Lords Sitting of 14 October 1997

Preamble
Reassembling after the Summer Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

Lord Randall of St. Budeaux
Stuart Jeffrey Randall, Esquire, having been created Baron Randall of St. Budeaux, of St. Budeaux in the County of Devon, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Clinton-Davis and the Lord Howell.
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld
Norman Hogg, Esquire, having been created Baron Hogg of Cumbernauld, of Cumbernauld in the County of North Lanarkshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Kirkhill and the Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale.
Lord Davies of Oldham
Bryan Davies, Esquire, having been created Baron Davies of Oldham, of Broxbourne in the County of Hertfordshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Blackstone and the Lord Healey, and made the solemn Affirmation.

House of Lords: Wheelchair Users
3.4 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stokeasked the Chairman of Committees:
Whether he is satisfied with the arrangements, both inside and outside the Chamber, for Lords who use wheelchairs.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, in recent years considerable efforts have been made to improve arrangements for disabled persons in the House of Lords. In excess of £1 million has been spent since 1995 in implementing the conclusions of the Administration and Works Sub-Committee's review into access for people with disabilities. I have also received representations from Peers on the seating in the Chamber concerning among other things the arrangements for disabled Peers. I shall be consulting the Administration and Works Sub-Committee on this matter next month. In view of my present predicament—I have a broken collar-bone—perhaps I should have tabled this Question to myself.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord forgot to declare an interest on this Question.
388
I wish him a very speedy recovery. Is the noble Lord aware that I appreciate what has been done and I hope that he will soon hear about the problems of access outside the Chamber? But inside the Chamber the provision and allocation of space for wheelchairs is very inadequate. Does the noble Lord agree that the best solution is to accommodate the Hansard reporters in the Gallery and that the House should overrule any unfounded objections? That system works perfectly well in the other place and there is no reason why it should not do so here.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind words. I apologise to your Lordships for failing to declare an interest, which he has very properly and rightly mentioned. The possibility of moving your Lordships' Hansard reporters to another part of the Chamber has been considered before. It will form part of the consideration that I shall be inviting the Administration and Works Sub-Committee to give to these matters next month. The noble Lord would not wish me to anticipate the outcome of those discussions. However, I feel sure that this particular matter will be considered. Perhaps I should draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that while on the whole the provision of space for wheelchairs in the Chamber has worked reasonably well, one of the great difficulties is access to the Chamber through the wicket gate behind the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Macleod of Borve. One is required to negotiate a rather tortuous passage. It is difficult to do something about that; it is a considerable problem.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that those in wheelchairs are among the most articulate and important Members of your Lordships' House? Does he agree that when more than three of them are interested in, or wish to speak in, a debate, it is absurd that they should be confined to their present space which allows only three to be present?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I wholly endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the participation of noble Lords and noble Baronesses in our debates. They bring not only an added dimension of quality to our debates but they are able to speak on particular matters from their own experiences. As to the substantive point raised by the noble Lord, I shall ensure that it is borne in mind when further consideration is given to these matters.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the noble Lord give an assurance that the accommodation arrangements for your Lordships in this place are subject to periodic inspection by representatives of the Health and Safety Executive, as happens in other public places outside this House?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is right. That is something that has always to be borne in mind. On

389
occasions in the past when your Lordships have agreed to certain improvements in your Lordships' House, the Health and Safety Executive has been consulted.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I seem to have to be heaved up and down a considerable number of steps when I go to Abbey Gardens and the rooms off Westminster Hall. As a health and safety measure would it be possible to have some portable ramps? Many firms now produce lightweight portable ramps.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. Abbey Gardens are one particular problem. As I have previously reported to your Lordships, many improvements have been made within the immediate precincts of the Palace of Westminster. Abbey Gardens remain an area where provision is admitted to be inadequate. We shall continue to see whether anything further can be done. I shall ensure that the noble Baroness's points are taken into consideration. Westminster Hall, too, is a bit of a problem, particularly as regards access to the Grand Committee Room. It is hoped that when improvements are made in that part of Westminster Hall the stairlift will be replaced by a much more suitable arrangement. That has not been lost sight of. I must warn your Lordships that that can be done only when the cafeteria improvements in that area as a whole are made.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, does the noble Lord know how delighted I am to hear that arrangements inside the Chamber will be considered. I am appreciative of what has been done today because normally there are just two places for a possible nine wheelchair users, five of whom are regular attenders. I feel that the access is unkind to the knees of those on the Privy Council Bench. Outside the Chamber, is the noble Lord aware that although the parking spaces for disabled people are welcome, they do not conform to the recognised standards because they do not leave extra space so that one can get in and out in one's wheelchair?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I shall of course ensure that the first point is taken into consideration. I am not sure about the answer to the second point. I should like to look into it to see whether further provision may be made.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this matter came before the Offices Committee six years ago and that nothing has happened since? To revert to the original Question, as is obvious today, if the tables were removed and the shorthand writers went upstairs, there would be space behind the Clerks' Table. Is it not worthy of consideration that were that to be done the Cross-Benches would be moved one Bench forward, and the disabled would be able to sit on the back row and therefore not have to negotiate the legs and ankles of the Privy Counsellors on the Privy Council row?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, on the first point, I have already referred to the fact that
390
considerable improvements have been made over the past few years, not least the provision of the railings at both ends and on both sides of your Lordships' Chamber. Provision for Cross-Bench Peers is, as the noble Lord said, a problem to which consideration will be given when the Administration and Works Sub-Committee comes further to consider this matter next month. However I should warn your Lordships that if moving the Hansard reporters from their present position to another part of the Chamber were to be one of the options recommended by the Administration and Works Sub-Committee, it would not in fact result in a sizeable increase in the accommodation for Cross-Bench Peers. In fact, bearing in mind, as the noble Lord rightly said, the need to protect the provision for those Members of your Lordships' House who occupy wheelchairs, that removal, if it took place, would provide only three additional places for Members of the Cross-Benches.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for what he said about the interventions, which are few and far between, from those of us who, unfortunately, have to occupy wheelchairs. We cannot ask a Question; we cannot ask a supplementary Question. And it is rare for us to have one place from which to make a speech. Further, it is now difficult to get down to the Cholmondeley Room, the new refreshment room, or the new Attlee Room, because no lifts are provided which will take wheelchairs. I wonder whether, in his capacity as Chairman, the noble Lord can raise those matters at the next meeting of the sub-committee of which he is chairman.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the noble Baroness draws attention to the problems in the South East Return. I can assure her that some provision has been made. Access from Royal Court, for example, has been made, and new ramps have been provided as part of the improvements in the South East Return. However, I shall look further into the matter and draw the sub-committee's attention to it to see whether anything else can be done. I conclude by endorsing what the noble Baroness said about the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Noble Lords and noble Baronesses who occupy wheelchairs provide, not least this very day, supplementary questions to be answered, and participate in your Lordships' debates. I hope that that will continue.

