Lords Sitting of 13 April 1994

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

NHS Management: Codes of Conduct
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to publish the results of their consultation on codes of conduct and codes of accountability for chairmen of NHS trust boards and senior NHS managers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, very shortly.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I saw some information the other day in a Written Answer, but nowhere have I found any intention to introduce the question of surcharge against these people. Is the Minister aware that in a few weeks' time over 10,000 candidates will fight the local government elections, and that some of those who win will take over very important offices in local government where they will control large sums of money? Can the Minister tell me why those people will be held liable to be surcharged if they cross the dividing line between legality and illegality, and why the people who are appointed and do not face the electorate receive preferential treatment and are treated like untouchables?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is not a question of preferential treatment. People who serve as non-executive directors in the National Health Service are governed by statutes very different to those that govern serving councillors in local government. Councillors are locally elected and are not generally answerable to the Secretary of State for the Environment, whereas board members of NHS trusts and authorities are appointed by the Secretary of State for Health, who answers to Parliament and to the Public Accounts Committee. In local government there is no accounting officer answerable to the Public Accounts Committee, whereas the permanent secretary and the chief executive of the management executive are both accounting officers and are responsible to the PAC. Local authorities have wide powers to raise finance through local taxation and charges, whereas the NHS raises only a very, very small percentage in charges and has no powers to tax. There are many other differences that I could outline, and I have cited only three.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's very detailed answer. However, the sad facts are that on the evidence so far the sanctions that are available have been altered very little. They did not prevent what happened in Wessex and the West Midlands and will not prevent a recurrence. It is not
1532
good enough for the Minister to say that one section of people will be treated differently to another and will be dealt with only by the Secretary of State instead of through the courts of law.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, surcharging in this instance is not relevant. The National Health Service does take action where there are faults to be remedied. That is why the Secretary of State has introduced the Codes of Conduct and Accountability for the National Health Service—codes which have been warmly welcomed by the Audit Commission, the Public Accounts Committee and the Institute of Chartered Accountants.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, will the Minister accept my assurance that I understand why there should be codes of accountability? But does she agree that it is a terrible slur on modern society that the Government should have to issue codes of conduct for people taking on responsible positions? I thought that in this country we knew what it meant to take on responsibility.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Secretary of State studied very carefully the Cadbury Report which was introduced for private commercial concerns and took from that the principles that are now established in these codes of conduct. It is right that where issues arise that need remedying the Secretary of State should take action—as indeed she has.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the health service is recognised throughout our country as a tremendously great service? But does she further agree on the matters that are causing consternation: namely, that many doctors are leaving the service; thousands of nurses and health visitors have left the service; and the numbers of managers and similar staff have been increased? That situation is giving general concern throughout the country. Will the Minister accept that there is a problem, and say that the Government think it well worth while to investigate such a problem?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, fewer and fewer people are leaving the National Health Service. That is partly due to the recession and is partly for other reasons. Nurses are staying longer and longer in their posts. They are not leaving now. If one looks at the increase in managers, there are 26 doctors, nurses and clinicians in the field to every manager. I think that one has to get this into perspective. Management accounts for only 3 per cent. of the pay bill and 2 per cent. of the workforce.
Lord Howell: My Lords, if a surcharge is inappropriate for people who are appointed to the trusts by the Secretary of State, will the noble Baroness kindly tell us what redress is available in cases where there has been misappropriation of funds in one way or another? How can the community at large call these people to account, as it would be able to do in the case of local government? There must be some way in which we can secure the same ends.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is a lot of monitoring in the National Health Service not only through the NHS executive but also through the Audit Commission, the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office. The noble Lord is probably thinking of the case in Birmingham in the West Midlands Regional Health Authority and that in the Wessex Regional Health Authority. In those cases none of the people involved in the difficulties that arose, which were studied by the Public Accounts Committee, is still in post. We take prompt and serious action when it needs to be taken.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, could the Minister give the House her response to the report published yesterday of the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts which states that one in 10 health trusts is at present in financial difficulties? Would she give her reaction to the idea that such a statement suggests that there should be some very much more formal system of district audit within the health service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I was a health authority chairman for many years. As the chairman of the National Association of Health Authorities, I remember making representations to the Government every year around Christmastime to obtain further allocations from the Treasury to get the National Health Service through that financial year. That has not happened. We now see much tighter control with trusts and health authorities. Indeed, the National Health Service should be congratulated on living largely within its means.

Power Generation: Clean Coal Technologies
2.45 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Given that China and developing countries will have to rely on coal for electrical generation, what they are doing to emphasise the importance of research and development of clean burning coal-fired power stations on a worldwide basis.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government attach great importance to the development of clean coal technologies. The Department of Trade and Industry already supports some 115 projects, with a value of over £170 million, involving UK and overseas companies, universities, the European Commission and International Energy Action.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that heartening reply. However, at the back of my mind is the question of whether there is sufficient integration in Europe to ensure that, when the time comes for constructing and paying for some pilot plant, the money will be forthcoming—and forthcoming at once.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we fully recognise the importance of European collaboration in the development of clean coal technologies. Substantial joint projects are already taking place, increasingly with the DTI's research and development programme as the focus.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that we pioneered the fluidised bed clean power station technology? Indeed, the developments took place at Grimethorpe near Barnsley. Is he further aware that the Government had a financial interest in it? Can he say what the position is now? Why have we not developed that technology commercially, for home use and for export?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the important issue of the fluidised bed technology mentioned by the noble Lord is now commercially available worldwide. It forms one of the components of the Topping cycle, research into which is being funded by the DTI in partnership with industry.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the cost of fitting the flue gas desulphurisation units at Drax power station was more than to build the power station in the first place? Is that kind of expensive, clean technology an option for developing countries?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the clean coal technologies are a vital aspect of the development of power stations for the developing countries. It must be so.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that the Question asked by my noble friend raises a major issue of international environmental importance? Is he aware that, however much we may do in the developed countries to limit CO2 and other noxious emissions, it could be enormously overtaken by what happens in China and other developing countries? In those circumstances, therefore, is an international effort being made among the developed countries to try to transmit the technology for clean coal development so as to avoid that eventuality?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, this is indeed, as the noble Lord mentioned, a global issue which must be tackled on that basis. There is tremendous collaboration between the countries of the developed world to produce the requisite technologies for transmission to the developing countries.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell the House what will be the future of the coal research establishment if and when the Coal Industry Bill becomes law? Will the Minister be able to assure the House that its future is secure?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, yes. We feel that the best opportunities for the UK coal industry in general lie in the private sector, where the full management and investment potential can be realised. We also believe

1535
that the best way of widening the opportunities available for the Coal Research Establishment in the global market is for it to become an independent organisation.

The Elgin Marbles
2.50 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will commemorate the late Miss Melina Mercouri by facilitating the return of the Elgin Marbles to Athens.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I pay tribute to Miss Mercouri for her work as Minister of Culture. But it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that the portions of the Parthenon known as the Elgin Marbles were legally obtained and that they should remain in the British Museum.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the question of whether or not they were legally obtained is debatable? Although I cannot hope at the moment that the Government will change their mind on the matter, will she agree to an amendment of the British Museum Act 1963? I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that under the Act the trustees of the British Museum cannot, even if they wished to, agree to anything being exchanged or moved anywhere. If the noble Baroness will agree to make that change, although the trustees may not change their mind at the moment it may become possible for a new set of trustees to agree to the view expressed by Mr. Neil Kinnock on behalf of the Labour Party when he said that a Labour government will return the Marbles to Greece.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's first remarks, Lord Elgin removed the Marbles from the Parthenon and brought them to England with the permission of the Ottoman authorities. With regard to the latter part of his question, I say, "Goody, goody", that the statutes of the museums remain as they are.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I should declare an interest as I am probably the only Member of your Lordships' House who was publicly embraced by the late Melina Mercouri. Does my noble friend agree that dissemination throughout the world of the objects of ancient Greek art and literature is an immense asset to Greece? Repatriation of all those objects would diminish her stature because at present they underline the great debt we all owe to Greece for her foundation of western culture.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am sure that I echo the feelings of envy of the entire male section of this House. I can only agree with my noble and learned friend.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, while we are busy commemorating Lord Elgin and Melina Mercouri, are we not in danger of forgetting to commemorate poor old Pericles who started the whole thing off?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, what the noble Lord wants to do with Pericles is entirely his own affair.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not the fact that but for the action of a then Member of your Lordships' House—the late Lord Elgin —these lovely objects would have been destroyed? He rescued them from destruction.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am not sure that "destruction" is the right word. I believe that neglect might well have occurred at that time and in the years following. Indeed, until recently the remaining Marbles suffered greatly from pollution.
Lord Monson: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that it would be quite wrong to return the Marbles to a country which is blockading its neighbour and which is in the process of depriving its former monarch of his citizenship and property, all quite contrary to the professed spirit of the European Community of which it happens to hold the presidency?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord's remarks are somewhat wide of the actual Marbles.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness accept that it is high time all the ex-colonial powers returned the loot that they acquired during the colonial period? If the so-called ownership of the Marbles is traced back to the original transaction, it will be found to be of extremely dubious legality. There are many other antiquities to which that argument applies. We discussed the Rosetta Stone the week before Easter. That was nicked by Napoleon, yet the noble Baroness asserted that the British Museum had a perfectly good legal title to it. Is it not high time to stop this nonsense: and return all these ill-gotten gains to the countries to which they belong?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. In fact, his remarks rather bring into doubt his own marbles.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in Athens the Parthenon, the Acropolis and other ancient monuments have suffered and are still suffering badly from the pollution of the air in and around the city? If the Elgin Marbles were returned, they too might suffer.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should perhaps tell my noble friend that the Greek Government are in the process of creating a large museum for many of their antiquities. They are well aware of the environmental dangers that may affect their precious treasures.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we on these Benches believe that these matters are best approached internationally rather than bilaterally. Does the Minister agree that all international museums, such as the British Museum, contain treasures which originated outside their national boundaries? Does she further agree that were we to begin by making a special case of the Elgin Marbles, there would be a flood of more special cases

1537
from Asia, Africa, America and so forth? Would that not mean ultimately the dismemberment of all great international museums in Britain and elsewhere? Should not noble Lords beware of slippery slopes?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, there are fragments of the Parthenon in this country and also in Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy and the Vatican. The noble Lord makes an important point. Education, particularly from the point of view of culture for our children and our children's children, is helped by their being able to visit great museums whatever the country.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham is wrong in thinking that he is the only Member of your Lordships' House to have had the privilege of being embraced, be it publicly or privately, by that very great lady and a very good and able Minister of Culture?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am wondering whether those noble Lords should join "Keep Sunday Special".
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there seems to be an extraordinary ignorance of the developments over the past 10 years which have taken place under the International Council of Museums? Is she aware also that a process of repatriation or return of objects, agreed between the two parties, is taking place all over the world? Australia has returned a great deal of material to Papua. I could go through a whole list of countries which are following that process. We alone internationally refuse to do anything at all. We are out of date. At some time the position must be changed. I hope that the two Front Benchers will study the matter, in which case they may both become a little wiser.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I hear the noble Lord.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness prepared to consider that it could do our nation a world of good to return the Marbles to the place whence they came, irrespective of whether they were found or stolen? That would be the answer we could give to our children in the future when they ask how the Marbles arrived in this country or why they were returned. In an honourable moment we would repair the damage we did when we took them from their home.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, all the items in our museums were legally obtained. I should point out that museums and galleries are independent institutions. It is for the governing body of each institution to decide whether or not it wishes to return specific objects to specific countries. National museums and galleries are prevented under their governing statutes from disposing of objects in their collections unless they are duplicates or worthless.

London Transport Chairman: Selection
3 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the position regarding the appointment of a new chairman of London Transport.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the Government are in the process of selecting a new chairman for London Transport. Sir Wilfrid Newton will continue as chairman until that process is successfully completed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many people are amazed at the Government's attitude towards this appointment? Is there not already in place as deputy chairman of London Transport a man with vast experience and great commitment to the London Transport system? He has been recommended by the present chairman and could be appointed tomorrow by the Government if they were not intent on getting revenge against him for being completely committed to London Transport and having the courage to speak against the Government's meanness towards the organisation?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Government's aim throughout has been to ensure that the important task of providing leadership to London Transport is in the most effective hands available. For that reason we decided to cast the net wide in order to make sure we considered all the potential candidates in the field. Dr. Watkins has decided to withdraw as a possible candidate for the chairmanship.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, can my noble friend inform the House what moneys will be made available to the new chairman, after he or she is appointed, for investment in London Transport? How will that compare with the investment in London Transport under the last Labour administration?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the new chairman, whoever he may be when we appoint him, will indeed be looking at the next three years during which time the investment we put into London Transport will be of the order of £900 million to £1 billion. That contrasts starkly with the £807 million put in by the last Labour government during all their years of office.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister say in what respect Dr. Watkins is alleged to have fallen short of the qualifications required for this important task, bearing in mind the fact that the existing chairman had displayed every confidence in that man's abilities? Is it not a fact that Dr. Watkins had criticised the level of investment in London Transport and that it is for reasons of independence of mind and the courage that he displayed in depicting his own opinions that he fell foul of Mr. Kenneth Clarke?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, there has been speculation that Dr. Watkins has fallen foul of the Government because of the criticism he made. I can assure your Lordships that that is not the case. How the noble Lord can make that criticism in the light of the answer I gave to my noble friend a moment ago, I cannot understand. The important point is that we believe that this vital job, spending around £3 billion of investment money over the next three years in London's transport, should go to the person whom we decide has all the necessary qualities of leadership. We believe it is right and proper that we have a competition to try to establish who that person is. As I said, Dr. Watkins has decided to withdraw from the competition.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, has there not already been a competition? Is it not a fact that Dr. Watkins was told in no uncertain terms by the Government that he was not a suitable candidate? In what respect—please will the Minister answer the question I put to him—is it alleged that he fell short of the qualifications that were required?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not believe it is for me on the Floor of the House to speculate on matters of appointing people which ought to be kept confidential, not only on behalf of the candidate who succeeds but on behalf of all those candidates who do not.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, when my right honourable friend comes to appoint a new chairman of London Transport—I have every confidence that he will make the right decision—will he be able to give the new chairman the assurance that the traditional London double-decker bus will be allowed to continue in operation? One hears rumours from the European Commission that that might not be so. Will my noble friend press the new chairman of London Transport particularly to allow the continuation of the traditional Routemaster open-platformed, conductor-operated bus, which is by far the most popular with London travellers?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am pleased to tell my noble friend that the new chairman, when appointed, will inherit a programme, currently being undertaken at a value of £10 million by London Transport, to refurbish, in order to extend their life, the 500 or so Routemasters, which are the very popular buses my noble friend refers to. On the general question of double-decked buses and the European Community, this is a complicated field. Currently, discussions are going on in the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe body on the whole question of regulations governing double-decked buses. Following a suggestion by the United Kingdom, we have agreed to a Commission request to put forward the kind of requirements that should be in place for double-decker buses. As my noble friend knows, rules and regulations about the design arid so on of all kinds of buses have to be looked at on a European basis. Double-decker buses are no exception. Naturally, our interest is far greater
1540
than any other European country because we have far more double-decker buses than any of our friends in the European Union.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, based on my past experience of nationalised industry, it always seemed that the Government left to the last minute the appointment of a chairman, much to the detriment of those enterprises. Will the noble Lord indicate when the Government started considering who would replace Sir Wilfrid Newton?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not have to hand the date on which we started to make this consideration. We knew that Sir Wilfrid was going to retire and had made plans for that retirement. However, we hope to be in a position within the next few months to announce his successor.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, how can the noble Lord be so confident that the new chairman is to be a he?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sorry. If the noble Baroness is putting in an application, we shall be happy to consider it.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, can my noble friend give me a better example of subsidiarity than that the United Kingdom should have sole responsibility for deciding whether or not double-decker buses ply the streets of London?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not think that we have nearly come to that position. It is important that we have common regulations throughout the Community relating to motor vehicles of all kinds so that motor vehicles can move freely between Community countries when being used either as passenger vehicles or as commercial vehicles and also so that the sale of vehicles at home and abroad is not inhibited by differing rules and regulations in different countries.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, what on earth has that to do with the Question on the Order Paper?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do believe it is about London Transport and it runs buses.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does not Dr. Watkins have all the qualifications that the Government really want? He has been a great success in private industry; he has had great commitment to London Transport; and, what is more, in 1993 he was appointed deputy chairman of London Transport. What has happened between the time of his appointment and the time when the Government refused to give him the top job?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the position is simply that Dr. Watkins's performance as London Transport's deputy chairman and chief executive is not an issue as far as the Government is concerned. But we do believe that before we make the choice for the top job in this important field we should

1541
take as wide a look as we can for the best possible candidate. As I have explained, Dr. Watkins has now decided to withdraw as a possible candidate.

Coal Industry Bill
3.8 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Coal Industry Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 12,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 13 to 15,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 16 to 21,

Schedule 4,

Clause 22,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 23 to 43,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 44 to 49,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 50 to 52,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 53 to 65,

Schedules 9, 10 and 11,

Clause 66.—(Viscount Goschen.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords: Constitutional Role
3.9 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdalerose to call attention to the constitutional role of the House of Lords; and to move for Papers.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Motion is concerned with the role of your Lordships' House in the constitution and not with the composition of your Lordships' House. No doubt the two are indirectly interconnected.
Perhaps I may say at the outset how gratified I am at the very distinguished contributions that are to be made to this debate. I am particularly grateful that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is to wind up on behalf of the Opposition.
I start with the assumption that it is common ground among us all that we desire to continue to live in a parliamentary democracy. Therefore, two questions arise on this Motion. First, what is the role of Parliament in a parliamentary democracy; and, secondly, how far can the House of Commons alone fulfil completely that role? I put it in this way because your Lordships will remember the opening lines of the New Decalogue:
"Thou shalt have one God only,
Who would be at the expense of two?"
1542
If we could get by with one parliamentary Chamber it would be an unnecessary expense to have two. Practically every country in the world has found it necessary to have two Chambers, and that is an age-long tradition.
So I ask first: what are the main functions of Parliament? First, as its name suggests, it is a forum for the discussion of issues of national importance. Secondly, it is a forum where grievances can be canvassed and, if possible, redressed.
Thirdly, it is the forum where supply is voted and ways and means are voted for meeting that supply. No question arises on that in this debate. The other place has exclusively the machinery for both supply and ways and means. Your Lordships' House is very rich in experience of finance, industry, commerce and economics, but we do not have the machinery; that is exclusively in the other place.
Fourthly, one must mention legislation. After all, we are a Chamber of a legislature. Fifthly, and by no means least, your Lordships' Chamber, and Parliament in general, are required as a counter-balance to the Executive, with its pretensions, aggrandisement and ambitions. That is a very important function.
How far can the other place fulfil those various functions? First, one must note two characteristics, among many others, of the House of Commons. It is an elected Chamber and as such it is in the best position, in so far as it is in close touch with the electorate, to voice grievances. There was a notable recent example in the Child Support Act. That was freely criticised in your Lordships' House, which in fact was the main critic. But, as soon as it came into action, the Members of another place were left in no doubt that its provisions were bitterly resented.
Secondly, the other place, while it is elected, immediately becomes an elite, just as your Lordships' House is an elite and the Civil Service is an elite. There is high authority for such a pretension. Your Lordships will remember the words of Burke to the electors of Bristol,
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion".
So as soon as the electors return the Members of the House of Commons they immediately become an elite. That is their justification for voting their own emoluments, however much that might be disapproved of by the electorate. It is their justification for taking a line on capital punishment which public opinion polls show consistently is not the view of the electorate at large. This aspect of an elite should not be overstated because Members of the other place, with their constituency interests (their "surgeries", as they are now called), are constantly aware of the movement of opinion. Nevertheless, it remains the fact that the House of Commons is an elite and is at times very much at variance with the electorate at large. No doubt noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches will provide an additional reason for that.
Except immediately after an election, your Lordships' House, in its composition and by reason, dare I say, of its Cross-Bench element, reflects far more

