asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the NHS Plan and the NHS Cancer Plan both committed the Government to introducing a prostate screening programme if and when screening and treatment techniques are sufficiently well developed. The evidence supporting the introduction of a screening programme will he kept under careful review by the National Screening Committee.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware of research by King's College hospital and Lister hospital which suggests that black men are more prone to cancer and subject to the most virulent types of cancer? Is the department liaising with or supporting Gordon Muir? His research was drawn to my attention by my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester.

My Lords, I am happy to take my noble friend's suggestion back to the department. I understand—these findings are based on American data—that there are differences in instances of and mortality from prostate cancer between blacks and whites and other ethnic groups. The National Screening Committee has commissioned a review of the evidence for an increase in instances of prostate cancer in Afro-Caribbean men. If that is identified as a result of the review, we shall of course consider what action needs to be taken.

My Lords, does the Minister recall that on the two occasions on which I have raised this matter we were told that one of the problems was that screening was not satisfactory and that false positives were common? Does he agree how important it is for men from any ethnic group to be aware of the need to seek care and assessment if they suspect that they have symptoms? There needs to be a culture change among all men—younger men in particular, not simply those over 50—to make them aware of the need to see their doctor if they have any doubts.

My Lords, I do not disagree with the noble Baroness's point. She will be aware that there are problems with the PSA test and that, while treatment can be effective, it has some very undesirable side effects. Because of that, the Department of Health is developing an education programme about prostate cancer, which will be published in a few months' time. That will focus on ensuring that when men see their general practitioner they are able to reach an informed decision about the risks and benefits of taking a test.

My Lords, I know my noble friend will recall my correspondence with him and my parliamentary questions over the past four years about the deeply important issue raised so well by my noble friend Lady Howells. But is he aware that the initial research findings of Gordon Muir, the distinguished urologist, suggest a 50 per cent higher incidence of prostate cancer among black men in the King's College Hospital's catchment area? Is there not a pressing need now to make further such research an urgent priority and to alert those who are shown by research in this country and abroad to be at exceptional risk of having inoperable cancer?

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments. I have already made clear that we shall look closely at such research. The point that he makes is borne out by statistics gathered in the United States. I have already said that the NSC will review the evidence that is available in this country, and that that will have an impact on our future policies towards prostate cancer.

My Lords, pursuing the matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, does the Minister accept that there is growing concern about the situation in relation to prostate cancer and that that concern arises in particular from the fact that what was assumed to be a satisfactory test—the PSA test—is no longer regarded as being satisfactory and that no alternative has been proposed? At the same time, we are told that, if the condition is not diagnosed in time, life can be threatened. Surely the situation demands much greater action than is presently being taken.

My Lords, that is why the Government have increased the resources—to £4.2 million by 2003–04—to be spent on research into prostate cancer and on testing and treatment, which were discussed by the noble Lord. On the PSA test., the problem is that some men with prostate cancer will not have a raised PSA level whereas some men with a raised PSA level will not have prostate cancer. The other problem, which relates to treatment, is that it is estimated that the operation may cause operative deaths of between 0.4 and 0.6 per cent, some incontinence in up to 20 per cent of cases, and impotence in between 20 and 85 per cent of people who are treated, depending on the patient's age. That is why such caution is displayed in this country towards testing and treatment. That is also why we need to ensure that our research effort is as effective as possible.

My Lords, as a survivor thus far of radiotherapy for prostate cancer, and I hope a reasonably good advertisement for it, I ask whether the noble Lord is aware of the presentation by Georg Bartsch to the American Urological Association Year 2000 annual meeting, which showed that the introduction of PSA screening in the Austrian state of Tyrol, where there are 62,000 men between the ages of 45 and 75, was followed in 1998 by a 42 per cent lower mortality rate from prostate cancer than in the rest of Austria where there is no such screening. Existing techniques were used, which suggests that they are worth pursuing.

My Lords, I am prepared to look at the research to which the noble Lord has referred, but we need to treat such figures and comparisons between this country and other countries with a degree of caution. My impression is that diagnosis of prostate cancer is higher in other countries than in this country because the PSA test is used more frequently in those other countries. However, that would tend to suggest that the survival rate, if equalled out, is not as different as is often claimed because in this country we do not see so many people diagnosed with prostate cancer.

My Lords, as another survivor of this unpleasant disease through being diagnosed early due to having had a PSA test, I ask the Minister not to accept that the level of false positives is grossly exaggerated. Does he accept that many treatments for women with the same level of false positives are supported by the Government? Does he also accept that most doctors, and nearly all sufferers, believe that that policy is driven more by the Treasury and less by considerations of health?

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his experience. The Government received advice, not from the Treasury, but from the National Screening Committee. We continue to follow the advice of that committee, which is that using current techniques for testing and treatment there is no evidence that a screening programme would save lives. As I said, the Government are not complacent. We have stepped up by many hundreds in percentage terms the amount of money spent on research in this important area.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government welcome the Ombudsman's report. The Government agree with his conclusions that there can be no excuse for some departments to fail to deal effectively with requests under the code of practice. Recently the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office has written to his colleagues to remind them that they are required to comply fully with the provisions of the code.

Although not complacent about the failings identified by the ombudsman, we should recognise the Government's achievements in promoting openness. In 1995, there were 44 complaints to the ombudsman about non-disclosure under the code. I am happy to report that in 1999 that number reduced to 36. In 1995, 8.4 per cent of requests under the code were refused and in 1999 that had reduced to 6.3 per cent. The Government have, through the Freedom of Information Act 2000, provided, for the first time, a wide-ranging statutory right to information. When implemented, the Act will replace the code and, in particular, will provide a free and direct means for the public to enforce and to access their rights.

My Lords, naturally I welcome what the Minister has said, but does he agree that that is a wholly unacceptable standard for the moment? Will the Government ensure that the kind of attitudes shown up in the ombudsman's report are wholly eliminated before we move from the code of conduct to the Freedom of Information Act?

My Lords, this is one of those areas where there is broad political agreement, certainly between the Benches of the noble Lord and our own Benches. Yes, of course, we need to tackle the culture of secrecy that, over many decades, has taken root in some parts of our institutions. I cannot give an undertaking that we shall root out all of that before we implement the Freedom of Information Act, but the training and the learning exercise that needs to take place to deal with that problem is important.

I believe that departments are robust in dealing with complaints where the ombudsman has upheld them. I congratulate the ombudsman and the departments on their positive responses, as noted in the report. Progress has been made, but there is more to do. We are proud to have introduced the Freedom of Information Act. However, we know that we have a long way to go in tackling that culture of privacy and secrecy that, at times, is all too pervasive.

My Lords, has my noble friend noticed that in case after case, even where the outcome has been satisfactory, the ombudsman criticised the way in which the request for information was initially dealt with and, in his introduction, pointed out that some departments appear even now not to recognise that requests for information have to be dealt with under the code? When may we expect to see a proper training scheme in place for all staff, as was discussed during the debates on the Freedom of Information Bill?

My Lords, I cannot be specific about the dates for the commencement of training, but of course, we need to have a lead-in so that departments can deal effectively with such issues. Training will be absolutely critical. The need for a national roll-out plan is urgent and we are in the process of preparing one. Although the Act provides us with up to five years to introduce roll-out training and so on, we would expect to bring matters forward much sooner than that.

My Lords, will there be full disclosure of the invitation list for the recent party for lawyers given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, or is that secret?

My Lords, I would take such questions seriously if the party opposite had, during its 18 years in government, introduced a Freedom of Information Bill.

My Lords, may I, through the Minister, express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who in response to a Question which I tabled for Written Answer valiantly fought to obtain the names of members of a working party? I received his reply today and I am most grateful to him.

My Lords, I am always pleased to receive congratulations from wherever they come.

My Lords, would the Minister mind answering the question posed by my noble friend Lord Cope?

My Lords, I believe that I made my position perfectly clear on the matter and I believe that most Members of your Lordships' House agree with me.

My Lords, does the Minister still not recognise that the code of practice was stronger than the Freedom of Information Act?

My Lords, the Government's Freedom of Information Act is a profound piece of legislation. I believe that it is as profound as the Human Rights Act. I believe that, over time, it will change the culture of secrecy which many in your Lordships' House sought to defend for far too long. I believe that our Act is effective and robust and provides an important right of access for the people of our country.

My Lords, will the Minister stretch his mind far enough to accept the possibility that answering a question and making his own position clear are not necessarily the same thing?

