My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to undertake an official visit to the United States of America from Thursday 12th October to Wednesday 18th October, when the House will sit. In the course of that visit I shall be delivering a lecture at the University of Boston and delivering the James Madison Memorial Lecture at the University of New York. Accordingly, I trust the House will grant me leave of absence.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government accepted all the recommendations made in the Griffiths report, which mainly concern improving research governance and guidance. The criticisms made in the article by Sir Iain Chalmers and Dr Hey relate to only one aspect of the review and do not invalidate the recommendations.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In the light of the damning criticism of certain aspects of the Griffiths report set out in this paper published by two distinguished physicians, will the Government now withdraw that part of the report which contains those criticisms and apologise to the doctors, nurses and members of the local research ethics committee in North Staffordshire, whose reputations have been tarnished so unjustly by the inquiry? Also, will the Government ensure that all further inquiries into alleged research misconduct are conducted under guidelines that are at least as fair, robust and equitable as those used by the Medical Research Council?

My Lords, Sir Iain Chalmers and Dr Hey were asked by the Medical Defence Union to review the papers leading up to the Griffiths report, and an article duly appeared in the British Medical Journal. In the same journal a response to some of those points was written by Dr Griffiths, who chaired the review panel. I want to make it clear that the terms of reference of the review arose from concerns expressed by parents in the early 1990s about some aspects of the conduct of research in North Staffordshire. The core recommendations of the Griffiths review relate to suggestions and recommendations in relation to the improvement of research governance throughout the National Health Service. The Government believe that those recommendations are sound and intend to implement them.

My Lords, I am surprised to hear that the Minister believes that the recommendations of the Griffiths report are sound in view of the considerable criticisms made by Chalmers and Hey in their paper. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that, particularly in the Birmingham area as he will have seen from the Birmingham press, this is a fraught subject, with paediatricians believing that they are under threat and being witch-hunted, and parents also having extremely strong views, believing that paediatricians are labelling them with Munchausen's syndrome by proxy. This is a difficult area for us all to understand. Will the Minister consider undertaking a new inquiry into the research carried out at the North Staffordshire Trust? Also, in view of the fact that there are other inquiries hanging over the trust and other paediatricians involved, will he ensure that fair and proper procedures are carried out for those inquiries as well?

My Lords, I do not believe that a further inquiry should be carried out into the Griffiths review. However, the department has received representations in relation to that review which we are now considering. Let me make it clear that the noble Lord is right when he refers to the controversial nature of many of the issues which have arisen. It is true that a number of the doctors involved are the subject of investigations by the North Staffordshire Trust and one of the doctors is currently subject to complaints being considered by the General Medical Council. However, the core recommendations arising from the Griffiths review relate to guidance on research governance within the National Health Service. It is on those recommendations that we have taken action.

My Lords, will the Minister agree that the Griffiths report appears to have given rise to a number of injustices, despite the Minister's comments about the value of some elements of it, not least of those being the apparent denial of human rights to the doctors being criticised in that they were not allowed to see the report before it was produced in order to be able to answer some of the criticisms?

My Lords, I have no reason to believe that the review was not conducted appropriately. My understanding is that each person interviewed was able to explore the issues that were raised. They were provided with a transcript which they agreed for accuracy. All the transcripts were then considered by the panel to decide who needed to be interviewed further. Further interviews with the panel took place, with witnesses again being provided with a transcript of their evidence for them to agree. I have said that we received representations and will be considering them. I repeat, the core recommendations, which relate to research governance, I believe to be sound.

My Lords, I sit on these Benches because I believe in a fair society. I also believe there are so many flaws in the Griffiths report that it must be reviewed by the Government. It is clear that there are numerous factually incorrect statements and that throws into disrepute the whole probity of the NHS governance framework for research. Will the Minister consider the matter in a more carefully phrased answer?

My Lords, I have said that we have received representations and will consider them carefully. I have also said that we believe the core recommendations to be sound. Professor Griffiths responded to a number of the points made in the same edition of the British Medical Journal.

As regards inquiries, reports and reviews, a number of different methods are undertaken within the NHS. I do not believe that the review was out of order or kilter with others which have taken place, or are taking place, within the NHS.

My Lords, I have listened to a plethora of words but I want to ask the Minister a simple question. Is he prepared to consider giving the apology sought by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, or is he not? Can I have a straight answer to a straight question?

My Lords, I always think that "yes", "no" answers are best avoided. Perhaps I may repeat that we have received representations about the conduct of the inquiry and we shall consider them. I stand by my earlier statement that the substantive recommendations made by Professor Griffiths are sound and that we intend to act upon them.

My Lords, the Minister said that the Griffiths panel expressed the view that research governance in the North Staffordshire Hospital Trust did not match best practice. In the light of that finding, has the guidance on research governance in the NHS been changed and if so in what way?

My Lords, yes. The panel stated that as far as it could tell the governance system in the early 1990s was broadly in line with the then departmental guidance but would not be considered best practice now. The Department of Health has produced a consultative document on research governance and that is being considered by its recipients. We shall be providing definitive guidance in due course.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 already gives head teachers the powers they need to maintain discipline in their schools and to exclude violent or very disruptive pupils. The Act carries forward provisions on discipline and exclusion introduced in earlier legislation by the previous government.

We have recently issued new guidance for exclusion appeal panels to indicate that the head teacher's decision to exclude should not be overridden in a range of circumstances, including where there is violence or the threat of violence.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is she aware of the serious situation which exists in the teaching profession? I understand that because of the teacher shortage at least two schools are working a four-day week. Is she not worried that among the many reasons for concern is the plight of teachers who have been subjected to violent pupils: when their cases are considered everything appears to be weighted against teachers trying to do a responsible job and in favour of disruptive children? Does not that situation need a great deal of consideration and action?

My Lords, this is a difficult area and I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that there is a difficult tightrope to walk. Of course the Government want to support teachers in what all noble Lords know is an increasingly difficult job. The Government have no intention of preventing head teachers excluding violent or potentially violent pupils. At the same time, everyone is agreed on the importance of trying to use every possible way to prevent exclusions. Many excluded children end up as damaged adults with no qualifications or ability to do a job. If we are not careful, they are also likely to end up on the streets.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the prevention of disruption is more important than having to deal with disruption? What government initiatives are in place to ensure that pupils do not become disruptive?

My Lords, I accept the sentiment behind my noble friend's question. It is important to have early intervention and prevention as a top priority and the Government have emphasised that in the guidance they have distributed to schools. There are many different forms of support, including working with parents, which head teachers and teachers take seriously. However, a common-sense answer to my noble friend's question is that really good teaching will in the first place reduce the amount of disruption and poor discipline because totally engaged pupils are less likely to be disruptive.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that, as the NUT has said, her national target for the reduction of exclusions of disruptive pupils from schools is a monitoring mechanism, not a strategy, and therefore could be seen as putting the cart before the horse? Does the noble Baroness also accept that the imposition of that target puts schools in an impossible piggy-in-the-middle position and sets them against their LEAs? On the one hand, the LEAs put pressure on schools to reduce exclusions to meet the Minister's target; on the other hand, the schools have an incentive to remove the most disruptive pupils to maintain their position in the league tables and to protect performance-related pay. What plans do the Government have to untangle this mess of conflicting pressures?

My Lords, I do not believe that it is a tangled mess of conflicting pressures. It is an attempt by the Government to ensure that there are goals as we try to reduce the number of children who are permanently excluded from school. That number rose very rapidly under the previous government, which is in no one's interest. I defend the Government's decision to have targets and goals as we try to reduce that number. That does not mean that proper guidance and support should not also be given to teachers. It is also very important that, through the learning support units that the Government are creating, we promote the possibility of removing disruptive children from the classroom without at the same time totally removing them from their schools as it is then much more difficult to reintegrate them later when their behaviour and performance have improved.

My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House what progress has been made, first, to ensure that when children are excluded from school they receive proper education and, secondly, to help them to become reintegrated into mainstream education?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising a matter which is at the core of the Government's policies. When children are excluded, it is vitally important that we continue to educate them. That is what the learning support units within schools are all about. There must also be some offsite provision for those pupils who need to be excluded. The pupil referral units, which have been established for some time, are doing a relatively good job in trying to help children and parents to get back into the system. I cannot give a specific statistic, but I am happy to write to the noble Lord about the number of pupils who have been reintegrated into their schools.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is an underlying problem? In recent years teachers have been asked to bear unfair burdens, which have been imposed on them by society as a whole as a result of the fragmenting of society and family breakdown, and those burdens have been compounded by the way in which teachers have been treated by the press. Does the Minister agree that teachers need all the support that we can give them?

My Lords, I believe that I indicated earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, just how important it is to support teachers in an increasingly difficult job. For that reason, the guidance that we have issued about exclusion appeals makes it absolutely clear that where a child is persistently disruptive and violent, that child should not, on appeal, be sent back to the classroom.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, there are now over 26,000 Welsh claims. Almost all the initial medical tests have been completed. Some 2,000 have received expedited offers and 608 claims have been accepted with payments of £1.5 million. A further 5,300 interim payments have been made totalling £15.7 million, including 800 bereavement awards totalling £7 million. This is the biggest ever personal injury scheme and progress has been too slow. Currently, there are five Welsh testing centres and the DTI is investigating suitable sites for two additional ones in Glanaman and Ystrad Mynach. In addition, the DTI recently announced proposals for new and increased offers to thousands of miners. There are detailed points to work through with the claimants' solicitors, but the DTI hopes to make about 4,000 offers in Wales, totalling approximately £25 million, before Christmas.

My Lords, does my noble friend appreciate that the failure to meet these claims has done considerable harm to the reputation of the Government? Mr Justice Turner, who made the original judgment, has been openly critical. Mr Vincent Kane, who chairs the monitoring group, has said that the rate of progress has been pathetic, and he and the whole committee have threatened to resign. Is it not now time for the Minister to consider her position? While I know that she has tried hard, obviously she has failed. Does my noble friend agree that we need a senior Minister with clout who can settle these claims quickly and arrange for a far more generous system of interim payments?

My Lords, all members of the Government believe that this extremely difficult situation is being dealt with far too slowly. However, we should also realise that this is a hugely complicated matter in which we must conform with both the judgment of the High Court and the constraints of the Public Accounts Committee, in that we are not free to give money to people to whom it is not due. We must, therefore, input a great deal of information from solicitors, medical employment records, initial lung screening tests and medical assessments by a respiratory consultant. It is accepted that there have been problems to do with solicitors sending claims documents back to us and GPs and hospitals being unsure about whether to release records. We have now sorted that out with the British Medical Association. The Government are united in their belief that the process is taking too long, but there is a limit to what they can do. The Minister announced a whole series of new measures to improve the performance of the medical assessments, to put simplified proposals to solicitors and to increase fast-track offers. I know that the Minister has done everything that she can to move the process forward.

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that, to date, of the 26,000 claimants only 23 claims have been finally settled? Is the noble Lord also aware that at the current rate of Healthcall examinations it will take years to complete the medical assessment process? Will the Minister look into the situation where the DSS is reclaiming some of the money paid out under the scheme? Does the noble Lord agree that this process should be looked at again before it becomes even more scandalous than it is?

My Lords, there have been 630 full and final settlements totalling £2.2 million. Of those, I believe that 22 cases—perhaps that is the figure to which the noble Lord refers—are negotiated settlements of litigated claims. Although there have been 630 full and final settlements that is not good enough given the total number, but it is better than the noble Lord implies. The purpose of the expedited offers is to enable us to avoid the complicated process of the medical assessment. For that reason we have put a good deal more effort into it. It is, however, clear that it will take two to three years to complete the process, but it is not as long as it would take if one simply divided the numbers involved by the rate at which one carried out the Healthcall assessments. I am unaware of the circumstances in which the DSS reclaims money, but if the noble Lord lets me have any information I shall certainly investigate it.

My Lords, can the Minister indicate, first, how many interim settlements have been made, if any? Secondly, is my noble friend aware that more than two years ago when I held the post of Minister of State in his department this Question was put to me and I had every belief that the matter would be settled by now? Why has there been no settlement of the remaining cases?

My Lords, as I indicated in my initial answer, 608 final payments and a further 5,300 interim payments have been made. It has taken so much longer than originally anticipated because to comply with the High Court judgment a great deal of paperwork and medical assessment have been involved. We are proceeding as fast as we can. The only justification for the length of time it is taking is that it would have taken more than 15 years to reach a settlement on an individual litigated basis.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is right. He was the Minister who answered a Question from me two years ago. The House is aware that the problem extends beyond the boundaries of Wales. The main problem now is that miners, and indeed their widows, are dying. Are there any plans for compensation for the families of miners or their wives who unfortunately have passed away in the period of nearly three years since the High Court judgment?

My Lords, I and the Minister involved are acutely aware that the majority of the claimants are people in their 70s and 80s. Many of them are very ill and some have died. That is a particularly unfortunate factor in the whole situation. Even since I answered a Question on this matter in the House of Lords in May, a further 365 claims have been submitted where the claimant has died. In all these cases the claims will be continued by the claimant's widow or dependants. In addition, where the claimant's death certificate shows that one of the respiratory diseases for which British Coal was found liable either caused or materially contributed to the death, the department will make a bereavement award to the claimant's widow.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, in September 1998, Bristol local education authority published proposals to remove selection from Cotham Grammar School and Fairfield Grammar School. The proposals were supported by governors, teachers and parents at the school and there were no objections. The schools admitted their first wholly comprehensive intake this September. No secondary schools which were designated as grammar schools in the Education (Grammar School Ballots) Regulations 1998 have become comprehensive as a result of a ballot to change their selective admission arrangements.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Why, after the Labour Party's many years of campaigning to introduce comprehensive secondary education, and with such an impregnable majority as the Labour Government have, is such slow progress being made? Is she aware that the balloting regulations, to which she has just referred, laid down by the Government, make it virtually impossible for parents to vote for a change to a comprehensive system? In those circumstances, will the Government examine what has happened in, for example, Ripon, Trafford and Kent to see what changes can be made to make the procedures more effective than they are at the moment?

My Lords, my noble friend may remember that at the 1995 Labour Party conference the Labour Party argued the case in Support for Diversity and Excellence, a Labour Party policy paper, that decisions on the future of grammar schools should be a matter for parental ballot. That commitment was repeated in our manifesto. On the issue of ballot regulations, some minor technical changes have recently been made as a result of a commitment made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place. The Government do not intend to make further changes. They consider that the balloting arrangements are now appropriate.

My Lords, why are the Government so against selection?

My Lords, the Government have always considered that it is right to give educational opportunities to all children and not to designate them as educational failures at the age of 11. It is rather interesting that, under the previous Conservative government, one-third of grammar schools became non-selective between 1979 and 1997. If the noble Baroness is so committed to their survival, I wonder why she allowed that to happen.