1543
truly the general colour of political society at large than any other institution. So, although we register that the other place is the elected Chamber, that is not to be used as a magic formula for invalidating any contrary view that your Lordships' House might put forward.
The other element which I wish to emphasise at this stage is that the modern House of Commons is very much a House of career politicians. That has been brilliantly shown in a recent book by Peter Riddell, Honest Opportunism. I need not develop that. It means that Members of another place tend to become out of touch with issues outside politics. They look very much to government business managers for their advancement and are therefore less independent than Members of the other place used to be. Moreover, some of its most talented Members are appointed to your Lordships' House together with a number of other very talented and experienced people. Therefore, your Lordships' House is far more independent of the Executive than the other place can be.
I should like to quote a recent notable sentence of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, when he was considering the changes that your Lordships' House had made to the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill. Referring to a notable example of the value of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord said:
"I do not know what those in another place will think when they read about it"—
that is, our solution—
"However. I daresay that the Government's majority will carry them through. They do not have to withstand quite the independence of mind which characterises this House".—[Official Report, 15/3/94; col. 116.]
That point was taken up by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
That being so, in my respectful submission, your Lordships are entitled to feel confidence in your independence of mind, your age and your experience and are not necessarily hound to defer automatically to the view of the other place.
That brings me to the question of legislation. It is sometimes said that your Lordships' House is only a revising Chamber. That is grossly misleading. It may be taken to mean that your Lordships are concerned only to register the afterthoughts of Parliamentary Counsel in the Bills that come before us. Your Lordships' House is fully an amending Chamber and your Lordships are fully entitled to feel confidence in that role by reason of the matters to which I have referred. The only limitations are the Parliament Acts, whereby your Lordships can defer the operation of an Act of Parliament for only one year, and the so-called Salisbury Convention, whereby, if there is a commitment in a party manifesto of the Government, your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading—in other words, your Lordships will acknowledge a principle, but your Lordships are by no means bound to defer under that principle to every detail. That point arose recently in relation to the Railways Act, when a clash occurred on a late schedule dealing with pensions which was not canvassed at all in the manifesto.
In conclusion, I desire to say only that the inhibition on your Lordships deploying your full powers and full role is the desire of government business managers to
1544
treat your Lordships' House almost exclusively as a machine for processing government legislation. There often extraordinary Whipping, amendments taken late at night, with the payroll vote kept working in their rooms, and so on. Your Lordships will not be able to play your full role unless there is far more restraint by government business managers. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, over a number of years your Lordships' House has owed a great deal to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale and to his contributions to our deliberations. He has added substantially to that contribution by initiating this debate today and by the extremely interesting and forceful speech that he has just delivered.
My only regret—and it is a very real regret—is that we are operating under the time-limited system, the application of which is very difficult when it comes to so enormous a subject as the operation of your Lordships' House. I appreciate that my noble and learned friend had no option but to take the opportunity offered, but I ask your Lordships to have it in mind that this is an occasion when it appears that, although extremely convenient to the usual channels, the time-limited system somewhat frustrates the functioning of your Lordships' House on matters of very great importance—and this is certainly a matter of very great importance.
My noble and learned friend made the point that the use of the expression "a revising Chamber" when referring to the duties of this House could be misleading. However, if it is looked at from the point of view of the function of supervising and, if necessary, improving legislation, I think it is probably an accurate description.
It is a fact that your Lordships' House contains among its Members an enormous assemblage of experience and ability. We have the Law Lords and the right reverend Prelates, both being the leaders of major activities in our country. We are full of former Ministers. We are full of people with high experience in business, in overseas administration and in all the enormous activities which this country can produce. We have, frankly, far more people with practical experience of high responsibility than is the case now in another place. It is because your Lordships' House has such a well-informed, intelligent and experienced membership that it is able very effectively to exercise a revision of legislation.
Your Lordships are only too well aware of the enormous flow of legislation to which we are exposed at the moment, and have been for a number of years. For that reason, it is all the more important that that legislation should be submitted to the scrutiny of people who know what they are talking about, who know what the legislation will do, who have seen the operation of legislation and who have seen it go wrong A very important aspect of your Lordships' House is that we have been able to exercise, and continue to exercise, a very real critical approach to the legislation that comes before us.

1545
It is equally the case that we have a duty to influence public opinion. That is the very great value of many of our general debates. We can influence public opinion when difficult public issues have to be discussed and when it is necessary to guide opinion with the experience of people who know what they are talking about. Again, that is one of the major features of your Lordships' House. It seems to me that your Lordships' House operates extremely well.
I shall not touch on the issue of our composition any more than my noble and learned friend Lord Simon because I know that opinions differ. However, I must say that overall our composition is enormously impressive and is, I think, generally so regarded. I am glad to be able to say that I can claim at any rate a small share in the action which secured the broadcasting of your Lordships' proceedings. Your Lordships may recollect that there was considerable opposition to that. Since the proceedings of your Lordship's House have been broadcast, that has not only greatly enhanced the reputation of the House, but has also exercised a good and extremely salutary influence on public opinion, particularly on difficult and complicated issues. Public opinion formulates itself easily on the broad right-and-wrong type of issue, but on so many of the complex issues of our modern society the guidance which your Lordships' House can give by its debates is of considerable value. Therefore I hope that none of your Lordships will feel that your Lordships' House is other than a major factor in the working of our society.
There is much—if one were not operating under a time limit—one could say and would want to say about the House, but I say, as one who has served in both Houses, that I find it an enormously impressive place in which to serve. It is sometimes perhaps rather humbling to see the enormous body of experience and knowledge that one confronts when one speaks. But, having said that, I know that the House is working extremely well, and to those who propose drastic reforms I would use the words of Lord Melbourne:
"Why not leave it alone?"
3.31 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has earned universal gratitude for choosing a most timely topic for this debate. I have been privileged to become a Member of your Lordships' House at a time when its role is of such marked constitutional importance.
All attempts during this century at any significant legislative reform of Parliament have foundered; but this House has not stood still. It has sometimes shown itself well capable of evolutionary change, of adapting to new needs, as it must if it is to justify its constitutional role. The report of the Select Committee on the Committee Work of the House, chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, contains ample evidence of the success of the work done by the European Communities Committee, some of which we discussed yesterday. The Science and Technology Committee has a high reputation both inside and outside Parliament.
1546
The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee has demonstrated rapidly the success of that modest but significant experiment.
I hope that it will not appear too bold or forward if I, a comparative and humble newcomer, revert to a suggestion that I made in my maiden speech last November for a modest further experiment to enhance the constitutional role of the House in a way which draws upon the special expertise of noble Lords. I refer to the idea that there should be scrutiny and report by a suitably composed committee on the consistency of pending Bills and subordinate legislation with the international obligations imposed upon the United Kingdom by ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights. That is the vital fourth function of Parliament to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, referred. Parliament needs, in the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to know what it is talking about in this area as in any other.
Under the European convention, the UK is bound to secure its human rights and freedoms to everyone in this country. The convention is binding on all public authorities: it binds Parliament as well as the Executive and the Judiciary.
No one could fairly criticise this House for failing to take the convention seriously by seeking to give it direct effect in our law. Of the 12 Bills introduced into Parliament since 1971 to incorporate the convention into domestic law, most have been introduced into this House and not into the other place, and four of them by Lord Wade from these Benches.
The Law Lords—the second branch of government —have also done their best to give effect to the convention by presuming, when interpreting ambiguous legislation, that Parliament must have intended to comply with rather than to flout the convention. What our courts cannot do, of course, is to strike down legislation inconsistent with the convention, for that would be contrary to parliamentary sovereignty; nor, in the absence of incorporation, do our courts yet feel constitutionally able to limit broadly delegated Ministers' powers so as to comply with the convention.
What happens when a breach of the convention occurs because of the primary or subordinate legislation enacted by this House as one of the three Estates of the Realm? What happens, in other words, where Parliament exercises its sovereign legislative powers in breach of the convention? The only remedy is for the individual victim to have recourse to the European Commission and European Court of Human Rights. That is not an uncommon happening. There have been many instances of proven breaches of the convention by the United Kingdom resulting from primary or subordinate legislation for which this House is jointly responsible with the other place. None of those involved a deliberate breach of the convention by Parliament. Neither House considered the potential impact of the convention during the passage of any of the relevant primary or subordinate legislation. The breaches occurred by legislative inadvertence.
There is something seriously wrong with our system of parliamentary government when the executive and judicial branches have regard to the convention, but the

1547
sovereign Parliament itself lacks any means of properly and efficiently considering whether primary legislation or delegated powers are likely to require or authorise breaches of the convention. The reality is that Parliament does not consider the convention when enacting legislation, because Parliament lacks any machinery to take the convention systematically into account in the course of its legislative work.
As last year's authoritative report of the Hansard Society Commission on the Legislative Process, Making the Law, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, suggested, it would be worth considering whether the powers and resources of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee might be enlarged, to enable it to consider potential legislative conflicts with the convention. The commission pointed out that such a task raised questions of a legal nature, not involving political judgments, that the scrutiny committee (with enlarged terms of reference) could monitor, if thought appropriate.
That is the sort of constitutional role which Members of this House could perform expertly and efficiently. It would not be a substitute for incorporation, but it would provide an effective prophylactic means of reducing the likelihood of breaches of the convention by Parliament. It would discourage governments from introducing constitutionally dubious measures; it would enable parliamentarians to take better informed legislative decisions; and it would raise public awareness of the constitutional values at stake. I submit that it would enhance our constitutional role for the benefit of our fellow citizens.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I would have put my name down to speak in the debate if it were only to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, whose untiring energy on matters with which he is concerned—he is concerned largely with human rights and proper parliamentary procedure —has the admiration of us all.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I often think that every time the noble and learned Lord rises, the body of his late Majesty King Henry VIII turns in its grave. The noble and learned Lord is of course an ideal Cross-Bencher—he mentioned the duties of a Cross-Bencher—because he so often opposes the Government, a habit which I hope will not endure after the next general election.
I apologise for the fact that my small contribution is upon the same subject as that upon which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, addressed the House, but I shall try to deal with it in very much more general terms. In the 17 years during which I have had the privilege of being a Member of your Lordships' House, I have noted often the contribution that noble Lords have to make in the cause of human freedom, human rights. Your Lordships have taken it upon yourselves to act in place of a written constitution, which we do not have. It is a little extraordinary that, coupled with the absence of a written constitution, we have nothing by way of an Act of
1548
Parliament which describes the rights of United Kingdom citizens. That puts us in a singular and, I think, undesirable position. It means that we who have signed the convention expose our citizens to the almost unbearable task, if a right under the convention has been breached, of having to go to the court in Strasbourg. Time, obviously, is not one of the greatest advantages of that court and I, as a practitioner, can inform the House of that. Also, of course, the expense of doing so is beyond the ordinary means of a United Kingdom citizen. There is no legal aid to go to the court in Strasbourg.
What does it mean? Even with those disadvantages, because we cannot go directly under our domestic law and plead for human rights guaranteed by the convention, and despite those difficulties it means that we feature in an unfortunate championship. We are the champions in that we have had the greatest number of judgments entered against us in the European court of any country that has signed the convention. That is not fair to our reputation. Of all countries, I proudly say that we have at heart human rights more than, or certainly as much as, any other country. Why we should not be able to go to our local courts as part of our domestic law and plead the convention, I know not.
The Law Society, of which I am proud to he a member, has taken the matter very seriously indeed, purely on the basis of accessibility to justice. It is a definite fact that without the ability to go to our domestic courts a considerable amount of hardship is endured and our reputation is adversely affected.
This House has the ability to push the issue forwards. The Law Society has written to the Home Secretary giving all its reasons as to why that should he done. The Home Secretary has replied—a little late, I believe it took some five months, but he has replied. In the reply he pleads, among other arguments, the vagueness of the convention. If it were so vague that it had no proper meaning or enforceability, why did we sign it? If it is a convention which can be dealt with by our courts, ought not it to be so?
My contribution has lasted five minutes and in an endeavour to persuade fellow speakers to copy my example, I sit down.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I share a room with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and have lived with the issue for some months, so one might say that I have been subpoenaed to speak in this debate. I do so with some temerity because I have been in your Lordships' House for only two years. I have endeavoured to follow the admirable advice which I used to give to Members of the other place who complained to me as Speaker that I never called them. It was the advice of Disraeli to one of his disgruntled supporters. He said:
"It's better for the House to wonder what you would have said rather than why you said it".
In our country we have a habit of acquiring our institutions by chance rather than by design. I have no doubt that in relation to today's debate, if we were

1549
starting from scratch very few of us would be sitting here in your Lordships' House by birth or by appointment.
Some of your Lordships may know that my father, who led the last successful strike of tailors against the sweatshop conditions of the day in 1912, was all for abolishing the House of Lords. He was not wrong about many things, but I think he was profoundly wrong about that.
I understand and respect the views of those who think that this should be an elected Chamber, but if it were we should think through the consequences. First, an elected Chamber would quite rightly seek and acquire powers. I wonder whether the other place would be happy with that. When I was there, there was not much discontent about the European assembly because it had no or very few powers. But now that it is an elected parliament, there is considerable concern. Secondly, an elected House would demand and should get better facilities and better accommodation. Thirdly, it would be vastly more expensive. We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for his Written Question of 17th December last year asking at col. WA 155 what was the cost of running the European Parliament, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I remind your Lordships of the Answer: an MEP costs our country £919,000 a year; a Member of the House of Commons costs £261,000; our House costs £38,000 per active Member. So I think that we give very good value for money!
In relation to the debate, could it be better done? The answer must be a qualified "Yes". I believe that we need better accommodation and facilities to fulfil our role and function of refining or revising legislation and complementing rather than duplicating the work of the other place. I hope that I may mention a private conversation I had with the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. He said that he had been here seven years before he managed to get a room to himself. That is not only wrong but mean to a former Foreign Secretary, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister. We should definitely have better accommodation.
There should be better facilities for our wives. Many of us have to stay here fairly late at night and sometimes our wives come by car to pick us up and take us home but they have nowhere to go while they wait. Something should be done about that. I see no reason why we should not try to obtain the Queen's Robing Room as a meeting place for our wives. I see some noble Lords tut-tutting at that, but I leave the thought with the House.
Furthermore, the Opposition parties should have more support to enable them to hold the Government to account. I believe that every department should be covered by an individual Minister. I pay a warm tribute to the Ministers who now cover several departments, but is it really fair on them and on the House? It would cost very little more and I think it would certainly improve our functions in this House.
I do not believe that we should be paid. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, the appointment system which we have enables men and women of very
1550
great experience and distinction, who would not otherwise be able to stand for an elected Parliament, to participate in the government of our country.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, mentioned Edmund Burke. I give your Lordships a less well-known quotation:
"There can be no independence of mind without independence of means".
That is not to say that the other place does not have men and women with independence of mind. Bob Cryer, who was sadly killed in an accident yesterday, was certainly a man with considerable independence of mind.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, mentioned that there are those of us in this House who have had experience outside the realm of Parliament, where I sat for some 28 years. I remember when the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, invited me to join the Whips' Office way back in 1967, he shook me to my roots by saying that as a new Whip, I should never forget that we put the interests of our country first, even though we had to fight our own party. He said that we opposed only if we believed it to be against the best interests of our country.
I had the great privilege of serving in an Indian cavalry regiment—the 19th King George V's Own Lancers. On the walls of Chetwode Hall in the Indian Military Academy in Dehra Dun are these words:
"The safety, honour and welfare of your country comes first, always and every time. The safety and welfare of the men you command comes next, always and every time; your own safety and welfare comes last, always and every time".
Those words were engraved upon the hearts of all of us who were privileged to serve in the Indian Army. I believe that they are the guiding spirit which should influence all of us who sit in this House or the other place. If that were so, I believe that we would be held in much higher regard by the public whom we represent in the House of Commons and here in the House of Lords.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Weatherill—and I insist on calling him my noble friend although he sits on those Benches—I am a relatively new Member of your Lordships' House, certainly in comparison with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and others. Therefore, what I have to say is based not so much on a long study of your Lordships' House but much more on my understanding of the role of Parliament as a whole.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, gave his understanding of that role under five different headings. I should like to put the matter in a slightly different way. When I was in the other place, constituents would sometimes write to me to complain about what was being done by the government. They would finish their letters by saying, "You run the country, why don't you put it straight?" My reply to that was always, "I do not run the country; the Government do that. All I am, as your Member of Parliament, is a paid critic"—now

1551
unpaid. That is my belief as to what Parliament is for. It does not run the country but it stops the Government doing things that the people do not want.
Government can do only what Parliament allows it to. Let us face it, we have had quite a number of examples of that here in the past few weeks. In my judgment, it must be right that the elected House has the final say. It must be allowed eventually to prevail over any of the views that we, in this non-elected House, express; however strongly we express them and, for that matter, however good they are.
So it is. That is what happens. Our power, in effect, is to ask the other place to think again. We can do that only once. That process may take only a day. In an extreme case, it can take a year. But the other place has to think again and it seems to me that there needs to be someone in the country who can say that to any elected Chamber. It is my view that this House is the best instrument which can be devised to do that.
I give your Lordships two reasons why I hold that view. The first—and this has been touched on before —is simply the volume of legislation. I can produce no supporting figures but it is my firm belief that since I was first elected to the other place 39 years ago every year, with possibly only one or two exceptions, the volume of legislation has increased. Not only the volume, but the length and complexity of it has increased. I believe that we have now reached the stage at which it is virtually impossible for Parliament, even as it is present constituted, adequately and properly to consider it.
The other place certainly cannot do that, even though it has those excellent weapons available to the government business managers—the closure and the guillotine—in order to get legislation through. That means that the legislation cannot be properly considered, and I do not believe that it is or see how it can be. Therefore, it is essential to have another Chamber—and it is the House of Lords—which can do at least some of the work that is left undone.
I am sure that we can all recall examples of legislation that has been passed and subsequently found to be defective. That reflects on both Houses—that we have not considered legislation as well as we should have done in spite of working long hours and in spite of our very best efforts. Of course, that is the fault of the government—and I am not talking about any particular government because all governments in power do the same thing.
That leads me to the second reason why I believe that your Lordships' House is as good an instrument for giving proper consideration to legislation that can be devised. One of the defects of too much legislation being passed too quickly is that, very often, it takes quite a long time for those who will be affected by it to realise just how much it will affect them. This House has a unique role to play in that area. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter referred to the experience that is available here. One only has to look round the Chamber to see the vast range of practical experience of life outside these walls which is available to be brought to bear on the consideration of legislation. In my view, that is far wider than is available in the House of Commons
1552
and it is available to an extent that I do not: see how else it could be provided. As the noble and learned Lord said, we are not talking about the composition of the House but such consideration would not be possible by an elected Chamber. Your Lordships' House can and does provide that consideration to the best of its ability and I believe that it works remarkably well.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter concluded his remarks by quoting Lord Melbourne. I borrow a phrase from our cousins across the Atlantic:
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
4 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the last speaker and the speaker before him spoke with great authority about the House of Commons, where they were both so pre-eminent. I never achieved that. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, has fled. I now see that he has returned. The noble and learned Lord's barnstorming talents in 1945 prevented my arrival at the House of Commons, so that I speak from 48 years' experience here. That is nothing very much compared with the 60 years' experience of my noble friend Lord Listowel, but it is longer than those who have addressed the House hitherto.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to whom we are so indebted, will not mind if I say that it is impossible to discuss the House of Lords in a real sense when we are talking about its composition. I believe that we have the best debates in the world—that is, debates in the sense of being the most valuable to the country that you can find anywhere —but the worst voting system. However, both spring from our composition.
If one looks at the composition of this House, it will be seen that there are four times as many who have taken the Tory Whip as the Labour Whip. If one asks how many hereditary Peers (Peers by succession) there are, one is told that there are 750 and that 13 have taken the Labour Whip. I have never been able to count up to 13, but that is the figure I have been given. It makes nonsense of the voting system. One cannot properly discuss the role of this House without looking at its composition.
However, I am all for trying to improve the voting system without damaging the quality of our debates. But that needs a little thought. I am certainly someone who thinks that the hereditary representatives will eventually have to go, although I do not think that they will go very soon. I speak with some impartiality here, having been made a Peer and also having inherited a title. I am not biased one way or the other.
I believe that the hereditary peerage will have to go, but probably not in my lifetime. I believe that the Labour Party will have so many other things to do when it comes to power that those peerages will be spared for many a year. Therefore, it is not an immediate prospect, but it will happen eventually. The system is quite indefensible: 750 hereditary Peers and only 13 receiving the Labour Whip. It is ludicrous and makes nonsense of the system. One cannot imagine anyone drawing up such a constitution today; but there it is.

