge that the Bill sets out.
As I said, the principles of the Bill are worthy but I believe that there is scope to make the legislation more effective. Although the guidance to be set out by the Secretary of State concerning the practical implementation of the Bill's provisions will be the subject of further discussion in both Houses—and the noble Baroness gave us an indication of some of the things which may go into that guidance—there is one principle which I believe to be fundamental which should be set down in the legislation. It concerns the duty of principal authorities both to consult their immediate neighbours and, so that routes of national significance are not ignored in the increasing focus on the local level, to consult also the Highways Agency.

607
No local authority can plan its transport without direct reference to its neighbouring areas. One local authority must not be permitted to reduce its own traffic simply by moving it to its neighbours' roads. While we must turn our attention to the short trips which make up the bulk of our urban congestion and take action at the very local level, we must not lose sight of the national strategic importance of our road network. Therefore, I believe that there should be an amendment to address those concerns and one which ensures entirely that the fundamentals of effective consultation are laid down in statute. That would strengthen the Bill and make the resulting legislation even more effective. Having said that, I support the Bill so ably moved by the noble Baroness.
3.5 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for the comprehensive way in which she introduced the Bill. I welcome the legislation both personally and on behalf of the National Trust. Your Lordships will be aware that the National Trust has many visitors; indeed, about 11.5 million a year to our built properties and at least another 50 million to the open space countryside properties. Of course, most of those people come to visit such properties by car, as in many cases it is the only realistic way of doing so. However, the car has now become a threat because it brings with it pollution, vision and noise intrusion, congestion and, of course, a subsequent demand for more road space. Those factors can undermine the very spirit of the place which the visitors wish to experience.
Last year, a resolution supporting the Bill was tabled at the annual general meeting of the National Trust, through which our support was requested. At the time, the trust's council felt that it could agree to support the spirit of the Bill because, after all, it is consistent with our objectives and policies. However, we did not feel that we were in a position to determine the specific national targets which were included in the original Bill, though they were achievable. We decided therefore that we could not offer our support at that stage.
However, revisions were made to the Bill while it passed through another place and such targets were dropped in favour of a statutory requirement for local authorities to prepare local road traffic reduction plans which will nominate local targets. In the light of those developments, we now feel that we can formally support the Bill. Indeed, we consider that the Bill makes an important contribution to mitigating the effect of transport pollution, an area in which the trust is already taking an active part.
Although the trust is not opposed to the use of cars, it is increasingly adopting an imaginative approach to mitigating the effect of traffic growth in rural areas and promoting choice through alternative forms of transport which may be used to reach trust properties. A number of projects have been introduced, often in partnership with other organisations such as sustrans. I believe that that is best demonstrated by the decision to open Prior Park Landscape Garden in Bath without a car park,
608
offering incentives to visitors to arrive by public transport. Indeed, I could go on giving your Lordships numerous such examples from all over the country. So the Bill should be able to help such endeavours.
While the trust and indeed the countryside have been damaged by, and continue to be under threat from, specific road schemes, we now faces a more insidious threat; namely, the traffic volumes to which reference has been made. It is especially in the countryside that some of the fastest growth in traffic is occurring, fuelled by new and longer commuter shopping and leisure journeys between town and country, and so on. Between 1985 and 1995 traffic on country roads rose by 40 per cent. compared with 13 per cent. on roads in built-up areas. That statistic comes from Transport Statistics 1996. Indeed, in the debate on the rural economy last Wednesday, I had occasion to refer to the projections of national traffic growth of, I believe, 125 per cent. by the year 2025 and the fact that the increase in rural traffic growth would be considerably higher.
Moreover, rural lanes are the lifelines of our countryside. Equally they are important landscape features, often of historic and ecological significance, and are becoming increasingly so. These roads, however, are now becoming increasingly congested with traffic, walkers, cyclists, horse riders and so on, so that local residents feel increasingly intimidated by traffic on country roads. Accidents are frequent, and the very character of our country lanes is being eroded through vehicular damage and highway improvements in order to facilitate more traffic travelling at greater speeds. To date, the need to tackle traffic levels in the countryside and the numerous impacts which result is not being adequately reflected in the policies of the Department of Transport and of many local authorities.
So the Bill, as we have it, will require local authorities to identify the various measures they intend to employ to reduce traffic levels. The methods used would vary between each local authority in order to reflect the local circumstances. The Bill will ensure that the provision for the interplay between existing mechanisms and procedures for local transport planning will provide the necessary flexibility to local authorities over the use of traffic reduction targets and include the opportunity for the public to be consulted prior to plans being adopted in order to ensure that they properly reflect public policy.
Time, as the noble Baroness said, is not on our side if we are to get this Bill on to the statute book. I hope therefore that we will all act with as much restraint as possible in its remaining stages in your Lordships' House so that we can pass it into law.
3.12 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for her explanation of the purposes of this Bill. Although, during the course of the next few minutes I may express some criticisms, that does not mean that I am necessarily opposed to the purposes of the Bill. Indeed, as everybody here will probably agree, I would point out that there are problems associated with transport.

609
Improving transport and the effects of it, providing better public transport, bypasses and so on all require planning. We have discussed this on a number of earlier occasions, and it does require a ready source of funding, whether government funding or private sector funding. Unhappily, the Bill now before us does not provide any more funding for these purposes; nor in fact does it give any additional powers to local authorities to actually do the things that are continually asked for by the public.
The Bill was substantially altered during its Committee stage in another place but there still remain concerns about its practical benefits to highway authorities and its ability to help to deliver the improved services for which the public are asking. As I read the Bill, my understanding is that it has been changed from a measure to force the reduction of traffic levels to more of a tool which will aid the Department of Transport to control the spending and the policy objectives of local highway authorities.
It was clearly indicated in another place by the Government that the traffic reports required by the Bill and the success that a local authority may have in achieving targets it may set will be used to determine the allocation of central government funds for local transport schemes. It would be unfortunate if the enthusiasm for traffic reduction resulted in legislation that only served further to reduce local authority transport spending. The Bill will put a burden on local authorities. They are already working under considerable financial restrictions, and the Bill will create new work for them. In addition to the already complex and time-consuming process of developing annual bids for TSG, they will now have to spend time and money monitoring traffic, establishing targets and, I suppose, drawing up the plans for meeting these targets. Despite all this, there is no guarantee that they will receive funding for the measures that they would wish to implement.
Given that the Bill does not provide any new powers to implement policies and that most of the measures they might want to use are already available—for example, under Sections 1, 6 and 9 of the Road Traffic Act 1984 and, rather more recently, particularly in the case of pollution, paragraph 36 of Schedule 22 to the Environment Act 1995—authorities do have extensive powers to make regulations to control the traffic, which to some extent this Bill also seeks to do. I wonder whether it is necessary for us to have another piece of primary legislation. Is it really necessary and do the requirements of this Bill justify the likely increase in costs?
A particular concern of mine is the impact that the Bill will have upon business. Transport demands generated by business have a significant impact on the local traffic levels, and I believe it is important that any changes which affect local road use do not impose unnecessary costs on business. It certainly would not be in the interests of local people if traffic reduction measures force businesses to relocate or in any other way hamper their expansion. I would want to discuss this further at a later stage and I shall therefore be obliged to set down an amendment for this purpose.
610
There is another element of concern and potential difficulty. That is the impact on development. I think that my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara touched on this very briefly. The provision of new housing, factories, hospitals and retail facilities will have a significant impact on local traffic levels. Any new facility will generate some additional traffic and therefore there might well be a conflict between traffic reduction targets and an authority's land use plan. Private sector investors may well be put off if they feel that the servicing of retail businesses, retail parks or whatever it may be, would be hampered by a reduction programme. I think the arrangements that appear to be set down in the Bill with regard to land use and planning might very well provide an opportunity for almost every "professional protester" in the land to gather and plot against either the plan or indeed the reduction programme.
What I would really like to know, and perhaps the noble Baroness can tell me, is whether a commitment to traffic reduction programme—and therefore the enjoyment of funding—would actually take precedence over a development consent, because the two might not necessarily achieve exactly the same objectives. The noble Baroness spoke about the support which the CBI, amongst others, had given to the Bill. I would remind her that the CBI, again amongst others, has drawn particular attention to the fact that it is the level of congestion that creates the costs and the agony, and similarly it is air quality, pollution, noise and so on that creates most environmental concern among the public. The Government have certainly responded to the latter point by establishing their air quality targets and these join a number of long-standing targets set for traffic matters. It is interesting that neither of these sets of targets—I referred earlier to the road traffic Act 1984 and the Environment Act 1995—relies upon primary legislation. I do not wish to hinder the passage of the Bill but what I would much prefer to see is a much greater use of the modern technology that can be used to influence traffic management systems rather than another piece of primary legislation.
3.20 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I am aware of the fact that the Minister has to get a train and so I promise not to speak for more than a few minutes in somewhat general and sometimes peripheral terms.
We are all aware of the need for reducing the current levels of urban traffic and we have all experienced traffic jams, even if not as drivers of motor vehicles. We are aware also of the pollution emanating from vehicles which can cause illness and can aggravate existing conditions. The noble Baroness has already mentioned the increasing incidence of asthma among children. I have been asthmatic for two years and so not only appreciate the problem but also hope that I can be incorporated in those figures for children.
The motor vehicle is cited as being largely responsible for the production of acid rain. However, the two main chemicals which produce acid rain are sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide for which road traffic emissions are responsible for 2 per cent. and 46 per cent.