Privacy: White Paper Proposals
3.16 p.m.
Lord Acknerasked Her Majesty's Government:
When it is anticipated that the White Paper on the incorporation into United Kingdom law of the European Convention on Human Rights will be published, and how it is anticipated that such

391
incorporation will further the development of a United Kingdom law creating and protecting rights of privacy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we intend to publish the White Paper next week. Incorporating the convention will not itself create a law of privacy. The extent to which it leads to any development of a law of privacy will depend entirely on the decisions of the courts in any particular cases where litigants rely on the convention.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for adding to the Answer he gave me on 23rd June. Does he agree that the correct, indeed the only, answer that can be provided to the recent cynical and contemptuous observation by Mr. Richard Murdoch, that any law of privacy would only inure to the advantage of the rich and famous, is that legal aid should be made available for those who cannot afford to bring forward a reasonable cause of action? Secondly, and lastly, does he agree that speculative litigation in the form of conditional or contingent fees—if allowed in this new field of jurisdiction—would be inadequate to ensure proper access to justice?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, one always needs to be accurate on these occasions. I think that his name is Rupert not Richard. I did read a newspaper report of what Mr. Rupert Murdoch said. Whether it was a fully accurate newspaper report I am not sure. It was in one of his own newspapers, but no conclusion can necessarily be drawn from that. The question of privacy is extremely important. The Prime Minister has made it plain, as has my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, on a number of occasions that the initiatives which the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, has put forward are extremely welcome, and that ultimately it will be a matter for the courts of this country to develop remedies as they think appropriate. Courts in the past have shown themselves to be subtle, flexible and useful vehicles for developments in areas of law which require a good deal of careful consideration and thought.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the incorporation of the convention will provide merely a minimum framework for human rights and will in no way inhibit the development of the common law in the appropriate circumstances?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend put the matter more succinctly and directly than I. All I can say is that I entirely agree.
Lord Henley: My Lords, bearing in mind that the incorporation of the convention will not create a law of privacy, as the noble Lord put it, does he believe that it is time for the Government, in addition to producing a Green Paper on the matter, to bring forward legislation to create a law of privacy?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, these are not true alternatives. I remember that the former
392
Government indicated that they would produce a White Paper on these matters, but decided not to do so. We intend to see how the courts deal with the new legal situation. It will give the opportunity for rights to be enforced in the domestic courts; opportunities which have never been available to the citizens of this country. We believe that that is the best way forward.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—we are noble and learned friends in another capacity—that some of us prefer the approach of allowing the courts to develop the law, as they have done previously, rather than introducing a law of privacy?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am happy to say to my noble friend that, as I sought to make plain previously, the Government, as indicated in speeches made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and more recently the Prime Minister, are firmly of the view that that is the best way forward. It will be consistent and consonant with the culture and traditions of our country, which are not the same as those of some of our neighbours on the continent of Europe.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the noble Lord has not yet answered the question which I raised. Will legal aid be made available to enable the law to develop as he envisages?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there are no present proposals to extend legal aid to the area to which the noble and learned Lord refers. However, legal aid is not a necessary precondition for successful litigation.

Pensions: Uprating
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburnasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in fixing the 1998 uprating of the basic state pension, to be announced in November, they will honour their commitment to ensure that existing pensioners share in rising national prosperity by linking the uprating to the movement of average earnings, rather than prices, where this is more favourable to the pensioner.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, the RPI for September was announced last week, showing an annual rate of increase of 3.6 per cent. In response, the department has said that the state pension will be uprated by this percentage next April. This is in line with our manifesto commitment and should reassure pensioners. Details of benefits uprating will be announced to Parliament in the normal way. Meanwhile, the value of the basic pension is being considered as part of our pensions review, which will report in the first half of next year.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Is it not unprecedented for a statement of policy of this

393
importance to be sneaked out to the press surreptitiously, as it was in this case, in briefings by officials in No. 10 and the DSS, as we saw in the papers last week? Is it not customary on these occasions for a statement to be made by the Secretary of State to the House of Commons and repeated in this Chamber before the press are given all these hyped-up pictures of windfalls for pensioners? Is it also not customary to issue a press statement? Is the Minister aware that some of us have been trying to find out just what is happening behind the backs of the review body and have been told that there is no statement? Is she not aware that the issue of restoring the earnings link for the uprating is being debated passionately in the review body and that some of us think that it is the key to a proper pensions policy? Therefore, is there any point in continuing our discussions in the review body since the Government have made up their mind without waiting for their own review body's report?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we do not intend in any sense to pre-empt or replace the normal uprating statement. However, we were anxious to make it clear that the Government would honour their manifesto commitment to protect the value of retirement pensions. I wish to emphasise that the uprating statement will be made in the usual way at the usual time. In response to my noble friend, I also wish to emphasise that, as always, this is an uprating decision for one year only. The question raised by my noble friend about the status, nature and size of the uprating is at the heart of the pensions review, aided by the National Pensioners' Convention. My noble friend will know that, far from this being sneaky, it was an issue that she herself raised only recently with the Secretary of State.
Lord Henley: My Lords, bearing in mind that what is important for pensioners is the overall level of pensions, not just the level of the state retirement pension, can the noble Baroness tell the House what effect the £5 billion smash and grab raid on pension funds will have on future pensions and future contributions?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I believe that much of the concern about the advance corporation tax has to a degree been overstated. Under ACT, the tax regime deflected money away from capital investment in to paying out dividends. Therefore, we pay twice as much of our GDP in dividends than does the United States. That was part of a Budget which sought to strengthen our investment economy, on which the level of pensions and the health of companies depends. We cut corporation tax in the Budget, and it is now the lowest in Europe. We also introduced a New Deal because, as all noble Lords will know, what matters in terms of the shaping of a pension is the opportunity for decent and secure work rather than tax privileges. Since that Budget the markets have risen by more than
394
16 per cent., so they clearly have confidence in the Government's strategy. Is the noble Lord opposite saying that he and his party will reverse the change?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness invites me to answer a question. It is not for me to answer questions; it is for the noble Baroness. However, she did not answer the questions that I put to her. What effect will it have on future contributions and on pensions? The markets would have continued to rise whatever the Government had done. The point is that the party opposite made a great £5 billion smash and grab raid on pensions. That will have a long-term effect on future pensions.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the health, status and level of future pensions depend on the health, status and level of a company's investment, profits and future prosperity. That is what the Budget will ensure.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, do the Government have any plans to assist the poorest of our pensioners, given the fact that in the period 1979 to 1994 pensioners in the lowest quintile received an average increase of 28 per cent. while those in the top quintile received an average increase of 61 per cent.? Is anything to be done for the poorest group?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Since 1979 the gap between the bottom fifth and top fifth of pensioners has more than doubled. Inequality has widened. The top 20 per cent. are more than £100 a week better off while the poorest 20 per cent. are only £15 a week better off. That gap has grown as a result of the extent of occupational pensions. Unfortunately, only half of our workforce is currently covered by occupational pensions. It is therefore important that the future prosperity of our poorest pensioners is built on a decent second pension. That is why we are discussing with the pensions review our proposals for a citizenship pension and a stakeholder pension. All pensioners, not only those in occupational schemes, may then look forward to a prosperous old age. I hope that we have the support of all wings of the House in that endeavour.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, is the Minister aware—and I am sure that she is—that this subject has been discussed ad nauseam in countries throughout the world and that she has an extremely competent Minister in Mr. Frank Field, who has controversial views but nonetheless knows a great deal about it? It can be nothing but indecisiveness that is causing the Government to take so long to come forward with a policy. There have been years of discussion. As regards her earlier answers about the effect of the changes relating to tax rebates on ACT, she has the distinction of being the only person seriously involved in this subject who would believe a word of what she said about it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I hope that we shall enjoy a further extension of the noble Lord's arguments in tomorrow's pensions debate, which

395
provides the opportunity to discuss some of those issues at greater length. However, we are having a pensions review, which is taking several months. That is to be expected. It involves full consultation with the National Pensioners' Convention, as I am sure pensioners would wish. It is important that having, so to speak, crossed the Floor, we have access to the departmental information which was properly denied to us when we were in Opposition. It is too important a subject on which to come forward with a knee-jerk ideological reaction, as the noble Lord encourages us to do. We have seen too much of that in the past 18 years. Our policies will not be shaped in the same way.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt at this stage but we have only four minutes in which to take the last Question. Perhaps we should move on, particularly since we have a debate on pensions tomorrow.