1553
I now have something to say with which I believe some of my noble friends may not agree. However, I must offer my testimony based on my experience. Everyone who comes to this House admires not only the quality of the debates in the sense of the learned contributions from experts in many different fields, but also the courtesy and the civilised relationships between those who oppose one another. Further, they admire the kindness, which I should say expresses itself just as strongly among the devoted staff as among Members of the House. Those are fine qualities. I venture to think that the aristocratic tradition here is in no small way responsible for those qualities. If eventually hereditary peerages disappear from the House, I hope that those qualities will somehow be carried over into the new institution.
When we have a new institution, I shall certainly be strongly opposed to any elected Chamber. That would be a ghastly kind of second rate version of the European Parliament. I cannot imagine most of the eminent people who give extraordinary quality to our debates—although, I suppose, a few of the veteran politicians might gravitate here—standing for election, especially in later life. Therefore, the quality of our debates would go down if we had an elected Chamber. It must be an appointed Chamber.
There is no easy answer. The idea that the Prime Minister of the day should have complete charge of the appointments could work out very badly. I was rather surprised when I looked at the figures today to see how greatly the number of Conservative Peers has increased. Indeed, when the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, spoke here, I remember that she referred to the number of people whom she had nominated. In a long period of Conservative rule, there is a great increase in the Conservative representation: that is exactly what has occurred. We must find a system; but I am not saying that I have the ideal answer. We shall need to have much discussion on the matter. I believe that there should be an advisory body and that it should not be left entirely to the Prime Minister of the day.
Nevertheless, having been in this House for 48 years, I can say that I have loved the life here and will always love it. If anyone is entitled to say that he feels part of the House of Lords, I believe that I can put myself forward in that respect. I do not think that we have an ideal Chamber. As I said, the composition is ludicrous. I hope that it will change in time and that our great traditions will somehow be carried on.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I rise to speak now, somewhat to my surprise, but it somehow always happens that I either speak immediately after or before the noble Earl, Lord Longford. When I was young enough to ride a bicycle, I was taught that the great thing was never to wonder how the thing kept upright. I feel much the same about debates on the constitutional position of the House of Lords. We may regret discussing so curious a phenomenon, but as we are no longer reported—despite the somewhat optimistic remarks made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter
1554
about our ability to influence public opinion—that means that all we are saying now is in private. I see that my noble friend wishes to respond. I give way.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am much obliged. As my noble friend was good enough to refer to me, can he tell us whether he also bears in mind the very considerable amount of coverage by the broadcasting agencies of debates and speeches in the House. Does he take that into account?
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I take it into account, although I have no method of judging how important it is. It does not seem to me to compensate for columns of print as used to be the case in the more serious newspapers.
We are discussing a highly anomalous body. No one trying to invent a second Chamber would have suggested such a composition. Now that we send people to Eastern Europe, and so on, to explain the merits of constitutional government, I sometimes wonder how they explain the House of Lords. Nevertheless, we perform a useful function which has been described as either "amending" or "revising". However, the risk is that it is too easy to say, "Well we are a revising Chamber or an amending Chamber". I say that because we may mean quite different things by those words.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships a few practical examples. We may have a Bill which starts in the House of Commons and which appears here in the usual ill-digested state in which that place leaves it, as the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, reminded us. We then improve the Bill and return it to the other place for reconsideration. That is the conventional view of our role in revision. But what happens as in the two recent cases when Bills started their passage in this House? I refer to the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill which was substantially amended and to the Education Bill which was amended almost out of recognition. What does the other place do? It is not having a second thought: it is having a first thought. What ought it to do?
Of course, one can take different views on the matter. Only yesterday in the debate on the Education Bill my noble friend the Minister said:
"We must of course let the full parliamentary process take its course, and allow the other place to consider the desirability and workability of that aspect of the current draft".—[Official Report, 12/4/94; col. 1460.]
But that is a fiction, as the Government who command the majority in the other place can, if they wish, replace our text by their own preference.
My final example is even more topical. We understand that yesterday in another place the Home Secretary, in order to fight off a particular amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill (which will shortly confront us), agreed to introduce a clause roughly to the same effect as that proposed in the House of Lords. That was sufficient to prevent the amendment which he disliked, feared or disapproved of being moved. But what happens if it comes to the House of Lords and the Government amendment is not accepted? For all I know there may be devotees of violent videos in this House. There are certainly libertarians who might come up from the backwoods and who are against any form of

1555
regulation. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, is not in the Chamber as I am sure he would not vote for the government amendment on libertarian grounds.
We are in a way being asked to revise and amend in a quite different set of circumstances from those in which the phrase is usually used. In other words, it is important that we do not think that by saying, "Well, it is all right; we are an amending House and a revising House", we have solved all the problems, because the problems will arise in a different form in the case of every piece of legislation.
My next point has been referred to many times by noble Lords with even longer experience in this House than I have. My regret is that we cannot exercise that role in relation to the delegated legislation which is even more plentiful in our days than primary legislation.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I join with those who have thanked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for introducing this debate. I am bound to say straightaway that I am among those who think that one cannot really separate the constitution of the House of Lords from its composition. When I first came to the House of Lords I was struck by its immense capacity for self-congratulation. My initial reaction was that it was a kind of overweening pride but I found myself in the course of time to be quite wrong about that. What it is, I think, is a consciousness of our own absurdity. Because of that we appear to find it constantly necessary to justify ourselves in one way or another. That is why, I believe, we are so much given to self praise, forgetting that it is no recommendation outside this House.
I have also discovered in my fairly long political career that the quality of debate is often in inverse ratio to the importance of the subject being discussed. That was particularly so in the House of Commons. When issues of great importance were being debated speeches were often passionate, upsetting, rubbishy and had no quality at all. If one wanted to hear good debate in the House of Commons one had to attend on Fridays. Then one could listen to the speeches of civilised Members such as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, when engaged in a debate along with the late Dick Crossman for example. The debates in the House of Commons were of high quality so long as everyone was relaxed and realised that at the end of the day the discussion was not of great importance. When immensely important matters were being debated, speeches became scrappy and passionate and did not read well in Hansard. Therefore it may be that we have high quality debate in this House because we recognise that ultimately we are not the deciding Chamber. I believe that for as long as that continues to be the case our debates will have shape and substance.
When I say that I and the Labour Party are of the opinion that this House should he an elected Chamber I am conscious that one of the things we may have to sacrifice, should that come about, is the quality of the debates. However, that is a sacrifice which it is proper
1556
to make if, as a consequence, we obtain a Chamber which is defensible generally and not merely inside itself.
The wisest of the many wise comments Winston Churchill made was when he commented that we are, more than we know, the creatures of our institutions. That statement perhaps holds more truth than we recognise. Those of us who have been Members of the House of Commons have to be careful riot to imbibe the traditions, courtesies and other characteristics of this Chamber and in so doing forget the impulse which sent us originally into politics and which may be quite different from the establishment traditionalism which properly informs this Chamber.
This Chamber is part of the establishment. If one has any doubt about that, one has only to compare the development of the Chamber when Conservative and Labour governments are respectively in power. The House of Lords is very different in each case. We have an Opposition who are sometimes extraordinarily effectual. However, to be effectual they have to persuade some government supporters, and certainly Members on the Cross-Benches, of the correctness of the position they hold. If a Labour government are in power they can be defeated at any time in this House without difficulty. That position simply cannot be, sustained. However, it is pleasant to be a Member of the House of Lords. I believe a Cross-Bench Peer once said that being a Member of the House of Lords was like taking a hot bath. I cannot remember who said it, so perhaps we had better forget it.
In 1908, the year, incidentally, when I was born, the Labour Party accepted a resolution pledging the party to abolish the House of Lords. Following the exact words Arthur Henderson had used in the Commons, it resolved that,
"the Upper House being an irresponsible part of the Legislature and of necessity representative of interests opposed to the general well-being, is a hindrance to national progress arid ought to be abolished".
We can now see what immense progress the Labour Party has made in the period between 1908 and 1994. Now the Labour Party says:
"The House of Lords, even in its current form, is a valuable revising chamber, its debates are often of high quality precisely because of the different experience of its members, and a second chamber is a necessary and important check on the power of the first. But it must be made democratically acceptable. We therefore propose replacing the House of Lords with an elected second chamber".
I share that view rather than the view expressed by the Labour Party in 1908. I have grown a little older and wiser since 1908.
I have just referred to the position of my party as regards the House of Lords and for once I am entirely in favour of that position. The suggestion sometimes made that an elected second Chamber must of necessity be in conflict with another place is, I believe, not necessarily correct. This House can be constitutionally subservient to another place and its electorate can be quite different to that of another place. I believe it is possible to devise a system whereby this Chamber could acquire the standing outside the Chamber which noble Lords so often, and in the view of some people, quite rightly, claim that it has inside the Chamber.
4.18 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I still have a feeling of total disbelief each time I walk through the door of the Chamber. Therefore I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for giving me the opportunity to tell your Lordships how I as a newcomer see your Lordships' House. As with most members of the public, but also as a long time political activist, my attention has been almost entirely focused on the other place. It is a great pity that the television does not devote more time to showing the public what your Lordships' House does, and more particularly how it does it. The television could emphasise how speakers in this House can make speeches without constant interruptions from Members asking them to give way. That is because in this House anyone who wishes to speak can usually do so.
What is more important, however, is the decorum effected by your Lordships' system of self-regulation and self-restraint. That is not to say that our debates and exchanges are bland. That is far from being the case. Political points are made with full-blooded vigour. While courtesy is the order of the day, I have listened in admiration to the barbed insults delivered with wit but at the same time with the point of a rapier—not by swinging a battle axe or a mace; or dare I say the Mace?
What the public would see is contributions from Members of your Lordships' House drawn from a wide range of long-term public and political service and with experience in commerce, industry, education, health, foreign affairs and many other fields, as many noble Lords have already said this afternoon. One has only to look at the list of Members' special interests in Dod's to see what a vast pool of specialised knowledge is available to this House. Even the so-called backwoodsmen, who may attend only infrequently, join in debates when they have something relevant to contribute. In other words, this is a place where people speak because they have something to say not just because they feel that they have to say something.
Certainly it is not a criticism to say that the other place does not have the time for the detailed Starred Questions, the mini-debates generated by Unstarred Questions or informed short debates such as this one.
Your Lordships' House has already been called a revising chamber, but it is much more than that. It is a place where governments can be told to stop and think again, as has happened dramatically in the past few months.
Whatever may have been the situation in the past, your Lordships' House does not provide an automatic majority for the Conservative Party. Furthermore, when the Conservative Party was not in office, the Salisbury Convention ensured that government legislation did not suffer the same gridlock or stalemate that the elected United States Senate can and does impose on the President. This is not some condescending act of self-denial. It is one of the many facets of the unwritten constitution by which this country runs, and runs very well.
In a few weeks' time your Lordships will discuss the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, a central feature
1558
of which is a highly modified and circumscribed version of the so-called Henry VIII clause. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is a doughty defender of constitutional propriety, and in preparation for this debate I read the speech that he made on 6th February 1989 on the Children Bill. His efforts, and those of my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham and others, resulted in the creation in 1992 of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, which is one of several committees of your Lordships' House which provide invaluable and impartial service to both Houses of Parliament.
If newspaper reports are to be believed, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been persuaded to modify one of the right of silence provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill merely by the Lord Chief Justice indicating that it would not be acceptable to your Lordships.
There are those who have reservations about the position of the hereditary Peers. However, I firmly believe that the aspects of your Lordships' qualifications, experience and service that I have just described more than offset the unelected manner in which we all find ourselves in this House. The fact that your Lordships can and do exercise your personal judgment free of the tyranny of the Whips is more of an expression of the will of the elector in the street than those Members of the other place who campaign on a manifesto and then, as soon as they are elected, turn on their own parties' policies and elected leaders. Your Lordships' House stands as an independent bulwark against extremism at either end of the political spectrum. Those who advocate abolition are, contrary to what they may think, proposing a course which is a danger to democracy. No government should be left without a totally independent brake on its activities.
Nothing remains unchanged forever although, as the American proverb says, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, the Life Peerages Act 1958 and the Peerage Act 1963 were the last fundamental changes to a system which had otherwise worked well for centuries and has worked well ever since. If, and I stress "if" because it is not for me to say, any constitutional changes are needed then they have to be made after discussion between all the political parties and the Cross-Benches. Such changes can be made only after a full, detailed and impartial study, perhaps by a Royal Commission. Such changes as are recommended to be desirable can be made to the extent, and only to the extent, that is mutually agreed. Emphatically and definitely no changes to the very basis of the structure of this ancient Parliament should ever be made for doctrinaire reasons or in an attempt to obtain some political advantage.
4.24 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, the occasional glance in the mirror is no bad thing. It could, of course, give rise to indulgent expressions of vanity, but I believe that regular introspection by your Lordships' House must be healthy. To that end I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale for once again calling attention to the constitutional role of this

1559
House. As many noble Lords have mentioned, the noble and learned Lord is an acknowledged authority. Although I am a solicitor, I do not profess in any way to be an expert in constitutional law. I am, however, a hereditary Peer, one of four, including the noble Earl, Lord Longford, to contribute to this afternoon's debate.
In recent years these debates have appeared to draw on a regular core of speakers, several of whom contributed to a most interesting series of articles on the subject of "Looking at the Lords" which appeared in The House Magazine of 7th March. Most of the arguments have been relentlessly marched into battle on a number of occasions. I should like to set a slightly different pace in my remarks today by addressing, first, the need for a bicameral legislature and, secondly, the effectiveness of your Lordships' House as currently constituted.
I am acutely aware that the debate focuses on the role rather than the composition of your Lordships' House, but I would like to make brief mention of the role of hereditary Peers. Your Lordships' primary function is and, of course, always will be to act as a revising Chamber and, as my noble and learned friend Lord Simon mentioned, an amending chamber —to coin a phrase, 'to make the other place think again'. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 formally recognised our subordinate nature to the other place. It is our role, and the role of most second chambers, to check and balance the powers of government and to be complementary rather than to be competitive, a point made by my noble friend Lord Weatherill.
There are some of us, I would add, who would like the other place not only to think again but also, on occasions, to act again. Some noble Lords, and I include myself among them, were disappointed that the House felt unable last year to persevere with its amendments to the Railways Bill—now the Railways Act. Others have expressed concern that this House does not more often review statutory instruments but leaves that task entirely to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It seems incongruous that we should employ our rights of review on primary but not secondary legislation. That said, however, our role is more persuasive than directive. So often there is a delicate balance to be found. I join in expressing my great sadness at the tragic loss yesterday of the honourable Member for Bradford South who chaired the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments.
If one point of a second chamber is to scrutinise legislation, then I dare suggest that it is a role which the House plays with distinction. This is an effective House. As the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, pointed out in his closing speech in the debate on the Salisbury doctrine on 19th May last year, well over 50 per cent. of our time is spent reviewing legislation in Committee and on Report. General debates account for 16 per cent. of our time. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, mentioned, the work of the European Communities Committee, the Science and Technology Committee, and other Select Committees of your Lordships' House is rightly acknowledged and respected, not just by the other place but by the public at large. Indeed, it is all time well spent.
1560
In a similar debate last year, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, suggested that we should push collectively far less legislation which ought to be "more elegantly and precisely drafted". That is a sentiment I enthusiastically support. The point has been well made that much of the legislation arriving in your Lordships' House is clumsily drafted.
If we accept the paramount need for a bicameral system, then a second question arises: does this House still fit the bill at the end of the 20th century? There are many who propose reform; and that is not a word that I believe we should fear.
As a Cross-Bencher who took his seat in 1978, and. who has spent most of his life living in South Africa, I dare say that I am precisely the sort of Member whom some reformers would wish to remove from this House. However, I humbly submit that my presence in this Chamber illustrates in a small way some advantages of the hereditary system. First and foremost, it ensures a diversity in this House which is quite unmatched by any elected form of legislature in the world. From a personal perspective, I hope that my own experience of South Africa qualifies me to speak with a depth of understanding of southern African affairs which no amount of reading or study could provide. Other noble Lords have their own fields of interest and, without any hint of vanity or complacency, I think it is right that we should acknowledge that that diversity is our greatest strength.
There is also diversity of age: young and old sit side by side. There is a diversity of expertise and experience. The hereditary principle, I humbly suggest, should be protected as the buttress, not only of this precious diversity but also of an ongoing tradition—one could almost say an inherited tradition—into the next century, and beyond.
There is much more that I would wish to have spoken about in the debate today; I have many more points to raise. However, in closing I would point out that the history of this country tends towards evolution rather than revolution: gradual change by consensus rather than by sudden and compulsive acts of conviction. The House of Lords, in many respects, is a creature of evolution, hewn by the experience of passing years. If it is to be reformed, I hope that it will be done by consensus rather than by confrontation. I hope that if this House is to be reformed, it is not because an alternative system seems more democratically acceptable but because such a "reformed" system would be more effective. I challenge the contention that another Chamber would be more effective than this Chamber. For all its quirks and anachronisms, this House plays its full role within a bicameral system. It works. That is a fact which all reformers should bear in mind.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I find myself almost entirely in sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso. The points of view that he expressed are well based. They fit in with the experience that we have all had.
We all accept the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, as the expert on the workings of this House. I

1561
should like to think that when he chose the subject for debate today he had in mind the continuance of this Chamber as we know it, apart from the individual criticisms which may justifiably be directed at it.
Some years ago an Italian journalist came to ask me a question. He said that because I had headed a local authority and had 25 years' experience in the House of Commons, 20 years in the House of Lords and five years in the European Parliament, I was the only person in the United Kingdom who had had experience of the workings of all the institutions which contribute to the governance of the country. His question was this: in the light of that experience, which of those institutions carried out their remit most effectively? I did not hesitate. Of the four, I said that the one which carried out the remit most effectively and constructively was the British House of Lords. There was no argument about that. I believe that this House is unequalled in its impartial and constructive approach to carrying out the tasks entrusted to it. The fact that the composition of this Chamber consists in part of hereditary Peers is a strength rather than a weakness. The hereditary Peers produce the youth in this House. The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, is a good example.
In quoting certain figures, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, sought to imply that every hereditary Peer automatically became a member of the Conservative Party. I found that comment somewhat amusing. I do not know whether Stanley Baldwin believed that his descendants would finish up anywhere other than on the Conservative Benches; but they did. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, himself sits on the Benches of a Party which he states is under-represented. The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, is not an accredited member of the Conservative Party in the sense that he expresses the view that he truly believes is right, based on his own personal experience.
Let us consider the European Parliament. I believe that nominated Members, as distinct from elected Members, are more representative and more likely to give the guidance which would be in the interests of Britain as well as of Europe as a whole. Too many of my colleagues—for whom I had great respect—whose individual ability and knowledge were of the highest standard spent too much of their lives living in other countries. Yet that factor was produced as a great advantage for being a Member of the European Parliament. I felt that there were times when someone steeped in British as well as European needs was required. I believe that such a contribution came better from nominated Members.
The noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Lester, made very good points with regard to some of the weaknesses which exist in our present set-up. However, those weaknesses are details. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, hoped that we would consider this House as an institution. Any institution or machine which is dependent upon people will never be perfect because people are not perfect; they are the opposite of perfection. All that one can hope for is the
1562
minimum of imperfections. One hopes that those who are more acceptable, and perhaps hold more to truth, form the majority.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, is right. The strength of this place is that it has evolved. If one had attempted a written constitution, we would not have arrived at this system. However, I do not believe that the result would have been as good. If one had wished to write such a constitution one could not have anticipated the problems, the developments and the different reactions. The fact that this House has grown and has developed from practical day-to-day experience is its strength. That is why I hope that it will continue.
I should like to be assured on one point that interests me. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, the Leader of the Opposition, is to wind up in this debate today. The noble Lord's contributions in the past have always been of a very high standard indeed. I should like to know whether he will be speaking for himself today or whether the fact that he is the Leader of the Opposition means that his speech will be a Labour Party contribution on the vital question of whether we should continue to have a House of Lords.
I remind noble Lords of an anecdote that I believe to be true. In 1908 the Labour Party at its conference accepted a resolution to abolish the House of Lords. One of the older members went to Mr. Attlee (as he then was)—a very sound, "feet on the ground" Prime Minister if ever there was one—to ask: "When are we going to carry out what we have pledged ourselves to do?". Mr. Attlee replied, "What is that?". His questioner said, "Abolish the House of Lords". Mr. Attlee asked, "When did we do that?". "Oh", he said, "40 years ago". "Ah", said Mr. Attlee, "there doesn't seem to be any great urgency about it, does there?". I hope that that will be the mood which will flow from this debate, and the mood of any actions which may be taken later on.
4.41 p.m.
The Earl of Strafford: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for introducing this debate on such a basic issue; namely, what our job is and, following from that, what changes should be made to enable us to do it better.
For a 600 year-old institution over which the last rites have been frequently read we are in remarkably robust health. That is clearly due to the introduction of life Peers. In gardening terms, it is like giving a plant an annual mulch of compost. The virtues of good compost are that it is mature and well balanced. Those qualities were especially evident in this House's treatment of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, which in its virgin state was not fit to be let loose on the public. The weight of the expert opinion that came from all sides of the House was enough to enable the Bill to be pummelled into an acceptable shape. In that process the Opposition Front Benches played a leading role and showed the fundamental importance of an effective opposition in a parliamentary democracy. They form an essential part of the framework of government.