611
respectively—and over the next 10 years the latter figure will be halved. Therefore it might be fair to deduce that heavy industry is the largest contributor to acid rain, not motor vehicles. Nevertheless, road transport has an adverse effect on health, as already mentioned, and while chemical constituents of engine exhausts are present in varying proportions and have different adverse effects, these will only be changed once local authorities can implement their strategies based upon analysis.
Global warming has also been mentioned in another place in relation to exhaust gases. I have no knowledge of this subject so I cannot make any comment. However, I am aware of the technical advances achieved by Mitsubishi Motors in producing the very first direct injection petrol engine. This has significantly reduced fuel consumption and exhaust gases of the type which aggravate respiratory conditions and global warming. I am led to understand that this engine may be placed in one of its vehicles later this year for use in this country.
I cannot make up my mind about the reorganisation of our railway systems following Dr. Beeching's efforts. I suppose, on the one hand, it closed routes which were not viable but, on the other hand, it forced goods, which could have been directed onto the railways, onto the roads. Since then, the size and construction of goods vehicles have increased, as have their cargoes. Matters would improve if some cargo could be shifted onto the railway, but being realistic I cannot see this happening—being able to get goods delivered to your doorstep without delay is far too convenient. How about trying to reopen some of the waterways? Some bulk or homogeneous goods might possibly be suitable, but heavy rain can cause the systems to be closed and thereby create delay. Due to the size of the locks, goods wider than six feet cannot be carried on the barges. But that is only part of the equation.
There are those who have to work unsocial hours and are unable to make use of public transport. Your Lordships' House could from time to time be cited as an example. If one's home happens to be some distance away, the decision to be made is either to stay in town close to the place of work or to drive to and from work. We have become reliant upon cars, particularly so since local transport systems have disappeared and post-Beeching.
When I returned from Australia with my wife in 1970 we lived in London for almost a year. If we needed a car for anything in particular we hired one; otherwise we used public transport. It would be interesting to know how many people use their car as a status symbol when they could easily travel by train. The company car perk has been abused for a long time and some companies are already addressing the problem. But there are, of course, many people who genuinely need a vehicle due to their type of work and, when appropriate, are provided with a pool car.
There are so many ways of reducing traffic in urban areas and perhaps on motorways, but I feel that road pricing could well be a fairly simple answer once the sophisticated systems have been made to work with no—I repeat "no"—error. I am led to understand that
612
the error factor at the moment is about one in 10,000. This is not acceptable when daily traffic flow is many, many times this level on some roads.
Some of your Lordships may be concerned about the effect traffic reductions might have on casualties. I feel sure that many of your Lordships will be aware of the measures taken by the city of York to reduce traffic induced injuries by, in effect, reducing traffic levels. In the March 1994 edition of New Agenda produced by the Road Danger Reduction Forum it is shown that car traffic in the previous decade had increased by only a quarter of that experienced nationally. Further, since 1965 traffic crossing York city centre bridges has increased by only 1.5 per cent., partly due to bypasses but also due to the city council's transport strategy. Since February 1989 its policy has been to encourage vulnerable modes of travel and public transport and to discourage unnecessary car use.
By controlling car usage, casualties have been radically reduced in York when compared with the rest of the country. However, it must be appreciated that if cars, cycles and pedestrians are to mix, that mix must be right; otherwise it is possible that road traffic might be effectively reduced but road casualties might not. This Bill is worthy of support, and that is what I shall give it.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I was confident that I would be interested to hear the terms under which the noble Baroness introduced this Bill and my confidence was borne out.
The Bill as drafted will place responsibilities on local authorities to plan for the reduction of traffic. We are all of course in favour of the reduction of traffic in principle and in general—usually until we are faced with the consequences. In this instance local authorities will have to do the work. They will need the greatest discretion, not to say the judgment of Solomon. Local authorities are entirely used to being put in that situation; they have been there on many other occasions.
We have heard of the particular concern of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, as regards consultation. The problem with traffic, which tends, like water, to find the easiest route to flow through, is that one local authority with a not unreasonably restrictive policy could easily thrust its burden into its neighbour's territory, as indeed we see on an almost daily basis in the City of London, which is now surrounded by a ring fence. However, that has increased congestion in the surrounding areas. That will, of course, be a particular problem in metropolitan areas.
Much has been said of the planning implications of this measure. We need to think a little about that aspect because it is easy to say that we should plan traffic and traffic reduction in isolation. But the implications for the normal planning system—whether and where we allocate land for housing, industry, services such as hospitals and schools—are profound. The strategic implication that lies behind these proposals will cause a considerable revolution in the normal planning procedures as we at present see them. Generally

613
speaking, under planning as it is carried on today we see differentiated development, with residential areas, commercial and industrial areas and service areas. Such differentiation creates sometimes tidal traffic flows, which are in themselves a considerable problem. If we are serious about attempting to reduce traffic, the implication of a Bill of this nature is that we begin to go for integrated development.
We ought to expect to see factories, where possible, integrated into residential developments. We ought to see schools and even shopping areas integrated into residential development, so that in general urban areas are mixed in type. Enormous benefits will come from that. One industrial consequence that would immediately be required—and one which I believe industrialists would welcome—is a higher standard of environmental development for industry integrated into the community in that way. On the other hand, that would make a particular business a more attractive place to work in. So there are up-sides as well as down-sides. There may be higher costs, but it would be easier to attract people to come to work there. All these implications need to be taken carefully into account. Local authorities will have to pass a judgment upon them.
I have no wish to enter a debate on exhaust emissions since I hope that in due course this House will have a serious debate on the matter. But there is one omission—as opposed to emission—from the Bill. The noble Baroness introduced the subject of the problems caused by exhaust fumes. They are a significant part of the problems caused by road traffic.
One of the rapid ways in which something can be done about the problem is by the introduction of less polluting, higher quality fuels. That aspect has not been mentioned. It clearly ought to be encouraged by local authorities as part of their responsibilities under the Bill. We already see some local authorities requiring for public service vehicles low sulphur diesels. There is also compressed natural gas and other fuels, all of which could make a significant contribution to the improvement in the atmosphere—again, particularly in urban areas, and not exclusively on a local level but also on the wider environment generally. I very much wish to see some such provision included in the Bill. I hope that an opportunity will arise for that to be done at a later stage.
The principles of the Bill should be supported. As with all things, it could be improved, although I suppose that one has to recognise that the best could be a danger to the possible.
3.33 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I intend to make a three-minute speech, so never mind the quality, watch the length! We on the Labour Benches fully support the Bill's principles and aims. They are consistent with Labour's policy set out in our policy document, Consensus for Change. We want an integrated, balanced transport strategy and are committed to working with local communities and business to find effective, equitable and environmentally
614
sustainable solutions to congestion, pollution, and traffic growth. Therefore we very much welcome the Bill and the manner in which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, introduced it. We welcome the Bill's detailed provisions to ensure that effective legislation will result.
The noble Baroness gave clear details of the problem. She quoted statistics that are worth repeating. Congestion currently costs business some £19 billion a year, a figure that could rise to more than £40 billion in 10 years. It is forecast that by 2005, one of the key dates in the Bill, one-third of the motorway network will suffer chronic congestion for most of every day and all but one of London's major roads will become gridlocked. We cannot ignore those statistics.
The effect on health and the cost to the health service of environmental damage and air pollution is massive. My honourable friend the Member for Manchester, Withington, commenting on estimates given in the other place by the honourable Member for Bath said that,
"all hon. Members will agree that whether the direct health cost is £3 billion or £4 billion, we cannot ignore it: action must he taken. The Bill is a step in the right direction".-[Official Report. Commons, 24/1/97; col. 1216.1
I wish also to praise the comments of the CPRE. I note that the CPRE welcomes and supports the Bill. It believes that the measure provides an important framework to help local and national government tackle the problems of rising traffic. The CPRE urged us to support the Bill, and Labour certainly does that.
I agree with the CPRE that while the countryside has been damaged by, and continues to be under threat from, specific road schemes, it now faces a more insidious threat; namely, that of rising traffic. Attention has generally focused on the problem of urban areas. Fewer than one in 10 integrated transport packages developed by local authorities are devoted specifically to addressing the problem of rural areas. As the CPRE points out, it is in the countryside where some of the fastest growth in traffic has occurred, fuelled by new and longer commuter shopping and leisure journeys between town and country and vice versa.
I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and give full support to the Bill.
3.37 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made clear, the purpose of the Bill is to introduce a statutory system under which local authorities would be required to review existing and forecast traffic levels and to consider the need to set targets for their reduction. The Government have already indicated in another place their support for the Bill following the incorporation of a number of amendments.
The Government have long made clear their view that target setting can have a useful role to play in addressing transport pressures but that it makes more sense set firmly in a local context. Our position on targets was set out in the transport Green Paper published last year. We are not yet convinced that national traffic targets would be practical and are similarly cautious about regional targets. Local targets can be a useful and sensible tool