Defence Diversification
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camdenasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they anticipate announcing their plans for a defence diversification agency, as outlined in the Labour Party manifesto.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, work is now in hand on developing proposals on diversification. We have said that we hope to publish a Green Paper in the autumn but I cannot at this stage give a definite date. It will be a consultative document setting out the Government's proposals and inviting the views of interested parties.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I should perhaps state my interest in this matter. I am a member of MSF, a union which has a large number of members working in the defence industries. I welcome diversification and what the Minister said, but does he not agree that it is extremely important that people working in the industry, many of whom are highly skilled, should know what the future holds for them and should know that as soon as possible?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for her constructive remarks and I agree 100 per cent. with what she said. The Green Paper will be an open consultative document which will invite comments from all interested parties, including—and very importantly—the trade unions. In addition, my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will address the TUC south-west region conference on defence diversification on 4th November.
396
I hope that that demonstrates our commitment to as wide a consultation as possible with those involved in the industry.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, what pressure is the Minister experiencing from within the defence industry for such a diversification agency?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am glad to say that the defence industry is co-operating fully with the DERA in developments which were initiated under our predecessors in that respect. There are several areas in which industry and the DERA are already co-operating: in the licensing of intellectual property rights; in extra-mural research contracts; in dual-use technology centres; and in the Pathfinder scheme. As far as I am aware, all developments have been greeted with considerable enthusiasm by industry. I should add that the situation has probably been transformed in recent years, in that these days research is largely civilian rather than military-led.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the international market for armaments is going down and is likely to continue to go down? It would be deeply unfortunate if Britain were to compete even more sharply for a shrinking market. Therefore, the need for defence diversification becomes sharper and sharper.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I certainly acknowledge what the noble Lord said with regard to the shrinking of defence markets throughout the world. I accept from him that the need for diversification is thereby enhanced. But it is a good thing in its own right.
Lord Carver: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the United States it has been shown that it is far better to let firms make up their own minds as to how they should diversify in that situation?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble and gallant Lord, but there is no element of compulsion whatever in that regard. Industry is involved only if industry wishes to be involved. I am sure that, as always, we can learn from examples on the other side of the Atlantic.
Lord Rea: My Lords, will my noble friend anticipate the review a little and say whether all the expenses of the diversification agency are to be met by the industry, or will any government money be forthcoming?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, there is already government money forthcoming to support the DERA's activities and I see no change in that position. However, as a result of those developments I hope that it will be possible for additional funds to be available in the public purse.

Business of the House: Ministerial and other Salaries Bill
Lord Richard: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

397
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Thursday 16th October to enable the Ministerial and other Salaries Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Magistrates' Courts (Procedure) Bill [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
POWER TO ISSUE WARRANT FOR ARREST OF ACCUSED AFTER CONVICTION WHERE DISQUALIFICATION PROPOSED
(".—(1) In subsection (1) of section 13 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (non-appearance of accused: issue of warrant) the words "if the information has been substantiated on oath" are hereby repealed.
(2) For subsection (3) of that section there is substituted—
"(3) A warrant for the arrest of any person who has attained the age of 18 shall not be issued under this section unless—

(a) the information has been substantiated on oath and the offence to which the warrant relates is punishable with imprisonment, or

(b) the court, having convicted the accused, proposes to impose a disqualification on him.

(3A) A warrant for the arrest of any person who has not attained the age of 18 shall not be issued under this section unless—

(a) the information has been substantiated on oath, or

(b) the court, having convicted the accused, proposes to impose a disqualification on him." ").

The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment follows a suggestion made during the Recess by several agencies in the criminal justice system to eliminate a further problem which arises frequently for magistrates' courts dealing with summary motoring offences. Although the courts may disqualify a defendant from driving in his absence following certain procedural steps, the Bench may wish to compel the defendant to attend for disqualification. The power for that is contained in Section 13 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. It provides that:
"The court may",
and I emphasise the following words,
"if the information has been substantiated on oath, issue a warrant for his arrest".
In cases where the defendant has been convicted following sworn oral evidence from witnesses, the information will have been substantiated on oath, so a warrant can be issued if wanted. But in practice these cases are increasingly decided on the basis of written statements under Section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. These are served on the defendant prior to trial. They are mostly admissible to the same extent as oral evidence. But obviously they do not satisfy the Section 13 requirement for the information to be substantiated on oath.
Courts must at present ensure the attendance of a police officer to substantiate the information either singly or in batches. That wastes police and court time. It is often meaningless because the officer in court will very probably have no personal knowledge of the facts behind the information. Similar difficulties arise where the defendant has pleaded guilty in person on a previous occasion and was convicted without consideration of the evidence, or where the court has accepted a written guilty plea under Section 12 of the Magistrates' Courts Act.
This amendment itself amends Section 13 of the Act so that, in the case of a convicted person, the court can issue a warrant for a disqualification hearing without the need to substantiate the information on oath. It does not affect the existing clauses of the Bill, but relates to the same procedural area which these address. The Justices' Clerks' Society and Magistrates' Association favour this change. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: I do not intend to oppose this amendment, the reasons for it having been given so lucidly by my noble and learned friend to the Committee and in a letter which he very courteously sent to me on the subject. I have merely one caveat which is inspired by what the Automobile Association said to me. At present a procedural step has to be taken before a warrant is issued. As the noble and learned Lord explained, once information has been rendered it must be sworn to in court by a police officer. We are changing that situation by way of this amendment so that it will be processed by an administrative machine. We all know that computers can do extraordinary things. It is not very pleasant to receive a warrant at one's home. Moreover, if it happens to be a mistake it is a very grievous suffering that the recipient of that warrant unnecessarily sustains.
I am authorised by the Automobile Association to confirm that that is its view. While the association does not oppose the amendment or the spirit of it—nor indeed do I—it feels that we ought to keep a careful watch on the situation. As the process before such a warrant is issued will now become merely an administrative matter, we should ensure that mistakes do not occur. If they do, we ought to be ready and able to do something about the situation.
The Lord Chancellor: I appreciate what the noble Lord has said and indeed his reasons. I certainly would be discomforted if I were to be the victim of an administrative mishap of the kind that he outlined. However, as the noble Lord acknowledged, we must

399
remember that we are removing a procedure of so-called "substantiation" on oath by officers who are very often not in a position to substantiate. I am grateful to the noble Lord for accepting the principle of the amendment. I certainly recognise his reservations about administration. I can assure the noble Lord that my department will certainly attend to how these new arrangements work in practice, should they find favour with Members of the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
In the Title:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
Line 1, leave out ("section 12") insert ("sections 12 and 13").
The noble Lord and learned Lord said: This amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I should like to speak now because I have some comments to make on the Bill—
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I must apologise for interrupting my noble friend but, as I understand it, an intervention at this stage of the proceedings is out of order because the Question has been put to the House.

Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill
3.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hayman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Power to take account of reserved part of capital receipts]:
[Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Power in place of duty to specify amortisation period]:
Lord Bowness Lord Bowness moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 20, leave out from ("words") to end of line 21 and insert (" "seven years" substitute "twelve years" ").
The noble Lord said: I apologise to the Minister for not being present when this business was called. I move Amendment No. 2 from the starting position that the less a local authority is in debt the better. Certainly it ought not to be in debt for the purpose of financing revenue spending. Perhaps I may say at the outset that I realise there are circumstances in which some expenditure which would normally be classified as revenue is capitalised in connection with particular major projects. However, this clause appears to be about any kind of revenue spending.
I must apologise to the Committee. In my haste to enter the Chamber I thought that I heard the Chairman of Committees refer to Amendment No. 2, not Clause 2. However, Amendment No. 2 contains similar wording to that of Amendment No. 1 which was not moved. I now understand that Clause 1 has been put to the Committee. I believe I misinterpreted the Minister's look of concern as indicating that I was talking to the wrong amendment.
The Chairman of Committees: For the sake of clarification, I should confirm that I did in fact put the Question on Clause 1.
Lord Bowness: As I said, I thought we were discussing Clause 2 which appears to concern any kind of revenue spending. I hope that the Government will explain why they wish to relax the regime in the way that is proposed and why the greater flexibility of the 12-year period which is proposed in the amendment in place of the seven-year period is considered insufficient.
Perhaps the Minister can tell us on how many occasions the seven-year period has posed a problem in the past. I hope that the Minister will tell us the circumstances in which it is proposed that the power should be used. Have the Government received applications to use this power? Is it correct—as was mentioned in another place—that Thurrock has applied for funding for the costs of reorganisation? I read carefully what the noble Baroness said at Second Reading. She said,
"This is a measure to deal with exceptional circumstances, where an authority is facing severe revenue difficulties but has an urgent need to undertake significant revenue expenditure".—[Official Report, 23/7/97; col. 1463.]
That is a wide provision. It seems to me that under that formula any local authority which has been imprudent in its financial management may appeal to the Secretary of State to be bailed out. That is perhaps not as