1563
However, the value of that role is not reflected in their remuneration—because they do not get any. To be accurate, the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip are paid a salary. But it takes more than two to fill an Opposition Front Bench. The same disparity between contribution and financial recognition applies of course to prominent Back-Benchers. The Top Salaries Review Body accepted that our system of allowances is adequate for those Peers whose work in the House is very much a part-time affair but totally inadequate for full-time working Peers.
This issue deserves serious attention. It would be prudent of the Government to take action now, if merely for reasons of self-interest. As they well know, the political pendulum swings sooner or later. When it does, they will find themselves sitting on the Benches opposite, possibly suffering from withdrawal symptoms. I believe that we have an increasingly important role to play, and that adequate financial reward is a necessary part of the acceptance of that role.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, not for the first time, this House has great cause to be grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The noble and learned Lord symbolises many of those things that entitle this House to be proud of itself. An institutional pride is a necessary part of the equipment of any working institution. That pride has been in evidence today. There is much to justify it.
This House's track record is extremely good. The House said that the poll tax would be a mess. It was. It said that the football membership Bill would be a mess. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, if I remember correctly, was in the forefront of that debate. Thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, the mess did not actually happen. The House said that the Child Support Act would be a mess; and it is.
Last night this House did even better. In the final debate on the passage of the Education Bill, we saw that all the interested parties had talked the matter out until they had achieved a common interest and welcomed what was happening. That did credit to the whole House, and especially to the Minister in charge of the Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. It shows the advantage of the weaker party discipline in this House.
We have not heard for a very long time the traditional cry of "Peers versus people". That is because—so far as the opinion polls can tell us—when the two Houses disagree, nine times out of 10 the people agree with the Peers. On the measure to impose charges on eye tests and dental checks, in the opinion polls 87 per cent. sided with this House. It raises the question as to whether what we ought to be thinking about is how far another place represents the people.
Yet, for all that we express an institutional pride on such occasions, when it comes to push of pike with another place, as on the Railways Bill on 4th November last, this House does not always have the courage to put its votes where its mouth is. Sometimes this House suffers from cold feet. I think that that is the result of underlying doubts about its legitimacy.
1564
It is of course difficult in this day and age to make any serious justification for the argument that heredity confers legitimacy. In fact, the best one can do is to quote Aristotle's principle that the lot is the most democratic form of selection. It brings people to this Chamber who would not otherwise be heard. I remember reading the maiden speech of the late Lord Milford, who was a card carrying member of the Communist Party. The task of congratulating him on his maiden speech fell to Lord Attlee, who said:
"It is an irony that the voice of the Communist Party can only be heard in this House. It is an advantage of the hereditary principle".
For all that we say about this issue, it is difficult to base legitimacy on heredity. I think that the proper answer to the question of legitimacy is to look at the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. Those took from us some of our powers. The same Acts left us other powers. By leaving us those powers, they created a situation in which we enjoy our power by grant of another place —until, as was stated in 1911, a better system can be devised. We are on probation. We are an example of the potential redeeming power of probation.
We are therefore in a dilemma which is very like the dilemma which affected another place in the 17th century. It also had to give advice which, if it was to be good, had to be sometimes unwelcome to those from whom it derived its power. That is a very difficult tightrope to walk.
In another place in the 17th century some people used to worry about whether they were taking too much risk and unduly inflaming an irritated Executive. Others, perhaps more perceptive, expressed the fear that, if they were too modest in the exercise of their powers, those powers might moulder away from lack of use and that would be as great a danger as the other. Those reflections apply to us too. It is a tightrope on which one never walks with quite accurate balance. But although we have occasionally swayed violently from side to side, at the moment we are still on it and until another place chooses to take away our powers, we should be prepared to exercise them with confidence.
Such power is not only a matter of amending Bills. I once looked at the debate in this House on the Bill to postpone the general election which was due in 1940. A Bill to postpone a general election is not subject to the Parliament Acts, and quite right too. It was the unanimous opinion of this House in 1940 that, because it had the undoubted right to throw out that Bill, therefore it would not do so. That was a good decision and good exercise of a power which it is right that we should continue to have.
I listened with great interest and approval to the proposal of my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill for a committee to scrutinise the compatibility of legislation with our international obligations. I once had occasion to ask a Minister if the Government had taken legal advice on whether a measure that they were introducing was contrary to European law. The Minister replied, "I would have to take advice on that point". I feel that he ought to have known the answer when he came before us. Such a committee would ensure that an expert opinion on such a question was available to us.

1565
I share the concern about regulations which we have heard from many quarters. But I should point out that the joint committee is responsible only for pronouncing on the values of the regulations. That is a competent legal job which is well left to the committee. Our job is to pronounce on the political propriety and convenience of those regulations. I shall not speak further today on how that matter should be addressed. But one thing that pleased me most about the changes in the Education Bill was the general agreement throughout the House—in which the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee played a very important part—that Clause 20, the framework Bill clause, was the kind of thing which should not be put in front of this House.
In any changes, I should like to see attention paid to two points about composition which affect our function. One is the role of the Cross-Benchers, who are vital in this House not only for what they themselves say, valuable though it is, but also for their effect on the way the rest of us talk. I remember one occasion when Labour and Conservative Front Benches were swapping insults on their economic records—exactly like another place—and a Cross-Bencher asked, "What is this to us? Can you get back to the question?".
The other point is that in this Chamber there are people whose occupation is outside politics. I regret to say that there is a decline in the reputation of the whole political class. We cannot have a genuinely representative institution if there is no way for people to have a voice without belonging to a political party.
I end with just one more thought. According to my colleague, Adrian Lyttelton, in 1923 there was only one person who could have stopped Mussolini. That was the king. The king did not act because he did not believe that he had the power to do so. So when the war was over and there was a new settlement, the king disappeared along with Mussolini. I do not want us to make the same mistake.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate. Perhaps I may eschew the normal courtesies of winding up a debate and not mention everybody who has spoken in the course of it. To do so would eat into the little time that I have and there are one or two matters that I should like to put to the House.
First, and it is not a common courtesy on my part, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, for raising this subject tonight. It has been a useful and certainly a revealing debate. I am bound to say that there was a tinge of self-congratulation and self-satisfaction in a number of the speeches, which I did not think exactly equated with the reality of the situation. However, so be it.
Writing in 1989, Professor Griffiths and Michael Rile said about the House of Lords:
"The description of the House of Lords as it is today is one of a legislative chamber in flux: great changes have taken place in the last two decades, and the House is now so changing and enlarging its functions, largely as a result of external pressures, that it may appear fanciful to think that it can continue with the same procedures, powers and composition for much longer".
1566
It is against that background that we should approach the debate tonight, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, himself.
At the outset, let me say that the Labour Party is firmly not in favour of a unicameral legislature. We believe that the legislative process in this country—indeed political life in general—demands that there should be two Chambers of Parliament. The argument, as indeed is not unusual in these matters, is best set out in Bagehot. It is a good quote which I should like to share with the House. He wrote:
"With a perfect Lower House it is certain that an Upper House would be scarcely of any value. If we had an ideal House of Commons perfectly representing the nation, always moderate, never passionate, abounding in men of leisure, never omitting the slow and steady forms necessary for good consideration, it is certain that we should not need a higher chamber. The work would be done so well that we should not want anyone to look over or revise it. And whatever is unnecessary in government is pernicious. Human life makes so much complexity necessary that an artificial addition is sure to do harm: you cannot tell where the needless bit of machinery will catch and clog the hundred needful wheels; but the chances are conclusive that it will impede them somewhere, so nice are they and so delicate. But though beside an ideal House of Commons the Lords would be unnecessary, and therefore pernicious, besides the actual House a revising and leisured legislature is extremely useful, if not quite necessary".
I do not think that I can add anything to that argument, either the way in which it is expressed or the substance of it. The country needs two Chambers.
Therefore, we should go on to consider what this debate is about, which is the role of the Chamber and not necessarily its composition. The 1968 White Paper on the Lords identified a number of functions: six main ones, in addition to acting as the Supreme Court of Appeal. These were: first, the provision of a forum for full and free debate on matters of public interest; second, the revision of Public Bills brought up from the other place; third, the initiation of public legislation, including in particular those government Bills which are less controversial in party political terms than Private Members' Bills; fourth, the consideration of subordinate legislation, fifth, the scrutiny of the activities of the executive; and finally, the scrutiny of private legislation.
That description of our basic functions and roles remains as true today as it was in 1968. But over the past 20 to 25 years this House has developed its work in one further field which now deserves special mention: the work of our investigative Select Committees. I refer in particular to the European Communities Committee which reviews the legislative output of the European Union in a far more comprehensive way than does its counterpart in the other place. I refer also to the Select Committee on Science and Technology which took over the role of the former Commons committee of the same name in 1979. Both those Select Committees are extremely valuable and constitutionally innovative. They form part of the functions of this House if one is trying to judge it and assess its value.
If those are our functions, it is difficult to judge objectively precisely how effectively our functions are carried out. Governments are understandably reticent to tell people why they decide to change their minds. However, there is now some more objective data. The analysis of the 1988–89 Session recently carried out by

1567
the Study of Parliament Group revealed the way in which this House actually uses its time. It is perhaps a useful piece of data for the House to consider.
Just under two-thirds of our time was spent considering legislation, the great majority of it on government Bills. Almost one-third was spent on deliberation including Questions, short debates, Statements, Unstarred Questions, general debates and consideration of reports from Select Committees. The amount of time being spent on legislation has increased consistently over the past five Parliaments, as has the total number of hours that the House sits. The sheer volume of legislation has also increased. Earlier in the debate somebody asked for figures.
In the 1970s the average number of pages of legislation per year was 1,874; in the 1980s it was 2,540 and has certainly increased since then. In relation to amendments, according to Mr. Shell and Mr. Beamish who edited the Study of Parliament Group Report, 2,339 amendments were made to government Bills during the 1988–89 Session. That is a great deal. Over 99 per cent. of all amendments moved by the Government were successful, while amendments moved from other quarters of the House only achieved a success rate of just over 6 per cent. The report concluded thus:
"What is clear is that the vast majority of amendments made to Bills were the result of second (third, fourth and fifth?) thoughts by the Government itself as its legislation was squeezed through the so-called legislative sausage machine. The House is a place where errors and omissions can be corrected, where at least some details can be put right even if others are ignored. The House can act as a kind of legislative longstop. If it did not exist more care would have to be taken with the earlier stages of bills, or indeed more stages would be necessary in the Commons".
I find that argument highly persuasive and conclusive. But while the other roles referred to in the 1968 White Paper are still undoubtedly carried out by this House, their intellectual emphasis seems to be changing somewhat. There seems to be a tendency now to revert to what political scientists refer to as the "referendal" inspirations of Lord Salisbury in the middle of the nineteenth century. At a time of "elective dictatorship" it is sometimes argued that this House has an additional role—as emerged in some of the contributions this afternoon—namely, that we represent within the constitutional limits of our operation the feelings of the nation.
The Commons has the legitimacy of election. But it is now argued that the legitimacy of the Lords is drawn from its greater independence and from the wider variety of interests that are here represented. That may be so. It is the balance between those two that our constitution must make work. I do not want to stray into a discussion on composition but perhaps noble Lords will forgive me if I merely give the statistics. As of 19th January 1994 membership of this House consisted of 774 hereditary Peers, 381 life Peers, 21 Law Lords and 26 bishops, making a total of 1,202. Excluding Lords without Writs of Summons and Peers on leave of absence, that meant that the total eligible to attend was 1,033 noble Lords.
The party breakdown is perhaps also slightly instructive. I merely give it for the convenience of the House. There are 384 Peers who take the Conservative Whip (that is 48.2 per cent.); 106 Peers take the Labour
1568
Whip (13.3 per cent.); 49 Peers take the Social and Liberal Democrat Whip (6.1 per cent.); and 23 Peers still call themselves Social Democrats and make up 2.9 per cent.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg the, noble Lord's pardon. We are the Liberal Democrats and have been for a great many years.
Lord Richard: My Lords, labels change so often in some parts of the political arena. The point is still a valid one, whatever label the noble Earl, Lord Russell, wishes to ascribe to it. The fact is that the Cross-Benchers amount to 196 Peers; that is, 24.6 per cent.
What is interesting about those figures is that if we add up the total of the Labour, the Liberal Democrats and what I assume is the rump of the SDP together, it amounts to 22.3 per cent. of the House. Cross-Benchers amount to 24.6 per cent. of the House. I am bound to say that it is indefensible to have a situation in which the Conservatives amount to 48.2 per cent. of your Lordships' House, the Cross-Benchers amount to 24.6 per cent. and the combined political oppositions amount to 22.3 per cent.
It is argued that it is in the independence of the Lords and its unreliability on party matters that the strength of this House lies. It needs to be indicated from time to time to Members in the Commons—I do not dissent from this—that they do not always have it entirely right and should think again. Elected the Commons may be, but it certainly is not infallible and I would not claim that it was. And that role is in some ways more important under a Conservative Government than under a Labour Government precisely because of the enormous disproportion in party strength. With a Conservative Government in power this House can only defeat the Government by a coalition of the opposition parties, a fair number of Cross-Benchers and some free spirits on the Conservative side. For a Labour Government the perspective is totally different. It is always vulnerable to the majority opposition—a majority based on the hereditary Peers. To beat a Labour Government 360 times, as this House did between 1974 and 1979, is not a sign of any vigorous coalition of independent interests which we have heard argued this afternoon as the justification for this place. It is a reflection of the voting strengths of the party opposite being used for party political purposes.
But if, therefore, the way in which the House operates is somewhat different depending on which party is in government, the role remains or should remain the same; namely, to provide a constitutional mechanism whereby the Commons can be asked to reconsider. In the end, of course, that House must prevail. We all accept that. But provided the expression of views here is genuinely an independent one, then it would be as well for a government to ponder. The recent experiences, for example, with the police Bill and the Education Bill, to say nothing of the Railways Bill, ought to be sufficient to make that clear to any government prepared to listen.
Let me say quite clearly that if we have no function other than to be a talking shop or, alternatively, a rubber stamp, then we may as well be abolished, have done

1569
with it and move to a unicameral legislature—something which I personally would greatly regret. For this debate I looked up some of the great reform speeches made by noble Lords of the past. I read the great speech made by the Marquess of Salisbury on the Irish Church Bill, when he said,
"If we do merely echo the House of Commons, the sooner we disappear the better. The object of the existence of a second House of Parliament is to supply the omissions and correct the defects of the first. But it is perfectly true that there may be occasions in which the decision of the House of Commons and the decision of the nation must be taken as practically the same".
I do not think our role has changed all that much since the days of the noble Marquess. However, I do have to say in conclusion that if this House is to continue to supply the omissions and to correct the defects of the elected Chamber, then in future it will have to do so on a more equitable and fair basis of composition than now exists.
5.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, for choosing for debate this afternoon so fundamental a question as that of the constitutional role of your Lordships' House. It is right and valuable that periodically we should reflect upon our role and take stock both of its continuing validity and of our performance of it. It is helpful that there should have been contributions to this short debate from one as experienced as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls and also from my noble friend Lady Miller, who confessed that she is a recent arrival in your Lordships' House.
Perhaps I may say at the outset that the Government take the view—it seems to be a view shared throughout the House—that we should remain committed to the principle of a bicameral legislature. We further consider that this Upper House performs essential functions, as a Chamber of deliberation and revision—I shall come back to that word and precisely what it might mean—and as a guarantor of constitutional continuity. The Government consider that the powers and composition of your Lordships' House are broadly apt for the effective discharge of these functions. Accordingly, we have no present plans for far-reaching reform, although, as my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal has recently written, that is not to say that the workings of the Lords may not be susceptible to improvement. That is demonstrated by the group that he has established under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Rippon to look at the sittings of the House. I have no doubt that there will be a valuable contribution to come from that group.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that prime among our responsibilities must be our role in the examination and revision of Bills. As he indicated, the statistics bear that out. We spend well over 50 per cent. of our time in discussing legislation, most particularly in Committee and on Report.
Secondly, and also of great importance, is our function as a forum—and a particularly well informed
1570
and constructive forum—for the discussion of general questions of policy affecting our country. General debates account for something over 20 per cent. of the time of the House, but to this we must add the many hours of work which are performed by Select Committees, whose sometimes rather narrow scrutiny remit is frequently belied by the breadth of their inquiries. Like him, I also tender a compliment to those who work on the Select Committees for the undoubtedly valuable work that they undertake.
The second role to which I referred is, indeed, highly valued—and rightly so—both by many of your Lordships and by many outside the House, including other members of the Government. One of the great strengths of this House is that there are comparatively frequent opportunities not only for general debates but also for more specific ones which attract extremely expert and professional opinions based on a wealth of knowledge and experience. As my noble friend Lord Colnbrook said, opinion in terms of general public opinion and also specialist opinion throughout the country is often beneficially affected by what is said within your Lordships' House. I have no doubt that there are many in this Chamber who have participated in valuable discussions beyond it. But what I come back to is the important part that the second Chamber has to play in the scrutiny of legislation. In so doing it makes a primary and tangible contribution within our existing constitutional arrangements.
I stress that the Government in no way underestimate the importance of the views of the House on the legislation that is placed before it. I readily accept that revising is not simply a matter of the House being restricted to correcting a few niggling errors made by the parliamentary draftsman. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter underlined, there is indeed a right of amendment. It is your Lordships' constitutional right to ask the other place to think again. It is central to the role of a second Chamber in our system that that should be so and it is one that all governments should take very seriously indeed. If, on occasion, Ministers appear to jib at the right when it is exerted, I hope your Lordships will recognise that even the skeeliest of skippers is inclined to resent nudges against the tiller.
The right of this House to scrutinise and amend is not in question. What we might do though, both to our benefit and to that of another place, is to examine how we might avoid unnecessary or repetitive consideration of those legislative matters brought before us. No doubt your Lordships have watched with particular interest the progress of the very complex Trade Marks Bill through this House. Perhaps I may say, to the tribute of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and all those who participated in the Committee stage off the Floor of the House, that the Bill was not only properly examined in Committee but when it returned to the Floor of the House for Report there was no undue reconsideration of the points. I suggest to your Lordships that we might have greater confidence in resorting to that model in the future.
Furthermore, in our paper Scotland in the Union, it was stated that the Government have acknowledged that it would be desirable to find ways of significantly increasing the throughput of law reform Bills proposed