My Lords, I believe that they are pretty roughly adjacent.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the new US Administration, while stressing their commitment to national missile defence, have made no decision on the development or deployment of a specific system. The US has made clear that prior to making any such decision it will consult fully with allies, with Russia and with others. We expect formal consultations to be scheduled with NATO allies once the US has developed its thinking further.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, the Prime Minister recently implied that if there were to be such requests from the United States, he would be inclined to give a positive reply. Is the Minister aware of the deep concern among many of our European Union allies, including those who are loyal allies of NATO, such as Germany and Italy? Would the Government support efforts made in particular by the German Government and others to try to bring Russia and possibly China within a negotiation that would allow the ABM treaty to survive and any possible NMD initiative to be associated with large-scale disarmament proposals under the Start 2 and Start 3 treaties?

My Lords, we fully understand how serious and sensitive the issue is but I reaffirm what I said in my Answer. The United States Government are determining how to take the matter forward and they have come to no conclusion in relation to the specific form. It is also clear that the issue is a matter of anxious debate with our European allies and with the Russians. We are comforted by the statements made in particular by Colin Powell that those concerns will be taken into account and that consultations will continue. We believe that we should be fully involved in that situation and we will take those discussions further.

My Lords, while it is reassuring to know that the United States will consult with friendly and major nations on the subject, can we have an assurance that the British Government will consult with the British Parliament?

My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that in any matter which needs to come through this House or the other place the Government have always honoured their responsibility.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in the hard realities of the age in which we live real dangers face us in the sphere of international terrorism and the possible use of nuclear/chemical weapons by unorthodox means? Does she further agree that before we go down the road of "gi-normous" expenditure, it would be as well to examine how far such a system would defend us against the real and likely attacks which lie ahead?

My Lords, I repeat that I understand the anxiety that has been generated by the issue. It is serious and sensitive. However, noble Lords will know that we undertook our own Strategic Defence Review in 1998 and as far as we are concerned that review stands. We shall continue to identify those issues which best serve the safety and security of the British people. That is not to fail to recognise the threat. We understand and sympathise with it.

My Lords, did not the Foreign Secretary say in Washington on 7th February, as reported in the Financial Times the following day, that an American national missile defence system could yield a net gain? Would the Minister spell out for us his thinking in saying that?

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary during his recent visit to Washington made clear that we fully understand and share the concerns of the United States about the threat from weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. The Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State Colin Powell agreed that we should work together to do all we can to strengthen the international regime against missile proliferation.

National missile defence would be one element of the new Administration's response to the threat and it is not in British interests for our closest allies to feel vulnerable to attack. However, as I have said twice, the new Administration have made clear that they have no firm views on a specific system. Therefore, we must take this stage by stage and not run before we have decided in which direction to walk. We will treat the matter with the same probity and judicious judgment that we have used in the past. The nation's security will remain our priority.

My Lords, will the wonderful Freedom of Information Act allow the British public to have access to the details of the agreement we have made with the Americans on the use of Fylingdales and the Mendip Hills and any changes which may be necessary to that agreement in order to accommodate the NMD process?

My Lords, I do understand. I wish that noble Lords would not run away on certain premises which are false. We have not been asked as yet for use of any of the facilities which the noble Lord described. If and when a request is made by our US allies, we will consider it and make a judicious judgment. That date has not yet arrived.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, told a conference held in Munich on 3rd February that America had a moral duty to press forward with the programme and wanted to discuss how to help the European nations and other allies to deploy missile defences? Does the Minister believe that it would be better for this country to be brought under the protection of a Russian missile defence system rather than a US-led NATO one? Does the Minister not agree that to work with the US rather than against it is the best way to proceed?

My Lords, perhaps I may say this, it is to be hoped, clearly and for the last time. We will work energetically with our oldest allies, the United States. This is an issue which we have been working on for quite some time. Noble Lords opposite should be left in no doubt that we understand the ambit of this issue and we will work with energy with all our allies. We are comforted by the fact that America and Russia are talking together about the self same issue.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government are providing £629 million of agrimonetary compensation, of which £233 million is optional, in recognition of the pressures faced by the agricultural industry. Agrimonetary compensation is partly compulsory and partly optional. Because much of the cost falls to the British taxpayer, either directly or indirectly through the Fontainebleau abatement, decisions on whether to pay the optional elements must be taken in the context of priorities for agriculture and other expenditure.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I ask the noble Baroness: why not, bearing in mind that the amount of money will run out in the course of the next two months and the incoming government will find it even more difficult, because if the full amount is not claimed this year the amount reduces next year?

My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Lord makes. However, our policy remains what it has been in the past. On every occasion when agrimonetary compensation has become available, we have looked carefully at the state of the industry and the prospects of the sectors concerned, as well as at other calls on the UK exchequer. We shall examine the optional compensation, the details of which we shall learn at the end of this month, on the same basis.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that essentially the impact of the Fontainebleau mechanism to which she referred in her Answer is that the UK remains responsible for paying the whole of it by virtue of lost income to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? In those circumstances, nowadays is it not perhaps much more effective to concentrate on fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy, which will certainly be necessary if British farmers are to survive in an enlarged European Union?

My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the point that my noble friend makes. It is wrong to represent agrimonetary compensation, as sometimes happens, as some kind of free good from Europe. Because of the rebate, the payment of only the EU contribution costs UK taxpayers about 71p for every pound spent, and when it involves matched funding the figure rises to 85p in the pound. As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, that is the reason why we have to look at whether the money is best directed at sustaining people in what are admittedly very difficult circumstances or trying to support them in the restructuring of agriculture for sustainable incomes in future.

My Lords, can the Minister say whether there is any real conflict between the two? The Minister is well aware of the tremendous damage done to agriculture as a result of the difference between the high value of sterling and the cheaper euro, in addition to the BSE crisis and several others. Does the Minister agree that it is wise for the Treasury to match the funds available under the agrimonetary compensation scheme? Does she recognise that there is a very strong case for adding the problems of the agricultural industry to the five criteria which the Chancellor will consider in giving advice on whether or not this country should enter the euro-zone?

My Lords, the criteria which the Chancellor will consider have been made absolutely clear in the past, and I am not sure that it would be of assistance to add to that at this stage. However, the noble Baroness makes the important point that the difference in the value of currencies has been one of the main difficulties faced by the agricultural industry. That is why £629 million in agrimonetary compensation has been drawn down in sectors like cereals, which may surprise people. However, this is public expenditure, and we must look not only at short-term support but also at the issue to which my noble friend referred—reform of the CAP—as well as at transfer into the rural development budget.

My Lords, can the Minister say whether the ewe premium comes into agrimonetary compensation? Does it come directly from Brussels or does the Treasury have some part to play in it? If it is the former, can the Minister confirm that last year the Ministry overestimated the British sheep flock by 1 million, which represents a considerable loss? I have worked out that the loss to British farmers is about 50p per ewe.

My Lords, I am not sure about the difficulties which may arise in terms of estimates of the national flock, and on that point I shall write to the noble Countess. The sheep annual premium is the difference between a Community-wide target price and average sheep prices on the Community market. If market prices are high, the SAP rate is low. Market prices in member states are reported to the Commission in national currencies. The Commission converts them into euros using current market rates. If the euro is weak, the conversion will provide higher euro rates nearer the target price, thus producing a lower rate of premium. I understand that the Commission is concerned about how the calculation is working currently and is looking at proposals which potentially make it slightly simpler.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a farmer. Does not the effect of the Minister's reply mean that the agricultural community is being deprived of funds from Europe to which it is en titled and which it desperately needs?

My Lords, I have tried to make clear in my responses that we are not being deprived of funds from Europe. All the mandatory agrimonetary compensation is, by definition, mandatory and is drawn down. Decisions about optional agrimonetary compensation are taken by every eligible country on the basis of national circumstances. In this country the national circumstances are such that, because of Fontainebleau, compensation involves large amounts of UK rather than EU expenditure. Therefore, questions about the proper disposition of public expenditure come into the equation.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that for British farmers the best way forward would be a substantial reform of the CAP, as her right honourable friend Mr Nick Brown endeavoured to bring about during the Agenda 2000 discussions in Brussels? Does my noble friend agree that reform of the CAP would help British farmers and in achieving European Union accessions?

Yes, my Lords.

My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make a Statement about coalition operations to enforce the no-fly zones over Iraq. Since the end of the Gulf conflict in 1991, the goal of our policy has been to contain the threat to regional security posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. This policy has been successful. Without our efforts, Saddam would have been free to maintain and develop his weapons of mass destruction and military capability, and he would have been free to bully and threaten his neighbours with impunity as he did in the past. As we approach the anniversary of the liberation of Kuwait, we can look back with satisfaction that these aims have been achieved.