401
far-fetched as it sounds. The worst run authorities may by definition face severe financial difficulties and they may have an urgent need to undertake significant revenue expenditure. Is this proposal a way of avoiding the cap which it appears the Government propose to keep in one form or another? Can the noble Baroness give an assurance to the Committee that where financial difficulties have arisen as a result of mismanagement rather than some unexpected misfortune strict rules will apply? Surely the Government would not countenance helping bad local government escape the consequences of their actions at the expense of the council tax payer.
If this amendment is not accepted by the Government, do the Government have a maximum period in mind? Do they propose to issue guidance on how these new proposals will be implemented? And will that guidance dictate the kind of circumstances in which this clause is expected to operate? Bearing in mind that the capitalisation of revenue expenditure is generally a bad thing which has an adverse effect on the total cost of whatever is involved, it is right that until there are answers and assurances on this point there should continue to be a maximum period even if it is longer than that which currently applies.
I hope that we shall be given some certainty and some clarity on this point. Certainty and clarity are lacking in this Bill in general. On this important issue it is vital that we are given that certainty and clarity. I submit that the whole basis of the Bill is flawed. A commitment was given by the Government in their manifesto to release moneys which had been generated by the sale of council houses. At Second Reading in another place the Minister of State said,
"In our manifesto we stated our long held commitment to help meet housing need by building new houses and rehabilitating old ones through the phased release of capital receipt from council house sales".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/97; col. 119.]
We know that not one penny of accumulated receipts is released. We know that this Bill does not apply to future receipts. We also know that this clause, which I now seek to amend, asks us to accept that revenue spending can in effect be capitalised over an unspecified period with unspecified consequences.
It has been said that the Bill deals with the phased release of council house receipts. However, it does not deal solely with council house receipts. The Minister should inform us why a maximum period should not apply as regards this vital issue of costs to the council tax payer. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to help the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: I shall certainly do my best to respond to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. I believe that he is overly concerned about widespread consequences of what is quite a limited but, we think, useful provision within the Bill. The effect of Clause 2 is to remove the obligation on the Secretary of State, when issuing a supplementary credit approval in respect of capitalised revenue expenditure, to impose an amortisation period not exceeding seven years and to replace this with a power to specify an amortisation period. The amendment
402
proposed today by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, seeks an extension of the present seven-year period to 12 years. We do not believe that that would give the flexibility that we seek in this Bill.
To be clear, an amortisation period is the time over which amounts must be set aside as provision for repayment of a loan. Local authorities which borrow must always make provision for repaying loans. The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 sets out requirements for the treatment of borrowing. Section 54(5) requires that when a supplementary credit approval is issued in respect of certain capitalised expenditure, the credit approval must specify an amortisation period of no more than seven years.
Making full provision for the repayment of loans over seven years or less is a tough requirement. If the loan was for £700,000 and the amortisation period seven years, the Committee will have no difficulty in working out that the authority would have to find £100,000 from its revenue resources in each of the following seven years. The Government believe that the present requirement to impose an amortisation period of up to seven years is too inflexible in some circumstances. Simply specifying a different maximum period, as proposed in the amendment before us, would not solve that problem. What is needed is a power which is sufficiently flexible to decide on a period for debt provision that is appropriate to the circumstances of the authority concerned. There is no point in imposing on a local authority an unrealistic revenue burden.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, referred to the costs of local government reorganisation and the possibility of supplementary credit approvals being authorised in those circumstances. Those costs were certainly recognised by the previous administration and SCAs have in consequence been issued to allow authorities to spread those costs. Several councils have written to the Secretary of State to highlight the continuing burden on revenue as a result of the statutory seven-year limit on the redemption period. The Secretary of State has at present no power to change that even if he considered it reasonable so to do. I stress that we do not seek a power always to extend credit provision. What we seek is the ability to do so in circumstances where that seems reasonable.
I emphasise that the issue of credit approvals and setting of amortisation periods under this measure is not a matter of routine. First, the Secretary of State must issue a direction to a particular authority to allow specific revenue expenditure to be capitalised. Then the Secretary of State will consider whether to issue a credit approval, bearing in mind the implications for public expenditure, the authority's individual circumstances and all other relevant factors. Some of the factors that the noble Lord mentioned in proposing the amendment would certainly be relevant in this regard. If the Secretary of State is then satisfied that it is right to help the authority, he will issue a supplementary credit approval, and for that purpose, unless he decides not to impose an amortisation period, he will decide what period will be appropriate in all the circumstances.

403
Clause 2 enables the Minister issuing a supplementary credit approval to take careful account of the circumstances of the authority and to choose an amortisation period which is neither too generous nor too onerous. We think that it is a useful flexibility. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister has been extremely clear about the regime which will apply when supplementary credit approvals are given in the future. It is important that the Committee takes that point on board. The noble Lord seemed to suggest that an entirely new set of arrangements would allow local authorities unrestrained expenditure. I wish that that were the case. I do not share his views about the need for capital restraint. I suspect that it is spending restraint in general. Spending of capital is a means of investment; it is not money down the drain. It achieves something for each local authority.
However, it is important that there will still be central control. It is for the Secretary of State in the first place to issue the supplementary credit approval; other matters will follow from that. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment, which I regard as regressive.
Lord Bowness: I thank the Minister for her explanation. However, with great respect, I do not find flexibility a sufficient answer. As I stated at Second Reading and when moving the amendment, we are suspicious of the Bill because it flies under false colours. It is supposed to be about the release of accrued capital receipts. It is in fact about the ability of local authorities to borrow. It is supposed to be about council house receipts. It is not in fact limited to that. Clause 2 in particular relates to borrowing.
I hear what the Minister says about individual circumstances. I hear what the Minister says about reorganisation costs. But we have not been told of any circumstances which lead us to believe that the law needs changing. The longer the periods allowed, the greater the cost to the individual council taxpayers. In another place my honourable friend Mr. Chope was accused of paranoia. I fear that I, too, may be accused of paranoia. I draw no comfort from the circumstances described at Second Reading regarding when the power will be used. In moving the amendment I quoted them; I shall not do so again.
We should have had assurances that the consequences of mismanagement by local authorities resulting in severe revenue difficulties—I fully accept that an urgent need to spend may arise; indeed it is likely to arise where there has been severe financial mismanagement—will not be imposed on council tax payers through additional costs.
We have had no answers as to whether the present period of seven years has caused any difficulty. There has been no indication of the number of applications received for longer periods. Since so much about the Bill and the clause is not clear, I wish to press the amendment and to seek the opinion of the Committee.
4.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 109; Not-Contents, 126.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Hooper, B.

Ailsa, M.

Howe, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Alport, L.

Keyes, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Kingsland, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Attlee, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Beloff, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Blatch, B.

Liverpool, E.

Bowness, L.

Long, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lucas, L

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Luke, L.

Brentford, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Bruntisfield, L.

Middleton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cadman, L.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Munster, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mutton of Lindisfrne, L.

Carnock, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Norfolk, D.

Chatteris of Amisfield, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Chesham, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Courtown, E.[Teller.]

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cowdray, V.

Rawlings, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Rees, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Renwick, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Davidson, V.

Rowallan, L.

De Freyne, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Sandford, L.

Denbigh, E.

Seccombe, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Exmouth, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Foley, L.

Stokes, L.