1571
by the Law Commissions if this can be done without prejudice to the main programme. I consider that to be a valuable function for your Lordships' House—and I speak not only as a Scottish Minister and a Scottish lawyer but with an eye to law reform on both sides of the Border. While I was interested in the first thought of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in looking to the role of your Lordships' House, it would seem to me that we could take a first thought on a number of matters of importance in law reform for both of our jurisdictions. In so doing we might bring about a further and broader constitutional achievement—a greater cementing of the nations of the United Kingdom by making sure that legislation that properly ought to go through is not left on the stocks without implementation.
Any consideration of our functions inevitably invites reflection on the suitability of those persons accorded what is the privilege and responsibility of their undertaking. It has been said during the course of the debate that this House is wide in its composition. I am proud to be a Member of your Lordships' House, but I nevertheless believe that we are here with a certain degree of humility and a recognition of the responsibilities of the elected nature of another place. Like the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, I have some knowledge of South Africa. As we all watch with great hope, but not without trepidation, its moves towards democracy, I do not believe that it would be right to imagine that it is only in an unelected Chamber that all which is to be achieved is to be achieved.
I believe that it can be correctly claimed that our membership brings to bear in debate, both of legislation and otherwise, an invaluable range of knowledge and experience which is often, as has been said, both different from and arguably wider than that found in another place. I may not entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Strafford, that the views expressed as regards a recent Bill were the right ones; but nevertheless there was a wide range of experience brought to bear on the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill.
We also have the benefit of views which are not necessarily committed to the line of any particular party. I am here thinking of the role of the Cross-Benchers, who offer us both authority and expertise from an independent viewpoint. I readily acknowledge that that is not something that ought to be underestimated.
The powers of your Lordships' House are well enough known. I noted in a recent article that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, described a reconsideration of them as the equivalent of opening up a can of worms. I would have been interested to hear whether he had any further thoughts on that. What is important is that we should have regard to the voluntary limitations on the powers of your Lordships' House. The Salisbury Doctrine has been considered on a number of occasions recently. There appears, and there should continue, to be an appreciation that it should remain in place. I do not accept, as the Opposition Front Bench might like me to, that after the next general election there will be a reversal of positions in your Lordships' House. But wherever anyone sits in your Lordships' House, I would have thought that the desirability for the continuation of such a doctrine was important.
1572
I too have some anxiety that as we consider our role and function we should not—however vigorously we debate matters and however carefully we scrutinise the legislation going through your Lordships' House—usurp to ourselves, as it were, the role of being the voting articulation of the opinion polls in the country at any particular time. We do not have in this country a system of government based on single-issue politics. Governments are entitled to be judged on their records as a whole. If elections are to continue to be based on discussions of policy, they are entitled to set a whole package of measures before the electorate. For that reason I similarly take the view that we ought to be careful about taking up that particular position.
If there is one issue which seems to have come to the fore more prominently than in previous years it is the anxieties in your Lordships' House as regards delegated legislation. I know that a number of your Lordships have considerable concerns about such legislation. The Government are fully aware of the strength of feeling about the growth in the amount and the scope of such delegated legislation. It is only right that your Lordships should be vigilant. I believe that the knowledge of your Lordships in the rigorous scrutiny of such delegated legislation is a significant factor in the consideration of such matters by government. As has been indicated, the establishment of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, which has built up, and rightly so, a strong reputation with your Lordships, has reinforced the role which your Lordships have in scrutinising the powers which government propose to take in the Bills in which delegated legislation appears.
Allied to that, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, introduced an interesting line as regards our international obligations in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights. As I understood his proposal, it was either that the existing Select Committee should expand its remit to take on that responsibility or, alternatively, as I believe his noble friend indicated, there might be a separate Select Committee established. I say to him that if such a proposal is to be put forward, I am sure he will appreciate that it is not for government to consider. Initially it is a matter for the Liaison Committee. The noble Lord may wish to put forward a memorandum to the committee in due course setting out his views.
I say to him that it should be no secret that before any department of government now puts forward legislation, be it primary or secondary, it is certainly under an obligation within government to seek to assess whether there are any implications arising out of those international obligations. From time to time there are certainly circumstances where there are breaches of that convention. But they are seldom deliberate ones. They have occurred more frequently as a consequence of the developing jurisprudence of the court rather than of any other particular approach by government.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has just said. Does he agree with me that it is slightly odd that the Government and the judges take the convention seriously but that Parliament has no machinery at all ?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have indicated to the noble Lord that the Government take it seriously, and the courts should too. If this House is to take the matter forward, I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate that it is not for me in any sense to attempt to direct or even to influence any attempt to do so. I suspect that that might be counter-productive. As I have suggested to the noble Lord, he might like to make his own approaches to see how the matter could be taken forward.
However uneasy some of your Lordships may be about the conventions as regards not voting against Motions to approve or annul delegated legislation, I counsel you that the existing arrangement ought to be maintained. If delegated legislation is voted down it is not to ask another place to reconsider its decision but to ensure that that delegated legislation cannot come into effect at all.
I had hoped to have time, as I considered matters, to look to what might be proposals for change to the composition of your Lordships' House. Some of your Lordships will know more directly than I can recall the curious and celebrated alliance between Mr. Enoch Powell and Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn when it came to considering—
Noble Lords: Michael Foot!
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I beg your Lordships' pardon. That was an equally celebrated alliance.
From the consideration there has been recently of what changes there might be to the composition of your Lordships' House, exactly the same picture emerges. Despite what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, had to say about it, no one has come forward with any proposal for the composition of your Lordships' House which will secure anything like a majority in any part of this House, in the country or in the House of Commons.
If one looks at any particular model, each has within it serious flaws which are probably the safeguard of the present composition of your Lordships' House. I cannot believe that there is anyone here—when so much attachment is given to the influence and independent role of your Lordships' House—who would consider that an opportunity for the Prime Minister of the day to have the sole right of nomination for the time being would he at all attractive. I have no doubt that Members of another place would be extremely concerned if there were to be a complete arrangement for elections to your Lordships' House. The idea that there should be Class A or Class B Members of your Lordships' House would equally seem to be a proposal which would be highly undesirable.
I hope that in taking something of a view of the various powers of and roles that your Lordships' House performs, I have been able to explain to your Lordships why the Government consider that the present composition and powers of this House are broadly right. The evidence is that membership comprising hereditary, ex officio and life Peers provides a House that is capable of discharging most effectively its vital roles—of deliberation, revision and continuity—in our constitutional arrangements.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord really justify a situation in which roughly two-thirds of the Members of your Lordships' House are Peers by succession?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I really do want to conclude, but I have indicated that whatever the particular criticisms of any individual Member of your Lordships' House or elsewhere about the arrangements for the composition of the House, what is singularly lacking is any proposal that would command anything like a majority view elsewhere. That is undoubtedly the position. I notice that the noble Earl indicated his disapproval of that arrangement, but, if I may say so, his speech was singularly lacking in offering any alternative, spelt out in detail, which would attract widespread support.
A number of distinguished constitutionalists have been quoted during the debate. I regret that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham is not in his place because I should like to refer to the book that he published just two years ago. His chapter on the House of Lords concludes:
"Human institutions are of two classes, the traditional and the contrived. The contrived must be judged by reason. The test of the traditional type is how well it works in practice, and the quality and value of what it produces. By this test, the House of Lords should survive".
5.32 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am truly grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. It would be invidious to single out individual speeches, but perhaps I may be allowed to say that I found the speech of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition exceptionally informative.
I wish to make just one or two points in relation to matters that arose late in the debate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, who so agreeably replied to the debate, said that your Lordships should continue the convention of not voting against statutory instruments. I very much hope that you will reconsider that. It is a very weak convention. It is weak in the sense that it does not make any constitutional sense and weak also because it has been breached—notably in connection with the order relating to Rhodesian sanctions.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I take him up on another point, which is his apparent enamour of Public Bill Committees. The great danger is that they might be taken as a means for the Government to load yet more legislation on Parliament. A consistent theme of this debate has been that we have far too much legislation.
I turn now to the suggestion that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that the European Convention on Human Rights should be repatriated. I entirely agree—not only are we signatories, but British lawyers played a large part in framing the convention. If we cannot go so far, I think the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, merits serious consideration. At least the Scrutiny Committee could examine subordinate legislation as to its compatibility

1575
with the European convention. That would be within its general scope—and it would not be going as far as its Australian counterpart.
My last point is one that I wished to make in opening the debate but omitted. I am very glad that a number of your Lordships referred to the sad news of the death of Mr. Cryer in an accident. He was a highly admired chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments and, as your Lordships' House is the principal parliamentary organ of scrutiny of such instruments, we are all greatly in his debt. I know that your Lordships would wish to be associated with expressions of sympathy for his family and colleagues.
As for the rest, there is only a Motion for Papers outstanding and, in case there should be a pile of papers in the way of the next debate of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Lord Richard: My Lords, on behalf of the Labour Party, I should like to express to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and to other noble Lords who have mentioned this tonight, our thanks for what they have said about Bob Cryer. He was a remarkable man and those of us who knew him respected him greatly. We are extremely grateful for what has been said.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, as a Cross-Bencher and a colleague of the late Bob Cryer from 1974 to 1979 and subsequently from 1983 onwards, I should like to add my condolences to his family and to express my long-standing high regard for him as a parliamentarian in the other House. Despite our many differences on European and other issues, his stance on such matters only deepened the admiration of all of us and our high regard for him.
Motion, for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Disabled Employment Quota System
5.37 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyrose to call attention to the future of the quota system for employment of disabled people; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In introducing the Motion, I remind your Lordships that the quota system was introduced by the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act of 1944. This year sees the 50th anniversary of its Royal Assent. In a few weeks' time there is also to be another 50th anniversary—of the Normandy Landings. I shall myself be in Normandy for that anniversary at the beginning of June.
There is a connection between those two contemporary events. The 1944 Act was intended at that time to make provision primarily for war-disabled people, including of course civilians injured by bombing. A very large majority of those in the Armed Forces who had been disabled were in their 20s with many years of working age before them. I remind your Lordships also that the quota scheme required employers of 20 or more
1576
people to maintain a percentage of registered disabled employees. The percentage was to be prescribed by a Minister, and it has for many years been 3 per cent.
In recent years, the Act has not been effective in the way intended. The reason has been the failure of the registration system. My principal argument today is that if the quota scheme is to be continued, a very special effort must be made to reform the way in which registration is carried out. Hitherto, registration has been supervised centrally: first, by the Ministry of Labour, as it was, then by the Department of Employment, and for a time by the Manpower Services Commission.
There are registers in each appropriate area of work in the country. What has gone wrong during the past 30 years is that over a large part of the country less than 3 per cent. of the working population has been registered as disabled for the purposes of the Act. It has been virtually impossible for all the organisations employing more than 20 people to achieve that 3 per cent. when, for example, the percentage of persons on the register in their area is 2 per cent. or less. Where firms have achieved the 3 per cent. or more, it has been because the smaller employers in their area were employing few, if any, disabled people. That produced a situation of notional achievement but was entirely contrary to the spirit of the Act.
One does not have to be a brilliant mathematician to see that the 3 per cent. quota system cannot he enforced in areas where the register contains considerably less than 3 per cent. of the local working population. The latest figure that I have (for the year 1993) shows that for the whole of the UK the register contains only 1.3 per cent. of the working population. That is what it has stood at in recent months. That disrupting discrepancy between the percentage of registered disabled and the quota makes it essential that the scheme be overhauled. I shall return to the registration system later.
I shall now return to 1944 and examine more closely the provisions in the Act. I suggest that I may be a suitable person to do so as I was one of those for whom the Act was intended. A few months after its. Royal Assent, I was wounded, aged 23. I emerged from hospital more than a year later, aged 25, and still unable to walk. In fact I had made an unexpectedly good recovery thanks to the surgery of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, and I was partially disabled only. The quota was not needed in my case because I took the Foreign Office examination on leaving hospital and was successful.
Your Lordships might be amused by the next hurdle, which was the Foreign Office medical examination. Still not walking, but 100 per cent. fit in other physicians' requirements, I was passed by the medical board, the chairman making the memorable remark, "As a diplomat of course, you will never need to walk or stand". That may have been true in those days, but of course things changed later. That personal reminiscence is a reminder of the climate and attitudes when the 1944 Act was coming into effect. The need was obvious and accepted: to assist young war disabled to start and settle into occupations.
Section 10 deals with quotas. There was to be a standard percentage, the figure for which was to be

1577
prescribed and specified by order, after wide consultation. That has been 3 per cent., I think, from the beginning. But the figure was not in the Act; it is prescribed.
Also in Section 10 there were to be special percentages which the Minister could specify for particular sectors of employment. The object was clearly to take into account the suitability and distinctive characteristics of various parts of trade and industry. So far as I know, those special percentages have never been put into operation. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will tell us today whether they have ever been used.
Section 11 provides for exemptions. The Minister can grant permits allowing employers to be below the quota in certain circumstances. That provision has been used, though it has little meaning or effect in areas where the number of registered disabled is well below the 3 per cent. quota figure in any case.
The register under the Act is a voluntary one. No one is compelled to put down their names. It is separate from other registers such as those for the disabled held by local authorities. Under the Act those to be recorded in the registers are defined as:
"substantially handicapped in obtaining or keeping employment".
Why are so many who ought to be on the register not there? Is it because they are not aware of the register? Is it because they do not think that it will help them? I understand that three or four years ago the Department of Employment commissioned a survey and that the report stated that about half of those who could qualify for the register had never heard of it, and some of those who had heard about it thought that it would not help them in any case. It is clear that a great deal needs to be done if the quota system is to continue. My information is that the Government have no plan at present to discontinue or replace it and that they are keeping it under review. That is not a new expression for most of us. I should be grateful if my noble friend would tell us more about that.
Most organisations representing disabled people are in favour of keeping the quota scheme. They criticise its imperfections but prefer it to nothing. For years the 3 per cent. figure has been merely a target rather than a goal which can everywhere be achieved for the reasons that I have given. Most of the organisations representing disabled people would prefer to keep it rather than to change to something else which might be worse.
Some employers' organisations, on the other hand, favour radical change or repeal. In particular, the organisation Employers' Forum on Disability would replace the quota scheme by other measures, including a strict code of practice. That is supported by the argument, which all of us as parliamentarians should respect, that laws in Acts of Parliament fall into disrepute when it is, in practice, mathematically impossible to observe them or to enforce them.
The MSC made similar recommendations in the early 1980s. During the International Year for Disabled People (1981) I was appointed to a role in this country during that year and the MSC was asked to review the quota scheme. It recommended that it be ended and
1578
replaced by a code of practice. I understand entirely the reluctance of governments to follow that advice when the disabled organisations are so anxious about the complete disappearance of the scheme.
My view of the quota scheme is that, although it is creaking and much discredited, it should not be dropped until there is clearly something better to replace it. In that connection, I acknowledge the additional schemes which exist. My subject today is the 1944 Act quota scheme so I shall make a passing reference only, to complete the scene, to sheltered employment. Pre-eminent in that field is the organisation Remploy, assisted by government, with factories in different parts of the UK producing goods for commercial purposes. Only last month my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced new measures to finance sheltered employment, in addition to Remploy, for severely disabled people. I accept that there are schemes in addition to the 1944 quota scheme.
It is sometimes stated that there are some 6 million disabled people in the UK—more than one tenth of the population. That figure has no application whatever to my subject today. First of all, some of them are people with minor disabilities, though on that a lot could be said. Someone who loses a finger, for example, is not severely disabled, but if he happens to be a pianist by profession then of course it is a calamity.
The main point is that of that figure of 6 million about three-quarters are over working age. They are past retirement. Their disabilities are mostly those which must be expected to attend advancing years. Their lives and their problems are of concern to the nation, which can and should respond in various ways, including efficient systems of community care.
Today we are discussing in the Motion disabled people of working age. That of course is a much smaller number than the 6 million. Within it, I suggest it is people in their 20s and 30s in particular to whom we should be giving special attention. Once they are started in a trade or occupation, it is easier for them to stay on in it. Yet many of them are not even on these registers.
Returning to the quota scheme, in the early 1980s a proposal was considered that fines or penalties be imposed for those organisations which were not meeting the quota and had not received the exemptions from the Minister. Clearly, this would not be fair or acceptable while the registration system was so ineffective and unable to produce the numbers of disabled employees required for a 3 per cent. quota.
Also, there was a feeling among some of the disabled organisations that fines would misinterpret the worth of disabled people and that they should not be regarded as an unwanted burden which could be avoided by the option of a financial payment. I was made very much aware of this during the international year because I was told it directly by disabled people and their organisations. Disabled employees, while some may need technical aids, can give as valuable a contribution as able-bodied workers and should not be treated as though they were in a second category.
However, Germany and France are operating quota schemes, combined with financial penalties in Germany and a levy system in France. The money collected from

1579
them goes to funds for disabled purposes. It is clear to those of us who have looked into it that some firms simply pay the fines in those countries and do not seriously attempt to meet the quota. They just decide to pay the money and not to try to employ the disabled people. Nonetheless, the schemes in those two countries are working.
I ask: how do France and Germany make their registration arrangements effective? Will the Government study their systems of registration? I hope that the Minister can tell us something about that. Unless our system is greatly improved, we cannot hope to emulate their results.
The subject would not be complete without mention of recent developments in the United States. Their legislation, the Americans with Disabilities Act 1990, does not include a quota scheme. Its aim is to prevent discrimination. In the part on employment, employers of 25 people or more must accept any disabled applicant for a job, subject to "reasonable accommodations" being made. The figure of 25 is due to come down to 15 after four years.
The key words in this are "reasonable accommodations". They normally mean in the United States special equipment or adaptations. The word "reasonable" has come to have the effect of excusing employers who would suffer hardship and where an accommodation would cause significant difficulty or expense. The United States Equal Employment Opportunities Commission has the role of mediation to obtain settlement of these factors in individual cases. It is hoped in the United States that most cases will be settled reasonably—that is the word which is used a great deal —without going to civil courts, which is the next stage in the process.
It remains to be seen at this early stage how this new American legislation will work in practice. The words that I have quoted, "to make reasonable accommodations", are also being used on this side of the Atlantic —as I am sure my noble friend knows—in a Private Member's Bill which received its Second Reading in another place on 11th March. The words have again been used, I think in the hope that it would lead to settlements without having a lot of litigation in the courts.
I hope that my noble friend will give us the Government's latest views on the quota system. While the scheme continues, it could be transformed—favourably, I believe —by making the registration procedure work. Surely this could be done. What are the difficulties? If there are serious difficulties, why not start a completely new register under the Act, accompanied by intense publicity? I am sure that the media would help, and it would encourage everyone who would qualify and who was looking for work to be listed in the registers.
In due course, I accept that the quota scheme may be overtaken by better arrangements, and there is not enough time in this debate to consider possible alternatives. I suggest that the American experience with the new Act should be studied closely. If satisfactory results are being attained there by discussion and without the courts being cluttered up
1580
with cases, we certainly ought to look in that direction too. In the meantime, I urge the Government not just to review or "keep under review"—the traditional words —the registration arrangements but to subject them to a thorough overhaul. I beg to move for Papers.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. Disabled people and their employment is probably a subject to which we do not pay enough attention, especially when we consider the amount of time which, on the numerous education Bills which have travelled through the House, we have spent discussing those with special educational needs. I have often felt that in this field we are very good at training people who are in school or education generally to achieve their full potential, or at least at equipping them better to do so. The present Government have been overseeing most of the changes which started with the 1981 Act. However, we are rather in the habit of ignoring the problem of what happens to these people for the majority of their lives when they are actually in the workplace.
The 1944 Act is 50 years old and, as the noble Lord rightly said, much of the problem is that, for a variety of reasons, there is tremendous resistance to it from people who are disabled. The first is possibly the perception; the idea of disability is increasingly being fought against by those groups who have what are referred to as disabilities. Many people say, "We are not disabled, we are differently able". I appreciate that political correctness looms large in that statement and many noble Lords will have a great fear of what counts as political correctness. It is disabled people's idea of themselves that we are dealing with here. A person who, for example, has lost the use of a limb or his or her hearing is not necessarily disabled in every sphere of activity. Clause 1(1) of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 states that:
"'disabled person' means a person who, on account of injury, disease or congenital deformity, is substantially handicapped in obtaining or keeping employment".
I am dyslexic, therefore I have a congenital deformity under the Act. I am a registered disabled person. I feel that that description of myself is not the one that is normally considered when people see me. Indeed, I remember that, when registering for disability, I did it more or less as a matter of principle; I came in, sat down and registered as a disabled person with my rugby kit on the desk beside me as I signed the forms. There is a perception of disability which does not sit well with many people. It also does not sit well with employers.
When employers are dealing with disability—and we are often talking about mental illness or learning difficulties in this context—they do not know what to expect. If someone has a mental illness, it does not mean that he is an axe murderer. However when mental illness is spoken of, that is the perception which is conveyed. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, stated, perhaps the first step that the Government should take when considering either changing the law or trying to ensure better enforcement of the Act is to try to educate