My Lords, bearing in mind Mr Blunkett's comment in July 2000 that grammar schools would be redundant in little more than a decade, what kind of redundancy is that likely to be: compulsory or voluntary? Otherwise, how is that likely to happen?

My Lords, by that comment I think my right honourable friend meant that, as a result of the Government's policy to raise standards, comprehensive schools will be so improved that parents will not wish to go through the selective process. In that sense grammar schools will be redundant.

My Lords, given that 13 per cent of the As and Bs at A-level are achieved by 164 grammar schools, does the Minster not think that it would be a mistake to destroy those schools'? Does she not worry that the other 87 per cent of schools do not achieve such high grades?

My Lords, I am very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, is not aware of the fact— because he has some expertise in these areas—that children who go to grammar schools are selected by ability. So is it really surprising that they get higher grades at A-level? It is puzzling that he should ask that question. But it is also the case that able pupils in comprehensive schools do equally as well as those in grammar schools at A-level and earlier.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The purpose of these amendments is to replace the English and Welsh legal aid provisions in the judicial Standing Orders with words appropriate to the new arrangements under the Access to Justice Act 1999. These are purely technical amendments.

Moved, That the following amendments be made to the Standing Orders regulating judicial business:

Standing Order V(2)

After "granted" insert "public funding or".

Standing Order IX

After "for" insert "public funding or".

Standing Order XIII

After "refused" insert "public funding or".—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now make a Statement on Serbia.

A remarkable democratic transformation is under way in Serbia. For 13 years Slobodan Milosevic dominated that country. He led its people into poverty and international isolation. In July he changed the federal constitution. He gambled that he would be able, once again, to count on the divisions among the opposition on propaganda and on intimidation to stay in power for many more years.

He was wrong. Almost all the opposition united behind a single candidate, Vojislav Kostunica. They presented the voters with a clear choice—co-operation with Europe or four more years of pariah status under Milosevic. They gave people hope that this time their votes could really count. On the day of voting they managed to expose Milosevic's cheating, and publicise quickly the scale of his defeat.

By manipulating the figures Milosevic tried to cling on. But the people of Serbia had had enough. They took to the streets in unprecedented numbers. They faced down the police, many of whom changed sides. They took their future in their own hands. They put their trust in their new leader, President Kostunica. We congratulate him and all his colleagues on their tremendous success.

We worked closely with members of the opposition, NGOs and the independent media in Serbia over the past year. We and our partners provided them with a wide range of practical support, including training, funding for election monitors and key items of equipment. Now we can work with them, and with their neighbours, to help build a stable and prosperous future for the FRY and the region. As a demonstration of our commitment to assist the new authorities in Belgrade, the EU's General Affairs Council yesterday agreed a package of measures. Except for a few controls targeted specifically at Milosevic and his close associates, EU sanctions imposed since 1998 are being lifted. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia will be able to benefit from the EU's new aid programme, CARDS, once this has been established, and from extended humanitarian aid programmes. Finance Ministers will work with the international financial institutions to consider how the FRY can be reintegrated as quickly as possible into the international financial community.

The Council invited the FRY to establish an EUFRY task force to look at how the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia might progress towards a stabilisation and association agreement, and invited the Commission to submit proposals on the extension to the FRY of the asymmetric trade preferences adopted by the 18th September GAC. The Council also asked the coordinator of the stability pact to present proposals to make it possible for the FRY to participate fully in that initiative too. Member states agreed they would all aim to re-establish or normalise their diplomatic relations with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. For our part, we have already made clear to President Kostunica our interest in doing so as soon as possible.

Alongside our efforts with our EU partners, we will continue to work closely with the government of the United States on all issues relating to the Balkans. We greatly value Washington's role and commitment over many years to helping to resolve the problems of the Balkan region. We share a common objective—making the whole region an area of peace and stability, a full part of Europe in every sense. We will want to work closely with Russia, bilaterally and in the contact group.

We are still at the beginning of a process. Milosevic's rule has left a bitter legacy. The new authorities in Belgrade must now reach out to their neighbours, to start to rebuild trust. They must establish diplomatic relations with Bosnia and Herzegovina and support the Dayton peace agreement. They must settle important succession issues with the other former Yugoslavia states as part of the normal process of joining the United Nations and the international financial institutions. Within the FRY they will need to institute a dialogue with Montenegro with the aim of establishing a new constitutional settlement. And they will also need to think very carefully about how they can achieve a structured democratic dialogue with the Albanian community in Kosovo. This is now possible, for the first time ever. We look to Serbian and Albanian leaders alike to approach this task responsibly and creatively in a European spirit.

The new authorities must also accept their international obligations to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. We made clear earlier this year that we had similar expectations of the new government in Zagreb. To their credit, they have complied, despite political opposition. We must ask no less of the new authorities in Belgrade.

The past few days have marked a historic turning point for south-eastern Europe. The citizens of Serbia have begun to dismantle the criminal regime of Milosevic, and in return, as we promised we would, we have begun to dismantle the sanctions regime which affected their country. More than that, we have already embarked on a new road of regional and international co-operation. Her Majesty's Government are ready to work with the authorities in Belgrade to help them take forward economic and political reform. We welcome the Serbian people's choice of a genuine democrat and European as their leader, and we will move forward together towards their goal of full integration into Europe.

My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the noble Baroness's comprehensive Statement on the situation in Serbia and the Balkans. I want to make it clear straightaway that we share the Government's welcome for the fall of the dictator Milosevic, if it is his final fall, and for the lifting, or partial lifting, of sanctions by the Council of Ministers of the European Union. As the noble Baroness indicated, this is the culmination of a prolonged period of struggle which began way back with Slovenian independence and was followed by the Croatian battles, the hideous atrocities in Bosnia and Kosovo and, now, the final protest from within Serbia against this monstrous man who has led the Serbian people through all this misery and bloodshed.

The task now is to anchor Serbia into modern Europe. Does the noble Baroness agree that at this stage the emphasis should be very much on practical help, some of which she has outlined, and that we would be wrong to rush in or shower the Serbians with money or with lectures on how to behave? If we did that, we would be making exactly the same mistake as was made in the case of Russia. A lot of half-baked economic advice was peddled to the Russians combined with an avalanche of cash to no good purpose at all. Can we please ensure that we avoid making that mistake?

Should we not be listening very carefully to what Mr Kostunica is saying? What he is saying needs to be precisely examined. He is saying that he has no love of superpowers, east or west. That is not surprising as his country was bombed by NATO and the Russians have been messing about and trying to influence internal politics. He does not raise the prospect of solving the problem of Kosovo. I noticed the noble Baroness's optimism, but I wonder how that will be done. It seems to remain an insoluble problem. Montenegro may be a little easier to handle, but that will be difficult too.

As to the European Union, this is a delicate task where we have to proceed with great caution. Would it not be wise for the Council of Ministers to assemble a new group to establish dialogue with Serbia in these early days in order to see which way it is prepared to move? Does she agree that Mr Solana's mission to Belgrade—he has done excellent work but he is bound to be a little compromised in view of his forward role in the bombing—is probably not the best grouping? Very few of us have much faith left in the European Commission's capacity to conduct foreign policy sensitively.

Does the Minister agree that the key needs now are that the people of Serbia get a free press and the free communication that the network age can bring, that the history of the past decade, in all its monstrosity, should be opened wide to the people of Serbia—their ignorance of what has been done in their name is enormous—and that in due course the war criminals, including Milosevic, should answer for their crimes, although perhaps that should be a little later down the line? Does she further agree that integrating Serbia in global financial reform is both important and difficult and raises vast complexities for the global financial system. It is not just a question of joining the EU but joining the global network.

Finally, will the noble Baroness bear in mind—I am sure that she will be reminding her colleagues—that this is a regional issue? Countries other than Serbia have suffered grievously as a result of Serbian expansionism and they, too, need help. Support and help should be aimed not only at Serbia, as it tries to bring forward its own political regeneration, but at all the other countries around that have suffered so grievously. What are the Government doing to make those aims a priority in the European Council of Ministers, as that is where the immediate task surely lies?

My Lords, perhaps I may join the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, in congratulating the Minister on her Statement. However, I shall depart a little from the tone of his questions. I should say, first, that we on these Benches echo the congratulations of the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others on the extraordinary courage shown by the Serbian people. It is worth remembering that many of them had no idea of the consequences that might follow their actions. This is a moment for celebration throughout the whole of Europe at what has been a remarkable expression of "people power".

Secondly, perhaps I may say—although I recognise that this will be a contentious remark—that many on these Benches believe that, despite some mistakes with tragic consequences, and the NATO bombing of Serbia, there is little doubt that Milosevic would still be in place if the Government had not had the courage, along with their NATO allies, to intervene in Kosovo. In many ways, this development represents a major justification of that intervention, with excellent consequences as regards the future of the whole of the continent of Europe.

Thirdly, I offer my congratulations, which I believe are appropriate, to Russia on its helpful role, after some early differences of opinion, in bringing about the decision made by Mr Milosevic finally to leave his post, albeit that he still hopes to hang on within the political scene.

I believe that the response of the European Union has been amazingly rapid. The General Affairs Council and the Commission deserve our unreserved congratulations on the line they have taken. I wish that other countries had acted with equal speed. In some cases—the United States comes to mind—they are still delaying a response. I am sure that that response will soon be forthcoming, even if not as speedy or generous as that of the European Union.

Having made those remarks, perhaps I may put two direct questions to the Minister. First, in the course of the Statement the Minister mentioned the Balkan stability pact and CARDS, the proposal for particular aid to be directed to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In the case of the stability pact, which seems to us an extremely constructive approach to the rebuilding of the former republic, can she tell the House whether representatives of Montenegro in particular could be involved in discussions about the pact? In many ways, the adoption of an economic approach to the relationship between Serbia and Montenegro may prove less contentious and more rewarding than immediately to try to address the constitutional issues. The same could be said, I believe—using a slightly different tone of voice—with regard to Kosovo.

Can the Minister also say whether immediate action will be taken to unblock the river Danube and to ensure that oil supplies reach Serbia? As Members of the House will recognise, nothing can equal an immediate indication of the appreciation of Europe for what has been done by the Serb people to consolidate them in their view that democracy is a very good idea.

My second question concerns the continuation of the limited sanctions with regard to the financial holdings of the former regime. Many on these Benches feel that this may be one of the more constructive ways to attempt to deal with what one might describe as "rogue governments", albeit not rogue states. More specifically, can the Minister comment on the statement made by Carla del Ponti, the chief prosecutor for the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague, as regards the 100 so-called Swiss funds which, she has claimed, could be recipients of illegal funds leaving the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to be used by Milosevic and his cronies? In relation to that, can she further comment on the £30 million said to have been transferred either to Russia or to China from the Milosevic family in an attempt to ensure that its future looks far more attractive than its record for one moment deserves?

I wish the former republic a very important and constructive role in the Balkans in the future. Once again, we on these Benches deeply welcome the Government's Statement.

My Lords, I warmly welcome the comments and congratulations offered by both the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. I reiterate the words of the noble Baroness when she spoke of the extraordinary courage demonstrated by the Serbian people. Indeed, I agree with the comment she made to the effect that, had we not been robust in our intervention in Yugoslavia, these events would not have taken place.

Perhaps I may turn immediately to some of the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. We agree that the emphasis should be laid on practical help and assistance. We are not rushing in. The assistance we have offered has been clearly focused. However, I respectfully suggest that the EU was right to move swiftly. The Serbian people had been told that the sanctions were directed towards the regime, not towards them. As the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, the people took their courage in both hands. They deserve to have that courage recognised. For that reason, we say that it was right and proper that the EU moved so swiftly in relation to the sanctions. We have joined in those developments. Indeed, it is good to see the nations of Europe acting together to the benefit of another partner in Europe.

As regards financial reform, of course such reform is necessary. When we move forward to the stability pact, it is right that the financial institutions and the way in which they operate will be matters of concern. In relation to regional issues, this change in Serbia will confer immediate benefits on the countries around Serbia. They, too, will feel the immediate and positive results affecting the whole of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Her partners will now feel a good deal more comfortable than they did while Mr Milosevic was in control.

Montenegro has already benefited. We know that her president, President Djukanovic—who had organised a boycott of the elections, which he considered to be illegitimate—has warmly welcomed the victory. It is now up to the governments in Belgrade and Podgorica to settle the details of their future relationship. This they are now trying to do.

The United Kingdom has supported the proposal of the European Commission to offer 20 million euros of exceptional financial assistance to Montenegro. This is now being considered by the European Parliament. The total amount made available to Montenegro by the EU since April 1998 is 82.7 million euros. Chris Patten recently announced that the amount allocated to Montenegro under the EU's OBNOVA Project 2000 will be doubled to 20 million euros, with a further 5 million euros to be made available for quick-start infrastructure projects. We are moving ahead on those issues. Furthermore, the EU has also provided technical assistance designed to help with economic reforms in key areas. In terms of supporting Montenegro, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that, along with our European partners, we are doing a great deal to help them to move further.

As regards the river Danube, the House will know that much of the difficulty was caused by Milosevic himself being obstructive about this matter. We had provided 85 per cent of the money in relation to the restructuring project. We hope that that can now go ahead with greater speed, to the betterment of the position of the peoples of Yugoslavia.

Certain sanctions still remain in place in relation to the Milosevic regime. We have consulted with the new president and his new government to consider how those sanctions should best continue. Sanctions will continue, it is hoped, to limit the movements of Milosevic and his cohort as well as to prevent the movement of their funds. We think that a balance has been struck here. In many ways we have relieved the peoples of Yugoslavia from the sanctions which impinged on them, but we have left in place those which, it is hoped, will inure to the disadvantage of Milosevic and his cohort.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, apart from the help being provided by the European Union in relation to the new administration in Belgrade, the United Kingdom should consider what it can do to help on a bilateral level? I am thinking in particular of help in developing a post-communist public administration.

Does the Minister also agree that the words she spoke as regards the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia becoming a part of Europe in every sense means that the people in Belgrade can now look forward to eventual membership of the European Union?

My Lords, we shall energetically consider on an ongoing basis the kind of assistance we can properly give to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In doing so, we shall obviously participate fully with the EU. The peoples of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should be able to look forward to the same opportunities for stability and integration in the long term as other peoples in the rest of Europe. They have seen all around them the benefits that accrue from democratic membership of the European family, and they have chosen to take a step which will enable them possibly to join that family in the future. We think that it was the right choice and the right step for them to have taken.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it would assist enormously our relationship with the new Serbia if compensation could now be offered to the civilian—I emphasise "civilian"—casualties of NATO bombing? We should remember that the new president of Serbia, the new president of Yugoslavia, has been highly critical of the NATO bombing campaign.

My Lords, I hear what my noble friend says. But it is important to remember what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, outlined—namely, that this beneficial change to the peoples of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia would not have occurred but for our actions. Therefore I am not able to indicate at this stage that there is any cause for us to change the position we have expressed in relation to what has flowed from those actions. We were right to take those actions. It was painful; it was difficult; we did not like it. But it was the only way, and we have been proven right.