Gisborough, L.

Strathclyde, L.[Teller.]

Goschen, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swansea, L

Harding of Petherton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Harlech, L.

Teviot, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harrowby, E.

Trefgame, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Vivian, L.

Hemphill, L.

Waterford, M.

Henley, L.

Wilcox, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Addington, L.

Avebury, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Barnett, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Bath and Wells, Bp.

Ampthill, L.

Berkeley, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Blackstone, B.

405

Blease, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Blyth, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Borrie, L.

Lestor of Eccles, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Longford, E.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

McCarthy, L.

Calveriey, L.

Mcintosh of Haringey, L.[Teller.]

Carlisle, Bp.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carter, L.[Teller.]

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mishcon, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Molloy, L.

Crook, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Nicol, B.

Diamond, L.

Paul, L.

Dixon, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Donoughue, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dubs, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Eatwell, L.

Rea, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Redesdale, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Richard, L.[Lord Privy Seal.]

Ezra, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Rochester, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Geraint, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Serota, B.

Gilbert, L.

Sewel, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Simon, V.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Grey, E.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hamwee, B.

Stallard, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Haskel, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hayman, B.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B.

Healey, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hogg of Cumbemauld, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hooson, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Howell, L.

Thurlow, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Thurso, V.

Hoyle, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hylton, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Ilchester, E.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.[Lord

Whitty.L.

Chancellor.]

Wigoder, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Judd, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.15 p.m.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Bowness Lord Bowness moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
REPORT ON APPROVED SUPPLEMENTARY CREDIT APPROVALS
(" . After section 55(3) of the 1989 Act there shall be inserted—
"(3A) The Secretary of State shall publish a report of the effect in each year of the approved supplementary credit approvals on the public sector borrowing requirement.".").
The noble Lord said: The amendment asks for a new section to be added to the effect that,
"The Secretary of State shall publish a report of the effect in each year of the approved supplementary credit approvals on the public sector borrowing requirement".
I state again, and apologise for repeating myself, that the Bill is about local authority borrowing. The Minister in another place made it clear that although the initial sums in the first year are not large and certainly not large enough to meet the hopes and aspirations that were no doubt raised by the promises originally made by members of the Government prior to the election—as was made clear in this House and another place—there is new public money involved.
The guidance issued by the department to local authorities, of which the noble Baroness was kind enough to send me a copy, invites their bid and states that,
"The release of additional spending power in the form of supplementary credit approvals will mean that authorities will incur additional revenue expenditure to meet borrowing or liabilities under credit arrangements. Depending on the particular expenditure undertaken by an authority the cost may fall to the housing revenue account or the general fund and will be supported by the government either through additional housing revenue account subsidy or through revenue support grant".
Since the original promise in the manifesto commitment was to use unapplied capital receipts—though, had that taken place, it would indeed of itself have had consequences for the level of council tax since those receipts are not sitting idle in local authority accounts; in many cases they are earning considerable sums that can be applied in aid of the council tax—it is now only right, in the spirit of the openness promised by the Government and in the interests of good economic management, that the figures of the additional borrowing and the effect on the public sector borrowing requirement should be published.
Had the Bill set out to do what was promised rather than to facilitate borrowing, different arguments might have applied. The amendment does not in any way seek to thwart the Bill's intentions. The Government have already admitted that we are talking about new money; we are talking about borrowing. If the amounts remain as modest as the sums first announced, they should not be fearful of disclosing the effect.
If the amendment is rejected, one is left with the inevitable conclusion that, as with so much of the Bill, we do not know the whole story and the ultimate intentions behind the measure. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: As the noble Lord says, the new clause would impose a statutory requirement on Ministers to publicise the effect on the PSBR of decisions on amounts of supplementary credit approvals issued in any one year.
The effect of the Bill on the public sector borrowing requirement is an issue to which noble Lords opposite have returned on many occasions. I would not have mentioned it myself but for the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, referred to his paranoia. I suggest that in this area they are perhaps over-concerned that there has been some sort of conspiracy about the clear admission

407
from this side of the House that there are effects on public expenditure of issuing supplementary credit approvals for the capital receipts initiative.
Although the noble Lord tempts me to do so, I do not think it would be appropriate under this clause to set out once again the reasons for choosing the route for supplementary credit approvals in order to fund this initiative. It was made clear in the debate at Second Reading why this mechanism was being used. As the noble Lord said, the amounts have been made clear: £174 million for this year; £610 million in 1998–99. The effect that this would have on individual local authorities was also made absolutely transparent in the consultation document on the scheme issued during the summer.
We have always been completely open in saying that these credit approvals will increase public expenditure; but I do not think that we should go on to say that that suggests a necessity to publish a report. We have also promised that the funding of the initiative will be handled to be consistent with our well-known commitment to prudent economic management and ensuring best value. It is not clear how issuing an annual report on this scheme—if that is what the noble Lord envisages—rather than on supplementary credit approvals as a whole would add to that commitment.
In making any decisions on public spending, prudent governments—and this Government are absolutely determined to be prudent in their economic management—will always have in mind the effect on public sector borrowing. We are, as the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said, much in favour of openness in government and have no objection to publicising the basis of our decisions on allocations under the capital receipts initiative. We have been very clear about the circumstances in which we will make receipts available and the balance that will be struck between the authorities in housing need and those having housing receipts. I do not see that a requirement that spending decisions by government should include a statutory obligation to publish results would add anything to what is already clear, explicit and transparent. What it would add to is the administrative burden on local government. I do not believe that the benefits could in any way justify that burden. As with any other spending programme—and the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, is quite right to point out that this is a spending programme—it will be reflected in the department's published spending plans, and the impact of each department's public spending will be reflected in the public accounts.
The proposed new clause is also unclear as to whether it is intended to relate only to supplementary credit approvals issued in connection with our capital receipts initiative—which is what the Bill is about—or all supplementary credit approvals. If it is meant to refer to all areas of capital expenditure, it is outside the scope of the Bill and would, besides, add time-consuming and we believe quite unnecessary burdens on local authorities and on the department in publishing information.
I suggest to the Committee that there is no need for this provision. We have been clear about the impact of our initiative on public finances; we have been explicit
408
and transparent about the sums of money involved; the Chancellor will make clear in Budget statements and in the accounts published afterwards the public sector borrowing requirement; and we shall continue to adhere to prudent economic and accounting disciplines. In the light of that, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My problems with this amendment are in large part to do with my difficulty in accepting that capital expenditure should be treated as part of the public sector borrowing requirement. But that is a whole other debate—one which your Lordships' Select Committee on central and local government relations referred to as a Humpty-Dumpty argument: "It is so because we say it is so". I shall not pursue that now.
However, perhaps I may take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether she is able to expand on the references to monitoring in the guidance recently issued. Paragraphs 40 and 41 of the guidance explain that the Government are—quite rightly—concerned to ensure that resources released are used "wisely and well". The paragraphs do not suggest mechanisms for reporting back to local authorities on the Government's own monitoring. Given that the scheme appears in general terms to propose that future releases of receipts will depend on how previous releases are used, I hope that the Minister can give an assurance about a continuing dialogue and partnership with local government in that monitoring exercise.
Baroness Hayman: I am happy to give that assurance in general terms to the noble Baroness. As she points out, it is important that we monitor the effectiveness and value for money of receipts that are approved and that, as we forge future policies, we can look back to see what has been successful and encourage that. A good precedent was set during the summer by the consultation document and the extremely constructive response of local authorities to it. I hope that that sort of partnership in terms of monitoring the effect of the release of supplementary credit approvals and their effectiveness will be something that in the new climate of relationship with local government can inform policy-making for the future.
Lord Bowness: The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, quoted the Humpty-Dumpty argument: "It is so because we say it is so". I feel that that is to some extent the position of the Government on this Bill: "This is about the release of capital receipts because we say it is about the release of capital receipts". In fact, it is about borrowing, and I believe that that needs to be repeated long and often.
At Second Reading I said that I understood that in many instances local government would understandably want to have the opportunity to spend the proceeds of some of its released assets. However, that in no way takes away from the responsibility of government in going into this new area—as they are by virtue of this Bill—without our knowing where it will all end. At the moment it is housing receipts that are concerned, but the