1581
all those involved in this sphere, both those whom the Act is designed to help and the employers. Unless it is understood what is meant by "disability", there will be no participation in any scheme because those with handicaps may feel that their dignity is being attacked and employers may feel that they are taking on an unacceptable burden.
If that is taken as a starting point for future legislation, we may well solve many of the problems which currently exist in this area. It will also lay a firm foundation for any new action which is proposed.
The current system is failing and we must ask whether it is still an appropriate system to use, even if it is changed. Work patterns have changed fundamentally since its introduction. People are no longer expected to work standing at production lines for long periods of time. For example, a person who has a damaged limb may not be required to stand to work when to do so would put him at a disadvantage. Many people now work at a keyboard or a desk. We no longer require repetitive manual skills as part of the normal process. For example, the use of a pen is no longer absolutely essential for most office jobs. Our employment situation is changing fundamentally. Therefore, I suggest that any legislation in this field should place emphasis on assisting people with disabilities to gain access to job situations.
That means that a form of support structure must be framed to give a degree of assistance to people with disabilities. That may be a very narrow form of support. During our discussions on recent Education Bills and the problems of disabled people and those with special learning difficulties, we have advocated improving access facilities. In many cases that entails merely the provision of ramps on staircases. It is that simple. It may involve merely the provision of a chair, which, after all, is a fairly mundane item in many people's private homes. Once such an item is placed inside a building, it is there for all time and for everybody to use. After a small initial capital outlay, the item is available for permanent use. For example, if a chairlift is provided for a disabled person, that may also enable a person who has broken an ankle in a skiing accident to go into work. Therefore, it does not help only one person. If that employee leaves, the item is still available for use by other employees.
We must start to allow that help to be given. The Government have made considerable advances in the educational field but they have not really tackled the issue of giving the same degree of support to those people with difficulties once they have obtained employment. I hope that the Government will not say that that is too much of an intrusion in the workplace. We must bear such matters in mind.
I know that it is rather feeble to say this as only the second speaker in the debate, but many of the points that I had been going to raise have been brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. However, I can safely say that we must try to foster a degree of cohesion. Also we must try to include in the present structure those disabilities which were not originally envisaged. Finally, we must try to change the attitudes
1582
of all those who are involved, because, unless we deal with attitude, which is the primary drawback of the present system, no new system will be successful. It cannot be successful because there will not even be sufficient understanding of the questions that are being asked.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, it would be impertinent of me, although very sincere, to congratulate my noble friend and to thank him for the assiduity with which he brings a number of extremely important matters to our attention. But I must express my particular admiration for the work that he does on behalf of handicapped people. I have heard him speak in support of them on a number of occasions.
I am glad that my noble friend took us back 50 years because it was in 1944 that I was honoured to be asked to join the national advisory committee on the employment of the disabled in the then Ministry of Labour at the end of a war which, I think my noble friend would agree, had wrought an enormous change in society's attitude towards handicaps and disability.
It was a hunger for labour in the 1940s that resulted in an extremely imaginative programme of training and industrial rehabilitation. The wartime government enabled hundreds of people to take part in productive employment, many for the first time. The names that occur to me, and probably to most of us, are Ernest Bevin, George Tomlinson and my own mentor at the then Ministry of Labour, Sir Archie Gordon, who later made a great name for himself among the trade unions in the United States.
Through the national advisory council, I was connected closely with two of the innovations: one was the quota, of which my noble friend spoke; the other was the scheme of designated employment, which reserved specific jobs—I remember lift operators and car park attendants—for the disabled. In the 1940s I gave complete support to those proposals but I do not believe that they occupy the same position of importance some 50 years later.
It is always stupid to make generalisations about anything and I hope that I should not be sufficiently arrogant to express a view on behalf of those with handicaps. However, my own experience and my conversations with others convince me that the one wish of a large number of disabled people is to be, as far as possible, like other people. They do not wish to be considered different, and they do not wish to be segregated. I cannot see how one avoids the impression that those employed as part of a quota because they are on a disabled register are somehow different from other people. Even more, the reservation of certain jobs suggests that those occupying them are adequate for those jobs but not adequate for jobs which are more skilled and demanding. Therefore, some time ago, I began to feel that a consequence of the designated jobs scheme was to lower the objectives which most handicapped people wished to keep before them.
However, I believe that one beneficial result of the quota scheme, and possibly the other scheme too, has been to open a little wider the eyes of many employers

1583
both to the abilities to work of those with disabilities and also to their determination to excel. It is clear to me that in a number of cases—I do not know how many—the output of disabled workers is as great or greater than that of the able bodied. When it is harder to move around, one's mind tends to concentrate more intently on the work in hand. Therefore, many disabled workers are very reliable.
I have followed with interest—as my noble friend said he had done also—the progress of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in another place. I admit that in the past I have been very critical of it, both privately and in public. That is because, by its very nature, it sets apart disabled workers from the able bodied in employment. I know that many of the disabled, even those with very severe handicaps, remain certain that they can win jobs on the strength of the abilities which remain available to them. Their selection against able-bodied competition is a powerful builder of self-esteem.
But—and it is a very big but—I have to admit that, for a very large number of disabled people, the chances of gainful employment are far fewer than those for the able bodied. Unfortunately, that is a fact which stares us all directly in the face. The reasons for it are very evident. Almost by definition, many jobs are just not open to disabled people. No one in their senses would send me to climb up a ladder. I might reach the top in the end, but it would take a very long time.
Similarly, there are undoubtedly problems for employers in taking on disabled workers. The problems are fewer than they think, but they are there. Ideally, I should like to see handicapped people finding jobs not because they are disabled but because, in many respects and in a whole variety of jobs, they are as competent or more so than their able-bodied competitors. But that is the ideal which has been in my mind and in the minds of others for a very long time, at the end of which we must now face the fact that thousands of handicapped people who long to work still find the way barred.
One day—perhaps during this Session—the civil rights Bill will be accepted by Parliament. If so, I hope that its supporters will not assume that it holds the key to immediate entry to the promised land of equal opportunity. I do not believe that it does; nor do I believe that penalties or levies on employers who do not employ such workers holds the key. In the past, the Government have pinned faith on other methods to increase opportunities. I hope that their determination to press ahead with persuasion and education will not be dimmed in any way if and when the civil rights legislation receives Royal Assent.
Ministers rightly argue that we are now far more conscious of the needs of those who have been injured. For example, access to buildings and to transport is much easier. Travel by rail and air and parking in busy cities, if not simple, are a great deal less difficult than before. Moreover, many employers have enlightened ideas. However, there are still a large number of employers—and I am sorry to say that some Government departments do not set an entirely splendid example—who either are not enlightened; who find
1584
people with disabilities a bit frightening; or who quail before the necessary changes that they would have to make.
Whatever the fate of the Bill in another place, I beg the Government to press on with their more positive approach and to be prepared to offer a great deal more help to employers with the cost of necessary adaptation. When my noble friend replies, I hope that he will be able to give encouragement not only to me and to other noble Lords but also to hundreds of disabled people who would like to see it made easier for employers to do what my noble friend himself would, I feel, dearly like to see carried out over the whole country.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I should like, first, to join the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, on having given us the opportunity to return to the question of what can be done to improve the employment opportunities of disabled people. The noble Lord, himself severely disabled by war wounds, has a long and distinguished record of seeking to introduce legislation for the benefit of others who are disabled. It is typical of that concern that he has chosen this subject for today's debate.
When we discussed the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, two years ago, I recalled from my own industrial experience that even as soon as 10 years after the end of World War II the 3 per cent. quota system was not working. Now, 40 years later, I believe that there is general agreement that the 1944 Act has fallen into at least a degree of disrepute because there are not enough people to fill the quota and the law has proved impossible in practice to enforce. That being so, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, will forgive me if I say no more about the quota as such, but follow the line of thought which was taken by the noble Lord, Lord Holderness.
In debating the Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, there were those of us, on the one hand, who felt that the remedy lay in introducing general legislation which would enable disabled people denied employment by unreasonable recruitment practices to gain redress. But, on the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, speaking for the Government, said that he preferred education, co-operation and specific legislation as a means to the end that we all favoured; namely, the elimination of unjustified discrimination.
I believe that we should give the Government credit for all that they have done since then to encourage better practice through the voluntary approach. They have continued to try to help unemployed people who are disabled to find work by relaxing the criteria under which such people can gain entry to various employment and training schemes. Recently, the Government also decided that firms should no longer be required to pay half the additional cost of employing disabled people under the access to work scheme. Welcome, too, is the way in which over 50 leading employers have committed themselves to good practice

1585
in recruiting and giving continued employment to disabled people. But, as we all know, there are still far too many examples of discrimination.
In my view, the educational practice would have a better chance of success if it were to be underpinned by legislation of a practical kind. After all, that is the rationale of the Disabled Act which has now come into force in the United States. I readily accept that legislation will not of itself eliminate ignorance and prejudice, but I believe that it could produce some modification in behaviour that might subsequently lead to changes in attitude. As my noble friend Lord Addington said, such changes in attitude are a fundamental need.
What struck me most since we last debated the subject is the way in which more and more prominent people and reputable organisations have reached the conclusion that a piecemeal approach to a problem that allows only for targeted legislation is insufficient. They have decided that voluntarism has had its chance and that in circumstances where official figures show that, compared with others, disabled people are three times more likely to be out of work, are unemployed for longer and are paid on average 25 per cent. less, it is time for the law to intervene.
Notable among these converts is the Institute of Personnel Management whose members operate in the front line of industry. As recently as three years ago the institute continued to favour self-regulation in this matter. But in the written evidence it has now presented to the House of Commons Employment Committee it has called for new anti-discrimination legislation for disabled people along the lines already established in the case of sex and race.
Most significant is the way in which the balance of opinion among Members of another place of all parties has swung in the same direction. Where two years ago the same Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill that the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, introduced in your Lordships' House was in the other place talked out at Second Reading, this year the Prime Minister himself said of the same Bill, only three days before it was reintroduced,
"I hope that the Bill will go into Committee for detailed examination of its provisions".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/3/94; col. 147.]
The Minister of State took the same line when the Bill was debated on 11th March and it duly received its Second Reading without dissent. It is noteworthy, too, that the Law Society has said of the Bill's employment provisions, with which it was principally concerned, that they go in,
"precisely the direction in which the law should move".
I hope that this positive attitude will be reflected in what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has to say when he replies to the debate. At the very least, now that the Bill's provisions are being given detailed, consideration in Committee in another place, I trust he will confirm that the Government will judge them in an open-minded way.
6.22 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, we must all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for introducing a debate this evening on this important subject and for the well informed and detailed way in which he introduced it. Those of us lucky enough not to suffer from a disability and to be regarded as able-bodied do not always realise the extent to which our society is unfriendly to those perceived as disabled persons.
It was not until my husband became disabled as a result of arthritis that I realised how difficult life often is for those with a mobility problem. There are so many places that are out of bounds to them and so many public places built by architects with a liking for long staircases and which have lifts tucked away in inaccessible places. When provisions are made for disabled people they have to be sought out by the disabled persons themselves. Our railway stations and underground systems illustrate the problems exactly. However, my husband is retired: the problems are so much greater for the younger disabled person who needs employment not only to earn a livelihood and gain some semblance of independence but also to preserve self-respect and a feeling of belonging to the community.
Moreover, the number of people involved is not so very small. A survey carried out for the Department of Employment in 1989, which used a fairly narrow definition of disability by reference to employability, estimated that 22 per cent. of adults of working age had a health problem or disability. The survey measured the adult disabled population at 7.3 million persons. The research further calculated that 8 per cent. suffered an occupational handicap as a result of their health status. Further sub-analysis of the data led the researchers to conclude that disabled persons who are occupationally handicapped and economically active—that is, in work or seeking work—represented 4 per cent. of the population.
We are therefore talking about a sizeable minority group. Furthermore, only a minority of disabled adults are in work and this compares unfavourably with the general population. When in employment, disabled employees are likely to be under-represented in the professional and managerial occupations and non-manual jobs, but disproportionately represented in semi-skilled and unskilled employment. Not surprisingly, disability also has an adverse effect upon earned income. Full-time disabled men, according to this survey, earn only 81 per cent. of average gross weekly earnings, and 84 per cent. of average hourly pay for the general population. The comparable figures for female disabled workers are 88 per cent. and 91 per cent. Research undertaken by the Spastics Society appears to indicate that a non-disabled applicant for a job was 1.6 times more likely to receive a positive response than an application from a disabled person. The society carried out experiments with paired applications based on standard letters from individuals with the same or similar qualifications, one application being from a registered disabled person and another from one who was not. Analysis of the results showed that 97 per cent.

1587
of the applications from able-bodied people received a positive response, as compared with only 59 per cent. of applications received from persons who identified themselves as disabled when making their applications.
Further studies reveal that the experience of disability and employment is an extremely depressing one. There are real problems to be overcome by disabled workers. First, there are often physical and vocational obstacles to be overcome with regard to education and training. According to the study to which I have referred, disabled workers are nearly twice as likely as non-disabled workers to lack formal educational qualifications and to have had skill training. Then there are the difficulties often presented by architectural designs and transportation systems. How very few architects seem to give the plight of disabled individuals a thought when designing public buildings, let alone offices and factories. Then disabled people often encounter resistance from employers to hiring persons with disabilities. And this resistance persists despite evidence collected by the Department of Employment which indicates that disabled workers are so glad to get jobs that they are ultra-reliable!
Disabled workers often experience self-doubt as a result of their previous experiences of rejection because of their disability. Finally, they must often overcome the tests created by inflexible medical examinations which are used by many employers often without questioning their appropriateness or their validity. In other words, there is a framework of discrimination built into the way in which our labour market operates.
What have we done to try to create working opportunities for disabled people? As we have discussed tonight, we have the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944. That Act is 50 years old. I agree with much of what has been said on that matter and I do not wish to repeat many of the detailed explanations and descriptions which have already been given by other noble Lords. The main plank of the Act is the statutory disabled quota scheme under which employers with 20 or more employees are obliged to have a 3 per cent. quota of disabled persons. It is also an offence to dismiss a. registered disabled person without reasonable cause if, as a result of that dismissal, the employer would be failing to comply with the quota. However, as we know, there is provision for employers to escape responsibilities under the Act because it allows for exemptions.
As all of us have commented this evening, the scheme does not appear to have been successful in preventing discrimination against disabled persons. It has failed to guarantee employment opportunities for them. It does not deal with employment issues generally, as do the anti-discrimination laws on race and gender, for there is a failure to deal with training, promotion and remuneration. Why has it failed to deliver, as clearly it was introduced with the best of intentions? First, many employers do not appear to be aware of the quota scheme or its requirements. The Department of Employment estimates that only about 24 per cent. of employers currently meet their quota target.
1588
Secondly, there has been a widespread reluctance among disabled persons to register; a point referred to by a number of noble Lords. It is apparently difficult to ascertain why this should be so, but it is possible that many disabled persons do not want to be separately identified in this way as it might hamper social acceptance and their general integration into the workforce. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, has already given some examples from his own experience of the feelings of persons in the category to which I have referred. Many disabled people may also have doubts about the benefits of being so identified.
Therefore, on the one hand there is a lack of awareness on the part of employers, plus a lack of enforcement by the authorities, and on the other hand there is the reluctance of any who might benefit to identify themselves and take advantage of the scheme.
There have been no prosecutions since the 1970s and it is more than possible that the authorities believe that the reluctance of disabled workers to register makes the matter of enforcement academic. In any event, it has been the policy of the department to rely on advice and encouragement rather than enforcement measures against employers who are not fulfilling the quota.
Nevertheless, whenever the quota system has been discussed —and I remember such discussions among trade unions when I was a member of the Social Insurance and Industrial Welfare Committee of the TUC —the upshot has always been that we should keep the quota system because it was better than nothing.
However, I believe that organisations concerned with disabled persons' employment are now seeking the introduction of laws that would give individuals the opportunity to take action against being unfairly treated by employers. The Department of Employment has opposed this to date saying that an anti-discrimination law would be complex to draft and uncertain in its application. That view is not held by a number of eminent lawyers practising in the employment field. The House of Commons Employment Committee in 1990 concluded that the Government should explore urgently the possibility of equal opportunities legislation for the employment of people with disabilities and should report to Parliament on the potential costs and effects in the labour market. In addition, as we have heard tonight, there has been recent legislation in the United States, which clearly ought to be thoroughly examined.
Although the Government's opposition has to date remained unchanged, since apparently they still prefer to rely on education and persuasion, we have heard tonight of the progress made with the Bill in the other place. We shall no doubt have the opportunity of further debate when it reaches us. I hope that the Government will move from their previous position and will be prepared to give it a sympathetic run in both Houses.
There have, of course, been no fewer than 15 attempts to introduce anti-discrimination legislation by way of Private Members' Bills since 1982, but all have failed to make progress. However, I detect a change in general perceptions. It may very well be that this time round there will be a shift in the Government's position. In our view, it is the job of Government to protect the vulnerable. Disabled people are vulnerable. They are

1589
vulnerable to prejudice and stereotyping and are thus being prevented from playing the part that many wish to play in their communities and in society.
If by chance we fail to achieve overall legislation and continue with the quota system, I commend to the Government the propositions made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, in opening the debate. We really ought to look at making the system work better. We can do that through appropriate publicity and by ensuring that employers know that if they accept the recommendations of Government and accept people from the register those people will be willing and able to play a full part in their enterprises and will undoubtedly turn out to be very good workers indeed. We have to do something to assist people who want to work but are currently not able to do so because of prejudice and stereotyping.
Once again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject tonight.
6.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, along with all other noble Lords I should like to join in congratulating my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy on introducing this debate, which is so apposite on the 50th anniversary of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. I also echo the words of my noble friend Lord Holderness when he stressed how much my noble friend Lord Campbell had done, and is doing, for disabled people over the years. Exactly the same could be said of my noble friend Lord Holderness.
The 1944 Act was, we believe, a landmark Act for disabled people. In addition—and I should stress that this is in addition—to establishing the quota scheme, it also contained powers for the provision of vocational training, employment rehabilitation and sheltered employment for severely disabled people. In discussing the quota scheme itself we should not lose sight of the fact that it was merely part of a range of measures to help people with disabilities to secure employment.
Of course I accept that things have moved on considerably since 1944. Economic and legislative developments have moved past the Act in some areas. More importantly, the aspirations of disabled people and the attitudes within society have changed. Disabled people, quite rightly, are increasingly asserting their wishes to be treated as individuals, to train and work alongside non-disabled people and to earn their living in productive jobs in open employment.
A reflection of those changes is that increasingly help with employment and training is being provided through modern schemes and services aimed at meeting the needs of the individual and the employer in their localities. For example, the training and enterprise councils and their Scottish equivalents, the local enterprise companies, are now responsible for training and help with enterprise. The special schemes, some of which were introduced under the 1944 Act, will soon be replaced and enhanced by Access to Work—about which I shall say a little more later on.
1590
The vast majority of people with disabilities who are helped by the Department of Employment are now helped by the integrated mainstream employment and training provision, a situation that was certainly not envisaged in 1944, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, quite rightly stressed, in many cases many of the training schemes relaxed entry for disabled people.
Nevertheless, the 1944 Act remains important and relevant in its 50th year. Many severely disabled people depend on the support that the Department of Employment can give them because of that Act—in sheltered factories and workshops (Remploy was mentioned by one speaker earlier today, and only this morning I was visiting a county council sheltered workshop in Gloucestershire; I was very pleased with what it was doing and the help that it was able to provide) and also with the supported placements which we offer with employers. As my noble friend Lord Campbell stressed, we have recently announced changes to the funding arrangements for supported employment under the terms of the Act which we believe will give more flexibility to providers to offer a range of support in special workshops and placements.
There was some discussion of the numbers of disabled people by both my noble friend Lord Campbell and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. Both quite rightly referred to the figure of about 6 million disabled people in the country. They rightly accepted that that was far larger than the number of those who were actually available for work and wanted to work and were otherwise active in the labour market. It may help if I share with the House some of our research on the sort of numbers we are talking about.
The research I am referring to is Employment and Handicap published in 1990. This seemed to show that there were 1.27 million disabled people—3.8 per cent. of the working population—of whom about 3.1 per cent. (1.06 million) were registrable. The number of actually registered disabled people was a mere 371,000 in 1993. In 1950 it had peaked at a little over 900,000 and has steadily declined since—I shall say a word or two later as to why people are not registering and what has happened—that is a little over 1 per cent. of the population today, well below the 3 per cent. that we are aiming for.
In terms of the numbers of economically active disabled people in employment, on the basis of the same research we reckon that some 78 per cent. are in work and 22 per cent. are wanting work and are therefore unemployed by any definition. Of the little over 980,000 who were in work, some 844,000 were employees and the remainder self-employed.
Perhaps I may turn to further evidence relating to ILO unemployment rates, based on the Labour Force Surveys which come out each year and now each quarter. The figures have to be treated with some caution in that the LFS uses a wider definition of disability than under the 1944 Act. It includes people with short-term health problems and impairments and is therefore not strictly comparable with the data I have just quoted. The interesting point about those figures is that they show that since spring 1990 there has been, as we would all accept, a consistent rise in unemployment