615
for dealing with specific situations at a local level and for helping to focus attention on strategies and measures needed. The degree of aggregation that would be required at national and regional level would blunt that purpose.
For local authorities to review the case for setting targets would be a natural development of the process of examining local transport requirements strategically which they already undertake when they revise their transport investment programmes each year. However, it is important that reviews of traffic and decisions on whether to have targets and, if so, whether they should relate to an absolute reduction in traffic or to the rate of traffic growth should be undertaken at a local level and reflect local circumstances. We do not favour a tightly prescriptive approach dictated from Whitehall.
As originally drafted, the Bill would have followed a rather inflexible, prescriptive approach requiring all principal councils to draw up road traffic reduction plans and set targets for reducing traffic levels or rates of growth. That would have failed to recognise that circumstances may differ from one part of the country to another and, indeed, within a single authority's area of responsibility. Clearly, the needs of a large rural authority, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, may differ from those of an urban one. The case for having targets relating to a specific urban area will often be entirely different to that for a shire county.
We should also recognise that in some areas other highly worthwhile initiatives may result in traffic growth. My noble friend Lord Lucas mentioned development. I am thinking specifically of places where regeneration programmes are under way. Thus, local authorities will need to weigh the damaging impact of traffic against other considerations; for instance, how quickly viable alternatives may come on-stream and the need to promote good accessibility and foster economic growth.
I should stress that in giving local authorities the option of deciding whether to set targets we do not intend that they should take the issue lightly, for two reasons. First, the revised Bill makes it clear that they will be obliged to explain in their reports their reasons should they decide not to set targets. Secondly, we should expect to sound a suitably cautionary note in the guidance that is to be issued to local authorities. We shall need to consider in consultation with local government how best to make the exercise of undertaking reviews and setting targets work. Our view is that such matters could best be covered in guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State following consultation with local authorities and other bodies.
Of course dealing with these matters in guidance rather than in the Bill itself does not mean that the Government regard them as any less important. Indeed the Bill makes clear that local authorities shall give regard to any guidance in preparing their report. Taking this approach—this is a crucial advantage—we shall allow sufficient time for the Government to consider with the local authority associations the detailed mechanics of how all this will work. I am sure noble
616
Lords will agree that it would be a serious mistake to take a too prescriptive approach on the face of the Bill only to find that we require more primary legislation before we can make it work.
One issue in particular which we envisage being highlighted in the guidance is the importance of local authorities consulting widely on the setting of targets. Other matters which might be covered include advice on how to obtain appropriate statistical data and the importance of relating targets to air quality strategies and local land use.
My noble friend Lord Brabazon said that the Bill should set down a duty on principal councils to consult their neighbours and also national organisations. The Government believe that this is something which can best be dealt with in guidance. We envisage making it very clear in guidance the importance we attach to local authorities consulting widely.
I have mentioned that different arrangements would be necessary for Scotland and Wales, tailored to the different structural and financial arrangements which apply there. I should also reiterate that the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland, where the institutional arrangements are quite different. There the roads and transport functions that lie with local authorities in the remainder of the United Kingdom are the responsibility of the Secretary of State. However, my honourable friend the Minister for the Environment for Northern Ireland has indicated that the Northern Ireland Office would support the principle of setting targets for road traffic reduction. If the Bill is enacted, they will follow suit as a policy matter. It will of course be for them to determine the appropriate mechanism to do that but in policy terms we are at one.
It is important to recognise that the Bill does not cover the measures that authorities would need to take to achieve their targets. It would not confer new powers to take action or make grants. That is because local authorities already have the requisite powers to undertake their various transport responsibilities. We have powers to provide grant support in respect of the exercise of those powers. The Bill concentrates on the steps authorities should take before implementing specific schemes or measures, and indeed before deciding what those schemes and measures should be.
I should make it clear, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, that the Government do not believe that the Bill is anti-car. If we are unable to ensure that road capacity is available for essential road use by encouraging a shift of less vital journeys to other modes of transport, we shall not be meeting the requirements of any part of the economy or society.
I should also like to stress that we shall expect local authorities to give very serious consideration to the effects on the local economy and the vitality of town and cities of targets and the measures designed to achieve them. In addition, they will need to consult widely, notably with local businesses, residents and other tiers of government, in drawing up their reports and setting targets. As I have already explained, we envisage this being made absolutely clear in the guidance.

617
Concern has been expressed in some quarters that the Bill will create an unacceptable and onerous administrative burden on local authorities. I do not believe that that is the case. Nor would we wish it to be so. We shall want to consider the mechanics of implementation very carefully with local authorities with a view to ensuring that the bureaucracy involved is minimised. Authorities already need to develop a strategic appreciation of traffic levels and traffic trends before drawing up their own capital investment plans. As a result, much, if not all, of the legwork is already being done.
Finally, I wish to turn to the question of timing. First, I should stress that the Government do not intend to drag their heels on the commencement of the Bill. All being well, our intention is that in England we would be issuing guidance and directing authorities to start work on producing their reports in parallel or combined with the issue of RTTP bidding guidance in the spring of 1998. That is the earliest start we could reasonably envisage, given the need for us to discuss the mechanics with the local authority associations and the desirability of dovetailing the exercise with the annual capital bidding round. As I have mentioned several times, the mechanics will necessarily be different in Scotland and Wales. However, I do not think it is sensible to set down on the face of the Bill a firm deadline, albeit one that looks realistic to us now, before we have had a chance in England, Scotland and Wales to consider thoroughly with the respective local authority associations how the mechanics of undertaking reviews and setting targets are to work. That consultation has to take place before we can issue our guidance and could throw up unforeseen problems which would make a later commencement date necessary.
My noble friend Lord Lucas mentioned the imposition of costs on business. I wish to make it clear that the guidance notes will need to take into account the effect of targets on business. Authorities must consult with local businesses and residents. He also said that the Bill could undermine developments and clash with local plans. I see no reason why it should. Traffic targets would have to be compatible with local authorities' local structure plans.
My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith mentioned the need to encourage local authorities to take the effect of road traffic on air quality into account. We envisage that the Secretary of State's guidance notes will make clear the need for local authorities to relate the setting of targets to a strategy to improve local air quality.
I shall close by underlining that the Government believe that this is a worthwhile Bill and one whose principles we support strongly. I also wish to take the opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness and her honourable friend in another place, together with their advisers, on the hard work they have put in to bring the Bill to this advanced stage in such a short time.
3.46 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful for what the Minister said, particularly on behalf of those who advise me, to whom I pay a warm tribute. I am also grateful to your Lordships for their comments on the Bill.
618
Perhaps I may respond to the areas of concern rather than simply reiterate self-congratulation. The issue of consultation was raised by several noble Lords, in particular by the noble Lords, Lord Brabazon of Tara and Lord Lucas of Chilworth. Consultation needs to be wide and needs to involve authorities' neighbours and local businesses. I could not support the guidance underpinning the Bill unless it provided for that consultation. I have probably been as guilty as almost any noble Lord when dealing with other Bills which provide for guidance in calling for that guidance to be discussed on the Floor of the House. Sometimes one does it a little tongue in cheek. In this context, it is entirely right that guidance should be developed. Guidance can be flexible in a way that primary legislation cannot. However, I do not believe the measures which the Bill envisages could work without the co-operation of the various bodies—other authorities and so on—which have been mentioned.
The question was asked whether it is necessary to have primary legislation. The answer is yes, because, sadly, some authorities do not undertake this kind of exercise. One sometimes needs to legislate to bring those who are dragging their heels up to the mark of the best.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asked about the effect on neighbouring areas in terms of moving congestion on to one's neighbour. He and I will both have experienced that at a local level as well as at a more strategic level. I have spent a good deal of my time as a local councillor discussing with local residents the difficulty of putting in a traffic management scheme to protect one road simply because of the knock-on effect it will have on the next road. I understand that issue very well indeed. Nevertheless, I do not think it is one which should deter us from the exercise.
I was asked about the need for guidance in relation, to less polluting vehicles and less polluting fuel. My noble friend Lord Tope, who is sitting behind me, is probably finding it hard to restrain himself from intervening to talk about the vehicles introduced in Sutton which do exactly that and provide a very good example.
Finally, there is the inter-relationship between transport planning and land use planning. This is an issue which I have always seen as going hand in hand. Surely, local plans should have regard to all the environmental issues that may be raised by development or by blocking it. I believe that the two can only work well if account is taken by both sets of people—although often they are the same sets of people—dealing with land use planning and with traffic planning.
The noble Lord asked a specific question about a development consent which has been granted. I do not believe that it would be possible to overturn a consent once granted. I certainly would not suggest that that should be a retrospective aim if there is specific planning permission, within the scope of the Bill.
I hope that I have answered the concerns that have been raised. I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading.

619
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATO: Eastward Expansion
3.51 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy on the proposal that NATO should expand eastwards.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad that there are so many speakers and I am very sorry that our rules do not prove flexible enough to allow them to speak for more than five minutes.
There are two sides to this question: how we see it and how Russia sees it. Russia first. The Poles, Czechs and Hungarians want to join both the EU and NATO. Only last week President Yeltsin reaffirmed Russia's "sharply negative" attitude to their joining NATO. Is this the best kind of security we can give to the Poles, one that ensures Russia's enmity?
The United States argues that NATO expansion is not against Russia's interests. But that is not for us to say. Russia's interests are defined in and by Russia, not by us. That is what national sovereignty is about.
Poland and the others are part of the family of European nations. So is Russia. Poland and half-a-dozen others want expansion because they are afraid of one nation, Russia. But Russia opposes it because it is afraid of 15 nations already and would be more afraid of 20.
Has Russia the right to be more afraid than Poland? Poland has suffered more wrong from Russia this century than Russia from Poland. But already Russia is one versus 15, and that 15 includes the militarily most powerful nation in the world. Russia is also half-sunk in economic chaos, military impotence and political debility, largely because of the West's thoughtless insistence on immediate free markets in everything.
Nothing Mrs. Albright or Mr. Solana can say will persuade the Russians that two plus two makes three. The Russians are not imposing a veto on them making three; they just do not do so.
History is not bunk. We know perfectly well that there are potential Stalins, if not Hitlers, among the contenders for the succession to the ailing Yeltsin. Both the Duma and the Federal Council now have "anti-NATO" groups. The Russians are willing to talk to us about NATO expansion. But we should make no mistake here: this is not the willingness of an equal; it is the willingness of a hopelessly inferior negotiator to grasp at any straw of forbearance.
I think it is dreadful to realise the deafness of official Washington to these facts, which are obvious to all of us in Europe and to sensible people in the US too. We can bait the bear in his pit, but in the end he will rise up and bite us, or it will cost us all the ambulances of the UN and OSCE 10 times over to restore him to health. Europe will suffer first.
620
Mr. Rifkind worries about the new line drawn across Europe. But there is a line now. Limited expansion would move it east. Applicant-wide expansion would move it further east. Which is its most dangerous position? I submit it is that which comes closest to encircling Russia.
Ukraine is being hailed by Mrs. Albright as the United States' "strategic partner", and vast US funding—the third highest after Israel and Egypt—is going there. Russia calls all this destructive and provocative. Ukraine too opposes NATO expansion. And beyond, where the Secretary General of NATO makes his repeated swings, promising NATO science and NATO environmental protection, the distant voices of Kazakhstan and Kyrghizia urge the US not to he in such a dangerous hurry.
Now, our side of the matter. Mr. Rifkind has written that Russia's relationship with NATO is as important to peace in Europe as NATO's enlargement. Right. This much can be agreed by everyone and fits every sensible statement from all three parties here. But NATO enlargement is not free-standing. 1 remain astonished at the Government's continued claim that it might be. The future of Europe and of the whole international arms control system is involved, and that is not NATO's responsibility.
US insistence on expansion means Russia will keep open the option to re-arm, and this puts at risk most of the arms control agreements of the past 30 years: SALT, START, INF, CFE, CTB, probably the Non-Proliferation Treaty; also the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty on the continuation of which the credibility of Britain's Trident force depends.
The political ructions following even minimum enlargement would be legion. The Baltic states would be angry and frightened at their exclusion. The Romanians have only agreed to settle their dispute with Hungary because they thought it would get them into NATO. If they are excluded, will it hold?
Does Mrs. Albright's sudden notion of a NATO-Russia Council fit the bill, given that the Americans do not want a binding charter and the Russians do not want a non-binding one? It could only be a channel of military communication between the 18 nations of an expanded NATO, on the one hand, and the single nation of Russia, on the other—a permanent expression of tension and resentment. It would be the seventh wheel to the coach, and a square one at that.
With several highly sensitive European states outside it, it would not be an organ of pan-European security. In any case, we already have the OSCE, which includes all the countries of Europe, plus the United States and Canada, and has the relevant remit. Its authority should have been reinforced last December to deal with the present unnecessary crisis. Why was it not?
NATO expansion involves the remilitarisation of Europe. Look at the proposals the various arms manufacturers are making to possible new members—5 million dollar deals here; 1 billion dollars there. The United States has also, outside NATO, been developing bilateral military relations with governments as various