As your Lordships will be aware, coalition patrols of the no-fly zones have been conducted since the early 1990s in support of UN Security Council Resolution 688, which demanded an end to Saddam Hussein's repression of his own people. They have served a vital humanitarian purpose over the past decade in limiting Saddam's ability brutally to repress the Shias and the Kurds. Without them Saddam would be free, as he was prior to their establishment, to use aircraft and helicopter gunships to further his barbarous ends. The patrols are justified in international law as a legitimate response to prevent a grave humanitarian crisis.

Since January 1999 Saddam's air defence units have mounted sustained and concerted efforts to shoot down coalition aircraft conducting this legitimate task. Over that period there have been over 1,200 attempts to shoot them down, using surface-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft artillery. Coalition aircraft have rightly been authorised to respond to this aggression in self-defence, and have done so on some 250 occasions over the past two years. They do so entirely within the constraints of international law, attacking only those military facilities that contribute, as part of the Iraqi integrated air defence system, to the threat to coalition aircraft. All targets are carefully selected with a view to minimising and, if possible, avoiding civilian casualties.

Military commanders have been able to manage this risk, with 2000 seeing a reduction in the number of threats compared with 1999. Over the past few weeks, however, the Iraqis have redoubled their efforts which amount to a qualitative and quantitative increase in the threat to coalition aircraft. January saw more surface-to-air missile firings than were effected in the whole of 2000. We have seen the Iraqis using innovative tactics, including the use of radars and command centres located outside the southern zone to cue offensive systems, linked by a new secure communications network, within it. The threat is real: Saddam Hussein is trying to kill our aircrew.

Friday evening's action was planned and carried out against that background. It was a proportionate response in self-defence, taken solely in order to reduce the risk to our aircrew carrying out routine patrols of the southern no-fly zone. As such, it was entirely in keeping with all such operations conducted over the period since January 1999 when Iraq started challenging our patrols.

The operation was carefully planned and cleared by Ministers on both sides of the Atlantic. Targets were carefully selected and precision guided weapons used to minimise and, if at all possible, avoid the risk of civilian casualties. In all, six sites were engaged, comprising elements of the Iraqi integrated air defence system, including radar, command and communications sites. Five of the targets were north of the zone, ranging up to no closer than 10 miles from Baghdad. All were directly involved in threatening coalition aircraft. Aircraft conducting patrols of the northern no-fly zone have previously engaged targets south of the 36th parallel, but this is the first time that coalition aircraft have attacked targets outside the southern no-fly zone—above the 33rd parallel—since Operation Desert Fox.

RAF participation included four Tornado GR1 strike aircraft, two Tornado F3 air defence aircraft and two VC10 tankers. All aircraft returned safely. Although detailed battle damage assessment is still ongoing, initial reports are that our attack was successful with weapons impacting on or very close to the targets. We are confident that the mission degraded the Iraqi air defence system and reduced the threat to coalition pilots.

We cannot confirm Iraqi allegations of civilian casualties. No military action is without risk, and we deeply regret any casualties. But we learnt long ago to distrust Saddam Hussein's claims. He routinely claims that there were civilian casualties on days when coalition aircraft have not released weapons; and we know that on occasions he has alleged civilian casualties when only military personnel have been injured. We suspect that to be the case on this occasion.

The operation was conducted in response to an escalation on the part of the Iraqis. It does not represent a change in policy. RAF aircrew undertake a difficult and dangerous mission with great skill and fortitude. Faced with a substantial increase in the threat to them in recent weeks, we had no choice but to act to protect our people. All this could stop now if Saddam stopped trying to kill our aircrew.

My Lords, the House is very grateful to the Minister for the Statement. However, the Minister rose to speak at seven minutes past three. We received the Statement at 2.41 p.m. That really—I suspect I speak too for the spokesman from the Liberal Democrat Benches—has not given us sufficient time to make a reasoned response. I must ask that in future more consideration is given to the Opposition parties.

Having said that, on these Benches we believe that the action was fully justified. Ten years on from the Gulf War Saddam Hussein is still a source of aggression in the Gulf. The need for the Government to develop a resolute policy is as strong as ever. The no-fly zones were essentially the invention of my right honourable colleague John Major. It is appropriate that from these Benches we should support fully the current policy.

The Minister made it clear that Friday's air strikes were against military targets, including radar and command and control sites, around Baghdad. The attacks were aimed at defence installations which threatened allied warplanes in one of the no-fly zones.

President Bush stressed that it was a "routine" enforcement of the no-fly zones. If the no-fly zones are to be supported, the need to use our air power preemptively from time to time against Iraq's anti-aircraft missile system is an inevitable consequence of our continuing to enforce the no-fly zones.

The Minister made the point that the no-fly zones are the inevitable consequence of Saddam Hussein's continued persecution of his minorities—the Kurds in the north and the marsh Arabs in the south. Our patrols have successfully prevented Saddam Hussein from using his helicopter gunships and using air-delivered chemical weapons to wage war against these minorities, which he did previously. The Iraqis cannot be allowed to do that with impunity. They have been playing a game of cat and mouse with our jets, and have tested the scope of the no-fly zone.

The Minister stated the major increase in surface-to-air missile figures for the month of January. Even if these missiles are not fired, it is not possible for an aircraft, or any of its systems, to decide whether the radar or system facing it is actually loaded and is intended to be fired. It is right that we should do all we can to ensure that the threat to our airmen flying patrols over Iraq is reduced as far as possible. For years Saddam Hussein has built up his weapons of mass destruction, including biological weapons. He has increased their range. He has possibly even come near to the possession of nuclear devices. He poses a serious and growing threat, both to the region and to Europe.

I have some questions. First, what happens now? Does this presage the tightening of sanctions against Iraq? What is the attitude to the regime and to the ballistic missiles? We note that when push comes to shove it is the United States and Britain who stand up and actually act to protect the minorities and the countries which are affected by dictator-run regimes like Iraq. We have had no response from Germany, and, with the response we have had from France it is clear that the other countries are not so resolute in their determination to act in the way that we have done.

I have one further point. If matters get worse—Saddam Hussein has been threatening retaliation as a result of these strikes—will the United States and this country and other countries be able to act as they did in 1991? Will they be able to produce the firepower and the activities that will once and for all ensure that Saddam Hussein is unable to behave in the same manner as he has for the past 11 years?

My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches support the action which has been taken within the limited context in which it has been taken. Clearly, any action which lessens the danger to British pilots and aircraft is necessary. We have no illusions about the nature of Saddam Hussein's regime. However, we are concerned about the long-term context in which this action has taken place and about the dangers of continuing with an action for which the strategic rationale appears less and less convincing.

We are also concerned about the wider Middle East context of the action taken against Iraq against the background of the most serious situation in the Arab-Israeli conflict that we have seen for some years. Anything which contributes to increasing Saddam Hussein's popularity among Arab radicals in the current circumstances should not be done lightly.

We are also somewhat concerned about the overuse of the term "humanitarian intervention". We have already heard in other contexts from the Russians that humanitarian intervention seems to them to be being used by the United States as an all-purpose justification for unilateral intervention in defence of western interests as defined by the United States. We see this as containment, as the Statement says at one point, but the humanitarian elements seem to us less clear than they were 10 years ago, given that the United Kingdom is not committed to the division of Iraq and that the prospects for a change of regime are rather less optimistic than they were.

There are reports in the newspapers that there are to be talks on 26th February between the United Nations and Iraq on the inspection regime. I note that the Egyptian Foreign Minister, Mr Amr Moussa, is quoted in one of today's newspapers as saying that this action could seriously undermine those talks. I note that the non-White Paper, The Future Strategic Context for Defence, states on page 17 that the UK has an important role to play in preventing misunderstanding between the United States and European partners. How are we playing that role at the present moment and what plans do we have to consult with our allies in the EU as well as the with the US? What plans are there for the British Government to reconsider the long-term guidelines for the containment policy?

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Burnham and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for the support they have offered Her Majesty's Government in the action that has been taken in reinforcing our position in the no-fly zones. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, was disappointed by the short notice he had in receiving the Statement. I asked for the Statement to be somewhat fuller than it was in its original form. I believe that in so doing, although there may have been some slight delay, I was able to present more information to your Lordships as a result. It is always a difficult issue trying to balance both the time given to Opposition parties, which I recognise is very important, and trying to get as much information into a Statement as possible.

The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, is quite right that the no-fly zones were established under the previous Prime Minister, the right honourable Mr Major, and of course we have continued to support those no-fly zones throughout the lifetime of this Government. Indeed, when the Iraqis started to attack the coalition aircraft, that did not deter us in any way. I am grateful to both noble Lords for recognising that.