My Lords, I, too, welcome the Government's Statement. I am sure that we all welcome the remarkable turn of events that we have witnessed in the past week.

I agree with the Minister's comments, but we need to do something to encourage the turn of events. Will the Government give further thought to the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, of providing aid for clearing the Danube and ensuring that it works effectively? It is very important that Mr Kostunica sees benefits flowing at once to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and to Serbia as a result of these remarkable events. His position will be strengthened if the right kind of support is given from the West. It should not be seen as meddling but as rapid economic support. I hope that it is something which the Government, together with other nations of the European Community, will bring rapidly into effect.

My Lords, I agree with many of the noble Lord's comments. I should remind the House that the EU is funding already 85 per cent of the costs of clearing the Danube. Reconstruction needs must he carefully assessed before decisions can be taken on individual projects. Now that Milosevic is out of the way, we can continue with greater rapidity.

The United Kingdom and the EU already are helping Serbia. The EU will now look urgently at the aid that Serbia will need, but it is too early to put a figure on major reconstruction assistance. The first task is for the international financial institutions, at the request of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia authorities, to send a needs assessment mission. Once the new government has accepted its conclusions and is clearly committed to a programme of economic reform, a donor conference can be organised. The EU will have a key role to play in supporting reform within the existing financial perspective. The EU will continue to provide technical assistance.

The issue of aid is extremely important. The clearance of the Danube at Novi Sad remains a priority. The EU will be supporting the efforts of the Danube Commission states to get an early start to the work. Much can now be done. We should congratulate the Yugoslav people on making this change possible.

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Minister on the Statement in regard to the rehabilitation and repair of the infrastructure of Montenegro. In the course of my contacts with the leaders of that country over many years, it was clear to me that they never supported the Belgrade regime.

My Lords, Montenegro has been in a very difficult position. One of the benefits of the changes in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is that the healing process can now begin. It is to be hoped that we can work together with the peoples of the Federal Republic to strengthen their country and to restore it to its previous good health.

My Lords, it is a matter of some rejoicing that the people of Serbia have changed their government by democratic means. It is a matter of greater rejoicing that, from Ireland on the Atlantic as far as Russia, the whole of Europe is now governed by democratically elected governments. However, does my noble friend agree that we should not assume that the new government in Serbia will be nice, gentle, liberal and democratic? From what we know of it so far, it will be a Serbian nationalist government, albeit one that has been democratically elected. We should perhaps await the outcome of four tests. First, what will be the new government's attitude towards Kosovo? Secondly, what will happen between Serbia and Montenegro? Thirdly, what will happen with the Serbs in Bosnia, who have clearly been influenced in the past by events in Belgrade? And, fourthly, what will happen with Mr Milosevic and a possible criminal trial? We should apply those four tests and perhaps not be quite so euphoric. Although I welcome the fact that the changes have taken place democratically, we should wait a little while to see how things settle down.

Finally, can my noble friend say a word about the current level of United Kingdom diplomatic representation in Belgrade? What is happening there?

My Lords, I understand my noble friend's caution. He is right to draw attention to those important issues. However, we should look first at what we know. We know that the new president did not agree with the Milosevic regime. We know that he used the democratic process through elections to gain power; and we know that he did so without the use of violence. All those are good things. Obviously we need to be cautious—we would be cautious with any new government—but that is why, as I hope I have made clear both in the Statement and in my comments, we are trying to work together in partnership with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

The tests in relation to assessment of need will be dependent upon meeting standards that we all agree are appropriate. Therefore we should not besmirch this moment of joy by being too pessimistic about the future. We should look at what we know. We should be cautious about the way in which we plan the future, but this is a moment for joy—a moment which we hope will last for a long time.

My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us if the European Union is committed to paying for all the clearing of the Danube and the rebuilding of its bridges now that the ridiculous objections of Milosevic have been withdrawn.

My Lords, the European Union has already committed itself to providing 85 per cent of the money needed for this task. Milosevic obviously had to allow access and agree to various other issues, which he refused to do. That blockage has now been removed and the steps which need to be taken to clear the Danube can continue without further obstruction. It is right that that should be a priority. It will be a priority with the new government and, together with our EU partners, we shall do all we can to ensure that that work is carried out as speedily as possible.

My Lords, may I remind my noble friend that the new Serbia also has a tremendous problem in dealing with the 250,000 Serbs who were expelled from the Krajina in Croatia, as well as over 100,000 Serbs who have fled Kosovo and lost their homes since the events there? There is some reason to be very careful about what we say about telling the new Serbian government what their attitude should be. I hope that our approach will be generous in helping them to solve what are some very serious internal problems.

My Lords, I reassure the House that the attitude adopted by Her Majesty's Government has been one of listening and working in partnership. From the moment the election took place, we were in contact with the new government in Belgrade. We have listened carefully to the requests that they have made. We are of the view that the new government are in the best position to identify the type and nature of the aid that they will need in order to complete their task. We shall do that with energy, and robustly, as I said earlier; but we shall do it also with a weather eye on the circumstances in which the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia finds itself. This a new beginning, but that beginning must be informed by what has gone on in the past.

My Lords, what has been the response of the United States to these events?

My Lords, the United States has certainly congratulated the new president and has welcomed the change. It is right to say that it has not as yet, to the best of my knowledge and belief, expressly offered any aid or any specific package. One would certainly hope that that would follow relatively speedily. We have set an example by what we in the European Union have done. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, rightly said, the EU response has been swift and appropriate. Obviously, we invite others to follow our example.

My Lords, my noble friend spoke about a structured democratic dialogue with the Albanians in Kosovo. I was in Kosovo last week and spent some time visiting a number of installations. One thing that I learnt very clearly is that the Serb communities there feel extremely vulnerable. Many of them will feel more vulnerable now that Milosevic has gone. What can my noble friend say to members of that small community about the protection that they will receive—and, it is to be hoped, continue to receive—from the international community in terms of their commitment to maintaining their minority rights in Albanian Kosovo?

My Lords, the establishment of democratic government in Belgrade opens the way to the beginning of a dialogue between Serbs and Albanians. We have no illusions that this will be easy, but we are committed to a multi-ethnic future for Kosovo. It is clear that Kosovo should have a high degree of autonomy. However, we are not in favour of independence—although, of course, nothing can be ruled out. If we had not stood up to Milosevic's repression in Kosovo, we should not be inviting President Kostunica to next summer's meeting of the EU heads of state and government. We have an opportunity for creative dialogue. The Serbians currently living in Kosovo will not be neglected and we shall be working with energy to make sure that there is a satisfactory conclusion for all the people of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

My Lords, following upon the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, could the European Union mission not at least have on its agenda the needs of citizens who were the victims of bomb damage? Why should this in any way condone any action by the NATO powers, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, was a necessary act?

My Lords, in all that Her Majesty's Government are doing to assist the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, we have the needs of its citizens in our sights. The restructuring of that country, the return to good governance and the ability to enjoy freedoms will all directly affect and meet the needs of the people of Yugoslavia. We hope that that will be a real compensation for the people of Yugoslavia, because they will, it is hoped, be able to enjoy the freedoms that we in many European countries enjoy.

My Lords, I am sorry to weary the House again, but I asked my noble friend about the level of diplomatic representation in Belgrade.

My Lords, I beg my noble friend's pardon. It is right to say that we are hopeful of being able to restore diplomatic representation in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. A request in relation to the matter either has been made, or will be made in the very short term.

My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that Mr Kostunica has called for reconciliation within Yugoslavia. I hope that he will not be put under too much pressure to do too much too soon. He already has an extremely difficult job in bringing all the strands of opinion and all the differences in Yugoslavia together in order to be able to rule effectively. I hope that my noble friend will take that into account and that she will ensure that her colleagues in the European Union also take it into account.

Will my noble friend agree that the marvellous events in Serbia last week had nothing to do with the bombing campaign? To suggest that they did is an insult to the Yugoslav people and to the Serbian people in particular? Will she further agree that what those people did was to ensure that the result of a democratic election was upheld and put into place? I hope that we are not going to suggest that this country and the European Union are intent on bombing people into providing the sort of government that they believe they should have.

No, my Lords, it is clear that it has never been part of Her Majesty's Government's policy that people should be bombed in order to obtain the sort of government that we should like. However, we must accept the historical fact. The people of Serbia were oppressed and had a limited opportunity to express themselves. Everything we know indicates that they gained courage from the fact that other countries were willing to help and willing to express a view, and that Mr Milosevic would not go unchecked. That message must have given great courage to the people of Serbia: the courage to know that they, too, could stand up and say no—which is exactly what they did. They should be congratulated on doing so. But it would be nave and foolish to think that the bombing that took place in order to force Milosevic into withdrawal did not have a material effect on the events that followed.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement on behalf of the Government on Sierra Leone.

Before I do so, however, I should like to take this opportunity to remember the sacrifice of Bombardier Brad Tinnion, who, sadly, was killed during last month's operation, and pay tribute to the bravery of our Armed Forces, who often operate in very difficult and dangerous circumstances.

As I made clear in answering Questions in your Lordships' House last week, the Government's strategy towards Sierra Leone was set out in a Statement by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place on 6th June. That strategy remains unchanged. Our principal objective is to ensure that the people of Sierra Leone are offered a realistic prospect of stability and peace, and are freed from the violence of a brutal rebel minority. Following the Summer Recess, the Government now believe that it is appropriate that the House should be updated on our plans. However, the Government are not prepared to reveal details that might in any way undermine the security of our Armed Forces or give assistance to their adversaries.

The key to a long-term solution in Sierra Leone remains the establishment of effective and accountable government armed forces. We have sought to help the Government of Sierra Leone by establishing a series of short term training teams and, in the longer term, the UK-led International Military Advisory and Training Team.

Building on our work so far, we shall be continuing our programme of training, equipping and advising the Sierra Leone army in several areas: a series of three further training teams will be deployed to train fresh troops—a team from 1st Prince of Wales Own Regiment will deploy at the end of October for the first of these; we shall provide continuation and specialist training covering topics such as leadership and logistics; a package of equipment support for the SLA to include personal equipment for the trainees; and we shall adjust our command and control arrangements, through the provision of an operational (one star) level HQ to command the overall UK effort and to provide high level operational advice to the SLA.

The overall number of UK troops on the ground will increase from the current figure of around 300 to somewhat over 400, depending on the training under way at any one time.

A key element of our strategy is to help the Sierra Leone Army develop its ability to undertake effective operations in order to maintain pressure on the RUF. In doing this, the safety of Armed Forces personnel in Sierra Leone remains uppermost in our minds. I can assure the House that their security is, and will be, kept under constant review.

The Government also recognise the role played by UNAMSIL. We support the work of the United Nations to restore peace in Sierra Leone. We remain ready under a Memorandum of Understanding signed with the UN last year to deploy UK-based forces up to brigade level in support of UN peacekeeping operations, including Sierra Leone. This would draw from our Joint Rapid Reaction Forces. Final decisions on any deployment would of course remain with the Government. But the speed and scale of our deployment in May is a clear illustration of what we can do, should we judge it necessary and appropriate.

To speed up our ability to respond, our deployed headquarters would be capable of taking such a force under command. We are also prepared, in response to a request from the UN Secretariat, to offer staff officers to the headquarters of the UN Mission in Sierra Leone, in addition to the 15 military observers that we already have with the mission.

Britain's continued support for the people of Sierra Leone in their search for peace and stability has been recognised around the world and has been highly praised. The measures that I have announced today will build on our effort so far and will support the vital role that the United Nations is playing to bring an end to the violence and to restore peace. I commend them to the House.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I thank the Minister most sincerely for her Statement to the House this afternoon: everything comes to him who waits. I should also totally and unequivocably underwrite her tribute to Bombardier Tinnion and, indeed, to all those who have given their lives in military operations wherever they may be.

This afternoon's Statement is most opportune because we are now at the end of the rainy season in Sierra Leone and operations may well be expected to escalate. I should further say that I totally accept that the Government should not reveal details that would give assistance to the adversaries of our Armed Forces. I hope that I shall not have to press the noble Baroness on such a point.

However, the Minister named three areas of operation in her Statement. We note that further training teams are to be sent. I hope that there will be a clear distinction between the training role and the role as part of UNAMSIL. I also hope that measures will be taken to ensure that the equipment we are providing will not fall into the wrong hands, as has happened on occasions in the past.

The command structure that was mentioned in the Statement is one thing that it would seem the Sierra Leone army cannot provide for itself. I ask the noble Baroness to tell the House what is the difference between,

"to command the overall UK effort",

and,

"to provide high level operational advice to the SLA"?

Indeed, what is the relationship between the British force (now to number 500) and UNAMSIL? What is the effect of the withdrawal of Indian troops? Are the British expected to pick up the tab?

Can the Minister say what United Nations is doing overall? Do not the Koreans, the Poles or the Canadians, as well as various other nations, have brigade structures that would enable them to provide a command structure in Sierra Leone? I ask the noble Baroness to look into her crystal ball, which is never easy to do. However, I hope that she may be able to assist your Lordships.

Will the Government keep control over all decisions to deploy, and over the rules of engagement, as mentioned in a Question tabled last week by my noble friend Lord Cranborne? What is the likelihood of the commitment that has been made being extended? Further—as this comes into the Statement—what constitutes a satisfactory conclusion to operations? All sides of your Lordships' House would wish to see such a conclusion and one that would allow British forces to get out.

This must not be an open-ended commitment to Sierra Leone. There is a distinction between the foreign policy framework and the precise extent of our military commitment. That distinction must be kept clear. I do not blame the Government for adjusting their actions to meet changing circumstances. But I believe that we should object to bland assurances that the circumstances are not changing. I am afraid that this Statement indicates that there is a vestige of a feeling that there may be a likelihood of extending the United Kingdom commitment. When she replies, I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that possibility.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Statement. Even if she looks into her crystal ball, I certainly understand that it may not be wise for her to tell us exactly what she sees in it under current circumstances. I also share the regret and sympathy of the House that we lost Bombardier Tinnion. However, we have to recognise that, in the United Kingdom's commitment to support the UN in reconstructing failed states, we may occasionally have to accept a number of casualties.

From these Benches, I offer strong support for the Government in today's decision. In disagreeing with the Conservative spokesman, perhaps I may point out that the reconstruction of weak and failed states in Africa, south of the Sahara, looks like being one of the necessary commitments that this country, in collaboration with others, will have to undertake over the next few years. We must recognise that this is not necessarily a matter of "quick in, quick out". As in south-eastern Europe, it is a long-term commitment in which we hope that one will be able to move from first-line troops, to training and then to policing. We must also recognise that it is in the United Kingdom's strongest interests to support the reconstruction of effective statehood in these states and that, if we fail to do so, the consequences will, among other things, turn up on the streets of London in the form of refugees and migrants from those states.