621
as those of the Ukraine, Hungary, Moslem Bosnia and Albania. "That is no concern of ours", say the Government. Why not?
Expansion would affect all our economic futures because this remilitarisation would be going on at the same time as we start admitting the same countries to the European Union. The cost estimates for NATO expansion are now numerous and contradictory. They are mostly far too low to command confidence. The Washington Post calls the latest official figures of the United States "enlargement on the cheap". These last do not cover new weapons at all, but they do double the NATO bureaucracy. Above all, they do not include the costs of our new military build-up against the new Russian build-up which we must confidently expect if we do it. There is value for money!
NATO expansion would also affect the viability of political Europe. It would not be the "new", more European, less military, NATO we were once promised. It would still be a US-led military organisation, as always. During the Cold War, this leadership was a military necessity and the democratic deficit was unavoidable—now, no longer.
I turn lastly to the question of commitments. Last November I inquired after the verbal commitment not to expand NATO made by Mr. Major as Foreign Secretary and Mr. Baker as his American opposite number. The Russians allege this verbal commitment, and HMG tacitly admit it. Does the Foreign Secretary's word no longer commit us?
There has of course been the electioneering commitment given by President Clinton, without any consultation with his allies, to central European ethnic groups. This cannot bind any other government and we are as much free agents in this matter now as we were two years ago.
Has any European Parliament approved NATO expansion? The Foreign Office does not even know whether any have so much as discussed it. Expansion has had a shamefully brief airing in both Houses of our own Parliament. I have asked quite a lot of questions. But, to put it mildly, there is no consensus that this should be done: by no means is it a "done deed" if democracy means anything. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why Parliament's opinion has not been sought.
Usually any suggestion in this House that the United States may be less than perfect is greeted on the government side with the primmest of pursed lips. But now that a Cabinet Minister has expressed his determination to stand firm against "American imperialism" at a semi-public meeting, I feel released from the customary inhibited dictions. The development of a "Clinton and Albright are always right" culture in this country would be no kindness either to us or to them.
Look: the walls have been down six years now, and the flowers should be out. Why should we want to continue an anachronistic transatlantic military leadership? We should want the right of political equality for sovereign states under the law, unless and until conscious and democratic actions are taken to merge sovereignties.
4.2 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, with the end of the Cold War, it was assumed that the Soviet threat had gone away. The Visegrad countries do not share that view: they feel vulnerable to a Russia which both for nationalist reasons and for economic self-interest would like still to dominate them. They know, as NATO does, that the Russians are thinking strategically. They are building nuclear submarines and weapons and new fighter aircraft with the added incentive that Russia is rapidly increasing its claim of arms sales in the world market (11 per cent. in 1996) and has no inhibitions about proliferation.
The Russians still maintain, despite much publicised troubles over money elsewhere in the army, their strategic missile forces at a high level. Indeed, General Rodionov, the Defence Minister, actually referred to NATO intelligence reports which say, he says, that although the general purpose forces of the Russian army do not present a danger, its strategic nuclear forces are at full combat readiness. It is too soon, therefore, to write off the need to deter a possible Russian threat and it will not do to throw the Visegrad countries back into their only-too-willing arms.
Russia knows that the Visegrad countries are not seeking allies in an offensive war but insurance against threats, actual or subliminal. So what are Russia's objectives? We need to remember that Russian military doctrine, as defined by General Lobov, the arms control specialist, advocates reflexive control (the art of manipulating the actions of an opponent), military cunning and maskirovka. Thus, they will try to prevent enlargement in several ways: first, by playing on our fears and by claiming that we shall, if we go ahead, destabilise Russia. Primakov told Chatham House recently that,
"if agreement could be reached to freeze all new admissions, then it will be possible to speed up democratic reforms in Russia".
Next, they are bargaining, arguing that enlargement requires revision of the CFE Treaty (already agreed in principle) and START 2 (still not ratified by Russia) and a new package for START 3.
Next, in any treaty with NATO they will argue for a veto and make stipulations on the enlargement process. Primakov said on 7th March that any documents regulating Russian-NATO relations must provide the guarantee that NATO will not extend its military infrastructure (a very broad term) into the territory of new members. I hope that NATO will firmly retain its right to deploy, although it will obviously exercise it with great restraint. Russia, on the other hand, has established military bases in every CIS country, including a reluctant Georgia. Russia is not exactly alone.
All those activities are a mixture of shadow-boxing and hard bargaining. What is more disturbing is the Russian strategy to neutralise NATO itself and, above all, its Atlantic dimension. Until recently the tactic was to advance the claims of the OSCE, that toothless and amorphous organisation, to replace NATO as,
"the only collective security system free from demarcation lines".

623
But now we have the Russian honeymoon with the European Union. On the agenda of Jacques Santer and Wim Kok on a visit to Moscow on 3rd March to discuss the economic agreement with Russia were European security and NATO enlargement to the east and security and stability in Europe. Both the Germans and the French have been strongly advocating a defence role for the EU which would embrace the Western European Union. That would suit Russia well. It would precipitate a US withdrawal from Europe, and that would be the end of NATO and, I submit, the beginning perhaps of a new German-Russian axis. The Visegrad countries fear that too. We cannot afford not to enlarge, although I well recognise that it will be extremely difficult.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for introducing this important subject for a brief exchange of views today. This debate has been going on in the United States, in Russia and in eastern Europe for a long time and at a profound level. But there has been very little discussion of it in western Europe. Perhaps it is characteristic that we should be having this debate on a Friday afternoon in a House of Lords that can scarcely be said to be bursting at the seams; yet this is one of the most important and strategic issues facing our country, its allies and partners at the moment. Together with the debate about the future political structure of the European Union, it will settle our security and stability for many years to come. It needs careful, profound and calm analysis of where our interests lie.
The first thing to be said is that there must be no Russian veto on the enlargement of NATO. We sometimes forget—and perhaps need reminding—that we won the Cold War. We should not be ashamed to say so—not in any sense of triumphalism, but as a matter of fact. In the light of the noble Lord's somewhat sad phobia about the United States of America, we should perhaps remember that we won against the Soviet Union under the leadership of the US. One of the reasons we fought the Cold War for many years at great cost was that in eastern Europe there were captive nations whose freedoms had been totally removed by the hegemony of the Soviet communist empire. Now that those states have been freed by NATO, do they not have the right to choose where their future security lies? If they choose as their security structure the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation why should they not apply to join it? Do we have any moral right to refuse them admission to the club?
We must also ask ourselves not only what benefits the countries of eastern Europe but where our interests lie. In a report submitted to the US Congress as part of the Fiscal Year 1997 Defense Authorization Act it was suggested that the reason for the enlargement of NATO was that it would provide a stronger collective defence for the West, that it would improve burden sharing in NATO and that it would foster democracy in eastern European countries. We must test those arguments. We must not accept them but we must not reject them out of hand. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said, there
624
will be costs. No one denies that. The enlargement of NATO will not be a free lunch. We shall all have to pay a little towards it. These are important matters for the security of this country and the security of our allies and they must not be vetoed by the Soviet Union—that was a Freudian slip; I mean by Russia or anyone else.
I come now to the second part of the question which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, perhaps significantly, took first. I agree with the noble Lord and with most people who have seriously studied the problem that the need for security arrangements in Europe and the whole process of the enlargement of NATO, if it takes place, must take full account of the concerns of the Russians. There will be no long-term stability or security in Europe without the collaboration and good will of the Russians. In Russia there are real concerns. Recently, I had an opportunity to discuss the problem of enlargement with a group of senior Russian generals. It is true that they have serious concerns. It is not just political posturings. These are the concerns of experienced military officers. Some may say that they are the perceptions of a defeated and demoralised nation. However, as anyone who has ever had anything to do with strategic matters will know, perceptions are as important as realities. They certainly are in this case.
Of course, there are many difficulties in the way of enlargement. It raises complicated issues which we do not have time to go into today. But this must not become another hawk-dove argument or an argument between cold warriors and peacemakers; it must not become a situation in which the Russians are regarded as the reformed characters of Europe and the United States as the great Satan. There are important political, strategic issues to be analysed, and those issues involve the national and collective security of this country and its allies well into the next century.
We must not rush to enlarge but we must not be frightened of doing so. From what I have heard I believe that the Government and their military advisers fully understand the problems and are dealing with them sensibly and calmly. I hope that when the Minister comes to reply he can reassure the House that at the NATO summit meeting in Madrid in July Her Majesty's Government will use their still very considerable influence to ensure that NATO is neither intimidated by pressures from outside the alliance nor stampeded into premature action by pressures from within.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should explain that the significance of my taking the Russian case first was that I thought that it was less well known in this House and in the country than is our own.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, this is an important Question that demands very serious consideration. As with so many matters that are the subject of political debate, one must be aware of perception as well as reality. I hope that the Government have learnt the lesson of the Falklands crisis where the realities of a minor defence cut were perceived by the Argentinians as a lack of will to defend those islands. With regard to