The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, described the Friday night air strikes as pre-emptive. But actually they were a response to the increased activities of the Iraqis. I wish to make it clear to the House that this could all stop if only the Iraqis would stop trying to shoot down coalition aircraft. I remind the House that in January this year there were more attacks than we saw in the whole of last year. To have more attacks in a single month than in the whole of last year represented a significant increase.

It is important for us to remember why the no-fly zones were established. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, was concerned about what he described as the overuse of the word "humanitarian". The noble Lord does not need to be reminded of the appalling atrocities that were carried out against Halabja in the north no-fly zone, when more than 5,000 civilians were murdered by the activities of Saddam Hussein's forces. The Shias and the marsh Arabs in the southern no-fly zone suffered appalling attacks as a result of the activities of Saddam's helicopter gunships. I believe that the no-fly zones and their protection are at the heart of what we are talking about.

Both noble Lords asked what will happen now. We believe that we have taken out some of the offensive capacity. As I hope the Statement made clear, we are still assessing just how much of that offensive capacity we have been able to deal with. That will be important if it means that there are fewer attacks on coalition aircrew as a result. However, the basic policy remains the same—the pursuit of UNSCR 1284, a resolution that was supported in the United Nations not only by the coalition but also by the Arab nations.

The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, asked what will happen if the situation gets worse. If it gets worse, that will have to be assessed against the threat as it evolves. It is difficult to answer that question hypothetically, but, as all of us will be aware, it is an issue which demands constant vigilance, as indeed it has, from the coalition forces. We did not go into this action lightly. Of course the issues around the delicacy of the Middle East peace process have been considered very fully, but I am glad not to be having to stand before the House today to present noble Lords with a Statement about our aircrew having been shot down. The House must recognise that that was the possible alternative if we had done nothing to try to take out these installations.

We all recognise that Saddam Hussein has never wasted an opportunity to present himself as a champion of the Arab cause. Those of us who know the Gulf states and the Middle East will realise how deeply embarrassing many of his Arab neighbours find his self-portrayal in that way.

The humanitarian basis of establishing the no-fly zones is at the heart of what has been going on here. Of course we should like to see the inspections resumed. That is clear in UNSCR 1284. And of course the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, is entirely right. Consultations on this matter should not be just across the Atlantic; we also have to consult closely with our allies in Europe and elsewhere. We have to put before them the incontrovertible evidence that we have about the way in which Saddam Hussein has been building up his military capability to try to shoot down coalition aircraft. That is why this action was so necessary.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for making the Statement and assure her that as long as we have no-fly zones none of us will seriously object to making certain that our aircraft are properly protected or are able to protect themselves. However, is not the problem that the relevance of the no-fly zones to our real purposes in dealing with Iraq is not now as clear as it was?

As my noble friend reminded us, Saddam Hussein remains a major threat to stability in the whole area. I should like to think that weapons of mass destruction are not again being, as it were, recreated in Iraq. But what can we do about getting the UN inspectorate back into that country in order to make certain that Saddam Hussein has not been able—we know how near he was—to manufacture nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction?

Furthermore, how do we propose to react to his reiterated public threat made only a week or two ago to the independence of Kuwait? While I do not object to our actions, what we are dealing with here is only one symptom of the major problem.

My Lords, as my noble friend pointed out, for so long as the no-fly zones are in place, we must ensure that our aircrew are properly protected. My noble friend went on to question the relevance of the no-fly zones. I do not think that my noble friend should believe for one moment that the threatening stance adopted by Saddam Hussein towards the Kurds in the north of his country and the marsh Arabs in the south has in any way abated. Indeed, my noble friend himself pointed out that, within the past few weeks, Saddam Hussein has once again threatened Kuwait. That being the case, I believe that we are justified in drawing the conclusion that Saddam Hussein still harbours very considerable territorial ambitions in the region and that he continues to be extraordinarily ruthless. We are well aware that he has the ability to feed his people. However, Saddam simply does not care to feed some of his people. That has resulted in a great deal of the anguish and difficulty within Iraq itself.

My noble friend asked what we can do here. We have a vehicle with which to deal with Saddam Hussein; namely, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1284. We should not lose sight of the importance of that Security Council resolution. It was secured through the United Nations. It has enjoyed and still enjoys the support of the entire United Nations. It does, of course, point the way towards sanctions, but it should be remembered that those sanctions could cease tomorrow if Saddam Hussein were to allow the inspectorate back into Iraq. It is that which is so necessary: inspectors must be allowed back into Iraq. That has to be done because we have been given no reason whatever to believe that Saddam Hussein is not still pursuing his programme of developing weapons of mass destruction.

My Lords, while fully supporting the action which has been taken, for the removal of doubt will the noble Baroness confirm that the joint decision with the United States Government had nothing to do with a Republican, President Bush, being elected as President of the United States?

My Lords, I am happy to confirm that. The decision was taken in order to protect coalition aircrew. It was a legitimate decision which had nothing whatever to do with the political parties to which anyone belongs. I am absolutely confident that, were the opposition party to be in power in the United Kingdom, it would have taken the same decision as Her Majesty's Government. On that, I do not think there can be any doubt.

My Lords, in the Churches we are aware of the brutal character of Saddam Hussein's regime towards his own people. Furthermore, one must remain aware of issues of safety for our pilots. One appreciates the dilemma in which Her Majesty's Government found themselves when faced with escalating attacks last month, which the noble Baroness described to us. Nevertheless, one hopes that the Government are aware of the considerable and longstanding disquiet in the Churches about the effects of this country's policies towards Iraq and its people. This disquiet is grounded in no small part on our contacts with the considerable Christian communities whose ancient home is in Iraq. Does the Minister accept that history will judge last Friday's actions above all by two criteria: first, in the wider context, will they turn out to have served peace or the increase of tension; secondly, what will they have done for the ordinary people of Iraq?

My Lords, I do not think that anyone could fail to be aware of the disquiet felt not only in the Churches, but also among many people of good will about the effects, as they see them, of sanctions in Iraq. However, I would say to the right reverend Prelate that that is not the direct effect of sanctions; it is the direct effect of the way in which Saddam Hussein chooses to use sanctions as an excuse to withhold from his people the food, medicines and humanitarian equipment that they could so easily be given under the auspices of UN Security Council Resolution 1284.

We have no quarrel with the Iraqi people. I do not know how many times I have said those words from this Dispatch Box. My noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal has said exactly the same. However, when the right reverend Prelate asks me how history will view this action, I answer by saying that I hope that history will recognise that the enforcement of the no-fly zone has protected a considerable number of people on Iraqi territory. We must not forget that. What would happen if the no-fly zones did not exist? We might then find ourselves discussing another incident such as Halabja. We might be discussing further clearances of the marsh Arabs and the brutal repression of people living in the south of Iraq. It is enormously important not to lose sight of why the no-fly zones exist.

I understand absolutely the fears and concerns articulated by the right reverend Prelate as regards the ordinary people of Iraq. However, I hope that history will remember that, over the past few years, Saddam Hussein has built no fewer than 48 palaces, many of them furnished with gold-plated taps and other accoutrements. A splendid new park has been created for the pleasure and delight of senior officials, which ordinary people will never see. While children may fail to be given food, there are no shortages whatever of whisky and cigarettes for those in favour in Iraq.

My Lords, what is the nature of the joint activities announced today between the armed forces of the United States of America and Israel in southern Israel? Given the timing, is there any connection whatever between what is taking place in Israel and the coalition forces for Iraq?

No, my Lords, we understand that the previously planned joint US-Israeli exercise is entirely unconnected with the attacks on Iraq.

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that, if our aircrew are required to fly in harm's way, then the Government are obliged to seek to reduce the peril that they face? Does my noble friend further accept that the Government would be justified in suggesting to politicians of member states of the EU and those in other parts of Europe that, if they tacitly accept, perhaps endorse, or in some cases, service this abominable regime, then they are hardly entitled to criticise actions taken either by the Government or our aircrew, who are implicitly serving the humanitarian cause?

My Lords, I believe that not only are we right to keep our aircrews out of harm's way as far as possible, but that it is our absolute duty so to do. Those who choose to criticise what has happened over recent days must ask themselves about the realistic alternative to what we have done. The alternative would be to abandon the no-fly zones and thus to expose innocent people living in the north and the south of Iraq to a brutal, murderous regime. I put it in those terms not because we think that it might happen, but because we know that it has happened and we are quite sure that it would happen again.

My Lords, the noble Baroness has repeated several times the word "coalition". Is not the coalition in this case quite remarkably small? Is that not the case because virtually every other country is fully aware that the policy which has now been pursued for over 10 years has conspicuously failed and is probably illegal? Is it not therefore time for a reassessment of the position? If the Government, quite rightly, are so concerned about the savage repression of people in southern Iraq, what are they doing about savage repression in Palestine?