409
Bill leaves it open for all receipts to be used in the future. We do not know when that will be or in what circumstances the Government will think that right. The amounts involved are modest at the beginning but might not be modest in future years. As the Minister agreed, the Government want to be open in all their dealings and prudent in their economic management. If they are looking to release the considerable sums held by local government in the form of unapplied receipts through additional borrowing, which will have a considerable consequence on the public sector borrowing requirement, I cannot understand why they cannot accede to the amendment. It would in no way affect the Government's wishes or the intent of the Bill. I am sorry that the Minister cannot accept the amendment and I ask for the opinion of the House on it.
Baroness Hayman: I respect the noble Lord's right to test the opinion of the Chamber. However, I should like to say that the Bill is not about borrowing; it is about improving housing for some of the people most in need of it in this country.
Front Bench Members opposite spoke of mechanisms and processes but have not welcomed the fact that we are beginning to address the years of under-investment in homes for people who need them. I refer to the homes which are ill-insulated and badly heated and which give rise to ill health and to all the other problems that surround ghetto estates and poor housing in some of the most deprived local authority areas. That is what the Bill is concerned with. If the mechanism allows us to take those aims forward, then the Committee should support it.
Lord Bowness: I thank the Minister for those additional comments. I understand what she says. However, it was stated in the other place and in this Chamber that, whether or not those ambitions would be met by the Bill, they would be achieved by the phased release of capital receipts. The Minister said that she did not want to go into those arguments today. But the fact is that those ambitions are not being achieved by the release of those receipts but by additional borrowing. In those circumstances, I maintain my position on the amendment.
4.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 125.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Blatch, B.

Addison, V.

Boardman, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bowness, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Beloff, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Biffen, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Birdwood, L.

Brigstocke, B.

410

Broadbridge, L.

Luke, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Marlesford, L.

Butterworth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cadman, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mottistone, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mountevans, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Chesham, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Northesk, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Courtown, E.[Teller.]

Onslow, E

Cowdray, V.

Pender, L.

Cox, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Prior, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rathcavan, L.

Davidson, V.

Rawlings, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Renton, L.

Denbigh, E.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Sandford, L.

Elles, B.

Seccombe, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Simon of Glaisdale L.

Foley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Stewartby, L.

Gisborough, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Goschen, V.

Strange, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathclyde, L.[Teller.]

Harding of Petherton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sudeley, L.

Harrowby, E.

Swinfen, L.

Hemphill, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Henley, L.

Teviot, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hooper, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Howe, E.

Ullswater, V.

Kimball, L.

Vivian, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Waterford, M.

Liverpool, E

Wharton, B.

Lucas, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Diamond, L.

Addington, L.

Dixon, L.

Alderdice, L.

Donoughue, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dubs, L.

Annan, L.

Eatwell, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Avebury, L.

Ezra, L.

Barnett, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Berkeley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Blackstone, B.

Geraint, L.

Blease, L.

Gilbert, L.

Borrie, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Brightman, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Greenway, L.

Carlisle, E.

Gregson, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Grenfell, L.

Carter, L.[Teller.]

Grey, E.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Hamwee, B.

Chandos, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Haskel, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hayman, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Healey, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Hooson, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Howell, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

411

Hoyle, L.

Richard, L.[Lord Privy Seal.]

Hughes, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hylton, L.

Rochester, L.

Inchyra, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.[Lord

Sandwich, E.

Chancellor.)

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Serota, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Sewel, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Shepherd, L.

Judd, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Simon, V.

Kirkhill.L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Lockwood, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Longford, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McCarthy, L.

Stokes, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.[Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Mishcon, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Molloy, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Monkswell, L.

Thurso, V.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Tordoff, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Nicol, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Paul, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Whitty, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wigoder, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Redesdale, L.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 3 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Minority Views in Parliamentary Democracy
4.41 p.m.
Lord Birdwoodasked Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that the views of minorities are taken into account in parliamentary and democratic processes.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a favourite line of attack used against this House is that too often it is just a talking shop. In truth, wherever there are officially constituted gatherings and no immediate executive actions can be seen to be outflowing, they attract this patronising label of legislative impotence. For me, one of the greatest strengths of our unconstituted constitution, itself a legacy of a thousand years of trying to get things right, has been the freedom of our House to be a talking shop. Perhaps its few moments of something approaching grandeur of moral authority are just when it is being a talking shop, for these are the instances when we give ourselves time to reflect on the bedrock principles by which a society measures its worth.
I badly needed to be reminded of what some of the great voices of the past have said about minorities. John Stuart Mill held to the idea of popular control all his life but left a legacy of elitism which might be politically
412
less acceptable today. The Encyclopedia of Democracy comments that Mill was so convinced of the necessity of providing representation for knowledge and intelligence, as well as the numerical majority, that he distinguished between true and false democracy. The true kind included representation of the intellectual elite; and because it was government by this minority as well as by the majority, he regarded it as genuinely egalitarian. In contrast, the false kind was government of the whole people by a mere majority. I like the ring of those last words. Mill knew that democratic majorities have built into them an intolerance of those who do not comply with conventional norms of belief and conduct; that is, those with individuality.
I turned to Thomas Jefferson. He said:
"All too will bear in mind this sacred principle that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable, that the minority possess their equal rights which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression".
Sydney Smith's mischief appeals to me in his remark that,
"minorities are almost always right".
The last of my historical voices is James Fitzjames Stephen:
"The way in which the man of genius rules is by persuading an efficient minority to coerce an indifferent and self-indulgent majority".
Everything I have said so far has been culled from other men's thoughts, other men's insights. It would be nothing short of impertinence for me to think that I could build on Burke, or Locke, or Adam Smith, or Mill. But I live in the present and I have the privilege of questioning the Government about their safeguards for these sacred principles of Jefferson. So let me focus on some specific questions for the noble Lord opposite.
What effect would the framing and acceptance of a Bill of Rights have on not just tolerance but cherishing of minorities? What is the experience of those countries which do underpin their own law with a Bill of Rights? Do the Government foresee a more dominant role for European Court rulings in Britain's legal processes? After the fragmentation of the United Kingdom, are there any guarantees for minority protection in the machines being cranked up in Cardiff and Edinburgh? Do this Government believe that the practice of plebescite before parliamentary process protects individualism? I am implying that it is not possible to be too vigilant as individuals or as groups as the Government themselves in watching for the oppression of minorities.
I believe that a precious word has been dropped from the lexicon of government. That word is "freedom". Of course no one is suggesting that this regime, elected as they were on perceptions of compassion, will care any less about freedom than their predecessors. But if one is in some easily defined minority holding individual counter-populist views, the quiet shelving of the word itself can be curiously menacing. In our sedentary society we do not on the whole have the terror of the mob. We do not generally today have riots or lynchings. But it seems that we do still celebrate collectively; and as recent events have shown poignantly, collective grief does seem still to produce group social interaction, only