1591
for all classes of people as measured by the ILO figures. There has been a consistent rise for both able-bodied people and the disabled during the recession. However, the proportion of people with a limiting health problem who are unemployed by the ILO definition has risen by only 22 per cent. between spring 1989 and winter 1992–93 compared with those without the limiting health problem, the able bodied population, for whom there was a rise of 56 per cent. over the same period. I believe that those figures show considerable improvement in the work of the Employment Service and the attitudes of employers in that the rate of unemployment for disabled people does not seem to have increased as fast as for others.
I now wish to turn to the quota. The House is aware that the scheme imposes a duty on all employers with 20 or more employees to employ registered disabled people as 3 per cent. of their employees. My noble friend Lord Campbell also asked whether special quotas for particular employment sectors have been used. I am aware of one special percentage that has been prescribed. That is 0.1 per cent. for employment as a master or crew member of a British ship. However, other than that I am not aware that much use has been made of the provision.
I turn now to the mainstream quota. As noble Lords will he aware, there are criminal sanctions if an employer dismisses a registered disabled person unreasonably while below quota and also if an employer engages someone other than a registered disabled person without a permit while below quota. That is the scheme in essence. However, as all noble Lords have made clear, there are not enough disabled people registered under the scheme to allow all employers subject to the 3 per cent. quota to meet it. As I made clear, it looks as though the figure is something around 1 per cent.
It is because the scheme has a dated approach to employing disabled people and because disabled people are less inclined to register that we have had the scheme under review. I have to say to my noble friend Lord Campbell that we have not yet come to any conclusion, but we shall continue to keep it under review.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, touched on the question of why people do not register. There were many who were eligible to register but many did not do so because they did not consider themselves to be disabled. They objected to being labelled as disabled. They see no advantage to themselves as individuals in being registered; or in many cases they see disadvantages to themselves in being registered. Perhaps I may support that argument with anecdotal evidence. On my visit this morning to a jobcentre in Gloucester, the disability employment adviser there again confirmed that in her view, although she would like to see many more people registered, a great many saw no particular advantage themselves in registration and in fact could not be persuaded of any virtue in registering or in the need to register.
The quota scheme has both its critics and supporters. We recognise concerns that the quota scheme is not as effective as was originally envisaged. We have been quite open about that. However, we believe that there
1592
are some positive aspects to the scheme. It helps some registered disabled people to obtain and keep employment; and it can be argued that it can set an aspirational target for employers. As my noble friend Lord Holderness put it, it has done something at least to keep open the eyes of some employers to the abilities of many disabled people. As we have always said, it is the abilities of people that we must look at.
The Employment Service will continue to administer the scheme as part of our continuing campaign to educate and persuade employers to implement good practice in the employment of disabled people. We believe that the scheme to some extent underpins those efforts.
The quota scheme has continued for many years. However, as many have made clear, there is still no consensus in favour either of its repeal or replacement. There are arguments to support a wide range of options for dealing with it. But I have to say that we are not yet convinced by any of the arguments to support any of those options.
The House may be aware that my department recently commissioned research from the Social Policy Research Unit at York University—I have the statistics here—into legislation and services for disabled people in 15 different countries. Its report found no clear answers on the effectiveness of different approaches.
Many of our European colleagues operate quota schemes or something along those lines. Again research showed that there were problems associated with quota schemes in all the countries examined and that compliance was not widespread. My noble friend Lord Campbell referred to France and Germany. They impose a levy on employers who do not meet the quota with the main aim of redistributing income from employers who are unable to meet quota requirements to those who can. However, most employers appear to choose to pay the levy rather than to meet their obligations under the quota. In many cases therefore the quota does not provide the incentive to employ disabled people. In effect it simply provides a way for employers to avoid meeting their obligations and does little to change employers' attitudes to the needs and aspirations of disabled people. Certainly I should like to commend that research to my noble friend and all others who have spoken in the debate.
I wish to make it clear that the Government are prepared to look at all possible schemes in all other countries to see just how effective they are. So far I have merely mentioned those countries which operate on what one would call quota principles, but the research also looks at the slightly different way in which the Americans, Australians and many others pursue the problem. For example, among the non-European countries we studied both the United States and Australia. As noble Lords know, they have recently introduced anti-unfair discrimination legislation. Legislation against disability discrimination is a comparatively recent development. The report com-mented, for example, that it is unclear how effective such legislation has been in America and how effective it will continue to be.

1593
Noble Lords have touched upon other alternatives to the quota scheme. Perhaps I may say a word or two about a number of them. I do not think that anyone suggested that we could simply resolve the problem by reducing the quota level from 3 per cent. to some lower figure. I believe that everyone accepts that that would not do anything to help disabled people in employment and would send out the wrong signal to disabled people and to employers. We could, of course, remove the requirement to register. Again, I do not believe that that would obviously help disabled people into employment.
There are considerable problems with self-certification: who would decide on qualifications, and so on? There have been problems encountered in other countries with self-certification. It is also likely to be a burden on employers, as they would not be familiar with the appropriate requirements. It could in addition create uncertainty both in the minds of disabled people and employers. I believe that there would also be the risk of abuse. It would be difficult to avoid that.
The third line that has been pursued most actively by my noble friend is that we should campaign to encourage much greater registration—to encourage more people to register. As I have said, registration is a voluntary matter. I have pointed out some of the difficulties in encouraging people to register. But certainly I would be happy to consider my noble friend's suggestion as part of our review of quota. I ought to point out some of the difficulties that I see following on such a point.
As we have all made quite clear, at present it is mathematically impossible for all employers to meet the quota as we have only about 1 per cent. of the workforce who are registered as disabled. Therefore, to be effective we would need to encourage several hundred thousand disabled people to register. I am not confident that there are sufficiently large numbers of disabled people who would consider that registration would be of benefit to them personally. Moreover, I believe that a campaign which sought to persuade disabled people that a large number ought to register would be extremely costly. I know about the costs of some of those campaigns and I suspect that any impact would be likely to be short lived. Having said that, I can give an assurance to my noble friend that the department will certainly continue to encourage registration as far as possible. But we believe that it must be a matter for the voluntary decision of any individual as to whether he or she wishes to register.
I touched earlier on the American position, and some mention was made of what we shall refer to as the Berry Bill in another place. Perhaps I may just say a word or two about that Bill. It would not be right for me to comment in detail on a Bill that is going through another place at the moment other than to say that, as I believe we have made clear, we are not convinced that simply outlawing discrimination against disabled people would necessarily improve their prospects for employment. It would be very difficult to frame such legislation, and experience in other countries shows that its application
1594
is uncertain. Perhaps I may end by repeating what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said only yesterday in another place:
"As I have indicated to the House … we share the aim of eliminating discrimination against disabled people. We have done a great deal for disabled people in recent years and will do yet more, both in this Parliament and the next. What we need to do in Committee [referring to the Bill] and thereafter is to look at the practical implications of the Bill and that will be done". —[Official Report, Commons, 12/4/94; col. 15.]
To return to the SPRU report, it concluded by stressing that one had to take considerable care about transferring lessons that have been learnt in one country to another country. They are not necessarily transferable. The appropriateness of a particular measure depends fundamentally on its historical and contemporary place within a country's employment provision for disabled people. Nevertheless, research findings provide useful information on legislative alternatives and are helping to inform our review of the options.
We recognise that quota has been an issue for some time, but we have to be certain that whatever action we take will provide effective help for disabled people. Our decision must increase employment opportunities for people with disabilities. It must not result in an unreasonable burden on employers which stops job creation and reduces precisely the opportunities that we are trying to open up.
Of course, we have not put other matters on hold while we review the position on quota. I can certainly reassure my noble friend Lord Holderness that we are currently taking other action to help disabled people to participate fully in the labour market and to promote employment opportunities for them. For example, with the introduction of Access to Work on 6th June, we shall have in place a key part of our framework for practical support for disabled people. Indeed, our schemes and services compare well with those of other countries. From our knowledge of provision in other countries I am pretty confident that Access to Work compares most favourably with what is available elsewhere. And we are more advanced than many countries in integrating disabled people into work with non-disabled people, in working with the voluntary sector and—again I should like to stress a point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington—in raising employer awareness of the abilities of disabled people. For example, our disability symbol has now been adopted by nearly 700 employers, an increase of over 100 per cent. since June last year. And we are currently promoting that symbol to disabled people and their employers through national and local advertising and marketing campaigns. We are also helping people with disabilities to find and retain employment. In the year ending 31st March 1993, Employment Service specialist advisers placed over 40,000 unemployed disabled people. In the year ending 31st March 1994 they are likely to have placed over 50,000 unemployed disabled people; and for the year ending 31st March 1995 we have challenged them to place at least 55,000.
We need to build on those successes. Irrespective of the outcome of our review of quota, I believe that we need to work to ensure that the full range of support, advice, education and persuasion work together. It is

1595
through this help that we shall see attitudes changed, barriers removed and more disabled people trained and in work.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to all the speakers who have taken part in this debate. I am also glad that they have not had to watch the clock and trim their proposed speeches, as so often happens in debates with a limited time. They have therefore given to us the full benefit of their views and thoughts on the quota scheme.
I thank particularly my noble friend Lord Holderness, who was on the advisory body concerned in 1944 when the Act was passed and was coming into effect. The noble Lord underlined for us very clearly the dilemma posed by the desire that I believe we all share to provide all possible opportunities for handicapped people and avoid discrimination, and the objections to handicapped people being treated as a difficult, expensive and less acceptable group. That is the dilemma with which governments and all of us are faced. We must try to ensure that any new Acts of Parliament do not pretend that that dilemma does not exist.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, spoke to us about the less visible handicaps. He gave the example of dyslexia, and the unfortunate descriptions that can be given in official documents to various conditions. His noble friend Lord Rochester spoke to us from his experience of dealing with the administration of personnel and management in business and industry. I am particularly grateful to him for taking part.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, gave suggestions for the future. I am very pleased that she supported my suggestions for improving the system of registration and urging the Government to do the best that they possibly can through publicity to promote a system to get more of the people who could qualify and benefit to register on the list. The noble Baroness also contributed her impression of the past attitude of trade unions to the quota scheme. What she said was entirely consistent with my own understanding: that is to say, most of them, like disabled organisations, were keen to continue the scheme, although they realised its defects because it was better than nothing.
I am also particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Henley. At the outset I must say that I agree with him—I hope I did not give any other impression—that the 1944 Act dealt with much more than merely the quota scheme. But of course in this debate I could only concentrate on that scheme, which, as other speakers have pointed out, is very topical and concerns a lot of people in the country. I hope that I conveyed appreciation of the work of our predecessors in Parliament in the early 1940s who produced not only this scheme but also other parts of that Act which were far-sighted enough to be relevant or are being replaced by similar schemes even today.
I am grateful to my noble friend for producing so far as possible the up-to-date figures. We were struck by the figure that he gave of only 371,000 disabled people being registered for the purposes of this Act, while three or four times that number in the country are known to be
1596
disabled; and by the fact that the larger number in the country as a whole, 78 per cent., are employed but as many as 22 per cent. are seeking employment. If I am wrong in those figures I hope that my noble friend will correct me. I think that that is what he was telling us. Again, I think that we have to take on board the difference between the figure for those who are registered and the very much larger figure for those who could be registered and are available for work.
I am grateful also to my noble friend for keeping us informed on the use of the special percentages in the 1944 Act. It does not surprise me that only one has ever been put into operation. Some of us would have thought that none had been put into operation. It is very wise to limit the quota to 1 per cent. in the case of people in charge of vessels at sea.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may correct my noble friend. The figure was 0.1 per cent. and not 1 per cent.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am grateful to my noble friend. I thought he said 1 per cent. but it was very much less.
At this stage I must say, because I did not mention it in my opening speech, that the safety of the public must come first. Of course there are suitable jobs for disabled persons in particular capacities at sea. However, many people would feel more secure when they travel in British ships knowing that those in charge of the ship do not suffer from bad eyesight or some other handicap which would be inappropriate for the work they do.
I am not surprised that at the moment the Government are continuing the quota scheme. As I said, it would cause great anxiety if they were to announce that they intended to bring it to an end unless there was something which the whole country was already prepared to accept which was a better replacement.
I asked about the schemes in France and Germany, to which my noble friend replied. However, he did not mention the registration part of their schemes, in which many of us are interested. He confirmed my observation that those countries impose financial penalties and levies and that a number of employers simply pay the levy and do not bother to employ the disabled people. That is thought to be unacceptable in this country. However, this country could learn from their registration schemes, which have quotas as high as 6 per cent.—not our 3 per cent. —and fines can be levied if employers do not observe them.
I thank all those noble Lords who have spoken. I am grateful to the Government for their long reply, which dealt with most of my points. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Extradition Criteria
7.2 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswickrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what criteria the Home Secretary applies when exercising his discretion over extradition cases.

1597
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in putting my Question to the Government and opening this short debate on what I believe to be a very important subject, I should first offer a form of apology to the House in regard to my Question of 31st March (which was the last Question before the Easter Recess) on the subject of Sue Hagan and Sally Croft and the recommendation of the court that they should be extradited to America to face certain charges.
A number of noble Lords assumed that I was trying to affect or alter a decision that had been made by the court. That was not my intention. Nor did I at any time indicate that I wanted that to happen. I asked whether the Government would delay the extradition of those two ladies until your Lordships had had a chance to debate the substance of the matter. I did not ask for a debate on the court's decision because I am fully aware that we cannot interfere with a decision of a court nor indeed would I want to do so. However, my intentions were not taken on board. Strangely enough, the information that the Minister could have given me on that day was given by the judge who heard the plea for judicial review to be granted, which delayed—as it will delay for some period and may delay for all time—the extradition of those two ladies to America.
Before going further, I want to make the point that I am aware that the case is in substance now sub judice. I should like to put right any misconception. I have never accepted, as have some noble and learned Lords in this House, that the law is always right and that court decisions are always correct. I do not believe that Timothy Evans or Derek Bentley would have subscribed to that point of view. I do not accept that a court must be right in every instance. Courts can make mistakes.
Having said that, I now ask Her Majesty's Government what criteria the Home Secretary applies when assessing or adjudicating on recommendations from the court. We must be clear that it is not the courts which extradite. Finally, it is the responsibility of the Home Secretary.
In my Question a couple of weeks ago, I mentioned that I had had some correspondence on this case with one of the most esteemed noble and learned Lords in this House; namely, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. The issues caused him some very worrying thoughts. He considered that we might be making a serious mistake. I spent some considerable time this afternoon with the noble and learned Lord discussing extradition. He made clear that in his view, relevant to the Answer I received a fortnight ago, the appeal allowed for judicial review had been based on the possibility that the Secretary of State for Home Affairs had not followed through the issue with all the diligence that he might have brought to it. If he does his job, he should go through with a fine-tooth comb any court case that recommends the deportation from this country of two women who are subject to Her Majesty the Queen to make sure that he agrees with the decision. All that the court will do is examine a prima facie case.
The Minister who first brought up the idea that the two ladies would be extradited was the right honourable
1598
Kenneth Clarke, when he was Home Secretary. There is some doubt as to whether Mr. Clarke went through the case before he made his recommendation. I have heard it said that he rubber-stamped the decision. That is not the function of a Home Secretary in a case of such importance. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for the time he spent with me and the advice he gave. I repeat that he is extremely worried about what is taking place.
I asked whether the Home Secretary examines such cases personally. It is to be hoped that he does. Examples could be taken of cases in which he has formulated his criteria, comparing them, now that we are full members of the European Union, with what other countries do. Attempts were made to extradite from Germany people involved in the same case—the same charges; the same period of time; everything the same. But the German Minister who dealt with the matter did not think that the case warranted it.
To begin with, does the Home Secretary take into account the length of time which has elapsed between the alleged indiscretion or crime and the moment when the charge is made? In a particular case—I am not allowed to mention it by name—five years elapsed before the Americans even wanted to take two of our citizens into custody. It is now nearly nine years since that took place. Does he also consider when extraditing people the consequences of their crime? This case was supposed to be conspiracy to murder. But nobody was hurt and nothing was damaged. In my opinion, the Home Secretary should apply different criteria. If he applies the existing criteria to authorise something which only he can do, in my opinion he is taking a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.
Another point I want to raise is whether or not our Home Secretary will take into consideration what happened to the people who have already been dealt with in relation to this conspiracy and on the same charge. Other people in America were dealt with, though nobody was taken into custody. They plea-bargained their way out of a gaol sentence. Hypothetically, we may be sending back two people to carry the can when the main perpetrators in America have bargained their way out of any responsibility. If the Home Secretary follows that criteria he will be adopting a very dangerous course.
I have spoken to former Home Secretaries—not about this specific case because they do not have the detail. What comes across clearly is that it was only when this case—the one about which I am discussing the criteria to be applied—was brought to your Lordships' House that it hit the headlines. Two weeks ago I said that I was worried and that many other people in a widening circle were concerned about what was happening. If I had not intervened in your Lordships' House two weeks ago those two ladies would now be in an American gaol. I say "in gaol" because no bail would be allowed. People who know me are aware that I will always try to prevent injustice if I believe an injustice is taking place. I had not met anyone involved in this case until the day before I tabled the Question.
Suppose the two ladies, in my hypothesis, lose the case and the judicial procedure and are recommended

1599
for deportation; the matter then lies completely in the hands of the Home Secretary. I suggest that in cases such as this he must be extremely careful to apply the criteria that will give a fair crack of the whip to subjects of Her Majesty the Queen as well as being fair to the country applying for extradition. Suppose, in his wisdom, the Home Secretary authorises the extradition to America of the two ladies in question: what protection will he guarantee them? After all, they are still British citizens.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I know that he is trying extremely hard to restrain his remarks to the criteria rather than to any specific case. As he said at the beginning of his speech, he recognises that the case is sub judice and should not be discussed in this House. I hope that he will be careful to stick to the criteria.
Lord Dean of Reswiek: My Lords, I am grateful for the intervention made by the Leader of the House in his normal and courteous manner. I shall do my best to conclude my remarks in the spirit he suggests. My point is that if any citizen of this country is extradited, whether to America, Malaya or Thailand, what protection will be afforded to him or her? For instance, whatever the country to which they are sent, will they have the protection of the ambassador and his staff? Will they be provided with observers at the trial to ensure that it is a fair and just trial in accordance with our extremely high standards, offering a fair crack of the whip to the person charged? Or will they come totally within the remit of the country to which they are sent for trial and the case rest solely on its standards rather than ours?
I have regard to the fact that only last year—I agree that it was not popular with everybody—the Prime Minister went out of his way to bring back to this country two women who had been convicted of extremely serious charges of drug smuggling. I am not therefore being unreasonable when I suggest that we look very carefully before we extradite anybody.
As many noble Lords are aware, I have been in politics for a long time—from being a local councillor to being a privileged Member in another place—and I am grateful to be able to address your Lordships' House on a case like this. But I issue—not a word of warning; that is the wrong word—a caution to the Home Secretary. If, finally, he incurs public odium by authorising this extradition, in my opinion it will scar him politically for the rest of his life. People in this country are starting to wake up to what may be about to take place.
I said that such a decision would scar the Home Secretary. The Leader of the House may possibly agree with me. If this place does not refer to the matter—it obviously will later when it becomes defacto—certainly the House of Commons will not let him forget it. I have put my Question. I am grateful for the tolerance of your Lordships and the Leader of the House. On that I rest my case.
7.17 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend Lord Dean in what he said. I support his insistence that nothing that he or I, and I expect others, may say is in any way a criticism of the courts. In that sense, therefore, the question of whether the case is sub judice or not does not arise. It will be a decision of the Home Secretary—a political and moral decision. I am afraid that if he sends those ladies back it will be an extremely immoral decision. But that is his political decision and it has nothing to do with the courts whatever they decide next week.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will give way.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I do not mind giving way once, but I have only just got under way. What does the noble Lord want?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is because the noble Earl has just got under way that I wish to intervene. The noble Earl said that in his opinion discussion of this case was not sub judice because it meant no contradiction of the courts. But that is not the way that I understand the sub judice rule to work in your Lordships' House. Surely the sub judice rule says that any case before the courts cannot be discussed in your Lordships' House.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a point of interest. But I am not sure whether he is in touch with the situation. Last Wednesday, about this time, I was waiting to hear from the solicitor of the two ladies as to what time to turn up at Gatwick police station where the following morning these ladies would be—
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am extremely sorry to intervene so early in the speech of the noble Earl. However, the rules of the House are quite clear. This case is sub judice in my opinion. Leave to move for judicial review has been given by the High Court against the decision. The rules of sub judice in your Lordships' House are clearly set out in the Companion. The rules make it quite clear that this case is sub judice.
The noble Earl's noble friend tried extremely hard not to refer to the case and referred only to the criteria. But I must say to the noble Earl, who is held in the highest possible regard by all sides of the House and is a distinguished former Leader of the House, that he would expect me to point out to him that the rules of the House are quite clear. The noble Earl therefore ought not to refer to the case before the courts.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I do not quite understand what the Leader of the House is telling us. He says that this case is sub judice, but I understand that the case mentioned has already been in front of the court. What is being questioned is the judicial review of the Home Secretary's decision. I should rot have thought that that was sub judice. The case is settled as far as the English court is concerned. The rules about sub judice are based on the premise that no one in Parliament or elsewhere shall do anything to influence a