My Lords, the noble Lord is, of course, quite right; the coalition consists of the United States and the United Kingdom. I did not mean to imply anything more or less. I thought I had made it perfectly clear who was involved in the coalition and I certainly did not mean to imply otherwise. I do not think that the noble Lord really thought that I did.

The fact that others do not wish to join the coalition does not mean that what we are doing is not right. Sometimes one has to have the courage to do what is right, even where others choose to criticise. It is not illegal either. It was not illegal to establish the no-fly zones—which were established when the noble Lord's party was in office—and it is not illegal for us to defend our aircrew having established those no-fly zones.

The noble Lord will know that Her Majesty's Government offer friendly, critical advice and concern where it is merited to other countries. It is not fair to imply that no such criticism is ever made of actions elsewhere when we believe it is merited. Where it was due, I have certainly offered such criticism from this Dispatch Box, as has my noble friend Lady Scotland. I do not think that it is right and proper, in all conscience, to compare the democratically elected regime in Israel to the brutal repression of innocent people which has taken place so barbarically in Iraq.

My Lords, while my noble friend has, very convincingly, explained the Government's position so far as concerns the actions over the weekend—the whole House will respect that—does she agree that it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour, emphasised, that central to what we face is the continued presence of Saddam Hussein and everything that he represents? Can she assure the House that when the Prime Minister goes to Washington in the near future, high on the agenda will be the need to agree with the Americans and others a political strategy for a lasting solution in the area involving the effective dispatch of Saddam Hussein? We can then stop talking about what is necessary for containment and start talking about how we build peace and security in the region.

My Lords, I must remind my noble friend that it has never been the aim of Her Majesty's Government's policy to remove Saddam Hussein. I have listened with some concern to some of the commentary over the weekend to the effect that our presence in the no-fly zones has been a failure because it has not resulted in Saddam Hussein's fall from power. Our presence there concerns trying to ensure that the people covered by the no-fly zones do not suffer brutal oppression. We have also been concerned to control Saddam Hussein's programme for weapons of mass destruction through the use of Security Council resolutions.

Much as we may despise and abhor how Saddam Hussein has behaved, it is a matter for the Iraqi people to decide who governs them. We have not sought to remove him by force but to control the threat that he poses to the region. I am sure that my right honourable friend will discuss these matters when he visits Washington. I am sure that he will discuss lasting solutions not only to the issues in the Gulf—particularly in relation to Iraq—but to the wider issues in the Middle East as a whole.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the Iraqi people have limited opportunities to get rid of this tyrant? Does she further agree that the immediate, almost reflex, reaction of some of our European allies goes a long way towards enhancing the fears and anxieties which many of us have about the proposed European rapid reaction force?

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, on one point; that is, that the Iraqi people, sadly, do have very limited opportunities to get rid of their leaders, unlike, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour, the people of Israel, who have demonstrated that they are able so to do.

The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, may recall that we had discussions with opposition parties from Iraq about ways in which the opposition might be strengthened. That is a very different matter from getting directly involved in a military overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

I do not believe that there is any connection whatever with the European rapid reaction force. We are evolving that force with our friends and colleagues across Europe in relation to humanitarian tasks we are able to agree and where NATO as a whole will not be engaged. I genuinely believe that the noble Lord seeks to draw an erroneous conclusion.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the decisive decision was the setting up of the no-fly zones in the first place? Does she further agree that, if one accepts the no-fly zones as being necessary as the only way open to us to protect the marsh Arabs in the south and the Kurds in the north, it logically follows that appropriate steps must be taken to enforce them? If the attacks on the command and control centres were discriminate and proportionate, as they appear to have been, then it is totally inconsistent to condemn them and at the same time try to support the policy of the no-fly zones.

My Lords, I could not have put it any better than the right reverend Prelate.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that, whatever the military justification for these recent attacks—which I do not dispute—the impression has been given in the Middle East and elsewhere that the United States Administration, with the support of the Government, are paying insufficient attention to the real political problem of the Middle East, which is the Arab/Israel problem? There is a need to show some awareness of the suffering of the Palestinians under the Israeli Administration and armed forces over the past few months since the intifada was provoked by Sharon's entry into the Dome of the Rock. The fact that there is insufficient awareness will have been underlined by the news that the United States is entering into joint military exercises with the Israeli armed forces.

My Lords, as I indicated in response to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, Saddam Hussein has never wasted an opportunity to present himself as the champion of the Arab cause. Sadly, there will be those who, at this time of heightened tension in the Middle East, will choose to take that impression from what has happened. We all understand that the current, very real, very difficult situation in relation to the Middle East peace process will have raised Saddam's popularity in the region. We were aware of that at the time we took the decision to engage in military action on Friday.

We have to reiterate over and over again—it cannot be said too often—that the attacks were not related to the Middle East peace process or in any way to the commitment that we have to finding a peaceful, just and lasting settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I am sure that we all agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wright, that that is enormously important.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 14, leave out ("its retention") and insert ("the re-enactment").

My Lords, in my noble friend's absence, I am grateful to the Minister. I am happy to support the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 1, line 20, leave out paragraph (d).

My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will forgive my intervention. I shall not detain the House for long. When I first saw the amendment, I thought that my noble friend was being rather unkind to the Government, who were showing a becoming modesty and humility. It is not often that administrations come to Parliament and say that they admit the possibility that a Bill may contain a whole mass of inconsistencies and anomalies. I thought that the Government deserved a note of praise for that.

However, my noble friend has succeeded in causing me to have second thoughts. If the Government are admitting that Bills can be strewn with inconsistencies and anomalies they ought, first, to take an early opportunity humbly to express regret that that is so and to explain the inconsistencies that need to be removed, and then to remove them with at least some ceremony, not merely with a stroke of the pen saying, "We don't like this". On second thoughts, I agree with my noble friend that the Government are making their own lives a bit too easy instead of, as I thought originally, making a humble admission of the fact that they can be wrong, welcome though that is.

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of my noble friend Lord Goschen. I do so, not because I disagree with the purpose envisaged by the words "inconsistencies and anomalies", but because it seems to me that this is yet another example in the Bill of an attempt to adopt the same legislative approach to matters of a fundamentally different character.

Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 1(1) are concerned with burdens: their removal, their reduction, their introduction and their reintroduction. However, that does not apply to paragraph (d); it is concerned with inconsistencies and anomalies. Burdens are not mentioned, save that the legislation, which is to be the subject of a regulatory reform order (the purpose of which is to remove inconsistencies and anomalies), must be such as to impose burdens. That is all. There is not even any need for there to be a casual link between, on the one hand, the burdensome nature of the legislation and, on the other hand, the inconsistencies and anomalies. They should merely appear in the same legislation.

Legislation is rarely internally inconsistent. What is to happen if the burden is created by one Act, but the inconsistency by another Act that does not create a burden at all? I fear that I shall be told by the Minister that, of course, the Government will not use this procedure other than to strike down bad regulation, or regulation in need of reform where inconsistencies and anomalies are found. However, I have to say that that is not an acceptable answer for it is circular in its nature.

Paragraph (d) of Clause 1(1) has every appearance of being a provision that has been added to this clause, not because that is where it belongs but because that is the least inconvenient place to put it. So it seems that, yet again, if we are to have any sort of threshold test for the exercise of this wide-ranging ministerial power, we are to be driven back upon the elephant test. Indeed, I must express my concern that the power contained in the Bill is too widely drawn and too ill defined to provide adequate safeguards against abuse.

My Lords, I support this amendment. I apologise to the Ministers on the Front Bench opposite because I promised both of them that I would not speak at all. Indeed, there did not seem much object in doing so. I was unaware that my noble friend Lord Goschen was going to table this amendment. I shall take very little time in what I have to say.

We are talking about a sort of indefinable catch-all phrase that really enhances the unprecedented powers of the executive. It is wholly without any form of judicial control. For the reasons that have bored your Lordships in the past, I am bound to support the amendment. If my noble friend divides the House, I shall support him in the Lobby.

My Lords, one of the odd elements of the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, was the fact that twice in the early part of his remarks he said that this provision would enable the Minister responsible to deal with what he would call "inconsistencies" and "anomalies" just because they would be considered so to be, "in the opinion of the Minister". Noble Lords will recall that during certain stages of the Bill I drew attention to Clauses 3 and 5 where phrases like, "in the opinion of the Minister", or, "if it appears to the Minister", appear. We debated those matters and the Bill stands in its present form for very good reason; namely, that it should be dependent on the opinion of the Minister.

However, it seems to me that there must be some objective test applicable in the case of Clause 1 which does not leave the matter to a Minister's opinion. The clause states that a Minister may make an order for the purpose of reforming legislation which has the effect of imposing burdens, but that he must do so with a view to several following considerations—one being,

"the removal of inconsistencies and anomalies".