625
NATO expansion, we need to be aware that what may be seen as a minor adjustment of NATO's sphere of influence to give some peace of mind to a few small nations in eastern Europe may be perceived by the Russians as threatening.
I, too, should like to ask the Government a few questions. First, do the Government realise that the two most significant events in Russia's history are the invasion by Napoleon and the invasion by Hitler? Are the Government aware, for example, of my pride to be associated with the city of Manchester which was twinned with Leningrad during what the Russians call the Great Patriotic War? I remind your Lordships—although many of you will not need reminding—that Leningrad survived one of the longest sieges in military history. Are the Government aware of the debt that this country owes to the people of Russia and the Red Army for stopping Hitler at the gates of Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad, defeating the German army at the battle of Kursk and driving it back past Berlin?
Can the Government put the unfortunate history of the last 50 years behind them? Can they consign it to the dustbin of history and build a new and better relationship with the people of Russia, building on their perception of the two most significant events in their history when we, during the Napoleonic wars and the Great Patriotic War, were effectively on the side of the Russian people?
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this is a very serious question. One of the difficulties in considering the question is that it is in terms of what one might describe as military situations. We need to be aware that mass unemployment is afflicting virtually the whole of the Northern Hemisphere to a magnitude that we have not seen since the 1930s. We need to learn from the experience of the 1930s that that mass unemployment led to armed conflict: what we call World War Two and what the Russians call the Great Patriotic War. We need to address our minds, over the next few years, to the problem of mass unemployment without resorting to the armed conflict that existed in the 1940s.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, like other speakers in this debate, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet for introducing it. I share his regret that we have such a small amount of time available to discuss one of the most important foreign policy issues facing us today.
I have to say though that I do not share what I see as an over concern for Russia's susceptibilities expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. We must take into account the fact that whereas the Russian people fought bravely in the Second World War against Hitler, it was their own government, the government of Stalin, who killed far more Russians than Hitler ever did. This sad arithmetical fact must guide our counsels in the years to come because if we appreciate it, how much more so do the people of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary who soon will be invited, I hope, to assume NATO membership?
626
Both Czechoslovakia and Hungary were invaded in recent years by the Soviet Army and so, of course, was Poland as a result of a breach of the guarantee given to Poland by this country in March 1939—not to mention the promises made by this country at Yalta in 1945 that Poland would have free elections. Poland did not have free elections in any shape or form until after the 1989 changes.
So we must, I believe, not only take into account Russia's susceptibilities but also those of the prospective new members. Very recently, it was seen to be in Russia's interest and Russia was entitled to protect a complete ring of buffer states surrounding that country. Only recently was Russia left to its own devices to defend its own enormous territory with its own still huge resources.
I believe that hardliners will not be strengthened as a result of the enlargement of NATO. On the contrary, I believe that the hardline view in Russia today, whether communist or patriotic, would be strengthened if it were shown that we in the West lacked the resolve to fulfil the pledges that we have made to the Visegrad countries. If we were to falter in that, it would encourage the Gennady Zyuganovs of the new Communist Party in Russia and those who put forward an ultra Right-wing point of view.
We are not trying to bait the bear. On the contrary, I believe that we should hold out the hand of friendship to the Russian nation and the Russian people. If we cannot persuade them this year, we must persuade them next year that we mean them no harm; we certainly mean not to encroach on their territory; and we believe that they have vital interests in Europe which they must be entitled to pursue. But they do not have the right to dominate the countries of central Europe as they used to until very recently.
We believe that Russian public opinion, outraged as it might be at the moment at the idea of NATO's expansion, will be calmed once we can complete an agreement or charter with the Russian Federation and with the Ukraine. It would be dangerous to Russia if we were to leave central Europe, including the Ukraine, in a military vacuum, with nothing to hold on to and nowhere to go. At least with the alliance with NATO, Poland and other countries, even with the special relationship with the Ukraine, Russia's neighbours will be kept within a firm alliance and with a firm discipline of common sense.
In short, we do not want to bait the bear; we want to embrace the bear. That can best be done by NATO enlargement and by a separate track of reassurance and co-operation with Russia. In that way we shall succeed in bringing about peace in Europe, which, for the whole of this century, has been so difficult to come by.
4.22 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, we all look forward to discovering where Her Majesty's Government stand on the vital issue of NATO's expansion eastwards, and how they intend to put their policy into practice. Perhaps I may add my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, upon introducing this Unstarred Question. It is an act of

627
public spirit, for which he is well known. I include in those congratulations the honourable member for North Tayside in another place, who introduced a similar debate in another place on 26th February of this year.
I declare two interests. It was my honour and my privilege to serve in NATO for six years as an armoured troop commander and an armoured squadron reconnaissance commander. It is always pleasant to be part of a successful team. NATO was a success story. It is a success story. I trust and hope that it will remain a success story with suitable modifications.
My second interest is that I live and work in the Baltic states. I live in the northern state, Estonia, which could be regarded, if NATO does not expand eastwards, as a possible flashpoint. One has only to visit the River Narva to know that that river has throughout the centuries run with blood—the blood of all nations. I hope that will not happen again.
I wish to see NATO extended to all the countries of central and eastern Europe so that 100 million people can enjoy the security that so many of us in Western Europe take for granted. I read with interest, but not much enthusiasm, the speech of the Minister of State, the honourable Member for Upminster, in another place on 26th February, who said:
"I see no way in which we could not enlarge NATO. I do not believe that it would he right for us in the west to deny the countries of central Europe the right to join an organisation … We cannot deny them a guarantee for their security that they desire and desperately need".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/97; col. 274.]
My question for Her Majesty's Government is: why are they so negative and why are there so many double negatives? If I were standing at the Dispatch Box I would say, "We must enlarge NATO at the earliest opportunity. We do so with enthusiasm and relish. We must urge all the countries of central and eastern Europe to join NATO as soon as they have met the criteria and if they wish to do so. We must be ready at all times to prepare them and to give them the guarantees of security which they so earnestly and desperately desire.".
The noble Lord opposite must answer this question: where do the Government see the borders of Europe? Do they extend from the shores of the Atlantic to the Urals or from the shores of the Atlantic to the River Neva? Do they extend from Murmansk to Malta? Once that question has been answered, the rest fits into place.
I shall not bore your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, can state the case about the Stalinist domination of Europe far better than I; he is a distinguished historian. I look forward to seeing in the Imperial War Museum a permanent presentation on the Holocaust, which affected Europe throughout this century.
Perhaps I may make a point about the borders. Since November 1996 the draft doctrine on delineating the borders between Russia and Estonia has been waiting on the desk of Secretary of State Primakov. Why has he not signed it? I believe that there are four reasons. First, Russia is not yet psychologically ready to renounce her imperial past. Secondly, they are using it as a tool to block the eastern European nations' integration with the
628
European Community and NATO. Thirdly, there is a balance of forces within Russia which are jostling for power.
I turn to the July summit in Madrid. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take the decision to support the first wave of nations into NATO; that is, the Czech Republic, the Hungarian Republic and the Polish Republic. Furthermore, I hope that they will lay the foundations for the second wave, which should include the Baltic states.
I know that time is pressing, but before concluding I wish to quote four words of Estonian, which I will translate. To answer the question, "Should NATO expand eastwards?", I answer yes and the words, "mida varem seda parem". Those words translated mean, "as soon as possible".
4.28 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I am tempted to match a few words of Estonian with a few words of Russian, but I shall resist. I cannot claim any special knowledge about NATO or its expansion. However, I do have experience of working in Russia. For the past four years I have regularly travelled to Russia for my employer, and I am involved in the exploration and production of oil in western Siberia and other parts of Russia. I calculate that I have taken more than 100 domestic flights on Aeroflot or other Russian airlines. While that cannot be described as a qualification, I believe that I have earned the right to speak about Russia.
Over the past decade we have seen changes in eastern Europe which were unimaginable in earlier times. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there has been a progression in the integration with western institutions in a variety of ways. In 1991 Russia joined the OSCE and two or three years ago Russia and Croatia joined the Council of Europe. I am aware that some have criticised this move, saying that the Council of Europe's democratic and human rights credentials have been sullied as a result of this expansion. Nevertheless, it is a progression and integration which I believe is a good thing.
Today we are debating the expansion of NATO, and this goes hand in glove to a certain extent with discussion of the expansion of the European Union itself. This expansion and progression are a tortuous process. There is nothing inevitable about it and there should be a large consideration, although not an overwhelming consideration, given to how the Russians view this integration process.
On 20th February this year Madeleine Albright arrived in Moscow with the daunting task of persuading the Russian leaders to drop their objections to the admittance of new members to NATO. On the day she arrived, the communist speaker of the state Duma, Gennadii Seleznev, said that NATO was an instrument of the cold war, and we have only just learnt to live without the cold war; while Boris Berezovskii, the Deputy Secretary of Russia's National Security Council, said that NATO expansion is a totally aggressive decision with regard to Russia and that it is also exceptionally dangerous for the West itself.