1601
court of law. That is not the situation we are in. The situation we are in is that an inquiry is to be made as to whether or not the action of the Home Office is subject to review.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Lord tries hard to draw a distinction but I do not think it is a valid distinction. The case is before the courts. It is not for us to discuss the details of the case, but the case involves the matters which his noble friend was seeking to raise. The sub judice rule was designed to protect the people whose case is before the courts and to make sure that there is not unfair and prejudicial discussion before Parliament. My duty is to seek to advise the House. It is for the House to decide these matters but it is my understanding of the rules that this is clearly a sub judice matter and therefore should not be discussed in your Lordships' House on this occasion.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, Leaders of the House come and go and they do not always agree with each other. I am afraid that I do not accept in any way the views of the present Leader of the House, although I know that he is a man of the highest integrity—like these women are. Everyone who knows them regards their integrity as total, yet last Wednesday I was about to set off for Gatwick police station where these ladies were going to be manacled, taken to America, put in prison for a year—possibly in leg irons. That was the situation last Wednesday.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, perhaps I may—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am not going to keep on giving way. I give way to the Leader of the House at the moment. I am giving way at the moment only to the Leader of the House, which will keep me busy, I think, for the next few minutes.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am afraid that—
The Earl of Longford: No, I am sorry, I am not giving way.
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Skelmersdale: In that case, my Lords, I have no alternative but to move that—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am not giving way and I must ask the Leader of the House to protect me from this.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have no alternative but to move that the noble Earl be no longer heard.
Moved, That the noble Earl be no longer heard.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I wonder whether I may intervene briefly as I understand that a debate now takes place on this issue. Without wishing in any way to make the life of my noble friend the Leader of the House more difficult, I was listening rather carefully to what the noble Earl was saying and, in my ignorance, no doubt, I was not aware that he was discussing the case. Can my noble friend the Leader of the House say where this bar on our proceedings falls?
1602
I understand that we may not discuss the case, but was the noble Earl, Lord Longford, discussing the case when he was telling us of his visit to a police station? I am not entirely clear on that.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, perhaps I may seek to help my noble friend. The position is quite clear. The Companion states on page 52 that the rules of the House are that a case is deemed to be sub judice from the moment a petition for leave to appeal is presented to the House of Lords. The rules are quite clear that a matter is before the court and as such there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.
While I am on my feet perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who is enormously respected, that I understand the strength of feeling which brings him to this situation. But I ask him whether he feels he has to persist when my noble friend makes the point that in his view this is such a flagrant breach of the rules of the House that he has moved his Motion. I would very much like to try to persuade my noble friend to withdraw his Motion but I would feel it was right to do so only if the noble Earl, Lord Longford, would indicate to us that he would not persist in discussing the case which is sub judice and which I do not believe should be discussed in this House.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Earl is discussing the case. He had only just reached the point where he was telling us about an event that occurred last Wednesday. Until then it had nothing to do with this case. The point I made before is that the case has already been settled by the courts. I have read the Companion. In fact, when the noble Lord, Lord Dean, tabled a Question on the subject, I read it myself. My understanding of the Companion is what I described before. The rule of sub judice is that nothing should be said that would influence a court. I am not just dealing with our Companion; I am dealing with the common law. No one anywhere has the right to influence a court of law when it is deciding an issue. But no one is doing that, because the case has been heard. All that is coming up is the question of a review of the decision of the Home Office and the Home Secretary in regard to a certain affair. I have suffered on a previous occasion from the Motion that has just been moved that the Member be no longer heard. But, if ever there was a denial of British justice, it is this. We have not even heard the noble Earl, so I am opposed to the Motion that he should be no longer heard.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I wonder if I may seek to help the noble Lord by reading a further extract from the Companion which I think is highly relevant to the position we find ourselves in. It states:
"Matters awaiting or under adjudication in a civil court should not be referred to in any Motion or debate on a Motion or in any Question, including any supplementary Question, from the time that the case has been set down for trial or otherwise brought before the court".
That is quite clear. The noble Lord is entitled to his view as to whether it is a sensible Motion but it is certainly the way this House operates. It operates in that way because the House has thought for a very long time that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the

1603
trial of a case. It is the courts that we are seeking to protect so that there is a fair trial and those whose affairs are being considered have them considered properly and fairly without comment in Parliament when they are before the court. That is the issue, and that is why my noble friend has moved his Motion. I should like to ask him to withdraw it but I cannot ask him to withdraw it unless the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is prepared to give us an undertaking that he will not refer to this case.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his courtesy. I have no intention of refusing to talk about the grave and terrible injustice that may be done to these two women. Perhaps I may put a point that has not been expressed clearly because I was stopped so early in the day by the noble Lord. Lord Skelmersdale. It is easy to ask, "Why don't we wait until this review has taken place?" There is a very good answer. Within a few hours of that review, if it went against them, they would be in handcuffs. I want noble Lords to realise that. It is not a question of getting the decision and then being able to have a debate about it later. They would be in handcuffs. They were about to go off to America in handcuffs on Thursday of last week.
Let me put the matter as plainly as possible. If this matter cannot be discussed until the court has made its decision, that means that it cannot be discussed at all until the two women have gone to America. It is a question of now or never. Therefore, I am asking the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, to exercise all his well-known qualities of statesmanship. When the Companion was drawn up this situation was not contemplated. It is an exceptional and unique situation. If the matter is left until after the court's decision, that will prevent any political discussion at all. I believe that that is plain enough. I have no intention of failing to go on with the case.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Earl raises the point again. I understand and am grateful to him for his courtesy. There is no flexibility given to me and the rules are quite clear. It is my task to invite the House to seek to carry out the rules as they are set down. I wish that there was a solution more acceptable to the noble Earl, but I do not believe that there is one available to us.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, from the position where I stand, I believe that no one is going to quibble with the words, or the interpretation which has been put on them, which are contained in the Companion. But I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, acted very quickly, if not precipitately, as soon as there was the slightest possibility that my noble friend was going to transgress. My noble friend is well aware of both the intention and the advice which is generally freely available to the House at this time.
It is against this background that my noble friend is seeking to do what everyone in the House understands has been his conviction; namely, that a wrong has been done and that he intends to raise the matter. My noble friend has to demonstrate beyond doubt that he is
1604
transgressing. Advice will be given to the Leader of the House by the Clerk that that has taken place. The noble Lord has moved a debatable Motion which means that we can debate it for as long as we wish. There is no intention of doing that.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, ought to wait a little longer before he presses his case. In my view nothing has been said which is of such great moment to justify taking the action which is contemplated. Until now there has been good order, humour and passion on the issue, but no one has said anything to which anyone could take grave exception. My noble friend has been in this House for many years and has long experience. He spoke in an earlier debate and we know of his antecedents in this matter. He knows fully what he is entitled to say and what the consequences will be if he transgresses. I suggest that he be allowed a little time to make his case. If, in the light of that, the House feels differently, then it must act accordingly.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I strongly believe that my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale is using a pile-driver to crack a nut. I believe that is quite wrong and that we should get on with the debate. If he can withdraw his Motion with as much grace as he can muster, I feel sure that that will represent the feeling of the House.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I would like to find a happy outcome for this matter. I am quite clear that we cannot allow the rules of the House to be transgressed. I indicated to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that if he was able to make his remarks which he feels passionately about and without transgressing the rules of the House, I will be delighted. If he were to give some indication that he will try to do that I shall be the first to indicate to my noble friend that he should withdraw his Motion. I would very much like to hear what the noble Earl has to say and I am sure that applies to many other noble Lords. As Leader of the House, I do not believe that I can allow the rules of the House to be transgressed. If the noble Earl can indicate that he will at least try to make his remarks within the rules of the House then I shall be highly delighted.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we are in some considerable difficulty here because the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has indicated that what he wishes to bring before the House is precisely this case. He has a difficulty. I have great admiration for his desire to bring this case into the daylight and to try to do something for these two people. It is very difficult for him to do so without going beyond the sub judice limits. If he can find a way then I would support the withdrawal of the Motion. If it is not possible for the noble Earl to make his points without trespassing beyond the rules of sub judice then I would have to support the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this is obviously a very serious step for any Back-Bencher to take in moving the Motion as I have done. I did, it with a very heavy heart. I have listened to observations on this

1605
matter from all round the Chamber. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, that I was on the Woolsack the last time this matter was raised so I do have a little knowledge of the history of the case which we are trying to avoid discussing. At that time there was no question of it being sub judice because the judicial process had come to a grinding halt.
The reason that it is now sub judice is because the matter is back before the High Court in terms of a judicial review of the Home Secretary's actions, as the noble Lord rightly said, in that particular case. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, was sailing pretty close to the wind at one stage, as clearly did my noble friend the Leader of the House. The noble Lord accepted that and steered his course very carefully away. That is what most of us would do in the particular predicament in which the noble Lord, Lord Dean, found himself. Alas, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, clearly feels so passionately about this case that he is unable to give the response for which my noble friend the Leader of the House asks.
This is such a serious matter that the right thing for me to do, and because of the wise advice which noble Lords have given me from all sides of the Chamber, is to withdraw the Motion at this moment, but to reserve the right to put it again within the same debate, if necessary.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry that I have come into this debate a little late and therefore I am picking it up secondhand, so to speak. I wonder whether the House would adjourn for five minutes so that some of us may have the opportunity of making representations to those who are more intimately concerned with this matter. Then we could no doubt resume where we left off, if needs be.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is perfectly satisfactory to me. My noble friend must first withdraw his Motion, because the Question has to be put. The procedures have to be followed. When his Motion has been withdrawn, the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, can be heard.
Lord Richard: My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Lord has given notice of his intention to withdraw his Motion but it has not yet been formally withdrawn. If it is, then perhaps we can adjourn for five minutes.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, is a most admirable one. It reinforces my wish to withdraw my Motion at this moment. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, with the leave of the House, here I stand. I was in the middle of a speech—
Lord Richard: My Lords, I think that it is now technically for me to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until, say, 7.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.39 to 7.46 p.m.]
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, many moons ago I was making a speech. Since then there have been many interventions— all of them valuable. I shall try to continue where I left off. I do not want to provoke anybody unnecessarily. I am committed totally to the case of these women and to the injustice that will be done to them if they are sent back to America. However, I am not the boss of affairs and what matters in the end is what the Government do. So I want to know whether the Leader of the House can give us any help here. I hope that he can. Can the noble Lord say whether, if I or any other noble Lord, such as my noble friend Lord Dean, wait until after the decision of the court, there will be an opportunity to discuss the matter in the House before the women are sent back?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am not really in a position to give any undertakings which are rightly matters for decision by the Home Secretary. I am sure that the noble Earl would not expect me to do that. However, I recognise the strength of feeling and, if there is an appropriate and proper opportunity for debate within the rules of the House, I shall certainly seek to find an opportunity to allow such a debate. I shall rearrange the business if necessary. I cannot reasonably do anything other than refer to the Home Secretary the great concern of the noble Earl and, I suspect, of other Members of the House, who want an opportunity to discuss the matter as soon as they can. I want to make it quite clear that my position is that I shall do whatever I can. I shall certainly inform the Home Secretary of the strength of feeling, but I cannot give any undertakings that would pre-empt his prerogatives and responsibili-ties in this matter.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I understand the position that the noble Lord the Leader of the House has just set out. Perhaps I may ask him to do one other thing which I do not think goes any further than he is prepared to go. I am not asking the Leader of the House to pre-empt the Home Secretary's decision, but merely to represent to him that, if the judgment of the court went against those two ladies and they were immediately sent back before there was an opportunity for the House to consider the matter, that would be something about which we on this side of the House would feel strongly. Frankly, we would regard that as something which the Government should not properly do.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I certainly give the undertaking to make clear to the Home Secretary the strength of feeling of the Leader of the Opposition. The processes of the courts are not for us to discuss now, but I certainly give the undertaking to ensure that the Home Secretary recognises the strength of feeling.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may reinforce that, because the noble Lord the Leader of the House will remember an earlier case where a Home Secretary was greatly chastised because his department had acted too swiftly in removing someone from the jurisdiction

1607
of this country when other matters were in train. That example is something which causes the noble Earl, Lord Longford, to worry. I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House to pray that in aid, as it were, with his right honourable friend the Home Secretary in ensuring that, whatever happens, these people are not whisked out of the country before anyone has a chance to offer an opinion.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I can only repeat that I have listened with concerned interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has said. I am in no position to pre-empt the decisions of the Home Secretary, who must carry out his responsibilities as he sees right, and answer for the consequences of them. That is his duty, which he accepts fully. But I understand what the noble Lord has said. I shall ensure that those points are put to the Home Secretary in good time.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, it is a great pity that that small debate has interfered with the debate on the Motion. I want to refer to the Motion:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government what criteria the Home Secretary applies when exercising his discretion over extradition cases".
What is going wrong now?
Lord Wakeharn: My Lords, I just want to help the noble Lord. When we started the exchange we have just had, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, was addressing the House. He may have finished, but he may not have finished. We should ascertain that before the noble Lord speaks.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I have begun my speech several times, and no one will let me get very far with it. I cannot speak for my noble friend Lord Dean, others of my noble friends, or my Front Bench, but I am ready to say no more tonight and to see what happens.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I have given an indication to all sides of the House that I intended to speak in the gap. I must apologise to noble Lords for so doing. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is shaking his head. I notified both sides of the House that I inadvertently missed by a matter of minutes the statutorily barred period for giving notice to speak in a debate. That was entirely my own clumsiness, for which I apologise. As this is the gap, I am now speaking in it.
I intend to stick strictly to the terms of the Unstarred Question, which are right and proper. The Question is a broad question, but I shall keep to one narrow point. One of the criteria that any Home Secretary must bring to bear when exercising his discretion over extradition cases is where United Kingdom citizens' liberties are threatened because they have to stand trial in the country which is seeking the extradition of those citizens. The matter he must consider is whether citizens of the United Kingdom will receive a fair trial. The standard of fairness is not the standard of a fair trial in the country which is seeking the extradition but the standard of fairness of this country.
1608
Even where the country seeking extradition is a common law country, there are differences in procedures which can prejudice the fairness of the trial. Perhaps I may give an example. In criminal proceedings in this country, as your Lordships know, a learned judge tries the case before a jury. He will assist the jury by guiding it before it comes to a decision on the facts. In some common law countries, that is riot the case. My anxiety is that, without that guidance, juries can be misled. I shall mention just two reasons for that. One is the passage of time that has passed between the incident and the trial and the other is that, in countries that have a different ethos and different mores from this country, different standards may be brought to bear in the minds and hearts of the juries. It is right and proper that any Home Secretary should consider that matter generally.
The only other point I wish to make is that it has been suggested—this is outrageous—of this Administration, in particular, that the Home Secretary might bring to bear matters of high political import in coming to his conclusion; namely, if we do not grant the request of the country seeking extradition then, on other occasions and in other directions—if we wanted that country to extradite persons who had committed crimes against this country—that country would not play ball. In other words the liberties of individuals could be threatened for what are fundamentally diplomatic or political reasons. That is what I am worried about. I am certain that the present Home Secretary would never let that thought cross his mind.
I want again to apologise for speaking, during the gap, but, above all, I, and I am sure the House, would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for making this important point; namely, that any Home Secretary must exercise his discretion over extradition cases with immense care.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick has given us the opportunity this evening to discuss the criteria relating to the decision of the Home Secretary to grant requests for extradition by countries with whom we have a relevant treaty. In the event, we have not discussed the criteria at any great length or in any depth, and we have discussed a number of other things. In the circumstances, and in the light of all that has gone on. I think, although I have most carefully prepared:, with great effort, a splendid speech on the criteria with which lf think the Home Secretary should conceim himself, it is in the interests of all of us in the House that I should not: proceed to go any further with it tonight, and I hope that: the Minister might feel able, perhaps, to follow my example so that we could discuss this matter more coolly and more rationally at a later time.
Lord Sefton of Garston:: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I could ask a question. Does: my noble friend agree with me that one of the criteria that the Home Secretary should use in deciding the case. is whether—it is no use my noble friend the Chief Whip looking puzzled, I am perfectly in order—as hinted by the previous speaker, the law in practice in the land

1609
concerned complies with our traditions and our ideas of justice? If any person is being extradited to a land where plea bargaining is allowed, will those criteria include refusing extradition if the evidence of someone else given during plea bargaining was a factor in determining the guilt or otherwise of the person accused?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the immediate answer to my noble friend is, yes. I think that the Home Secretary would be wise to take such matters into consideration.
8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, made an admirably brief speech and invites me to do the same. In the normal course of events I should be delighted to do so. It is all very fine the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition sighing, but if a noble Lord puts down a Question he must expect an Answer, and I think it is right for me to give the noble Lord, Lord Dean, the Answer to the Question which he asked. If that is boring to your Lordships, all I can say is that it will not take as long as the discussion we have just had, all because of the transgression of our rules.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, asked on what criteria the Home Secretary exercises his discretion in deciding extradition cases. The simple answer— but a very important one when the Question which the noble Lord asked is about generalities— is that each case is considered on its merits.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to a particular extradition request. As we all now well know, that case is sub judice and I cannot comment upon it. I can therefore reply only in general terms, but I have been asked the Question in general terms by the noble Lords, Lord Dean and Lord Sefton.
The extradition arrangements and the Extradition Act 1989 contain important safeguards which are provided in order to protect the rights of anyone who may become subject to an extradition request. The Secretary of State is involved at two stages in the extradition process. The first is when he has to consider whether to issue an order or an authority to proceed. This enables Bow Street Magistrates' Court to consider the case in committal proceedings.
The second is when the judicial process has run its course and when, if the person who is the subject of the extradition request has not been discharged by the courts, the Secretary of State has to consider whether to issue a warrant for the surrender of that person. At both those stages the Secretary of State has to consider whether the request accords with our law— which is the Extradition Act 1989— as that law applies to the requesting country.
There are some differences in the way in which the law applies to different countries, depending on whether the requesting country is a foreign state which is a
1610
co-signatory to the European Convention on Extradition, or whether it is another foreign state, or whether it is a Commonwealth country. Extradition arrangements with foreign states which are not party to the European convention but with which we have a bilateral treaty, such as the United States, are governed by Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act 1989 and this replaced the Extradition Act 1870.
The provisions of bilateral treaties give to the United Kingdom obligations under international law, but we take care when entering into treaty obligations to ensure that there are no inconsistencies with our own extradition law. All our extradition treaties, therefore, recognise, either explicitly or implicitly, that at the end of the day the Secretary of State has a discretion as to whether to order the surrender of a requested person.
At both the stages in which the Secretary of State is involved, each extradition request is carefully scrutinised so as to make sure that it is in the form which is required by our law and that it is supported by the evidence which is required by our law, and in order to ensure that none of the restrictions or prohibitions on surrender in our extradition law or in the arrangements with the country in question applies to that case.
For example, in Schedule 1 cases, such as requests from the United States of America, a person must not be surrendered if the crime of which he or she stands accused was not included in the list of extradition crimes which is annexed to the treaty or if his or her offence was of a political character. In exercising his discretion in Schedule 1 cases, the Secretary of State, as a matter of policy, also takes into account the criteria which are listed in Section 12 of the Extradition Act 1989.
To answer the specific points of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, he was concerned about the protection for the surrendered person. I can tell him that all British citizens surrendered will receive consular protection in the usual way. The consulate will assume responsibility for their welfare and will act as a channel of communication. Under the terms of the treaty, a returned person cannot be tried for any offence other than the one for which he or she is returned.
The Secretary of State will not order the surrender of a person—
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Perhaps I may put a brief question. There may be circumstances where a person is to be extradited for trial in an area where the alleged offence had taken place and the Home Secretary is satisfied that there could be such prejudice against the person who is to be extradited that it would be almost impossible in his view to hold a fair trial in that area. Could there be a request to the Government carrying out the extradition to ensure that the trial ought to take place in another area of that country where the bias or prejudice may not be so manifest?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am coming to that point. In general, if one extradites a person to another country, that person then comes under the laws of that other country. The Secretary of State will not, however, order the surrender of a person if he believes that it would be unjust or it would be oppressive to return him or her

1611
—and this is not an exhaustive list—because, for example, he or she could not get a fair trial in the country concerned or, referring to the point made by my noble friend Lord Morris, because his or her chances of a fair trial would have been prejudiced by delay or other factors, or because the offence for which the return is sought is a trivial offence.
Representations can be made by or on behalf of a person who is awaiting the Secretary of State's decision on whether or not he or she should be surrendered. Those representations will be considered carefully by the Secretary of State. He will consider them and he
1612
must decide for himself whether to surrender the person concerned. If the Secretary of State does decide to surrender the person, his decision must be both lawful and reasonable.

Commons Registration (East Sussex) Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at seven minutes past eight o'clock.