I am sure that the Conservative Party does not wish to go down as the party that favours inconsistencies and anomalies. I suggest that it may not be desirable just to remove anomalies and inconsistencies within one piece of legislation, but that—

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He is quite right on the point regarding the opinion of the Minister. I do not dispute that for a moment. However, it does apply as regards tiny inconsistencies. Indeed, it is like the point raised by my noble friend Lord Ferrers on a previous occasion regarding "an" versus "a" hereditary Peer. This might, perhaps, be ideally suited for such an argument. It could, for example, be said to be inconsistent for football supporters to be banned from travelling overseas to watch their team play, but not rugby or cricket supporters. Those are the sort of circumstances where a Minister could say, "This is an anomaly and, therefore, I am bringing forward an order". It goes rather wider than the type of "micro, micro" issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, quite rightly pointed out in his remarks.

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that one of the purposes of the Bill was outlined on Second Reading as follows. When you have a whole range of primary or secondary legislation that has grown up over the years leaving a whole lot of inconsistencies and/or anomalies that necessitate the making of a regulatory reform order, that action may be justified simply because those inconsistencies cause confusion. That confusion among businessmen and other people, who are subjected to a range of regulations on a particular subject, calls for the removal of the difficulty by removing not just burdens but also inconsistencies. When those businessmen are legally advised, and so on, they are told, "Well, this regulation says this, but that somewhat later regulation says the opposite". It is almost impossible for a lawyer to tell which of the two is correct. Getting rid of anomalies and inconsistencies is surely wholly desirable. Given the fact that the noble Lord kindly agreed to my first point—namely, that it is not simply dependent on the view of the Minister—there must, objectively speaking, be an anomaly.

My Lords, I am surprised that, for someone as distinguished as he is, the noble Lord seems to be labouring under a misapprehension. I believe that the point that my noble friend is quite rightly putting to the House is not that inconsistencies and anomalies should remain on the statute book—none of us is opposed to the removal of inconsistencies and anomalies but—the question of the proper way to do this. There is a real danger under this legislation that matters that should not just be passed without any parliamentary scrutiny will be able to be so passed under the umbrella of the words, "inconsistencies and anomalies". This House must be jealous in that respect, remembering, as always, that there is no written constitution and no constitutional court to which we can appeal. Of course, there is judicial review, but that involves a whole lot of extra, elaborate apparatus and, indeed, imposes more burdens on individuals than applies to the present position without this innovation.

My Lords, I am not sure whether than was an intervention or a speech. However, if I take it as an intervention, there is a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, said with which I entirely agree. At several stages during the passage of this Bill both in Committee and on Report Ministers were asked to explain where the parameters are for a Bill which, on the face of it, looks very broad. Important statements have been made that it is not intended, for example, to use the Bill for controversial political matters. It is a Bill that is, in a sense, a very technical piece of legislation. However, it will greatly help in removing such difficulties experienced by businessmen and others who are subject, as we all know, to regulation of which they either disapprove or which they regard as overburdensome. Surely it is worth while to get rid of inconsistencies and anomalies. I give way.

My Lords, I am obliged. Does the noble Lord accept that that is wholly beside the point? The intentions of government are not a way in which one approaches a Bill. The undertakings of government as to how to use precision are totally immaterial. We have to look at what use might be made of the provision, not by this Government but by any government. Does not the noble Lord accept that?

My Lords, I accept a great deal of what the noble Lord has said. But I hope that he also accepts that many statements made by Ministers in the course of discussion on a Bill, and many questions asked by the Opposition so as to obtain such statements, are made for so-called "Pepper v Hart" purposes in order to pin down the Government as regards stating what a particular clause means.

My Lords, the noble Lord does not seem to accept that Pepper v Hart has nothing to do with this; we are concerned with what may happen under any government.

My Lords, I suppose to a limited extent this debate is my fault. What now appears to be an important constitutional principle—that we should not deal with inconsistencies and anomalies—was not thought by anyone to be significant in Committee when no amendments were put down to that effect. It was not thought by anyone to be significant on Report when no amendments were put down to that effect. However, the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, in debating an entirely different amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, on Report thought that the matter was a jolly wheeze and that he would throw it into the argument. That is my fault as I rather brushed him to one side and said that I would deal with the amendment before the House rather than with his intervention. I virtually invited him to put down an amendment to this effect. He has done so and I cannot complain, even if I feel a little like Lord Randolph Churchill.

The amendment cannot be taken entirely seriously. There is no dark secret behind the term "inconsistencies and anomalies". Clause 1(1)(d) makes it clear that we want the power to be able to encompass reform aimed at eliminating anomalies and inconsistencies as part of the reform of legislation. That will be useful in larger reforms of overlapping legislation where regulatory regimes rub up against each other. Of course, most inconsistencies and anomalies would already be covered under paragraphs (a) to (c) as removing them would entail the levelling up or down of some burden or another.

But some instances do not fit in with the concept of burden. If one statute requires a notice to be given on a Tuesday and another, for no good reason, on a Wednesday, even though both refer to the same category of information, it is not increasing or decreasing the burden to bring them into line, but it removes an inconsistency or anomaly.

The two words are closely linked. However, it is sensible to include them both. An inconsistency may occur where one provision tells you to do one thing and another tells you to do another. If one piece of legislation states that all London cabs must be black while another states that all London cabs must be blue, that is an inconsistency. An anomaly occurs not so much where two pieces of legislation clash, but where they fail to make the proper provision intended. If a licensing regime treated all businesses registered before 19th February in one way and all businesses registered after 19th February in another, what is the status of those businesses registered on 19th February itself?

The provision to deal with inconsistencies and anomalies will be helpful to Ministers in bringing forward any proposals resulting from the recommendations made by either or both of the Law Commissions which specifically refer to the removal of anomalies. Of course, any such proposal would have to fit in with all the other requirements of the Bill, including the removal or reduction of a burden, but could be used to iron out those inconsistencies and anomalies that grow up over time in any body of legislation.

The ante has been raised on this to some extent by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, who says that the measure is far too wide. He asked me which of the 51 examples it applies to. I am not sure that it applies to any of the 51 examples that we have so far, although I think that inconsistencies and anomalies might well appear if we went into the detail of the legislation that would have to be changed. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, in intervening on my noble friend Lord Borrie, said that such measures could apply to football supporters as opposed to rugby supporters or cricket supporters. Such provisions would never get through any of the other tests applied to regulatory reform orders.

Noble Lords opposite forget that not only have we had safeguards in the Bill from the beginning against widening the scope of the legislation in dealing with burdens but that the safeguards that we have against the wide use of the powers were enhanced by the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on Report which the Government accepted.

The measures we are discussing simply do not bear the construction put upon them by noble Lords opposite. They constitute no more than a small completion of the task which may well be necessary to tackle significant burdens. To remove them may cause difficulties and the Government could not do other than resist such a step.

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the context of the amendment. However, if I may say so, the Minister's response to my amendment was typical of a theme which has run throughout the Bill; that is, to contrast the assurances of Ministers with what is actually written on the face of the Bill.

My Lords, the noble Viscount does not listen to me. I said that even if we had been accused of giving assurances that were not on the face of the Bill, the fact that we accepted the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—the noble Viscount must recognise this point as his party did not oppose them—means that the assurances are now on the face of the Bill.

My Lords, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, closed the door a little. They were extremely helpful. We supported the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.

However, that does not mean that all the ministerial assurances are now written on the face of the Bill; the absolute opposite is the case. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that the provision would be used for minor clearing up. However, that is not stated in the Bill. The Bill uses two words, "anomalies" and "inconsistencies".

I return to a point that was much better made by my noble friend Lord Lawson. The issue concerns the use that is made of the powers. The powers are wide. They could be used to clear up small anomalies. I recognise that by removing the provision one would remove the power to clear up anomalies, but only anomalies that do not impose a burden on anyone. I suggest that that kind of anomaly should go to the bottom of the queue.

If I may say so, that is proved by the fact that of the 51 measures that the Government have produced as examples, the noble Lord was unable to quote even one which would impose no burden and would constitute just an anomaly. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, was quite right. It would indeed be a minor shame not to be able to tidy up these small points. However, that is not what the Bill is about. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made no attempt whatsoever to explain how the measure on the face of the Bill would prevent legislation as regards the examples that I mentioned.