629
On the one hand, therefore, we have the US officials mainly insisting that NATO expansion will happen with or without Russian agreement. On the other hand, we have almost the entire Russian political elite united against the expansion of NATO. It is difficult to think of any other subject on which they are united.
A couple of days ago I obtained a copy of a report to the US Congress about the enlargement of NATO. As one might expect, it was a polished sales document. Noble Lords may be interested to know that I took it off the Internet. It was easy to download. This document makes a convincing case, ultimately, that NATO should indeed be enlarged, but it does not in any way fully reflect the depth of Russian opposition.
There are complex issues of prestige, fears and incentives motivating Russian politicians. The expansion of NATO would be an act of exclusion for Russia, and, on the other hand, the expansion of NATO without some face-saving deal would be an even greater act of exclusion. Russia has a choice to opt for the lesser of two evils.
One issue which does not carry weight with the Russian politicians is the worry of the Poles, Czechs and Hungarians that in 10 years, say, Russia could return to a threatening posture. Whatever one's view about the likelihood of this happening, the Russians themselves pay no attention to this argument. Their retort is to argue that the best way to ensure that Russia will not pose a threat is to let Russia itself into NATO, or indeed to dismantle NATO.
However, I believe that we in the West cannot ignore this argument. I was struck by the quote from the President of the Ukraine, Leonid Kuchma, on 20th February. He said:
"Russia pretends that there is no independent Ukraine. The status of Ukraine … cannot be taken for granted".
He went on to recall Polish-Russian history as a possible model for Ukraine—a history which began with a war in 1921 and ended with the annexation of a large part of the country in 1939.
Tremendous diplomatic skill will be required by the right honourable Mr. Rifkind and Mrs. Albright for this idea to move forward. Ultimately, it is an idea which deserves our support.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for giving your Lordships a chance to debate this most important issue, albeit, as other noble Lords have said, in a time-limited debate at the bottom of the list of business on Friday. How much lower can one get in your Lordships' House? In any event, we are getting a chance to debate the matter.
I declare my interest in that my wife is Polish. I shall speak only of the interests of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary being admitted to NATO, with the emphasis on Poland because that is the country which I visit every year, sometimes two or three times a year.
630
The objection to those nations being admitted to NATO comes from Russia, although, as I remember it, in 1992 President Yeltsin, in a visit to Warsaw, said to President Walesa of Poland that he had no objection to Poland joining NATO. Thereafter, he changed his mind, or somebody changed it for him.
It seems to me to be extraordinary that Russia should consider herself to be threatened by countries in central Europe. I gather that Russia even speaks of encirclement which, for a country which stretches from the Baltic to the Islands of Japan, is frankly preposterous.
Let us look at the facts. Russia has been attacked twice in this century. We have heard about that from the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, although he talked also about Napoleon. Both times Russia was attacked by Germany and I should say in parenthesis that one might reasonably say that the Germany of today is unlikely to repeat the performance. In the same period, Russia has invaded Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Afghanistan. I think that that completes the list; I am not quite sure. The Red Army occupied the whole of central Europe for 45 years after the Second World War. If Russia feels threatened, one can only wonder how threatened those other countries feel.
Just over a year ago, I attended a discussion with Polish Members of Parliament one of whom, Professor Wiatr, is Minister of Education. The professor observed that at present, Russia was not going to invade or move against Poland but he said also that Russia did not want Poland to be in NATO because she wanted to keep open the option of invading Poland. That is the view of a man who, before 1989, was a supporter of the Communist Government in Poland. Therefore, one must suppose that he knew what he was talking about.
I do not understand why, in certain circles, the interests of Russian security come before the interests and security of her neighbours. Poland does not threaten Russia; nor does Hungary or the Czech Republic. They merely ask for a reasonable guarantee that they will not be invaded again by anyone.
Let us suppose that those countries are not admitted into NATO. What then, my Lords? Are we to sit on the sidelines once more while a major power, Russia or any other country, carves up those ancient countries to suit itself?
As a result of the Second World War and the Treaty of Yalta, Poland lost 52 per cent. of her national territory. She was then effectively subjugated by the Soviet Union in spite of the rather feeble protests of her western allies. I can think of no other country which was on the winning side and was so heavily penalised. Indeed, Poland was treated as a defeated nation in spite of her unprecedented contribution to allied victory. Tobruk, Monte Cassino and the Warsaw uprising spring instantly to mind. But there were many other occasions. Millions were uprooted and expelled from their homes in eastern Poland, and my own mother-in-law was one of them. Most of those people resettled in the annexed German territories from which, in their turn, millions of Germans were expelled to make room for them. That was a crime against humanity on a vast scale.

631
I must say to your Lordships that Poland did not ask for or contribute to that huge displacement of her national frontiers. That was imposed upon her. In those circumstances, do we not owe Poland a belated debt and at least a guarantee of her right to live within those borders which we, along with the Soviets and the Americans, dictated to her. From my experience today, I can say that the Poles are realists. They do not seek more than they now have, which is a great deal less than they used to have. But they do not seek to reverse the results of the historic crimes against their nation—partitions and so on. They seek only security within their present frontiers and consider that membership of NATO is the best guarantee that they can have.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I must add my gratitude to that of other noble Lords and thank my noble friend Lord Kennet for addressing this issue this afternoon.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has said already that there is much discussion in the United States and Russia but not very much discussion here. First, I wish to point out a very significant article which appeared in the New York Times on 5th February. That was by George Kennan. As we all know, he more or less invented the strategy that the US followed and which ultimately led to NATO and the Cold War. The article was titled, "A Fateful Error". Mr. Kennan puts forward his view and stresses that it is a view which is shared by many other people who know about the subject. He says,
"The view, bluntly stated, is that expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era".
Although these points have been made, I wish to quote Mr. George Kennan again as to why he thinks in that way. He goes on to say:
"Such a decision may he expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking. And, last but not least, it might make it much more difficult, if not impossible, to secure the Russian Duma's ratification of the Start II agreement and to achieve further reductions of nuclear weaponry".
I repeated that only because here is someone who has not only thought a lot about the subject but who was also very active in the construction of the cold war strategy; and he thinks that it was a "fateful error".
In its editorial on 17th February, when Madeleine Albright was beginning her visit to Europe, The Times said, basically:
"The most urgent reason for Europeans to rise to the Albright challenge is that the centrepiece of her European strategy, the enlargement of NATO by 1990, is dangerously misjudged. Far from enhancing the security of the European continent, this imminent decision risks creating fresh sources of insecurity, inviting confrontation with Russia and, by weakening Nato's military credibility, impairing the Alliance's capacity to respond to new dangers that wiser policies might avert".
I have dealt extensively with quotations from the general debate because, like many other speakers, I am not an expert on the matter. However, I read about it. When
632
I read about it I find myself rather alarmed. I have to add that I am equally alarmed about the enlargement of the EU, but we will leave that matter to another day. Indeed, I believe that the enlargement of the EU will destroy the European Union both economically and politically but, as I said, we should leave that to another day.
However, it is quite true to say that the countries of central and eastern Europe have legitimate security needs and that they also have a sovereign right to join NATO if they want to do so. There is no argument about that. But the result of leaving the Ukraine, Byelorussia and the Baltic States out of NATO expansion, with some countries coming in while others do not, is that it is not quite clear why the line is being drawn and where it is being drawn. However, I shall leave that for the time being. We already have the North Atlantic Co-operation Council and "Partnership for Peace". It is not as if those countries have not been made welcome. To go beyond "Partnership for Peace"—and I emphasise the words "to go beyond"—would be to go where the militaristic element would come into the debate. Let us leave it at that level and encourage Russian democracy. If Russia ends up a democracy, that would be the best guarantee for European security.
4.43 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Kennet for persisting in his efforts to give these issues an airing at a time when many people's attention is fixed almost exclusively on domestic politics. International relations is a difficult subject and one is inclined to defer to the opinions of experts. However, occasionally an issue arises which ought to be accessible to anyone who considers the matter without prejudice. I believe that this debate on the proposal that NATO should expand eastwards is just such an occasion, and that common sense dictates that the proposal should be strongly resisted.
Some years ago, the West was surprised when the old autocratic and corrupt Soviet leadership was replaced by a new generation of urbane, sophisticated and highly civilised politicians, eager to bring the Cold War to an end and to assume amicable relationships with the West. We seemed to be entering a new phase of that perpetual cycle wherein Russia alternates between Europhobia and Europhilia. Historically, the phases of the cycle have been long ones; and so the advent of a new leadership promised to be the beginning of a long period of friendship, or at least of mutual tolerance. It was recognised, even by the staunchest opponents of Soviet Russia, that we could do business with such persons as Mikhail Gorbachev, Edward Shevardnadze and their spokesman Genady Gerasimov.
However, instead of supporting these politicians, we treated them with exaggerated caution and they were replaced by others of a coarser nature. Now we seem set to repeat our mistakes. By threatening the expansion of NATO, we are inciting the fears of the Russian military establishment whose protagonists seem set to make headway in Russian domestic politics and we are giving ample justification to the atavistic chauvinism which is quickly gaining electoral popularity in Russia.