413
slightly managed, in its later stages at least, by media intervention. We do not have the mob but, with the modern media, we have instead the mob by proxy.
If in my exploration of the sharing of power between government and the media I see power on the move, I see clearly loss of power from one institution and its re-attachment to another. What I do not see is power being used to serve the safety of a minority, at the expense of the majority if needs be, to support that very principle. Does the legislation which followed Dunblane refute this or endorse it? As a textbook example of the mutual interests of an outraged group and the media, it cannot be faulted. At the time we saw what I would call a transient majority regarded as heaven-sent by a government hungry for any populist measure. I leave it to the noble Lord opposite to guide my reflections.
Above all, the new ingredient in the management of democracy is the extraordinary power of the media. This is the wild card which none of our past political philosophers predicted but which has deeply, deeply changed the political map of all modern democracies. My newspaper tells me that it speaks for "the people"; my radio interviewer begins the ritual flaying of my representative in Parliament with the words, "People are saying, Minister"; and my television programme-makers are giving me their perception of "the people" with images of grief, or delirium, which they believe reflect the mood of the people. But the bottom line is that it is their interpretation of this collective mood.
If there is one thing that we have learned from history, some of it uncomfortably recent, it is that the collective is the enemy of the minority. The media are the agents of the collective—but why not? It is their job and they do it well. They feed me with news and entertainment, compete for my leisure hours and comfort me with opinions which they say are what people are thinking. Well, yes, but there is a moment, mediated by the camera or the interviewer, when my legal but minority pursuit is transformed into an affront to the will of the people. I am not sure that I am wholly comfortable with that process.
Governments understand power; governments do not understand helplessness, yet helpless is what too many people in our society feel. None of us is immune from fear, but hidden in our midst are those who feel nothing else. It must be the first duty of government to protect diversity.
The minorities in a society are what give it vigour. Every culture-moving idea started as a minority credo. I want the groups which wield the real power in our land to keep precious the protection of beliefs, even when those beliefs are at odds with that great tyrant twin of democracy, the people.
4.53 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, for introducing this debate. It is the kind of debate which needs to be more often repeated in this House because it is an attempt to deal with some of the underlying trends in our society and some of the crucial philosophic values which inform it.
414
All our speeches in this debate are necessarily brief, but I wish to touch on three issues. The first is that raised by the noble Lord concerning the way in which the executive in this country has had added to its powers a much more sophisticated understanding of public opinion and makes much more conscious use of it to inform government actions. That combination of factors can make the executive yet more powerful than it is already. It is one of the reasons for my belief—this is where the noble Lord and I part company—that we need a Bill of Rights. We need to lay down precisely the limitations of the power of the executive. I much respect the customs and traditions of a United Kingdom which has no constitution, but I fear that in a multicultural and rapidly globalising world they will no longer prove powerful enough defences for our democracy.
I agree with the noble Lord as regards government by plebiscite. I understand why there have been referenda on certain issues. I believe that there should be very limited use of referenda because there are real dangers in using them instead of public deliberation in the democratic process.
The second issue I wish to mention follows again from what the noble Lord said about the power of the media. I wish to make two points. The first is that I believe that none of us has taken sufficiently seriously the concentration of ownership of the media. We are moving into a digitalised world where the concentration of power is in a very small number of hands for the press, television and radio. It is becoming positively frightening. If one looks at the movement of global markets one can see the way in which control over digital outlets is becoming highly limited in the hands of a very small number of people. For democracy that must be an extremely disturbing development.
In that context I wish to mention a second matter; namely, the recent proposal on the part of the BBC, and in particular by the director-general, to replace existing editors and deputy editors of BBC news programmes with a single, overall control of all the news programmes in one place. I am sure that Mr. Birt is owed a debt of gratitude from all of us for the way in which he has sought to modernise the BBC, but I am very fearful of any steps that might end the individualism and, if one likes, even the idiosyncrasies of our distinct news programmes which have enabled the BBC's quality and independence to rise to a point admired throughout the world. I hope that the governors of the BBC, some of whom have the honour to sit in this House, will very carefully consider any changes that might limit the diversity and autonomy of the BBC's editors.
Lastly, I wish to refer to one other group of minority issues. I believe that for all of us it is a pleasure that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is responding to this debate since his wit and wisdom will no doubt enable him to reply to a very large number of subjects which are likely to be raised under such an umbrella title as this debate enjoys. I shall conclude with some specific questions. I give the Minister due warning.
The third issue I wish to raise concerns the position in this country of our ethnic minorities. I find myself in profound disagreement with the speech of the noble

415
Lord, Lord Tebbit, reported from the Conservative Party conference. He said that there could be no such thing as a dual loyalty. I felt like saying to him that he needed to listen to the words that were applied originally to the great Sir Christopher Wren, "Si monumentum requiris, circumspice". (Look around you if you wish a monument). In his case it was, "Look around you if you want to see the truth." The truth, which I welcome, is that we live in a multicultural and multinational society today. There is no turning back of the clock and therefore we have to come to terms with the fact that we can now rejoice in the resources and richness of such a society and benefit from it.
Her Majesty's Government—and I pay them due respect in this regard—have made a very good start in terms of having announced new initiatives on a whole range of issues in order to try to encourage the ethnic minorities in our midst. For example, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has encouraged more ethnic-minority people to come forward to fill the position of magistrate. The Minister of Health has announced his intention to hold a joint conference on the issue of the health of ethnic minorities and the Minister of State at the Home Office has announced his intention to look very closely at racial assaults.
Perhaps the single most disturbing area is the total failure of anybody from an ethnic minority to reach the higher ranks of the Civil Service. As many of us know, that is at least a part of where power lies. In that respect, I hope that we can have an assurance from the Minister that the recent private report undertaken by Keith Vaz, the Member of Parliament in another place, will be taken very seriously and that there will be action not just to monitor the recruitment, but also the promotion and advancement, of people from ethnic minorities in the Civil Service. With that I wish to associate also the extreme importance of looking again at the position in the Armed Forces.
Noble Lords know that I spend part of my time in the United States. I do not believe that the Government should follow that country in every aspect of policy. In some of their welfare reforms the Government are making a mistake in pursuing American policies. But I believe that the Government can learn a very great deal from the United States in the action that was taken following the decision made 50 years ago by President Truman to desegregate the armed forces. That action took the form of training people in an understanding of human rights in order to begin to change the culture of the armed forces. I respect our Armed Forces. Every generation in my family has served in the Armed Forces in one capacity or another. However, I find it appalling that an examination of the structure of our Armed Forces reveals that there is not a single black or Asian face of anywhere near senior officer status. Given the huge contribution made by Indians and West Indians to the defence of this country on many occasions, I find that shocking.
In that context, I should like to refer also to the police. I believe that the Metropolitan Commissioner, Sir Paul Condon, has made a tremendous effort to try to encourage more ethnic minority police recruits. Up to now, the figures have roughly doubled, but the trouble
416
is that that doubled recruitment is associated also with a massive rate of wastage. That suggests that young police recruits are encountering a very unfriendly atmosphere in at least some police stations. There is also disturbing information about people who have lost their lives or been badly injured while in police custody. There have been far too many such instances.
I conclude where I started. As I said, I believe that the Government have made an excellent start, but I must stress the importance of any government (including one as energetic and as vigorous as this) recognising how very much they can learn from dissenting voices. It is vital that no government ever try to prevent those dissenting voices (even from within their own ranks) from being heard because the greatest enemy of good government is almost always the pride that comes before a fall and the belief that one cannot be mistaken. I commend those words even to our present Government, just as I would have commended them a few months ago to their predecessors.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Birdwood for initiating this debate. It is with some diffidence that I follow the excellent speeches that we have heard from both my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. Fortunately, however, the breadth of this Unstarred Question allows me to strike off in my own direction and to start with a general consideration of cultures and the way in which they interact before returning to what light that might throw on to minorities.
It seems to me that there are three principal characteristics of cultures in this regard: conflict, diversity and change. Looking at the way in which cultures interact, one sees that conflict is an obvious part of that. One need look only at history and at the world around us. Indeed, it is natural enough that that should be so because if one is part of a culture, presumably one believes that that culture has something worth offering and worth defending. It is but a short step from that to believing that the benefits of that culture should be spread to other people or that the territory (emotional or physical) that that culture occupies should be enlarged. Therefore, conflict is natural when it comes to cultures living together and it is something which governments need to manage.
Governments also need to have regard to diversity. Cultures do not stand still. They change and, in the process of change, they split off one from another. Perhaps the best example of those two processes is the Labour Party. Over the past 20 or 30 years, the culture within the Labour Party has changed enormously. Indeed, over that time, the Labour Party has spawned other cultures which perhaps may return to the fold one day. As I have said, one can see those processes in the Labour Party—
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me to intervene, perhaps I may point out that those who sit on these Benches come from a very old culture indeed.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes, and perhaps one can see those processes at work in many cultures, large, small and historical.