It could be said that to ban one field sport but not others could be inconsistent and therefore, according to what is written on the face of the Bill, that approach could be said to be an anomaly. The normal procedures for primary legislation could be bypassed. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was reduced to relying on imaginary examples of black cabs and blue cabs. I have not seen the legislation that states that all cabs must be blue. The noble Lord has not tried hard to address the serious criticisms that have been raised by my noble friends and by myself. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 1, line 23, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

("( ) any Act (whether or not in force) which was passed before this Act is passed and at least two years before the day on which the order is made,

( ) any Act (whether or not in force) which was passed after this Act is passed and at least two years before the day on which the order is made and which contains a provision that it shall be deemed "legislation" within the meaning of this subsection, or").

My Lords, I am glad that I finally persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that taking out seven years of legislation between 1994 and 2001 was not a particularly good idea. However, I am afraid that the issue is not as simple as he seems to think.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have discussed at great length the procedures and safeguards surrounding the order-making power, including public consultation, parliamentary scrutiny, the objective of proportionality and the tests contained in Clause 3. Those are substantial hurdles, which go considerably further than those in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. They are the best gatekeepers for the power.

I am sure that the noble Lord recognises that it is rare for a Bill to be prepared with the express intention of being reformed in some years. The amendment would result in the danger of many Acts for which the order-making power would be suitable being omitted from the definition of eligible legislation. A valuable and universally welcomed reform could become impossible because one—and only one—of a large number of Acts concerned did not contain the magic formula in the amendment, even if the changes required to that Act were small and uncontroversial.

If Parliament feels strongly about an issue, there is nothing to stop it saying that a particular Act should not be subject to the order-making process. There would be no need to amend the Bill for that. However, I see no case for contracting in, as the amendment would do.

As things stand, Parliament can decide whether an area is suitable for reform each time a regulatory reform proposal comes before it. Surely that is the most sensible route. The Bill will be able to make substantial legislative reform, while still providing stringent and transparent safeguards. I am sorry to say that the amendment would add nothing to those provisions.

My Lords, on the one hand the Government have asserted that the Bill is not intended to deal with controversial matters, but on the other hand they have consistently refused to accept concrete controls that would ensure that it did not affect controversial matters. In those circumstances, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 2, line 32, leave out ("or preventing the incurring of expenditure").

My Lords, I am amazed by this. The process of scrutiny which the Front Bench opposite is now seeking to adopt in relation to the Bill is confusing. This amendment was raised on Report. An answer was given and if one looks at col. 184 of Hansard, our explanation was accepted. I believe that the noble Baroness accepts, although I am not sure, that if her amendment were agreed to by this House, it would not be possible to reduce the conditions which the parents of vaccine-damaged children presently have to undergo before they receive compensation for vaccine damage.

Therefore, I understand two matters from the return to this amendment: first, that the Conservatives have retreated from their acceptance of our position; and secondly, they would not wish a regulatory reform order to be used as a means of relieving the conditions for the obtaining of vaccine damage.

If that is the position, first, I am amazed that there has been such a reversal. Secondly, I am surprised that no notice was given of such reversal.

My Lords, before the Minister concludes his remarks, I point out that we did not accept the amendment to which he referred and that we did not move it on Report. Moreover, there are many other ways in which to deal with the question of compensation for vaccine damage. In turn, I find it rather strange that we on this side are being ticked off for raising matters that were not fully debated during the Bill's earlier stages, and for raising matters about which we were not content during those earlier stages.

My Lords, on the noble Baroness's first point, when the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, discussed Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 on Report, he said:

"My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response … and for the particular example he gave"—

that is, of vaccine damage. The noble Lord went on to discuss another amendment that was grouped with those amendments and with which we are not concerned. He said:

"He will not be surprised to hear that I remain unhappy with his explanation in respect of Amendment No. 15".—[Official Report, 13/2/01; col. 184.]

Any reasonable reader of those comments would assume that the noble Lord accepted our explanation in relation to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17.

The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, did not answer my second point. I asked whether she accepted that the effect of her amendment would be to deprive the Government of the opportunity to reduce the conditions for vaccine-damaged children and, if so, what she suggested we should do about that, if her amendment were agreed to. Perhaps she will answer that point later.

It would be our intention—we have always made this clear—that we should introduce an RRO in relation to that provision. That is why the phrase,

"preventing the incurring of expenditure",

appears in the Bill. I am sure that we all agree that the definition of the word "burden" is key to the Bill's success, and we have sought to define the term very broadly so that we can implement the Bill's important and worthwhile reforms. That extends to the ability of orders to incur expenditure. The noble Baroness knows as well as I do that it is often said that the reduction in the burden of paperwork is an aim that is sought by the voluntary, private and public sectors.

Let me stress again that the power is surrounded by rigorous safeguards to guarantee against possible misuse. There is therefore no possibility of the power being used to allow spending willy-nilly without passing through the rigorous parliamentary scrutiny that is provided for in the Bill. If Parliament were not to approve expenditure, save on the imposition of conditions, it could ensure that those conditions remained.

Of course, there are other stringent procedures in place surrounding the incurring of expenditure which it is the right of another place to discuss. Any order requiring expenditure would have to go through the usual procedures. In administrative terms, prior Treasury approval, for instance, would be needed in each case.

I repeat: the power is broad but I make no apology for seeking to introduce a power that will be used to make such worthwhile changes to legislation while ensuring that the most stringent safeguards are met. Our arguments on this issue remain the same as they were in Committee and on Report. I urge the noble Baroness to think again and to consider the people who will be affected.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I make it absolutely clear that my noble friend Lord Kingsland did not accept the amendment on Report. I believe that he was implying that he accepted that the example could be used if the Bill was implemented in that way. The point is that there are many ways in which to resolve problems such as that relating to vaccine-damage compensation. In relation to such an important matter, we should consider the use of primary legislation. It is wrong to use that as an example—

My Lords, is the noble Baroness arguing that in that context we should use not an RRO but primary legislation?

My Lords, it is wrong to decide whether or not the Bill should give such a broad, blanket power to the executive by referring to such an emotive example. I made it absolutely clear in my speech that we have no argument with the use of this power by a government who are seeking to find some way to provide compensation to vaccine-damaged children. However, there are other ways to do so, including the use of primary legislation. Our concern is that the Bill contains such a broad power. It refers to removing the conditions that prevent the "incurring of expenditure" by the executive. There is no question of degree when draft orders are being scrutinised, albeit by a super-affirmative order. Will the amounts of expenditure be made clear in the draft order? I suspect not, in many cases.

Once again, we have shown our deep concern about the broad powers that remain in the Bill. I have made my point clear. It is wrong to use one small but important example—I agree about its importance—to try to twist what I have said. We are not happy about there being no parameters, as it were, in the Bill. I am sorry that the Minister offered no suggestions about the ways in which to limit the amount of expenditure that can be incurred by the executive through a regulatory reform order in relation to the Bill.

We are not making any progress in this regard, but I do not want to test the opinion of the House. I suspect that the matter will be argued vigorously in another place. On that basis, and with some regret, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 7, line 42, at end insert—

("( ) A code of practice under this section shall incorporate the mandatory procedures set out in Schedule 1 to the 1994 Act, but that Schedule shall be interpreted as if in paragraph 3(a)(i) for the words "that he is considering taking the action and the reasons why he is considering it," there is substituted "that he intends to take action and the reasons why;".").

My Lords, there is some objection to Schedule 1 to the 1994 Act being incorporated into this Bill, largely because it does not sit at all well with the several provisions that begin in Clause 9. Schedule I to the 1994 Act was an all-purpose, prescriptive set of requirements for enforcement officers in all circumstances. When looked at individually one sees that they are not unreasonable in the way in which they are set out. However, as I have had occasion to recall to your Lordships at previous stages of this Bill, when the previous government conducted their consultation in December 1996, they found that trading standards officers and other enforcement officers had discovered that some of the requirements—I shall not elaborate on them again—resulted in illegitimate trading being continued more easily because of the requirements of Schedule 1.

Moreover, on the other side, businesses, including small businesses, found elements of confusion in the requirements of Schedule 1. If issued with a notice saying that enforcement officers were considering taking action against them, many felt that they were being sued or prosecuted. The degree of confusion and the fact that rogue traders were perhaps getting away with it led the previous government in 1996 to question that particular approach of Schedule 1.

The approach of this Bill, which I believe has a lot going for it in terms of widespread agreement across the political parties and outside among businesses and enforcement officers, is that one starts with a voluntary concordat. Remarks have been made about it by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, but that concordat, set out in Annex C to the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, comprises some of the best practice that was also in Schedule 1 to the previous Act. Underpinning that concordat is Clause 9 and successive clauses that are meant to be brought into operation if, in some way, there is a failure in the application of the concordat.