633
Recently, Jacques Chirac, President of France, increased the pressure upon the Russians by promising, during a visit to Bucharest, to press the case for Romania's admission to NATO. That is a highly provocative attitude. It brings to mind episodes from the past which many of us in the West have forgotten but which are well remembered by the Russians.
Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, western politicians strove to establish a cordon sanitaire around Soviet Russia. The countries recruited to the cause were a motley collection of monarchies and proto-fascist regimes which surrounded the communist empire. Such countries as Romania, Serbia, Hungary and Poland were recruited. The list, which is a long one, is in fact coextensive with that of the post-war satellite nations of the Soviet Union.
The hostile stance towards Russia of these countries before the war was seen by the Russians as ample justification for their subsequent invasion and subjugation. I am not for a moment suggesting that they now face a similar threat of Russian invasion. Russia no longer has the military capacity for such purposes; nor indeed does it have the will. I am simply suggesting that unless we behave with due caution we are liable to damage our relationship with the new Russia in a way which might be quite irreparable.
Some people may be inclined to ask why we should care about the quality of this relationship. The answer is that it is very much in our interests to do so. In the first place, we have seen how the passing of the "Pax Russica"—if that is what we can call it—led to bloody and costly conflicts on the borders of the erstwhile Soviet Union; it is in our interests to do everything that we can to settle such conflicts before the damage is inflicted. We shall not be well placed to do so if we antagonise both the Russian politicians and the Russian military.
In the second place, some of the decaying military hardware of the Soviet empire poses a global ecological threat which Russia is incapable of addressing on its own. Rotting at anchor in the military ports of the Arctic and the Black Sea are the nuclear vessels which were once the pride of the Soviet navy. We need to seek maximum co-operation with the Russians in an attempt to dispose of these hazards as quickly as possible.
At the moment the West seems bent on achieving the opposite effect. I do not believe that a consensus will emerge among the nations of NATO to admit new members from the East. However, by mooting such proposals in the face of Russian opposition, we are doing a great deal of harm to our relationships with them.
We are being foolishly provocative in other connections too. When US secret service operatives—quiet Americans, if you will—crop up in the Crimea and the southern Caucasus, then, regardless of their intentions, one can be certain that their presence will be interpreted as a provocation by the already nervous Russians.
634
We can afford to be overt in our relations with our erstwhile Cold War adversaries; and, for the reasons that I have already stated, it is a priority that we establish good working military relationships with them.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I apologise profusely to the House for speaking in the gap, and I shall be brief. I believe that the Russians are been implementing a massive exercise of disinformation over NATO enlargement, with the aim of throwing NATO into confusion and off course.
During a visit to NATO last November I gained the impression after listening to the Russian Ambassador that, despite their strong protestations, they have discounted current problems with the enlargement of NATO. These particularly well publicised Russian objections will continue and are part of a campaign to ensure there is no second phase of NATO enlargement with the possibility of the inclusion of Ukraine. The alliance should push ahead now with enlargement within the planned time frame.
Central European countries are concerned that unless they become members of NATO they would be the first to suffer from any future aggression by Russia, although this is unlikely as things stand at the moment. It is not surprising therefore that some of these countries wish to join the alliance. The argument that is heard that NATO will be on the borders of Russia and is an aggressive organisation is far from the truth, and the Russians know this. If Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary were to be admitted to NATO, there is only one small piece of territory that borders on Russia, and that is in Poland with the small surrounded Kaliningrad Province.
Russia well knows that the foundation stones of NATO are a defensive alliance. Central European countries will never become allies with Russia, and if they are not allowed to join NATO there is a distinct fear that they might well form their own security treaties in the future and include Ukraine. This clearly would be of much greater concern not only to Russia but also to the West. If this should happen I can see real dangers, in that NATO could well lose its influence and bickering and threats by central European countries and by Germany could well bring about another appalling world war disaster. I believe it is in the interests of not only the West but also of Russia if some of the Warsaw Pact countries are within a responsible military organisation such as NATO which could control them.
Russia has exercised a clever and effective disinformation campaign against the West, banking on the fact that Western parliaments may not wish to accept enlargement of NATO. NATO solidarity has also been badly breached by Presidents Kohl and Chirac, the former saying to President Yeltsin that NATO will not enlarge without Russian acquiescence, and the latter saying there will be further negotiation before any future enlargement. The Russians have succeeded in buying time and have embarked on a course of haggling.
In conclusion, I am aware that the Russians respect strength and solidarity. It is essential that they are prevented from driving a wedge between NATO

635
countries to stop future enlargement. The alliance should press ahead under the Secretary General, announcing its decisions for enlargement this July. NATO must not be thrown off course, as it would be much more dangerous for Europe if some central European countries are not admitted to NATO within the planned time schedule. I do not believe that this is a matter for choice but a vital requirement if peace is to continue in Europe. NATO, a military organisation, secured victory in the Cold War. It is the bedrock of Western defence and has kept the peace for over 50 years. Now is not the time to shirk our responsibilities: we should press ahead with enlargement to ensure everlasting peace for the future.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I read with interest the major speech on NATO enlargement given by our Foreign Secretary last Monday in which he told his audience that no issue is more important to British foreign policy than the future security of Europe. It was absurd that he should have delivered that speech in Washington and not in London. It is equally distressing and absurd that we should have a Friday afternoon short debate on what the Foreign Secretary has just admitted is a central issue for British foreign policy and for the West as a whole.
We have had no major debate in either House, no major Government statement, no White Paper and no major Government speech of any sort. This is secret foreign policy, or, I have to say, disguising from one's parliamentary party and one's public what sort of foreign policy one is pursuing. It is too late to question the principle of NATO enlargement. I regret that we embarked upon this process but we have been committed—the British Government and others—for over two years since the January 1994 NATO summit. The process is now moving fast past unprepared parliaments and unprepared publics. In July 1997 NATO will announce at its next summit which candidate it wishes to accept. Madeleine Albright has told us that by December 1997 she intends to have the negotiations completed for an entry date of April 1999. Strobe Talbott, her deputy, now talks regularly about a new NATO—rather like the new Labour Party we have which is somewhat as it used to be but at the same time is entirely different—a different alliance already. The enlargement clearly must, and will, change NATO further from an alliance to a European security organisation.
What I believe I see us moving towards—which is clearly not what either the Americans or our own Government intend—is a European security organisation that is very different from the alliance that it was: an OSCE, with an integrated military structure, a framework for transforming national military organisations into units that can operate on joint multi-lateral missions, an effective structure for peacekeeping and peace making. That is where I hope we are now moving.
636
Partnership with Russia is very clearly the key. It is important to be generous towards Russia in order to make NATO enlargement a success. What is on the table—again, placed there by the Americans with the British doggedly following behind—is extremely generous. It includes a NATO/Russia council; a permanent Russian mission in Brussels; joint planning activities; potential combined joint task forces; Russia becoming a member of G7, expanding G7 to G8; and a change in the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty—half-membership in effect, which would change NATO further. Half-membership for Ukraine, too, is already in effect agreed, which, again, will make NATO, a rather different organisation from the one that we saw three or four years ago.
I regret American unilateralism in this entire process. I regret also the imperial tone in which the Americans address their allies. I regret the way in which our own Government follow the American lead unquestioningly. Indeed, Mr. Rifkind addressed the American public—those who were not convinced—and told them why they should accept their own Administration's lead. It would be kinder if he explained to the British public why he is convinced that this is a process that has to continue.
Americans want NATO to shape Europe's future, not the European Union. They are affected by all sorts of unworthy purposes including bureaucratic self-interest and arms industry interests. Nevertheless, it seems that we have the potential to make NATO enlargement a major contribution to the future security and stability of Europe.
Which countries do we wish to bring in first, and how do we link their inclusion with the new enlargement? I regret the German idea that Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary should be the three countries that enter both organisations. It is important to open up so far as possible. I therefore strongly support Slovenia and Romania being included within the first round of NATO enlargement, and Estonia being included within the first round of EU enlargement. The Romanians have made great progress towards solving their border disputes with Ukraine in the past six months. There is a good deal to be said for trying to bring them in if we can.
We can make a success of this enlargement, but only if we work to include Russia so far as possible; co-ordinate the two processes of enlargement with the European Union; resist the American habit of over-riding European interests, which means working more closely with our European partners; and if our Government and others pay some attention to educating their parliaments and publics to what is at stake.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for raising this issue. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that it is rather extraordinary that the Government did not offer an opportunity to either House to debate what in any sense, and by general admission, is one of the greatest geo-political problems of our time. Here we are, debating it at five o'clock on a Friday afternoon in this