As Clare Short, the Secretary of State for International Development, has said on a number of occasions, Sierra Leone is a test case for the United Nations and for Britain's responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. It is therefore entirely appropriate that the United Kingdom should provide additional staff officers—as it did for the UN operation—additional training for the army, and, if I understand the Statement correctly, back-up forces to intervene if necessary.

The Statement refers to drawing from our Joint Rapid Reaction Forces. Does this refer purely to the United Kingdom or, in the context of the European defence initiative, are discussions under way with our European partners as to whether countries other than the United Kingdom might be involved? As regards the provision of staff officers to the UN, is that purely a British offer, or are other European states involved?

The lessons of this operation must be taken into account. In the context of the Brahimi report, and other discussions under way in the United Nations, how far is the United Kingdom giving its full support to learning the lessons of Sierra Leone: the absence of decent command and control and, indeed, decent co-operation among UN forces and the weakness of the UN department of peacekeeping operations, about which we have heard a number of extremely savage criticisms over the past few months? Clearly that needs to be substantially strengthened.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Burnham and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for the tributes they paid to Bombadier Tinnion. It behoves us all to remember that when we deploy our Armed Forces we often ask their members to take considerable risks. There is not an armed conflict in the world that does not involve such risks.

The noble Lord said that he would not ask me to reveal details that would be of assistance to our adversaries, for which I thank him. I remind him and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that my department's offer remains open to give both noble Lords briefings in confidence, should they so wish. The noble Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, is not present at the moment, but I am happy to extend that offer to him.

The training teams which I mentioned, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, referred, are the Short Term Training Teams which we discussed in your Lordships' House last week. They are quite distinct from UNAMSIL forces. They are British teams which will be used in the way we discussed last week in order to train some thousand or so personnel from the Sierra Leone aimed forces at any one stage. We shall indeed be careful with regard to the distribution of any equipment which we make available to those armed forces.

The noble Lord also asked about the command structure. The changes to the command structure of the United Kingdom forces which I have described are distinct from the advice which may be available to the Sierra Leone armed forces. The noble Lord mentioned a figure of 500 troops. I believe that the figure will be over 400, but I am not sure that we have any confidence that we shall reach the figure of 500. However, we certainly expect to have over 400 troops on the ground at any one time. The noble Lord is right; there will have to be further discussion in the United Nations about what to do to make up the numbers of troops that will be needed under the UNAMSIL banner—if I can put it that way—as a result of the withdrawal of Indian troops.

The noble Lord enjoined me to look into my crystal ball. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, precisely foretold, I am a little reluctant to do that. As I am sure all noble Lords understand, it is dangerous to speculate on such matters when we have troops on the ground. However, I assure the noble Lord that we shall keep control of our decisions to deploy and, as the noble Lord would expect, of our rules of engagement. A decision about command structure would be taken at the time of any deployment. That would be a United Kingdom decision. I hope that follows up the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, made at Question Time last week.

This matter is kept under constant review. I believe that the noble Lord said that he had the vestige of a feeling that there would be further deployments. I understand that many people have said that they have vestiges of feelings about further deployments. I hope that my comments have conveyed the fact that there has been no change of policy or anything that could be described as "mission creep", or any of the other journalistic terms that are used in this connection. We are consolidating the policy position which we have established.

The noble Lord asked me what a satisfactory conclusion would comprise. It would be the establishment of peace and stability in Sierra Leone; the establishment of control over the rebels in that unhappy country; and the establishment of proper control over the government forces by a democratically elected government. We are very much working to that end.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked some rather broader questions about our interest in supporting proper development in Sierra Leone. I agree very much with what the noble Lord said about the importance to British interests of supporting such matters as good governance in Sierra Leone, and the importance of understanding that humanitarian ideals are also vitally necessary in that unhappy country. The whole question of poverty must be addressed. Sierra Leone is one of the poorest countries in the world. Tackling poverty in that country through carefully targeted, long-term programmes to promote economic and social development is an important facet of any international effort.

I believe that the United Kingdom is contributing enormously to that effort in the training that we are providing. We have, after all, dedicated some £70 million thus far to our efforts in Sierra Leone. The package I announced today will add additional money to that sum—a further £27 million approximately. The noble Lord mentioned the JRRF and asked whether it would comprise British personnel. It is a British commitment. We made that clear in our Memorandum of Understanding last year. However, nothing stays static in these matters. As developments in Europe take place, there is no reason why we should not perhaps approach our colleagues elsewhere at a suitable time. As of today the commitment I described in the Statement is a British commitment, as are the staff officers. I believe that we are learning lessons. I believe that there are lessons for the United Nations in the way that the mission has been conducted in Sierra Leone. As has been mentioned, I also believe that there are wider issues with regard to the control of the diamond trade and the way in which that has fuelled so much of this vicious and dreadful conflict in Sierra Leone.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with me that historically peacekeeping missions and, indeed, training missions of the kind that we are conducting in Sierra Leone tend to last for rather longer than we would like? I refer to the operation in Cyprus which has lasted for about 30 years. We do not know how long our various commitments in the Balkans will continue.

I do not think that the noble Baroness made the next point entirely clear. If we are to have a presumed open-ended interest in putting together, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, suggested, failed countries in sub-Saharan Africa, is the noble Baroness clear that we have sufficient armed forces in terms of sheer numbers of bodies to be able to cope with any commitment that might arise, particularly in the light of the increasingly low morale in the Armed Forces? Those of us who know members of the Armed Forces are aware of that. It is evidenced by the increasingly worrying exit of senior non-commissioned officers and of junior officers of all ranks from all three Armed Forces.

My Lords, the noble Viscount said that historically our peacekeeping missions last longer than we would like. They do indeed last but they also keep the peace. They are necessary in countries where otherwise the internal civil strife leads to the atrocities that we have witnessed so unhappily taking place in Sierra Leone. I do not believe that what I have said indicates an open-ended commitment. However, I am not in a position to tell the noble Viscount that it will end at a specific time in the future because that is not realistic. We have to keep the position under constant review. I do not believe that there has been—to use the journalistic term I used a few moments ago—"mission creep". I believe it is very important indeed that the Government have kept a very firm eye on the full range of our commitments overseas.

The noble Viscount paints a very gloomy picture of morale in our Armed Forces. While I recognise that there is a problem over retention of some of our Armed Forces, I hope that the noble Viscount will be as pleased as I am that last year was the best year for recruitment in the Army for some 10 years. We have sought to address the problem of retention through a number of different means, which we have discussed in your Lordships' House previously. But I assure the noble Viscount that when we make decisions about deployments of the Armed Forces the question of what we have termed overstretch of the Armed Forces is to the forefront of our minds. We recognise that responsibility and will continue to do so.

My Lords, the Minister spoke about bringing the rebels under control. Will the noble Baroness confirm that the clauses in the Lomé agreement which refer to total disarmament and demobilisation of all non-state armed forces still apply? Will she confirm that the objective is to demobilise and disarm the whole of the RUF so that it no longer presents a threat to the state? Is not the ultimate objective of training the armed forces of Sierra Leone that they will, if necessary, be able to undertake offensive actions against the RUF in the north and diamond-producing areas if it is not possible to get it to lay down its arms voluntarily?

Will the Minister also say something about the status of the so-called civil defence forces, the Kamajors? Will they ever be reintegrated into the regular armed forces of Sierra Leone; or will there continue to be, as there have been in the past, two different sets of armed forces in parallel with the danger of conflict between them which that implies?

Can the noble Baroness say something about the work of the sanctions committee? She mentioned the need to stop the trade in illicit diamonds. Perhaps she will confirm that at a recent meeting in Geneva some new measures were agreed by the diamond marketing companies of the world to try to prevent these illicit diamonds from reaching world markets. Can the noble Baroness say something about the committee? It was established under the auspices of the United Nations. We gave evidence to it on 31st July about the nature of this trade and about allegations in particular which we made concerning the involvement of the Liberians. Has there been any progress in gaining the cooperation of President Taylor in stopping up the traffic which was alleged to go via Monrovia; and in preventing illicit supplies of arms coming from Liberia and reaching the RUF in the field?

My Lords, the Lomé agreement is designed to deliver lasting peace in Sierra Leone. It provides for the permanent cessation of hostilities, as the noble Lord indicates. It also provides for disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of all ex-combatants, and for the creation of effective and democratically accountable armed forces to protect the country in the future and the international peacekeeping force to supervise that process. It is implicit in that if we are training the legitimate forces in Sierra Leone, which will be under the control of the democratically elected government, we are training them for a purpose. That is to keep order in their own country. If that means engagement with the RUF, I am afraid that that is what is implied. But it is our firm desire that the RUF will understand that they mean business and that it will see that its own interests lie in a peaceful future for its country.

The noble Lord asked about integration of other parts of armed groupings within Sierra Leone. Our primary task at present is to try to get the Sierra Leone army on to the right footing. We are far from that at present. That is why Her Majesty's Government have put forward these extra resources which I have described to your Lordships today in order to accelerate that process. But having a firm base for those armed forces, the ways in which others who may wish to take to arms can be dealt with will be a consideration. I believe that the important issue in the first instance is the Sierra Leone armed forces.

The noble Lord asked about the issue of diamonds. As I believe I mentioned to your Lordships last week, the United Kingdom has been a key mover in what has been described as the Kimberley process—a process led by South Africa—which has recommended an international rough diamond certification scheme. We have also been doing our best through the United Nations Security Council ban on the import and export of Sierra Leone rough diamonds not certified by the Government of Sierra Leone. The noble Lord is right. There are problems with those outside Sierra Leone who perceive their own interests in perhaps not getting that diamond trade under control. There is growing international pressure on Liberia, on President Taylor, to close down its links with the rebels in Sierra Leone in this respect.

I know that the noble Lord has a wealth of information at his fingertips over Sierra Leone. As he knows, there is a great deal of detail around these issues which we shall be happy to discuss.

My Lords, I realise that it is my own fault that I am not clear but I should be grateful for clarification.

The Minister announced two things. First, that there will be an additional 100 (or thereabouts) British trainers to train the Sierra Leone army. Secondly, I think that my noble friend said that there would now have inevitably to be discussions in New York as a result of the withdrawal of the Indian contingent, that the British Government will participate in those discussions with the secretariat in New York, and that we shall be making provisional arrangements internally in the structure and control of our Armed Forces here so that if we wished to make a contribution to the UN force, as emerges from those discussions in New York, we should be in a position to do so.

I hope that that is right because the British are extremely good at peacekeeping. It is refreshing that in recent years the United Nations has moved away from the old convention: that the permanent members of the Security Council did not engage in peacekeeping exercises. Our Armed Forces are particularly good at this task. I hope that if the UN thinks it right, and we think it right, the Government will be in a position to respond.

My Lords, my noble friend is right in part. Without repeating the Statement, perhaps I may run over the main points. First, starting after the deployment at the end of this month which I described, we are running three more training teams for the Sierra Leone army on the same syllabus we have been running since early June.

Secondly, we are continuing the specialist training that we have described under the British-led organisation IMATT. Thirdly, we are providing funding for a further package of equipment. That is important to the Government of Sierra Leone. Fourthly, we are establishing an operational level headquarters in Sierra Leone to ensure effective command and control of the UK effort. Those are four important points.

The noble Lord is right about the Joint Rapid Reaction Force. We stand by our Memorandum of Understanding to deploy a rapid reaction force of up to brigade size. We are also prepared to step up our contribution to the UN mission in Sierra Leone by offering a number of staff officers.

I did not want simply to agree with the noble Lord, because he understandably overlooked some key points from the Statement. I thank him for his comments about our peacekeeping prowess. We have much to be proud of on that. Wherever I go around the world, British peacekeeping expertise is rightly admired and very much wanted in areas of difficulty.

My Lords, I remind the House that I have a somewhat peripheral interest, but following the comments of my noble friend Lord Cranborne and of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, can the Minister say, in percentage terms, what level of operations the British Army can sustain in the long term over several years?

My Lords, as I suspect that the noble Earl would expect, I shall have to seek further advice on that. I suspect that the figure would vary from time to time. At times we have had high levels of deployment. At the height of the Kosovo crisis, our deployment of our Armed Forces was well over 40 per cent. I am happy to say that it is now 20 per cent less than at that time.

The noble Earl's question is understandable, but it may be difficult to answer because of the indications that that might give about our military strength to those who might not be too unhappy to exploit such information. If I can give the noble Earl any further help, I shall of course write to him.

My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister a few questions about the United Nations force. There is no doubt that the British forces have been competent and efficient and are responsible for what level of order there is in that country today. What about the United Nations forces? They have been pathetic. They seem unable to defend themselves and large numbers of prisoners have been taken by the rebels. Are the orders being changed? Is there any hope of a competent peacekeeping and peacemaking force emerging from the United Nations?

My Lords, the noble Lord's judgment on the United Nations forces in Sierra Leone is a little harsh. There has been widespread deployment by a number of different countries, which have been prepared to commit considerable numbers. A number of countries in the region have, understandably, been foremost among those who have deployed troops. I shall be happy to let the noble Lord have details of those numbers.

I agree with the noble Lord to the extent that there is now an issue about increasing the number of troops available to UNAMSIL. The United Nations has made it clear that it is looking for an increase in the numbers. The current shortfall has been exacerbated by the Indian authorities declaring that they wish to withdraw in due course. That is not a surprise. They always said that their involvement was time-limited.

They have also helpfully said that they will dovetail their withdrawal from Sierra Leone with the arrival of new contingents.

We should be careful about leaping to judgments on the operation of the forces in Sierra Leone. We wish them well and believe that they are a power for good in that country. They are there to demonstrate the interest among the international community in securing peace in Sierra Leone.

My Lords, first, what commitment have we made to the UN under the Memorandum of Understanding? As I remember it, we have said that we will put up to a brigade at the disposal of the United Nations. Can we have an assurance that our troops will not be under United Nations command? Secondly, the UN's Brahimi report makes it clear that the unfortunate troops on the ground have to look to a command structure of about five people in New York operating until five o'clock on any day. Does not that make it even more important that we know what the mandate is?

My Lords, under the Memorandum of Understanding the rapid reaction capability could consist of a joint force headquarters with strategic communications support, together with transport, helicopters and medical units. I have already said that it could be of brigade size and could have logistic and administrative support assets. I hope that the noble Baroness understands that there are sound reasons why I cannot give a full breakdown of every part of the JRRF. A decision about the command structure would be taken at the time of deployment. I assure the noble Baroness that it would be a United Kingdom decision.

My Lords, one of the measures of insecurity in countries such as Sierra Leone is the number of internally displaced people. Will the noble Baroness confirm that the number of displaced people in the care of voluntary organisations and Churches has diminished, particularly around Freetown and the other centres? Does she have any breakdown of that number?