The code of practice within Clause 9 is intended to be tailored to address the enforcement problem which emerges. There will be consultation about the legislation, regulation and problems before another code is developed. Simply importing into the Bill, holus-bolus, mandatory requirements in Schedule 1 of the 1994 Act, which for good reason has had much criticism levelled at it by both enforcement officers and business, is not suitable.

Amendment No. 7 would be apt only if the government of the day took a wholly different view from the government of today. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, recalled the Minister stating earlier that there will be no regulatory reform orders relating to politically controversial matters. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, may satisfy my curiosity in replying to the debate. Does her party share the view expressed by the Minister that the Bill should not be used to put forward a regulatory reform order which is

"significant and controversial in political terms"?—[Official Report, 23/1/01; col. 173.]

I do not believe that the amendment is appropriate. It does not sit well with the provisions of the Bill, or with the idea that they are reserve provisions, if what we all hope does not happen in fact happens; that is, the concordat, which is widely accepted by business, consumer groups and the enforcement officers, is a failure.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, tried to argue his case but I do not find his arguments convincing. My noble friend's amendment does not take Schedule 1 lock, stock and barrel and set it into Clause 9. It requires that the code which is drawn up by Ministers and consulted upon, and which is then subject to negative resolution procedure in both Houses, incorporates the procedures, not the de tailed language and words.

I have one simple request to make to Ministers in support of my noble friend's amendment. Will the Minister replying to this brief debate deal with the particular problem? Let us take a local authority somewhere in England—it could be Haringey or Kettering—in which a small businessman feels aggrieved because fire regulations, food safety regulations, planning and environmental health laws have been enforced upon him by the appropriate local authority. It may be that because the enforcement was rushed he did not become aware of his right to make representations and of his right of appeal.

Let us suppose that the local authority—perhaps Kettering and Haringey are bad examples—had not signed the concordat and were not bound by the voluntary good practice. The code, which the Minister may or may not introduce in due course but which provides the back-up to the concordat, does not require written notices. It is consistent with the unfair enforcement action taken against the small businessman. What does the small businessman do? He goes to the tribunal, which is not obliged to take into account the fact that the behaviour is not in accordance with the code, let alone the concordat, and he is bereft of any redress.

I believe that by accepting the amendment the Government, in promoting the Bill, will be saying, "Okay, we are obliged to consult on the code and we will have to include the procedures in Schedule 1 to the 1994 Act. It is a fresh consultation in the light of the operation of the concordat. Let us see what happens." I do not believe that the Government have made out a case that the consultation procedures have taken into account the views of small businessmen. The Tories introduced the measure in order to protect small businessmen and the Government are removing it.

My Lords, we are all agreed that the way in which the regulation is enforced is as important as the regulation itself. Tonight's debate goes to the heart of that matter. I have had the fortune, or misfortune, to be regulated as a small businessman. I can speak from bitter experience of an official coming in and unreasonably and disproportionately throwing the book at me.

When I hear the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, speak about such matters I have no doubt about their experience as members of local authority boards and regulatory authorities. However, when they talk about small businesses and how they will be part of a concordat I believe that I am listening to eagles talking about the habits of moles. They would not know a small business if they saw one.

We are agreed that fair and better regulation is at the heart of regulation. All that lies between us is the question of whether that should be statutory or non-statutory. My experience tells me that unless we introduce statutory protection on enforcement procedures we shall again have slippage. There will be nothing to halt the reversion to the previous unfair levels of playing between the regulated and the regulator.

I hope that the Government will adopt the measure. I hope that they will not go down in history as the Government who removed statutory protection on enforcement from small businesses.

My Lords, I am on the side of the moles, not on the side of the eagles. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, knows, I ran a small business for 30 years. I am only too sorry that it was a small business when I stopped running it; I would rather it had been a big business after that time. Therefore, I do not believe that I can be accused of not understanding the problems of small businesses.

This is an entirely proper Third Reading debate. During the Committee and Report stages, amendments were tabled to remove the entire enforcement section of the Bill and replace it with the enforcement provisions of the 1994 Act. That argument has not been repeated from the Benches opposite tonight, although the argument against such a change was effectively and forcefully made by my noble friend Lord Borrie.

The basis of our argument against the 1994 Act provisions, which consist of Schedule 4 to that Act as opposed to Clauses 9, 10 and 11 in this Bill which provide for a voluntary concordat, backed up if necessary by a code of practice, was twofold. First, the Schedule 1 provisions of the 1994 Act were not used. I said that they were hardly used and the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, said that they were never used.

Secondly, when in 1996 the previous government consulted on the provisions of Schedule 1 the result was that enforcement officers believed that the "minded to" procedures were bureaucratic and could be manipulated by illegitimate businesses, and businesses themselves were, to say the least, unenthusiastic about the provisions. On that basis we believed that we responded correctly to the consultation that the previous government had carried out in 1996 and the consultation that we carried out in 1999. We resisted the suggestion that we should move away from a voluntary procedure, which could be backed up if necessary and had been approved in consultation, in favour of something which had been tried and basically failed.

What are we talking about today? Despite the very grand speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, which was full of fundamental constitutional principles, we have before us an amendment which retains the voluntary concordat in Clause 9 and simply says that if there is to be a back-up code of practice it should incorporate the mandatory procedures set out in Schedule 1, but that the "minded to" procedures in Schedule 1, which were objected to in consultation, should be changed to "intends to". Certainly, that is a worthwhile change. But none of that can justify the kind of attack on the motives and conduct of the Government in bringing forward these changes that we have heard from the Benches opposite.

All that is proposed in Amendment No. 7 is a reestablishment of the mandatory procedures set out in Schedule 1 as part of the code of practice, rather than in the form it appeared in Schedule 1 to the previous Bill. There is a difficulty, in that the reference to Schedule 1 is purely a dictionary reference (as I believe it is called) because Clause 12 of the Bill, which we shall pass in due course—no amendments to it have been tabled—repeals Schedule 1. Therefore, it is not there and cannot be referred to in the way intended.

Nevertheless, I acknowledge that this is a sincere attempt to rectify a fault in the previous procedures—the "minded to" which was so objected to—and make a minor alteration to the code of practice provisions; namely, to change "minded to" to "intends to". But it does not work. We are now at Third Reading and we must have something that works. The prescriptive procedures in Schedule 1 to the 1994 Act would have to apply whenever a code of practice was made and that would result in inflexibility and unnecessary bureaucratic burdens.

I remind the House of the principles of good regulation of the Better Regulation Task Force under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. Those principles provide a framework against which good regulations and their enforcement should be measured. One of those principles is targeting, which means ensuring that the approach taken to regulation is aimed at the problem. This amendment adds procedures to the Bill that are not targeted but universal. The result is that the Minister would have to include the "intends to" procedures in every code of practice that he issued regardless of whether those procedures resolved the particular problem that had arisen. The amendment would provide no extra protection to small businesses. Rather than pursue a semi-mandatory, semi-statutory objective, it is far better that enforcement officers spend time helping small businesses comply with regulations in the first place so that enforcement action, or threatened enforcement action, is not necessary. Any code of practice is likely to contain provisions similar to those in the enforcement concordat, because they require that,

"Before formal enforcement action is taken, officers will provide an opportunity to discuss the circumstances of the case and, if possible, resolve points of difference, unless immediate action is required".

Surely, what is proposed here not only has the same objectives, which I believe noble Lords opposite have at heart, but is a more flexible and effective way to do it. Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, that Haringey has accepted the concordat but Kettering has not.

My Lords, Haringey is a Labour seat.

My Lords, this is not a grand amendment but an amendment which must be dealt with entirely on practical grounds, and I suggest that noble Lords should not accept it.

I deal briefly with Amendment No. 8. That amendment would make it mandatory for the courts to take into account whether the enforcement officer had complied with any code of practice issued in accordance with the Bill before deciding how to deal with the regulatory breach. It may be that there is no accusation that the enforcer has failed to comply with the code but the court will still be required to establish it. Under the Bill as drafted the court is not automatically required to consider any failure to comply with the code; it has discretion to do so. Surely, that is the right way round. If the court believed for some reason that it needed to establish whether the enforcement officer had complied with the code it would be free to do so, but it would not be required to do so as a matter of course. I believe that the "shall" instead of "may" is in the wrong place in the Bill, but if it is placed in the right position it has no useful effect whatever.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. To answer the last point, we are content that "shall" versus "may" is in the right place in the Bill. All this afternoon we have tried in both short and long speeches to convey to noble Lords opposite that there is a wealth of difference between ministerial assurances and what is on the face of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, may regard this as a little debate, but it addresses a very serious issue which directly affects the interests of small businessmen. In relation to these amendments, we on this side of the House are more interested in rights than rules. We wholly disagree with the response of the Minister to points that we believe have been made with great strength. On that basis we should like to test the opinion of the House.