637
House, myself restricted, as were the noble Lord, Lord Wallace and others, to five minutes. In those five minutes I have to try to explain what is the position of my party. I shall endeavour to do so, because, as noble Lords will be aware, there is an event which may take place on 1st May, and if that event goes a certain way it may be my party that will be in charge of subsequent events so far as NATO enlargement is concerned.
It is indeed a sensitive moment. I would not wish any of my remarks to influence the negotiations that are taking place, many of them behind the scenes. There are matters about which we must be very careful. I recognise that my remarks may in some respects offend some of my noble friends. That is a problem that may arise from time to time in speaking from the Dispatch Box—you may disagree with what your noble friends behind you say.
We support the enlargement of NATO to incorporate some of the new democracies of central and eastern Europe. The countries which are widely expected to be invited are Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and my noble friend Lord Kennet rightly pointed out, enlargement needs to be approached sensitively to ensure that it does not create new barriers and sources of division across the European continent and so that the difficulties do not develop into a major blow-up. In particular, we believe that the whole process of enlargement must go in parallel with measures that include Russia in a wider security framework in Europe.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Park, I would say that there should be a stronger European component to the NATO alliance. We are strongly in favour of strengthening the Western European Union. But it must be the Western European Union. We are not in favour of giving the European Union itself a military competence.
Having said that rather quickly, perhaps I may go on to make three points. First, however sensitive this may be, there is no question in our view of allowing Russia a veto over who should be members of the NATO alliance. Alliance members have agreed that enlargement cannot be considered in isolation but as part of a wider process of constructing an improved security structure in the whole of the Euro-Atlantic area. That is what we shall try to achieve if we gain office.
Secondly, new members of NATO, assuming that they come in at Madrid next year, will need to reach a minimal level of military activity. Enlargement, after all, means that Article 5 of the NATO charter will apply—an attack on one member will be seen as an attack on all members. New countries will therefore have to spend considerable amounts to bring their military capability up to Western standards. I do not at the moment believe that the candidates, other than Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said about Romania, are up to that standard. I am doubtful—indeed my party is doubtful—whether candidates other than Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and possibly Slovenia could be serious candidates for NATO enlargement.
My third point is about Russia. I hope your Lordships will excuse me if I run through this rather quickly. Russia is the key to the whole matter of how the
638
enlargement of NATO can proceed without a major blow-up. There is no doubt that diplomatic efforts are in course and I do not want in any way to affect the negotiations that are taking place. Whatever we may say in the House today and whatever others may say outside, the Americans are determined to go ahead with NATO enlargement. We must try, in so far as we can, to influence the United States into a positive relationship but, from all that I hear, I think they have taken the point. After all, we have to renegotiate the CFE treaty. The CFE treaty becomes nonsense once the major former states of the Warsaw Pact are loaded on our side in CFE terms and Russia remains on the other side in CFE terms.
It has been suggested that there should be created a NATO-Russia joint brigade for peacekeeping and a NATO-Russia council. All these things are being suggested and promoted by the United States Government. We believe that that is right and we generally support that initiative.
But fundamentally the problem is how NATO evolves. That is where we get to the point where NATO has in the course of time to stop being a Cold War operation, as the Russians perceive it, and become more of a Euro-Atlantic security arrangement. I believe that that is something that will happen only when trust has been created and re-created. That is going to be a long and complicated diplomatic process. We wish that diplomatic process well.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I welcome the debate that we have had this afternoon about NATO's future. I have to try to run through quite a lot as quickly as possible. If I do not answer one or two of the points raised, it is not that I do not have the answers, but a question of time.
No issue has a higher priority in Britain's foreign policy than NATO's future. NATO is the most successful defence alliance the world has ever seen. It has given its members unprecedented peace for nearly half a century. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, expressed the view that NATO enlargement would undermine rather than enhance European security. In my comments I hope to demonstrate that that view is based on outmoded concepts of relations between the states of Europe.
The Cold War is over and our policy now must be to remove the last vestiges of the Iron Curtain and not, as the Foreign Secretary said in a recent speech, to "rust proof and repaint it". There is undeniably Russian hostility to NATO enlargement, but available opinion surveys suggest that the issue is of less concern to the Russian public than their economic and social well-being. Even among the political elite opposition to NATO enlargement is by no means universal.
Any doubts about whether NATO had a post-cold war role are well and truly behind us. Bosnia reminded us of that. Peace in post-cold war Europe cannot be taken for granted. The history of Europe has left many animosities and tensions, particularly in the east. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, spoke of the need to promote

639
a planned European security architecture ranging more widely than NATO. We agree. An enlarged NATO would be one of the cornerstones of this new structure, but in parallel we are pursuing with equal vigour the enhancement of NATO's co-operation with partner countries in the Partnership for Peace and the new Atlantic Partnership Council and working on developing a real partnership between NATO and Russia as well as supporting the enhancement of the operational capabilities for the OSCE. That links in with the EU enlargement, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.
NATO's military capabilities are unique and vital. No other organisation has a comparable military capability. NATO remains the cornerstone of our security and its opening to new members will help to ensure that it will remain so well into the next century. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that the US commitment to Europe and its embodiment in NATO is vital to our security.
NATO enlargement is not a new policy. Several noble Lords asked, why the sudden rush? NATO has enlarged three times before, admitting Germany, then Greece and Turkey and then Spain. In January 1994 NATO Heads of Government announced that they expected and would welcome enlargement reaching to democratic states to the east.
A major study on enlargement, agreed by all the allies, was published in 1995. Since then a dozen countries have applied to join the alliance. NATO is not forcing enlargement on them, but responding to their freely expressed desire to join. Last December foreign ministers announced that at a summit in Madrid in July NATO will invite one or more countries to begin accession negotiations. Not until these negotiations have been concluded and approval given by the parliaments of the existing members will NATO admit new members. NATO expects the first new members to take their places in time for the organisation's 50th anniversary in 1999.
I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that the Government will continue to mount a measured and considered approach to the important decisions facing us at the Madrid Summit. The process has not been rushed. NATO's intentions have been publicly known and debated for several years. The process of enlargement will be predictable and transparent. My noble friend Lord Vivian mentioned the need to avoid delay. There is no question of delay either to suit Russia or anyone else. The process will continue according to the timetable.
How could we justify not enlarging? NATO's membership reflects an earlier point in history and circumstances have changed. The countries of central Europe share our aspirations. For NATO to abandon enlargement now would undermine stability and security in central Europe.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, spoke about the lessons of history. History teaches us that instability in central Europe can unbalance the entire continent. My noble
640
friend Lord Bethell would agree that by going back on NATO's agreed enlargement policy we would hand a propaganda victory to NATO's hard-line opponents in Moscow. They would argue that Russia should keep NATO at arm's length to discourage any return to the policy of enlargement. It is only by continuing in a measured, gradual and transparent way with the enlargement process that we can help all Russians to see that an enlarged NATO would benefit their security.
The countries of central Europe share our aspirations and a willingness to accept part of NATO's collective responsibilities. We should not deny them NATO membership. I agree with my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton that the strong desire of Poland for the security that NATO provides is entirely understandable given its history. The Foreign Secretary has said that we are strong supporters of Poland's accession to NATO and the EU.
We have consistently opposed the concept of "fortress Europe" in the context of the European Union and yet some would have us cling to it in the context of NATO.
It is important to remember that NATO's raison d'être is not just military, but also political. Since the end of the Second World War, NATO has provided something that Europe has never had before—a stabilising framework within which forces of nationalism in Europe could be constrained. Military prowess, for long the last arbiter of national pride, has been harnessed for the benefit of all. For centuries the nations of western Europe had fought each other. War among them is now inconceivable. We have above all NATO to thank for that.
Some argue that EU enlargement alone will achieve our policy objectives. But the new democracies in central and eastern Europe need a security policy in which their peoples can be confident. For the foreseeable future it is only NATO that can provide a real and credible common defence, with guarantees, for its members.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, asked: why not rest on the Partnership for Peace? The Partnership for Peace has been a valuable engine in political and military co-operation beyond NATO's borders. It is only NATO membership that can provide the mutual defence guarantees that will provide new members with full security and prevent the emergence of national defence policies.
Only NATO can prevent the re-emergence in central Europe of national defence policies that would both be more expensive for the countries concerned and appear more threatening to their neighbours. This is where it will make the most essential contribution to the stability of an historically volatile region.
The process of enlargement is already yielding tangible benefits to European security and is encouraging the adoption across central and eastern Europe of policies aimed at realising NATO's values: democracy, individual liberty, the rule of law.
The 12 countries aspiring to membership are working to bring their armed forces under full democratic control and to promote transparency in defence planning. They

641
are increasingly working to resolve external disputes peacefully in accordance with internationally accepted principles.
Enlargement will also bring real military benefits to the alliance, not least by broadening NATO's ability to undertake crisis management operations underpinned by collective planning and full interoperability. NATO will not be able to admit everyone at once. The allies will have to make hard-headed calculations of the effect of enlargement on the internal structure of NATO to ensure that there is no dilution of its effectiveness.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked about Romania. NATO has not decided which countries will be invited to begin accession negotiations at Madrid. Twelve countries have expressed an interest in joining. The decision will be taken nearer the Madrid summit.
My noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth asked about NATO's infrastructure and readiness. NATO will ensure that, in enlarging, its ability to fulfil its mutual defence commitments to all members is not diluted. The decision as to whom to invite to join will be based on the allies' assessment of the credentials of individual candidates and the wider effect on European security of inviting them. There are strong arguments for a manageable first group. To invite too many would place a strain on NATO, reduce the credibility of NATO's pledge of continued openness and increase Russian concerns. There is no reason why this enlargement, NATO's fourth, should be its last. At Madrid NATO heads of government will repeat the alliance's pledge that the door will remain open to those willing and able to further its goals.
642
The noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, asked about the ultimate borders of NATO. We do not believe that it would be sensible or responsible to fix the ultimate borders in advance. It would not be fair to those countries which do not yet wish to take a public position on the question of NATO membership. We do not believe that any European country should be ruled out of further consideration. The noble Earl also referred to the Estonia-Russia border negotiations. We welcome the recent progress in those negotiations and hope that the positive steps taken by Estonia will lead to early agreement. If for reasons outside Estonia's control there are further delays, we see no reason why they should obstruct progress towards its membership of the EU. The Foreign Secretary raised this issue with Mr. Primakov when he met him on 28th February.
NATO enlargement is not directed against Russia or anyone else, but Russian leaders have a genuine problem in accepting that and explaining it to their public. We are sympathetic to their legitimate security concerns. NATO therefore is offering Russia a unique relationship—a partnership whose centrepiece will be a new joint body that will consult routinely on security issues of concern to either side and oversee deep and systematic military and practical co-operation, including joint planning, training, exercises and operations. Formal talks between NATO and Russia on the new relationship are now under way. We would be happy to see the new relationship enshrined in a charter that would clearly set out the scope and limits of co-operation and consultation between NATO and Russia.
I have considerably more to say but I know that time has caught up with me.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past five o'clock.

  Vulnerable Witnesses: Cross-examination by Unrepresented Defendants
  Vulnerable Witnesses: Cross-examination by Unrepresented Defendants
  Fire Services: PFI Pathfinder Projects
  Fire Services: PFI Pathfinder Projects
  Casino Deregulation
  Casino Deregulation