My Lords, I do not have a breakdown of that number, but I assure the noble Earl that, with other development partners in the European Union, we are continuing to provide substantial support to meet the continuing humanitarian needs of the Sierra Leonean refugees. The noble Earl understands that we need to consider not just the number of refugees who have gone to neighbouring countries, but the number of individuals who are internally displaced within Sierra Leone. Such support is being channelled through the relevant UN agencies, such as the UNHCR and the international non-governmental organisations and their local partners. I shall try to get some figures for the noble Earl, but it is very difficult to get firm data about what is happening across Sierra Leone, because our troops are concentrated in particular places. However, I shall try my best to ensure that what information we have is made available.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

My noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns apologises that she is unable to be in her place at the present time. I am dealing with the Bill on her behalf.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Baroness Seccombe.)

On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

My Lords, before we do so, perhaps I may intervene briefly. I wonder whether we should, indeed, again resolve ourselves into a Committee on the Bill. Noble Lords may wonder why the Minister has used the word "again". I would not blame them if they had forgotten that we have already had a day on this Bill. The first day of Committee took place as recently as 11th May and the Bill then disappeared into what I believe astronomers call a "black hole". That is my first point: that the thread or continuity of the Bill has been seriously disturbed by the long wait between the first and second days.

The second point that I want to make before we decide whether to proceed with the second day of Committee is that there are hundreds—and I mean hundreds—of government amendments. Since our first day in Committee, the Bill has been substantially rewritten. Indeed—this may be simply by accident but I suspect that it is by design—on the last day on which your Lordships sat at the end of July, 48 pages of government amendments arrived. I was here on the last day but the amendments did not catch up with me until the first week of the Recess, by which time, of course, people had scattered. Therefore, it was not a very convenient day on which to receive 48 pages of amendments.

I could perhaps forgive the Government. They reexamined their Bill and realised that it was not properly drafted. I thought, "Well, 48 pages of government amendments we can live with". However, back we came in the overspill and on the very first Monday another 48 pages of government amendments arrived on your Lordships' desks. Today, noble Lords will see that the Marshalled List is about the same size, if not bigger, than the original Bill. While I and the Liberal Democrats have a few modest amendments, it is a fact that of 135 pages, more than 100 are the responsibility of the Government. New schedules have been introduced and, even worse, amendment after amendment has been made to clauses and schedules which makes them almost incomprehensible to the average, non-lawyer reader.

The position is entirely unsatisfactory. This is an important Bill. It deals with the very fabric of our democratic society: free—I emphasise the word—political parties, free from government. It seems to me that the Bill unnecessarily ties up those free parties. The amendments—page after page of them—are a most unsatisfactory way for the Government to treat such issues. I shall not go into the manner in which the amendments have been drafted. The groupings, which we shall come to later, will be almost indigestible to your Lordships; they are certainly indigestible to me.

If this is the best that the Government can do, it would be far better if they decided not to proceed with the second day of Committee. They should take the Bill away for a new draftsman and new officials to see whether they can come up with a shorter and simpler measure which achieves the objectives without all the red tape.

My Lords, it is probably par for the course for oppositions to express a certain synthetic outrage at the behaviour of governments. I am not sure that I want to go all the way with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, with regard to the Bill being taken away. However, the Minister's response is made all the more difficult by the weight and strength of the complaints of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay.

The situation would not be so bad if this were the only instance when this has happened. However, we are moving away from this House acting as a revisory and advisory Chamber almost to the point where we are dealing with Bills which are different from the ones considered in the other place. If we and the other place are to do our jobs properly, I believe that government or the usual channels must consider this matter.

I said to one of our researchers, "I intend to say X, Y and Z on Tuesday". He replied, "Actually, you said that on the first day of Committee"—not that that will stop me saying it again, of course. I believe that the combination of the inordinately long gap between the two Committee days and the extraordinary cascade of amendments make the complaint of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, valid and difficult for the Minister to reply to.

My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly to support my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I want to make this point in as unpartisan a way as possible. Governments of both complexions increasingly have been guilty of the type of outrage that my noble friend described. It is true that, as any form of existing business manager can testify, that is due largely to the avalanche of legislation and the inordinate hurry of all governments to introduce it as swiftly as possible in one legislative Session. This has become a disease which is undermining the standing and respect of Parliament.

I have perhaps bored your Lordships a number of times during the course of debates on reform of your Lordships' House. However, I believe that the time has come for noble Lords to consider seriously whether this type of behaviour is beginning to undermine the central purpose of your Lordships' House. I have always believed that that purpose is to ensure, with the greatest respect to another place, that the other place, under the control of the government of the day as it is, has a chance to do its job properly.

This is not the only example of such behaviour. As I say, governments of both complexions have been guilty of it. However, I am concerned that another place will find itself dragooned into looking at what is, in a number of parts, virtually a rewritten Bill at the fag end of the Session without the time to consider properly a subject which, as my noble friend pointed out, is fundamental to the health of our parliamentary and representative system.

I hope that the Minister, who is always most courteous to your Lordships, will be able to give some reassurance that, if we are to proceed with the Bill, adequate time will be given to another place, which is most directly affected by the provisions of the Bill, to examine the large parts of it which have been largely rewritten at the Government's instance because of the hurry in which their business managers had to introduce it.

My Lords, having fought and won 10 general elections, naturally I am interested in the subject matter of this Bill. I have been in Parliament altogether for 55 years but I cannot recollect any occasion, as described by my noble friend on the Front Bench, when a Bill before your Lordships' House is being virtually rewritten by a mass of rather obscure amendments.

Surely the right course is for the Government to withdraw the Bill and reintroduce it, if necessary, for the first time in your Lordships' House so that Members of both Houses can see without an absurd amount of detailed scrutiny what the Bill attempts to do. I hope that what my noble friend has suggested will be observed by the Government because I believe that, as part of our parliamentary democracy, he is right.

My Lords, I am grateful for noble Lords' contributions in this stimulating opening to our afternoon's deliberations. I was going to pay tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, for what I felt was friendly fire, or at least constructive criticism. I have to take that on the chin. I accept that we, in government, have in some ways been culpable in creating the difficulties that have surrounded this Bill.

But that said, there are a number of points which should be fairly considered. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said that the Bill had been largely rewritten.

I accept that there are a large number of amendments. There is no doubt about that. But that is due to a number of factors. One of those is that as we said throughout the course of this Bill, in another place and here too, we are trying to get it right. Getting it right comes at a price. As Members of the Opposition will appreciate, getting it right means that sometimes you have to consult. That word was used extensively yesterday on the airwaves. It happens to be true about this Bill. We want to get it right because, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said, this goes to the heart of our constitution. If we are to do that, then it is down to us to ensure that when we do, we reach the right conclusions.

This is a complex Bill. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, made a very important point. This Bill is about the other place. It is about regulating the way in which elections are conducted, donations to parties are made and sponsorship is organised. There has not been much regulation of those activities in the past. This Bill, in one leap, attempts to set that right so that we can demonstrate publicly that we are cleaning up our act.

Simplicity is what we should like to achieve. This Bill is complex to achieve some simple ends. Regulation is necessary. That is what we have tried to do in seeking to bring forward amendments. We have consulted and listened carefully to all parties. We shall continue to do that throughout the course of this legislation.

I make one final point on government amendments. Yes, there are a number of government amendments. Noble Lords will no doubt have noticed that there are some amendments to amendments. Many of those amendments are triggered by earlier amendments discussed throughout the passage of the legislation. We shall bring forward many amendments during the course of our debates and deliberations. They are stimulated also by reasonable points made by members of opposition parties who have co-operated in making sure that we try to get it right.

Therefore, we have had an unfortunate break in the thread of continuity—a useful expression, I thought. But that has enabled us to have time to pause for reflection. We have a busy agenda. We want to see that agenda through. It is true that this Bill has had to take its place in a longer queue. But now we are here, I suggest to your Lordships that it is only right that we should give it due consideration.

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can assure us that the Government will use their best endeavours to ensure that when the Bill returns to another place it will not be rushed through and another place will have a proper opportunity to discuss the massive changes which have been made since it left that House.

My Lords, obviously, I cannot speak for another place but it will no doubt wish to consider carefully that very helpful consideration. I believe that it should.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House again in Committee accordingly.

[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne) in the Chair.]

moved Amendment No. 42:

Page 8, line 30, leave out ("and any pending such systems,").

I rise to speak to Amendment No. 42A. I am also responsible for Amendment No. 44. My amendment is designed to address two problems with the existing wording of subsection (1) of this clause. Both concern the scope of the subsection. The problems are addressed in other amendments grouped with this one. However, my amendment seeks to encompass them in what is, in effect, a redrafting of the subsection. It also has the effect of rendering unnecessary subsection (2).

The first problem concerns the use of the word "pending" in paragraph (a). My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish is concerned that this could lead to ambiguity and would allow the commission to promote the case for electoral systems that have not yet been introduced, and may never come into force. I appreciate that subsection (2) seeks to clarify the term. However, it does not necessarily resolve the ambiguity. As I read subsection (2), Parliament could approve a new electoral system for use in a future election and authorise the Secretary of State to give effect to it by order. The system would not be in force and may never be in force, but once the measure was enacted it would be pending.

I can see the case for the electoral commission having the responsibility for giving advice on how a new system works once it has been approved by Parliament. My amendment makes it clear that that responsibility will only apply once a new system has been approved and will be used at the next national or local election. The amendment thus imposes a clear limit. It is also practical, as the obvious time to give information to voters is shortly before they are to use a new system. I believe that my amendment meets the objection of my noble friend, while allowing the commission to provide advice on a system that is not current.

The second problem addressed by the amendment is the scope of paragraphs (b) and (c). My noble friends Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Lord Astor seek to delete paragraph (c). As we have heard, they believe that it is not the job of the electoral commission to promote public awareness of the institutions of the European Union. I agree. However, I believe that the same argument also applies to paragraph (b).

The electoral commission is a body set up to fulfil certain functions in respect of elections, referendums and the registration of political parties. The general functions are embodied in Clause 4. The areas of competence of the commission are clear. By "competence", I refer to its expertise. The commission is to be given the personnel and resources to carry out those general functions as embodied in Clause 4. The competence of the commission— remind the Committee that it is called an "electoral commission"—does not extend to current systems of government in the United Kingdom, nor to institutions of the European Union.

Those who specialise in the politics and government of a particular country or a particular region are likely to know something about the electoral system or systems within that country. But those who specialise in electoral methods or other particular aspects of a political system are not necessarily experts on the political systems that employ those electoral methods. Promoting awareness of systems of government is not some incidental task that can be fulfilled by a body which specialises in elections and referendums. That is the key point. It is a major undertaking in its own right.

I realise that under subsection (4), to which my noble friend referred, the commission may make grants to other persons or bodies for the purpose of enabling them to carry out those functions. But that falls foul of two objections. The first is that the commission itself is not necessarily qualified in terms of its own knowledge to decide what persons or bodies are best qualified to carry out such tasks. The second is that it is not clear that the power itself falls within the scope of the Long Title.

I touched upon the problem of Clause 12 in relation to the Long Title at Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, did not respond in replying to the debate but, with his usual courtesy, he wrote to me afterwards. The noble Lord pointed out that the Long Title refers to an "Electoral Commission" and that Part I sets out the commission's general functions. He went on to say,

"In undertaking programmes to promote greater participation in the democratic process, including by voting at elections, the Commission must be free to explain not just how we vote, but also the role and relevance of the bodies that we elect".

The general functions of the commission listed in Clause 4 relate clearly to the other matters embodied in the Long Title. The functions listed in Clause 12(1)(b) and (c) do not. Paragraph (a) can begin to fall within the Long Title in that it can be related to election campaigns. In his letter, the Minister confers on the commission a responsibility that is not embodied in the Bill. Under that clause the commission is required to promote public awareness of electoral systems and systems of government. That may or may not produce,

"greater participation in the democratic process".

That suggests to me some confusion as to what is intended by the clause. It appears to confer on the commission a responsibility which takes it beyond that which is required for fulfilling the functions adumbrated in Clause 4 and beyond that encompassed by the Long Title of the Bill. I repeat: the functions embodied in subsection (1)(b) and (c) are not incidental to the fulfilment of the commission's other functions. There is nothing in the Bill that imposes upon the commission the responsibility to encourage greater participation in the electoral process.

I appreciate, of course, that the Long Title can be changed. I do not want the title to be changed. I want this clause to be amended to ensure that the commission sticks to those matters on which it has expertise.

I am on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, as opposed to that of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. I believe that Amendment No. 42A meets the situation which the Government have in mind. That situation is this: the Government produced such massive changes in the electoral systems in Scotland, Wales and Greater London that half the electorate did not understand what they were all about. Clearly, there was a need for some education in electoral systems, particularly those that had been newly introduced, but only after they had been placed on the statute book, not just generally floated about—I am sure my noble friends did not have that in mind. So I fully understand the need to explain the ever more complicated systems of election on which we are embarked.

I should perhaps declare that I am a member of the Neill committee and therefore I have some connection with the proposals in the report. I apologise to the Committee for not immediately revealing that highly significant fact. But that leads me on to my next point. Promoting political awareness in general is a rather dangerous task to give to an electoral commission and I do not believe we had that in mind either one way or the other. In fact it did not even occur to us when we were considering the functions of the electoral commission when we framed our report. However, whether or not the Government are right in giving the commission the task of promoting political awareness, the crucial question is: awareness of what?

Promoting awareness of election systems—that is, the technicalities of elections—does not seem to me a great offence. I would have no difficulty with that, although I am not a partisan of it. Where I strongly draw the line is in promoting awareness of,

"the institutions of the European Union".

as set out in Clause 12(1)(c). As the Committee will be aware, paragraphs (a) and (b) relate to electoral systems in the United Kingdom and currents systems of local government. But in paragraph (c) we suddenly leap into,

"the institutions of the European Union".

If I felt for a moment that we had an electoral commission that would tell the truth about European institutions and how they impinge upon the farcical element of democracy as represented in the European Parliament; if I felt that that could be made plain by the electoral commission, I would feel reasonably satisfied. But we are clearly on controversial ground in that regard and it would be very foolish of the Government to try to put that into the hands of an "independent" body. Are any of us really independent on this issue? If paragraph (c) is to be taken literally, the commission must tell the truth, not only about election to the European Parliament—we cannot even vote for a person of our choice; we have to vote for a list—but also about the European Commission, the European Court of Justice, the European Central Bank and the Council of Ministers. Is it wise to hand over that responsibility to the election commission? I doubt it and I urge my noble friends to rethink our position on this matter.

I rise to speak to Amendment No. 47 which stands in my name. It deals precisely with the points made by my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney. The Bill states:

"The commission shall promote public awareness of … the institutions of the European Union".

I have several objections to that and suggest a modest amendment. Instead of "institutions", the provision should read, "the current electoral systems of the European Union". That at least brings it back to the electoral system.

I have an objection on a point of principle in relation to the Long Title of the Bill, mentioned in another context by my noble friend. I do not see how this paragraph can possibly be considered as part of the Long Title. The Long Title talks precisely about the electoral commission and every other part of it relates to electoral systems. The paragraph refers to,

"the institutions of the European Union".

That has nothing whatever to do with electoral systems. I believe therefore that this paragraph should not be part of the Bill on the ground that it is not within the Long Title.

But even if that were not so, it is not wise to encumber the new commission, which will have a large number of duties to perform, with another vague task in promoting public awareness. It has much else to do that is more important. This is just a little bit of frippery which we can well do without.

I feel strongly that the Bill would be far bettter without the entire clause. But if the Government cannot be persuaded to adopt that course, at least Amendment No. 47 would make it more relevant.

As might be expected, I cannot support any of the amendments before us and I believe that Clause 12 should stand part of the Bill. It would be remiss of the Government not to take the opportunity of using the electoral commission to provide voter education, which is so greatly needed. A number of noble Lords have referred to the need for that.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said that he did not believe that that was what the commission was about. I first advocated the step to the electoral commission in 1991: I suggested that part of its brief should be voter education. Therefore, I am particularly pleased to know that if one waits, things finally happen. I believe that the Government's proposal is right and that we would be wrong not to take the opportunity to promote public awareness of elections and electoral systems.

As regards electoral systems, I understand "pending" to relate to those systems which have already been agreed by government and will be put into place. During debates on the Scotland, Wales and London Bills we heard many complaints from the Opposition that educating people about the various systems was not being addressed. We now have an opportunity to do so.

As regards what might happen if we change the electoral system for Westminster, perhaps I may correct the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, did not suggest an AV system but an AV-plus system. Irrespective of my personal views on the need for electoral reform, I hope that the commission will be 100 per cent impartial. It would be wrong for it to take a side on the kind of system which should or should not be available. It might disagree with what I want but I would not be happy about partiality. We have discussed the membership of the commission at length and I believe that as a result of its definition it is certain to be impartial in that respect.

The argument applies equally to Europe. It would not be right for the commission to become involved in political matters relating to Europe. The suggestion that it might become involved in the argument about the euro is a red herring. However, as we are in Europe it should, in a factual sense, explain to people the European institutions and the ways in which the British Government work with Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Shore, suggested that that would be difficult and that it could be done only if the commission told the truth. It can tell the truth if it is factual and unbiased. That is what citizenship education in schools is all about. It explains the way in which we are governed and the role of our politicians in an unbiased way. I would have thought that the same could apply in Europe.

We need to be told because people do not understand about the institutions of Europe. They do not know the difference between the Commission and the Parliament. They do not understand the role of the Human Rights Commission or Court. If we are asking people to vote in an election which will have consequences for those bodies, it is only right that we ensure they understand what they are voting for.

Finally, I turn to grants. We are giving the electoral commission many serious responsibilities and it could take on the responsibility of knowing to which organisations it should give grants. That would maintain its impartiality and ensure the impartiality of the organisations it is assisting. That is crucial in ensuring that people have a greater awareness. An opinion poll published last year or the year before identified how few people knew the meaning of "first past the post". They know what to do when they get into a polling station but they do not have a clue why they are doing it or what the outcome will be.

I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Is not this the most appalling denigration of the British people? They knew perfectly well what they were doing when they kicked the Tories out at the last election and I may even be right in saying that they were right. But to say that they go in, put a cross on the paper but do not have a clue what they are doing is de haut en bas like an 18th century duchess talking around a servant girl.

I want to say to the noble Earl only that I would never be a duchess. The important point is that the opinion poll clearly showed that people know what to do when they go into polling stations—they know where to put a cross—but they do not know the mechanics of why they are doing it because they do not understand. The evidence is not mine; the position has been made clear. If the noble Earl would care to look at Hansard—I cannot quote chapter and verse but I shall try to find it—he will see that the issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, during debates on the different electoral systems. I do not remember whether it was during debates on the Scotland, Wales or London Bill but during one of them he said that people do not even understand "first past the post". It is not what I am saying but in the general sense.

With great respect, the fact that my noble friend Lord Mackay said it adds no force to the argument at all. It is denigrating to pretend that the people do not understand how to vote for their lords and masters.

That is not what I am saying. I am sorry that the noble Earl seems determined to misunderstand what I am saying. I repeat that in a general sense it is crucial that people understand the mechanics.

I disagree with the premise of the argument which the noble Baroness advances, but that is not the issue. I do not disagree that there is a need for greater education when the electoral system is introduced, nor do I disagree that the commission should be impartial. The question is whether it is the appropriate body to undertake such tasks. It is not a question of impartiality or education; it is a question of whether it has the expertise to undertake the task or whether we should give it to others.

I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, raised that point. We are giving the commission an enormous amount of responsibility and we expect it to have a great deal of expertise on how political parties and elections are run. Therefore, I do not believe that it is beyond the bounds of possibility that it could explain the electoral systems to the electorate. I also believe that it should take over the job currently undertaken by the Home Office to inform the electorate how to register and to obtain postal votes. That would be a significant role for the commission and is part of voter education. I hope that that answers the point.

Perhaps I may respond by saying that it does not. Those matters fall within the election process and are not at issue. No one has challenged the provisions of paragraph (a); paragraphs (b) and (c) raise the problem which takes us beyond the issue she has identified.

I am sorry, but I cannot believe that how one votes is nothing to do with the electoral process. Of course it is. I believe that it is a continuation of exactly that role. I hope that the Committee will reject all these amendments and will allow Clause 12 to stand part of the Bill.

Perhaps I may first address myself to the question of the Long Title. We are fortunate in the services provided so ably to us by the Clerks when we table amendments to legislation in your Lordships' House. They adjudicate as a matter of course on whether those amendments are within the Long Title of the Bill.

My memory of my time as a business manager for the previous government leads me to remember that officials within the government machine sometimes adjudicated on difficult questions of whether the original drafting of a Bill and particular clauses within it lie within its Long Title. I remember long, and sometimes vigorous, discussions on those points not only between Ministers and officials but between officials themselves.

There is considerable doubt whether Clause 12 comes within the Long Title of the Bill. As a non-lawyer reading the various phrases of the Long Title beginning with the words "to make provision about", there is perhaps even greater confusion here than has been so clearly identified by my noble friend Lord Norton; namely, whether subsections (1)(b) and (c) and (4) "make provision" or introduce something completely new into the Bill. Perhaps the Minister can assist the Committee when he comes to reply.

My collective memory, which is purely anecdotal and perhaps needs to be confirmed by the Minister when he comes to reply, is that very often when there was confusion within government about whether certain clauses came within the Long Title of a Bill Clerks of both Houses would be asked, sometimes informally, for their opinion. Did that happen when the Government gave no doubt detailed consideration to the question whether to include Clause 12? If so, although the Minister will not be able to say precisely what advice was given, can he tell the Committee why he believes that it comes within the Long Title? Since this is questioned by so many experienced former Ministers and people who occupied offices in another place, for example my noble friend Lady Fookes, should we not take expert advice on the matter?

This is a matter of considerable importance for a number of reasons, in particular the future reputation and standing of the commission. I see the noble Lord, Lord Neill, in his place. I hope that he is the first to recognise that if the commission is to be set up it is essential that it should be generally regarded with respect and its impartiality should be beyond question. Otherwise, its establishment will do very little good and it will be dragged into the political arena, particularly in areas of enormous political controversy. I refer not only to electoral systems but, thanks to Clause 12—if it is accepted in all its current glory—matters which are of enormous importance to the future of our country and excite political controversy, whether it is our continued membership of the European Union or the nature of our future association with the EU. If the commission's impartiality is put at risk by asking it to do things that go beyond its clear remit of adjudication, the Government will not do either themselves or the institutions of this country a favour by asking the Committee to approve Clause 12.

I have nothing to add to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Norton about subsection (1)(a). His amendment encapsulates something which I am happy to accept. I hope that the Government will also accept it. It is much clearer and simpler than Clause 12(2), which perhaps attempts to do the same kind of job.

It is important to illustrate why I believe the function of propaganda is so insidious and the Government have been seduced by it. I am about to say something which noble Lords on the other side of the Committee may regard as a little tendentious, but I do so all the same. The Government suffer from what I regard—perhaps not in an entirely complimentary fashion—as the "BBC syndrome". Some things are so blindingly obvious to metropolitan man and woman that the Government cannot conceive that sonic may fundamentally disagree with their views. Therefore, in the generosity of their hearts, and because of their natural pedagogical tendencies, they are only too delighted to educate us—that is an expression which they constantly use—as to the self-evident right ness of everything in which they believe. They maintain that stance even if it is patently obvious that the overwhelming majority of the people of this country do not agree with them. When the overwhelming majority do not agree with them they ignore that fact. Although they are paid-up, sincere believers in our system of parliamentary democracy, nevertheless they characterise those who do not agree with them as extremists, even though they may form part of the majority.

That is a mindset from which the Government unquestionably benefit; it gives them enormous self-confidence and certainty. It never occurs to them that they might just be wrong. In that they share the kind of prejudice which has brought the BBC into such disrepute. That is a clear warning as to why we should not drag the commission down the same road by agreeing Clause 12. It is a great shame that they have so needlessly complicated the electoral arrangements that people need to be educated as to how they work.

I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, for whom I have the greatest affection and respect, ever stood for election in another place; she probably did. My experience during the relatively short period—two Parliaments—in which I had the privilege to serve as Member of Parliament for the constituency of South Dorset (as it was then) was very different from that of the noble Baroness. My constituents were extraordinarily clear about how the system worked because, after all, it was relatively simple. They knew that if they gave me more votes than anybody else I would win; if not, I would lose. It was patently obvious that they did not need any education on that point.

Infinitely more complex and different systems have been introduced for the Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the citizens of London. That is a highly sophisticated body of people who no doubt understand it better than I do. Nevertheless, I can understand that they need to be educated. I regret that those systems have been introduced, but for the moment I must accept that they are in place. Therefore, since the Government have got themselves into a mess there is some sense at least in trying to explain to the electorate the complications of the system.

But if the Government want Clause 12 they would be extremely wise to drop paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) and, instead of subsection (2), adopt Amendment No. 42A in the name of my noble friend. They should drop subsection (4) and any idea that the body should be financiers of any other organisation that it might commission to carry out the education function, because if it made grants to one rather than another it would be making a judgment about that organisation and so would compromise its independence.

I hope that the Minister will take advice by consulting through his colleagues the Clerks of both Houses on whether the clause is within the Long Title; and if it is, explain to us why. I hope that he will also listen to the advice he has received about the contents of the clause. The majority of the clause is not only unnecessary but is positively prejudicial to the good standing of the commission before it is even launched.

I had not intended to speak this afternoon. I should like to make it clear that as the chairman of the committee which produced the report, it did not seem appropriate for me to comment on whether the Bill has the matter right or wrong. I do not want to play that part. But I understood the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, to be inviting me to speak about the role given to the electoral commission.

I should disclose one other interest. The noble Viscount referred to the constituents of South Dorset in flattering terms as being a group of people who realised that the candidate with the largest number of votes was likely to be elected to the House of Commons. I was one of his constituents.

I am expressing my own personal view about what Clause 12 purports to do. My opinion is that it is a wholly inappropriate role to give to the electoral commission as we conceived it. I cannot see how it could carry out the duties conscientiously under Clause 12 without being drawn into political controversy. How does one explain the electoral systems of this country in a wholly neutral way? If one thinks of a clause which says that people can be employed to run programmes, who does one invite to run such a programme? Obviously the natural place to go would be to the politics departments in universities. Let us imagine a professor of politics having to give a completely neutral lecture about the electoral system; any professor who accepts the burden of neutrality should not be in his job at all. He should have a clear view.

Could the electoral commission teach one how to achieve tactical voting? Could it do that and point out in which constituency that would be most likely to be successful? One has to think for only about two seconds about the role given to the commission to see that it is one which would get in the way of the other very serious obligations it has under other parts of the Bill. My opinion having been invited, I have expressed it. I regret that I shall not be able to stay because I have a commitment elsewhere. I hope that that has been of some assistance.

I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord said. He expressed an opinion based on the information given to his committee. But I draw the line when it comes to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. For him to say that he was not partial is really straining the imagination.

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I would be horrified if the noble Lord went away from the debate thinking I was impartial. I am very much the reverse.

That is what I thought. That is what I am complaining about. Affectionately though I look at the noble Viscount, his knowledge of this particular issue baffles me. I refer to Clause 12(1)(c). I served on the European Commission for four years. It should have been longer. The British public simply do not know enough about the value of the work of the individual organisations which make up the European Union. I do not see why the commission should not be able to press these issues in a perfectly straightforward way. It does not have to be biased. It does not have to adopt a position where it favours the Commission or does not favour the Commission or the other organisations which make up the European Union. Textbooks have been written about the issue which do not take up a "for" or "against" position.

Briefings are written in English or German or whatever. The English edition is in pink. Everyone looks at them very carefully, particularly before a Commission meeting, not with a view to getting a distorted view of the issue but with a view to getting a balanced view of the position.

With regard to paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 12(1), I do not see why the commission has to be prejudiced one way or the other. I adopt the view that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, adopted when describing that. Whatever view one takes with regard to Clause 12(1)(c) on the institutions of the European Union—I know my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney takes a particular view—it is irrelevant as far as concerns the job of the commission. Clause 12 states that the commission shall promote public awareness of the different institutions. So it should.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, is passionately enthusiastic that people should he educated about the system. I agree with her with regard to the new systems, which are very complicated.

The noble Lord, Lord Neill, has now left, but I think he has a house in Scotland. I am not sure whether he was there at the time of the Scots referendum but he will perhaps be more aware than some of us of what happened in Scotland. Any of us who experienced the Scots referendum knows that once the voting system gets into an election, it becomes a huge electoral issue. The way people learned how the system worked during the Scottish referendum depended very much on who was explaining it to them. The noble Baroness will understand that as a political person. Once it is in the system, it is a very political matter indeed.

I do not know whether in schools in her part of the country the discussion of electoral systems or indeed political systems becomes politicised. But certainly where I live, which is in Nationalist country, it is very difficult for a teacher to tackle the subject without politics coming into the matter. I do not blame teachers at all. I have taken part in this exercise myself and know how difficult it is. The discussions become politicised.

The noble Lord, Lord Neill, made a powerful statement that he feels that this is an inappropriate role for the commission. I am sure the Government will pay attention to that. They certainly should. It was courageous of him and he may be criticised for making it. I think that he was right to do so, and I am sure that the Government will pay attention.

I should like to make one point. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, said that she assumed that pending electoral systems were those which had been agreed by the Government. I imagine that she meant to say "agreed by Parliament". It is too soon for the matter to come into the public domain and be discussed by the commission.

The noble Baroness is correct. The word should have been "Parliament".

On that point, I would suggest to the Committee that my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth has the position right in Amendment No. 42A, which seeks to insert the words,

"any electoral system that has been authorised by enactment, but is not yet in force, for use at the next national or local election".

It must be something that has not only been approved by Parliament but has been enacted, so that it is the system that people will use. To teach them about that is very different from teaching them about systems which people are advocating and discussing and which may or may not be accepted. That is a political matter.

If the Government are to accept an amendment, it should be Amendment No. 42A. But, having heard my noble friends Lord Cranborne and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Neill, how much better it would be to leave the clause out of the Bill and to arrange for the education of people in these matters to be done by another body.

It seems to me that the case has been rather strongly made in contributions from the opposite side of the Committee for Clause 12(1) and (2) to remain as presently drafted. The cat was slightly let out of the bag when the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that people knew how to vote for their lords and masters. That was a quite revealing phrase about elections in this country.

When I said "our lords and masters", I meant our Government. Those are what they are; that is what we choose them to be; and that is what we are quite grown up enough to do. That is why I am not patronising the electorate and some noble Lords opposite are.

If the noble Earl reads Hansard, he will see that he was talking about electing our lords and masters. That is the phrase he used. If he reads Hansard, he will see that that is what he was saying elections are all about. I shall not pursue the point. I have registered it already.

Perhaps I may refer to some of the points made by noble Lords opposite. They reveal some of the worst aspects of what I would call the political closed shop. The cat was let out of the bag by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, when he referred to things being dragged down into the political arena. That chimes with much of the public concern about politics and political institutions. I should have thought that Clause 12 as presently drafted would do a good deal to improve people's understanding and recognition of the worth of the public institutions for which they are voting. If they received that information from an independent body rather than from the political classes, they might possibly have a higher regard for some of those institutions and some of the people who work in them.

It would be for the benefit of the status and standing of politics and of the institutions that are involved in politics if some of the passing on of information was taken out of the political arena and given to an independent body, which could then exercise its judgment about how to put that information in the public arena. That would be a sensible way to proceed. I fully support the Government in standing firm on Clause 12(1) and (2) as presently drafted.

Before the noble Lord sits down, I hope he will agree that I was not against an information function. I was against confusing it with the independent functions of the commission. On his more general point, does he agree that there is probably a deep and unbridgeable divide between his position and mine? I happen to believe that the electorate is best qualified to judge; he believes that a platonic class of guardians should judge rather than the electorate.

I believe that the electorate are able to judge which party or candidate to choose in any election. I also believe that the electorate might appreciate information about the institutions and electoral systems through which they are voting from an independent source rather than from the political classes, whom they might possibly see as having an axe to grind when putting that information in the public arena.

Before the noble Lord finally sits down, perhaps I may say that I have been a long-standing advocate of political education. I believe that it can be delivered neutrally; and contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Neill, was saying, I believe that it could be provided neutrally by politics professors. I declare an interest as a politics professor. If they were wearing their academic caps, it could be done well. There are means of doing it. We are not arguing about whether there should be education; we are arguing about the appropriate body to deliver it. There are mechanisms for doing it independently of the parties. The noble Lord missed the basic point. He is arguing that there should be education. I am certainly not arguing against that. I am saying that, because of the way the electoral commission is composed, it does not have the expertise to carry out that task.

I disagree with the noble Lord.

I am inclined to support the opening words of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. He rightly expressed deep concern that the electoral commission might at some point take it upon itself to take initiatives contrary to the will of Parliament and outwith its remit. I know that Northern Ireland is a very tiresome place but on this occasion I think that we can be of some assistance. I shall give two examples.

In Northern Ireland we have had for a long time a neutral animal—he is supposed to be neutral—in the name of the chief electoral officer. A former occupant of that office once bullied a Minister into attempting to deny to the people of Northern Ireland holiday votes, which had been introduced by Her Majesty's Government in the Representation of the People Act. The Act embraced Northern Ireland but was not solely about Northern Ireland. The Minister and the chief electoral officer got together and threatened resignation if their views were rejected. It fell to me, with some considerable assistance from the Home Secretary of the day, to ensure that they were defeated in their conspiracy. There we had a case of a senior, and ostensibly neutral, electoral officer—an appointed officer—not very different in kind from what is being proposed for the commission; his role should have been restricted to implementing the law made by Parliament and nothing else, but he took it upon himself to act contrary to what he knew to be the view of the government and Parliament of the day.

I have a second example. On another occasion the chief electoral officer, when conducting a proportional representation election, advised electors publicly, by taking space in the newspapers at public expense, to vote down the ballot paper. "Don't stop", he said, "You must go right down it". His objective was to ensure that the very small parties at the bottom of the ballot paper would benefit from transferred votes as candidates were either elected earlier or their votes became valid at some later stage. It was a pure political initiative on his part without approval from or reference to Parliament or the government of the day.

On the question of education, I share the view that it is not the business of the commission to educate people, in particular about the institutions of the European Union. I fear that it would be impossible to secure an impartial opinion on all the complexities of the various institutions within the European Union.

Finally, I think that such a commission would be even more vulnerable to foreign interference than was the old system of the Speaker's Conference which designed boundaries. Again, the experience of Northern Ireland can come to the aid of noble Lords. The situation is plain. The last boundary commission was forced by a foreign European government—they even boasted about it—to go back to the drawing board. The first report of the Speaker's Conference on constituencies in Northern Ireland, reporting at the same time as on the remainder the United Kingdom, did not suit the Irish Government.

The Irish Government made no secret of the fact that they had ordered Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the boundary commission, technically presided over by the Speaker of the House of Commons, designed a different number and pattern of constituencies. That was done and was then implemented by the United Kingdom Parliament. On that occasion, the triumph of foreign interference was that a very hardworking, moderate and constructive SDLP Member of another place, Dr. Joe Hendron, was ousted by one not so constructive politician in the shape of Mr Gerry Adams from the constituency of West Belfast. That happened because the Irish Government blundered and did not know what they were doing. They transferred into Joe Hendron's constituency a huge slab of IRA supporters, not only individual voters, but also access to their printing presses which were used to produce forgeries of the identity cards needed to vote in Northern Ireland.

I am afraid that the new commission would be even less likely to stand up to pressures from one foreign government, still less could it resist the pressures described by the noble Lord, Lord Shore; namely, from a whole gaggle of European nations, should they decide to get together. For that reason, I believe that Clause 12 is fairly dangerous.

This has been an interesting debate which has produced some recognisable faultlines. I was interested in the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Neill. Clearly, some glamour still attaches to the role of Member of Parliament because he was flattered by the fact that his former Member of Parliament praised the judgment of his constituents and then accepted his invitation to intervene in our debate.

Perhaps I may say that I agree with parts of the Neill report and, as I made clear at Second Reading, I disagree with other parts. It is important, when discussing the Bill, to remember that the Neill report is not carved in tablets of stone and that the noble Lord, Lord Neill, most certainly is not Moses. I thought that his intervention was ill judged, in particular since he has now departed. We are now left with a dilemma. Will we work through the remainder of the Bill on the assumption that the noble Lord's silence denotes approval, or will he pay us visits from time to time to pronounce on other aspects?

As I said, I think that the Neill report is a good and solid bit of work done by good and solid citizens, but Parliament should not be overawed by it; it should take it for what it is—a good contribution to our debate.

It is certainly a better contribution than we have heard from some of the Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, seemed to rush away from any proposal about information like Dracula from garlic—although I would concede that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said that he was in favour of information. That, of course, is what we have been talking about today. We have not been discussing propaganda, but rather information and education.

One of the faultlines that has revealed itself in this debate is the complacency demonstrated on this side of the Committee about how our political institutions are working at the moment. It is worth remembering that our debate—which has embraced many different facets and involved a large number of pieces of legislation—was not started by the noble Lord, Lord Neill. It arose out of a growing concern among politicians of all parties at the low esteem into which politics, politicians and our political institutions were falling. What is being proposed may or may not provide the answer to those problems, but to assume that what we have is the best of all possible worlds would be to demonstrate complacency of the most dangerous kind. We need to encourage more people to become involved in the political process and I believe that that requires education to be delivered in its broadest sense.

In some ways it is almost pathetic to observe that soon we shall be celebrating 30 years' membership of the European Union. Despite that, it is generally accepted that there is widespread ignorance as regards its workings and operations. I believe that that is the case because people generally feel that the subject is so politically charged that it is best simply to avoid giving out proper information.

I also think that one of the reasons why governments all too frequently reach for referenda is a failure of confidence by Parliament and parliamentarians themselves. I am still sufficiently old-fashioned to believe that the great issues of the day should be settled in Parliament by the elected representatives of the people rather than by ducking such issues and shuffling them off to be decided by referenda. But perhaps that pass was lost a long time ago. Given that, let us at least put in place a framework in which people can hold informed discussions and then make informed decisions.

I am sorry to see that, in the course of the broader debate about the need for constitutional reform, we still witness what I shall call the "short-term slide-rule approach". Every idea put forward is carefully measured to calculate the short-term political interest of one party or another. If this Bill moves forward, I hope that this House in particular will examine some of the proposals in the broader context of how we can make our democracy more effective and how we can engage more fully and better inform our people in the process.

I agree that Clause 12 should be retained. Perhaps it would have been better, as an alternative, to establish two commissions—although I suspect that the same complaints would have been made about commission B as those that have been made today about the commission as a whole. Indeed, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, when she stated that the experience that the commission will gain from one side of its operations will prove very useful when carrying out its duties under Clause 12.

I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, believes that it is possible to give unbiased information. Teachers do it all the time. I believe that it would be wrong to decide that the commission could not gain the expertise so to do. Broadly, we support the retention of Clause 12, not for any short-term party advantage, but because we believe that it will underpin the broader interests of our democracy and the fuller interests of what the Bill as a whole is trying to do.

Before the noble Lord sits down, although I do not dissent from what he said about teaching, I do not think that he has made a case as to why the electoral commission should be the body to undertake that task. The noble Lord has conceded that teachers quite often can impart information impartially. They can do that because they are trained as teachers of politics. It is when people who are not trained try to do so that the problems arise. I cannot see how the electoral commission will comprise people with that degree of expertise; they will not be trained to impart that kind of information.

I said that teachers can do it. I do not believe that teachers exclusively can do it. The commission will gather a body of expertise and may well bring in expert information. If, for example, we gave the task to the Central Office of Information, some on the Conservative Benches would say, "There is a department of government carrying out government propaganda". The noble Lord says, "Not the commission", but I suspect that some of the complaints against the idea of information and education would be levelled against whichever body was chosen to carry out the task.

The two points that I wish to make override each of these amendments. The first point is this. The commission is to consist of not less than five and not more than nine members. Do the Government contemplate that decisions must always be unanimous? They may very well not be. If decisions are not unanimous, and if the commission is not equally divided, will the majority view always prevail? If that happens, those members who do not agree with the majority will find themselves obliged to support matters of public education with which they do not agree. That seems to be an unfortunate—indeed, an impossible—constitutional position.

My second point—I can put it quite briefly—is this. We are told in subsection (6)—this overrides all the previous parts of Clause 12 and the amendments we have discussed—that the total expenditure,

"shall not exceed such sum as is for the time being specified for the purposes of this subsection"—

that means even Clause 12—

"by an order made by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury".

The commission could be involved in vast expenditure in carrying out this huge range of public education. If the Treasury decides that it must not have the money, it will not be able to fulfil its functions. But if the commission is told, in effect, that it can have as much money as it wants, we shall have to consider, as will Members of another place, whether that is a justifiable use of public expenditure.

Usually the speaking notes on these matters suggest that one should thank the Committee for an interesting and wide-ranging debate. There is always a column on the prepared grid sheet which contains the word "risk". This one contains the words "possibly contentious". We have had the full range in this afternoon's debate.

I have found the debate fascinating. It has made me think back to my days at secondary school, when I was in the sixth form and we were introduced to something on the timetable called "civics". I remember the very first question in our very first lesson on civics. A lad at the back put his hand in the air and asked the teacher, "What does it mean?" I thought that said it all.

It also says a lot about our debate today. It strikes me that there is an element of fear in some of the contributions that have been made—fear that someone may begin to understand and comprehend the depths of the various political systems, the way in which we elect governments, the reasons we elect governments, the relationship between different parts of government, governments abroad, how we relate to the European Community and so on.

Clause 12 is a valuable clause. It begins to set out how we may take some important, tentative steps towards improving the quality of voter education. The commission will have a vitally important role to play in promoting a greater sense of citizenship and in encouraging greater levels of participation in the democratic process. In view of some of the turn-outs for local elections and European elections over the past few years, the argument is well made for an electoral commission which has, as a small part of its function, the role of promoting greater knowledge and understanding of our political institutions and the way in which governance works.

The electoral commission's work in this area will subsume the campaigns presently run annually by the Home Office in connection with the registration of electors and the campaigns conducted at the time of a parliamentary election to remind people of the timetable and procedure for applying for an absent vote. Additionally, the commission will take on responsibility for any ad hoc campaign needed to explain new voting systems—for example, the one mounted in respect of the elections to the Greater London Authority. The setting up of the electoral commission offers an opportunity to transfer responsibility for such campaigns to an independent body which is free from any suspicion of political partisanship.

Earlier in the mists of the debate surrounding this piece of legislation, pleas were made that it might be right and appropriate to have political figures as members of the electoral commission. We have stood resolutely steadfast against that. We believe that it has to be a rigorous, robust and independent electoral commission. I hope that that fact will begin to have some bearing on the suspicions that some Members of the Committee have expressed today. I believe that there is an important educational role for a robust and independent electoral commission.

It will not be for the commission to promote alternative electoral systems or alternative systems for local, regional or national government, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, referred. It is clearly right that the commission should not distribute even purportedly factual literature about systems of voting or government which have not been adopted in this country. This starts to get to the root of some of the awkward questions that have been asked.

But that is already the effect of this clause as it stands. Subsection (1) refers to current and pending systems of voting and government. Subsection (2) makes it clear that "pending" simply means arrangements which are on the statute book or included in subordinate legislation but have yet to come into force. It means no more than that.

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. We have more than two systems of election in this country, but perhaps I may refer to only two. We have a first-past-the-post system for Westminster and a list system for the Scottish Parliament. Will the electoral commission be able to educate the public outwith Scotland on the merits of the list system in order perhaps to soften them up for a change in the electoral system at Westminster?

I think that the electoral commission would tread very carefully in that territory. It would reflect that it should be addressing only the education of the section of the community where that piece of legislation applied. I take the narrower view which lies behind the meaning of "pending" in this legislation.

As I said, "pending" means arrangements which are on the statute book or included in subordinate legislation but have yet to come into force. A case in point might be the new arrangements for London government. The Greater London Authority Act received Royal Assent in November 1999. Had the electoral commission been in existence at that time, it would have been entirely appropriate for it to have initiated a campaign after November 1999 to explain the purpose of the authority and the system for the election of the mayor and Assembly.

I hope that the Minister will not get himself talked too much into a corner by the timidity of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. How London is governing itself and how the system is working may well be of wider interest to people in other parts of the country. An information and education campaign about how the Scottish system or the London system is working would be of general interest. This is not creating new systems of government; that is for Parliament to do. Ministers should resist the crouched fear that a more informed electorate will somehow escape their grasp.

It is not a question of fear of the electorate: on this side of the Committee we have nothing to fear from the electorate. Quite rightly, they booted us out last time. They are intelligent enough to know it. They may even put us in next time, but that is a bit more "iffy". I have no fear of the people; I have no fear of their not making the right choice. The cringing is on the other side of the Chamber: "They're not well enough educated. They don't know. They can't choose their leaders". They have not made a mistake since 1945.

I am enjoying the good-natured banter. Long may it continue.

This matter is important. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that we should not be too narrow in our view of these matters, but the commission clearly has to work within the powers as they are set out.

I am not, therefore, clear about the concerns that lie behind Amendments Nos. 42, 45 and 48. If Parliament has legislated for new electoral arrangements or if subordinate legislation has been made for such arrangements but commencement is delayed to just before the start of the election campaign, it seems perfectly reasonable that the electoral commission should nevertheless act to promote public understanding of how those arrangements will work.

Turning to Amendments Nos. 42A, 44, 46 and 47, the Government consider it an essential part of the commission's voter education function that it should be empowered not only to promote understanding of the mechanics of the electoral systems used in this country, but also to promote awareness of the value of voting. One of the reasons why we have poor turn-outs at elections is that people fail to see the relevance of the body being elected. People will be more inclined to vote if they believe that the body they are being asked to elect is relevant to them and will make a difference to the community in which they live. That applies as much to the European Parliament as it does to local councils. Without paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1), which Amendments Nos. 42A, 44 and 46 would remove, the commission's ability to make any meaningful impact on the level of participation in our democratic institutions would be severely constrained. With turn-out at last May's local government elections falling below 30 per cent, this cannot be in the interest of any political party or of local democracy in tins country. It will not be for the commission to be apologists for the policies adopted by those institutions; its role will simply be to convey, in a dispassionate and neutral manner—the manner referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth—in an educated, informed, constructive, thoughtful process, the importance of exercising the vote when those bodies are elected.

With regard to Amendment No. 49, the purpose of subsection (4)(b) is to enable the electoral commission, in carrying out its educational role, to harness the efforts of others. We envisage that the commission might wish to make grants available to organisations such as the Citizenship Foundation, which I believe was the body referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, or possibly Operation Black Vote, which campaigns to increase registration and participation among ethnic minorities and to encourage them generally to become involved in voting. We appreciate that there may be a fear that grants may go to politically partisan organisations with their own agenda. But we think that we can rely on the commission's good sense in that regard, given its independent and robust nature.

A number of other points were raised during the debate. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Neill, in his analysis of the role and function of the electoral commission. The Government have listened by and large to the fruits of the Neill report; but we do not, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, have to buy into everything that is said in the report; nor do we always have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Neill, in his analysis.

I cannot agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I believe that the Long Title is adequate. Functions are, after all, part and parcel of the establishment of the commission, and the Long Title refers to its establishment.

I believe that I have covered most of the substantive points raised. I hope that having heard what I have said in addressing the points raised and describing the way in which the commission will work, Members of the Committee will find themselves able to withdraw their amendments and thus enable us to have a commission that will be able to get on and do an effective job in raising the standard of knowledge about the institutions of our democracy.

Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him to return to this point. I think that there is a sleight of hand in his line of argument that because this has to do with elections and, therefore, people involved in elections need to know more about government, that somehow brings this matter within the scope of the Bill. I do not accept that people who are experts on the subject of elections are necessarily competent in terms of their expertise to broaden the subject to talk about systems of government. It is a major task in its own right and it is necessary to address the very problems that the Minister concedes.

I accept that there is a case for making sure that people are aware that greater participation in politics is necessary. However, I do not believe that this provision by itself is the way to do it. A much wider approach is needed through the education system. We are moving in that direction. That is not at issue. The issue is whether the commission will be qualified in terms of its composition, referred to by the Minister, to carry out this task and, therefore, whether it falls within the Long Title of the Bill.

The commission will be interested and involved in a whole range of matters. It will examine boundary issues; the auditing and financing of parties; the registration of political parties; and the way in which donations are made and whether they are permissible; and it will carry out research in some of these matters. It seems to me that an electoral commission that is essentially interested and involved in the process of our democracy and our constitution is the institution to which we ought to turn to conduct impartial education and information campaigns. It is far better for a body that is at arm's length, which is robust and is independent of government, to carry out that important work.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his input into this debate. He has confirmed one important point; namely, that these things can be done neutrally. I agree with him. That is what the commission should be doing and I expect that it will conduct itself in that way.

I agree, and I am not disputing the "arm's length" aspect. That is not at issue so far as I am concerned. It is the fact that a body is being set up that will develop expertise in elections, political funding and referendums. However, Clause 12 seeks to take its expertise beyond that, to a much broader role which it will not be qualified to undertake.

Before I sum up the debate on my amendments, perhaps I may make a point which I hope the noble Lord will be able to answer. I hear what he says about the importance of the electoral commission explaining to the public the importance of local government, and so on, so that they will turn out and vote.

I note from subsection (3) that the electoral commission will not have that role in Scotland in relation to Scottish local government. Does that mean that the electorate does not have to be informed about Scottish local government, and that the Government are happy with the turn-out? Who will do the job of the electoral commission so far as concerns local government in Scotland? I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me. Clearly, he cannot, but he may be able to help me later.

This has been an interesting debate. I am sorry that some Members of the Committee have not listened to the point being made by those of us on this side of the Chamber. None of us disagreed with the electoral commission having a role in helping to explain systems of election that were already in place legislatively. That is not our problem. Our concern is that, as matters relating to how the electorate is allowed to vote and the systems used possibly become more controversial—

Both the noble Lord and I ought to have read subsection (3) of Clause 12, which makes it clear that this is a devolved matter. We should both have stuck more closely to the script.

It may be a devolved matter, but that still does not answer the question: who is going to do it? I presume that it will not be the Scottish Parliament. Who will do it if the electoral commission cannot? That is the point I am making.

The Scottish Executive.

So it is the Scottish Executive! I thought that this was to be done in a neutral, non-political way by the electoral commission. How can it be done neutrally and non-politically by the electoral commission in the rest of the United Kingdom, but be done by the Scottish Executive in Scotland? The Scottish Executive is led by a friend of mine who has many merits, but impartial is not one of the words that I would use to describe him.

No doubt the Scottish Executive will decide and determine how to conduct its affairs impartially in this regard.

This is just part of the—

Has not the noble Lord noticed that the leader of the Scottish Executive is helped by a friend of mine? Therefore, the neutrality is absolutely guaranteed.

If I may say so, that actually makes me even more concerned.

Perhaps I may further assist the noble Lord. If he turns to the Marshalled List, he will see that Amendment No. 50 provides some assistance in this respect. It says:

"The Scottish Ministers may by order provide that, despite subsection (3), the Commission may perform the functions conferred by this section in relation to local government elections or to local government in Scotland".

I should point out that we have already debated that amendment.

I am grateful to the Minister. That may well give me the answer that I was seeking; in other words, the Scottish Executive could actually ask the electoral commission to undertake this role. However, it seems odd that one of the results of devolution is that this Parliament sets up an electoral commission stating that it cannot deal with local government in Scotland; but, if the Scottish Executive asks the commission to do so, it can. It might be much simpler if we retained total responsibility for the matter and gave it directly to the electoral commission.

We have had an interesting debate. I do not wish to comment on all the speeches and all the points that have been made. However, there are some points that I must cover. My noble friend Lord Onslow said that perhaps the Conservatives deserved to be kicked out at the last election. I should tell the Committee that that is not the unanimous view of everyone on this side of the Chamber. Indeed, it is well worth pointing out that, unlike the other side of the Committee, my noble friend proves that we are not pager driven; neither are we forced to be "on message"—

Does the noble Lord agree with the comment made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow?

Certainly not. I thought that I was doing a splendid job.

We have heard from many speakers, some of whom waxed very lyrical. I was most interested in the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. As a senior policy adviser to Jack Straw, I just wonder whether he had a hand in some of the original discussions on the Bill. That would, perhaps, make him a little more enthusiastic for it than might otherwise be the case. However, I shall leave the matter there.

The most substantive comment from the Government's side came from the noble Baroness, Lady Gould. There is no disagreement between us about the electoral commission performing a role to educate and inform the electorate about systems of voting. However, I am not sure that people need all that much education and help, unless we make the system enormously complicated. Like my noble friend Lord Cranborne, I think that they understand first past the post perfectly well. My proof is the way that, initially in Scotland and then in the rest of the United Kingdom, people were able to use tactical voting in first past the post to deliver the result— in my view wrongly—that they wished to see come about. I believe that the electorate do understand first past the post. It is fairly simple. Indeed, people have had a fortnight to watch it at the Olympic Games, where the winner wins, the loser loses—but the loser is not suddenly given some extra help in order to beat the winner.

I should point out to the noble Baroness that I do not think that I would ever say that the electorate needed some education on first past the past. However, during the passage of the Scotland Bill I may have said that we would have to be sure that the electorate were informed about, and understood, the new system that would operate in Scotland. Interestingly enough, I believe that the electorate did understand perfectly well what they were about, but they did not perhaps appreciate—the political parties, understandably, acted against correct information in this respect—that they could split their vote between the first past the post constituency vote and the list system. If we look at other countries where this system has been run for longer, we can see that there is a lot more ticket splitting than we saw in Scotland. In my view, judging from my observations, one of the reasons why it did not happen in Scotland is that all the political parties in all their propaganda were looking, for perfectly understandable reasons, for a double Labour vote, a double Conservative vote, a doubt Liberal Democrat vote or a double SNP vote—

Is that not why we need an independent voice to explain the system?

Yes. We do not disagree on that point. I do not think that the lack of understanding was that great, although that may have been so at the margins because of the way that the political parties put it. If an electoral commission had explained to the electorate that they could "split the ticket", so to speak, that might have led to a little more ticket splitting. I agree that one of the tasks of the electoral commission could be explaining to people—I prefer to use the word "explaining" rather than "educating"—what the electoral system is, if it has been changed. But I still do not think that that would have helped to increase the turn-out in any way for the European parliamentary elections. I believe that the electorate understood perfectly well what the system was: it was a rigged one, and they did not want too much to do with it because they like voting for individuals.

The Minister rightly said that we can take comfort in subsection (2). Our problem is that we are concerned about the use to which the commission may be persuaded to put these powers in the future; in other words, that it may act as an explainer for a system that has not yet been introduced. Therefore, our amendments were all designed, if you like, to put a belt and braces on this particular exercise. I have to say that I prefer the amendment of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth to those that I have tabled. I believe that he makes the position absolutely crystal clear. I believe that the use of the word "pending" is sloppy; indeed, it can have two meanings. It is all very well to say, "If you read further on you will understand it", but why should we always be asked to read further on before we can understand something? If it is possible, why cannot the position be made clear when it first appears? I believe that it is perfectly possible to make it clear on the first occasion. In my view, my noble friend's amendment is perfectly clear.

The noble Baroness, and others, were very keen to believe that the electoral commission would be impartial and that, therefore, we need not worry. No doubt we would have been told four or five weeks ago that the Lottery Commission was impartial and that we need not worry. But that is certainly not the view that a High Court judge took on the matter. I am afraid that it is not a good enough argument to say that an electoral commission will always be impartial. That may be true of one that is yet to be appointed and I could be convinced that the people on it would be impartial. However, it is not axiomatic that commissions appointed by government are impartial. Anyone who believes that should read the High Court judgment about the Lottery Commission. I am not content to rest on the view that electoral commissions will be impartial and that, therefore, we can leave such matters to their good sense.

The second group of amendments deals with the institutions of the European Union. I do not disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that the workings and the detail of the EU are not as well understood in this country as they should be. However, I do not honestly think that it is the purpose of the electoral commission to set the matter right. Goodness alone knows, the European Commission spends enough money in this country trying to educate people about the institutions of the European Union. Indeed, it has even produced comics for youngsters which it subsequently withdraws because it is thought that they may be counter productive. I am not really surprised! The EU spends quite a lot of money on trying to persuade people—perhaps I should say "trying to explain to people", and not put it in a partial way—how the European Union works. I do not believe that that ought to be a role for the electoral commission. Yes, explaining how the electoral system for the European Parliament works is a role for it. We have agreed that and the amendment of my noble friend Lady Fookes would make that absolutely clear. I, for one, was not convinced by the Minister on this point.

The third group of amendments relates to making grants. I am totally unconvinced in this respect. I do not believe that this continued extension of the role of the electoral commission is right. The Minister read out the important roles the commission will have to fulfil. Frankly, I believe that those important roles are more than sufficient without the commission becoming involved in the other aspects that have been mentioned. I am not at all convinced that it ought to adopt grant-making powers to other bodies. It would then have to police those other bodies to ensure that they imparted impartial information. That adds to the role and responsibilities of the commission.

The noble Lord also referred to the role of the European Commission. Some material that emanates from the headquarters of the European Commission in this country is discounted. Whether that is right or wrong is by the way; it is discounted. Would it not be advantageous for the commission to explain what the European Commission and all the other institutions of the European Union do?

I am sorry to have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. It is for government, the European Commission itself and those of us involved in public life to explain to people what these bodies do. I do not think that it is a matter for the electoral commission, especially as—the noble Lord knows this—it is a matter of some controversy. The very fact that he admits that the material issued by the European Commission to inform the public is discounted by many people underlines my point. If the electoral commission put out the same kind of material to explain the same kind of issues, its impartiality might be brought into question by some people who might not approve of what it said. That process would endanger the other roles of the electoral commission which are much more important.

I was pleased to hear the assurances which have been given. Those assurances may be referred to in the future if anything goes wrong with the electoral commission and it ceases to be the impartial body the noble Lord thinks it will be. I should have liked to hear the Minister say that he would reconsider the wording of the measure so that the meaning of "pending" is made crystal clear and we do not have to refer to another part of the Bill to confirm that meaning. We shall have to return to the institutions of the European Union. I am certainly not convinced about the grant-making bodies. When we reach the relevant amendment I may wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, I have a question for the Minister. What is meant by the term,

"institutions of the European Union"

as they are not defined? Do the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy comprise institutions? What are the institutions?

I take the institutions to mean in this instance the functioning parts of the European Union. That measure enables people to understand exactly what they are voting for.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Before I call Amendment No. 42A, I inform the Committee that if this amendment is accepted I cannot call Amendments Nos. 44 to 48.

moved Amendment No. 42A:

Page 8, line 30, leave out from ("Kingdom") to end of line 39 and insert ("; and

(b) any electoral system that has been authorised by enactment, but is not yet in force, for use at the next national or local election").

Before calling Amendment No. 44, I have to inform the Committee that if the amendment were agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 45.

[Amendments Nos. 44 to 48 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 49:

Page 9, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).