417
Another aspect of cultures is how hard-edged they are. One may take being Jewish as an example of belonging to a hard-edged culture. If you are Jewish, you know that you are Jewish. There may be some fuzzy edges but, by and large, being Jewish is a defined state. Moving on slightly, if you claim to be Scots, you could be the Italian waiter mentioned previously by my noble friend Lord Mackay and you could still be Scottish. You could be a Scot who has lived all his life in England and you could still feel Scottish. That may even apply to several generations. This definition of culture is more diffuse and less easy to determine.
Let us consider a culture which is more diffuse still and which has an even softer edge. One may say that one is a countryman. There is a continuum between being a countryman and being a townie. Where one finds oneself in that continuum depends very much on the challenge that one is facing. If my status as a countryman is challenged, I am a countryman; but if I am challenged over my right to live, and to enjoy living, in a town, I am a townie. That is a characteristic of many soft cultures. Indeed, one is a member of many soft cultures and one could be all three—one could be Jewish, a Scotsman and a countryman; or one could be some of them or none of them. We are all members of many cultures and most of those cultures are minority cultures. With reference to my noble friend Lord Tebbit, one can both be English and support the Pakistani cricket team. I certainly do because I like to win sometimes!
Other characteristics associated with cultures are stability and chaos. Again, that is a continuum. Stability can be produced by two main influences. There may be a confident and dominant culture which is able to control the minorities as it wishes, while also allowing them to flourish because it does not feel them to be a threat. There may be an external threat, binding cultures together and encouraging them to forget their differences in the cause of the common good. One can see chaos as a precipitate end to such stability, as happened in Russia, and when that happens there is complete disorganisation.
It seems to me that one must aim at the state which exists in this country now. There is a waning stability. One can see both those influences for stability in our past. Our dominant culture is noticeably less confident than it used to be. One could take the Church of England as an example. Also noticeable is the fact that external threats to our existence have decreased considerably. Indeed, I am sure that many people will feel that in their day-to-day lives such threats have disappeared. The result of that, and of the mix of cultures in this country, is that those cultures are growing more confident and more assertive and less willing to take central domination from a central government, however that government might be elected. We saw a good deal of that in the referendums this summer.
It is no bad thing that cultures develop such self-confidence. One gets a lot of strength from a diversity of cultures, but we need to understand how to manage that. In particular, the Government need to understand what they can and cannot do. It is no good
418
the Government trying to impose their will on people in such circumstances. They will find themselves coming up against soft-edged cultures and making enemies rapidly.
Let us consider the culture continuum between rich and poor. Looking back, the Conservative Government made the mistake, with the poll tax, of challenging the poor. Even those who were not poor knew people who were or could imagine becoming poor themselves. That is why the number of people who were affronted by our attack on that continuum was much larger than one might have thought.
In their turn, in their tax proposals in their 1992 manifesto, the then Labour Opposition made the mistake of attacking the concept of being rich. They were attacking not only the rich, but anyone who thought that they might one day become rich. The then Labour Opposition lost a lot by attacking a minority in that way. It is difficult for any government to impose their will and to think that they are part of a dominant culture without encountering some backlash within a surprisingly short period of time.
There is very little future in consensus either because consensus is the process whereby, generally, the people who shout loudest are seen to win. If one allows that process to determine what a government do, one invites chaos and dissention. One invites individual cultures to shout louder and louder so that they can have their way in that process.
The key which the Government have to find is how to manage the boundaries between cultures while not trying to manage the cultures themselves. Within an individual culture the writ of government no longer runs. We know what we want for ourselves and no longer wish to pass that up to government. But we all recognise the role of government in playing the arbiter between cultures and in deciding how conflicts between them should be resolved.
In that respect I suggest that there are some rules that the Government may follow. I should be interested to know whether the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, agrees that this is the way in which the Government should conduct themselves. First, they should respect diversity. Secondly, they should be fair and open in consideration and judgment, hear all sides and argue and reply in public. When I look back at my experiences in MAFF I can see in how many ways we failed in that regard. Thirdly, they must deal firmly with misbehaviour. If the Government have decided a difficult issue, for example what is to be allowed in respect of abortion, and people begin to dissent by attacking doctors who carry out abortions, unless one deals with that extremely firmly one encourages a cancer in society that is very hard to eradicate. Lastly, they must moderate the pace of change. All of us find it easier to accept change when it is gradual. A gradual change tends to have less in the way of violent and unpredictable aftershocks that are difficult to manage.
How do the Government measure up against those matters? There are good and bad signs. The good sign is the talk of inclusiveness. Perhaps I shall come to refer to noble Lords opposite as my noble friends. If one

419
reached that stage one would truly have inclusive government. But it is hard to find other signs that this Government are intent on what they say they are intent upon. For example, in the process of devolution the English were not consulted. There are always two sides to a cultural boundary. In this case it involved the English, Welsh and Scots. The views of the English were not ascertained. That is not a fair way in which to deal with a boundary dispute. One looks at the way in which the Government control their own ranks, not so much in this House, where there is a good deal of open debate, but in another place. There one finds an imposed uniformity that sits very oddly with the hoped-for commitment to do exactly the opposite as far as concerns outside minorities. When one looks at the Government's proposals on the boundary between town and country one is greatly concerned that it will be a matter of imposing the town on the country without consultation and regard for the fact that country people are different and live differently. When it comes to looking after minorities one's fear is that the Government's words are in the right place but not their hearts.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I join previous speakers in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, for providing the opportunity to debate this wide-ranging subject. One can go up and down various highways and byways. When something is proposed for the future we must look as far as we can at the past in order to draw conclusions. In view of the behaviour of the previous government, I believe that this debate could well have taken place 10 or 15 years ago when they were hell-bent on an elected dictatorship. As far as I know, it was not something quoted by any Opposition party, but it had its origins in a former distinguished and learned Lord Chancellor who did not like what was going on.
I came here in 1983, four years after that government entered office. I quickly came to the conclusion that there was only one check on the previous government in those subsequent 10 years. It was not the elected Members of the House of Commons. They had no say in the matter. The government of the day made sure that they had no say. Even government Back-Benchers in another place and Cabinet Ministers who attempted to change anything were quickly dealt with and sidelined. It was said at one time that there was a better Conservative cabinet of ex-Cabinet Ministers in this House than those who were sitting in the other place running the country. They had been got rid of. It was accepted by the public that their only protection against the excesses of the previous government were the Members of your Lordships' House. I do not have the exact figure but on about 150 occasions the House of Lords told the Government to think again.
To see the worst excesses of people being driven into the Lobbies to vote, we should look at the disgraceful episode of the poll tax Bill which was forced through the House. Although members of the Government's party spoke against it, they had their arms twisted to vote on the government side. I believe that it was the biggest vote in your Lordship's House that had ever
420
taken place. I did not hear squeals on the other side then. How many times has the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, entered the Opposition Lobby to vote against his own government? I may enter the Opposition Lobby against my government on the question of devolution, with which I am not very happy. I never have been very happy about it. I believe that it is nonsense. I have yet to be convinced that it is right. But I shall consider the matter and may take certain action. But who stood up to be counted on the other side? Very few indeed.
When we look to the future we must try to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. I hope that the new Government give time to debate Opposition views. Given the way that government works today and the pressures from those outside who want their case put forward in the other place and in your Lordships' House, it is extremely difficult to get a substantial programme through both Houses in one Session of Parliament. I do not believe that the public want to swap the House of Commons and the House of Lords for a debating chamber that does nothing. We have enough such debates as it is. We must have a mechanism by which we can do something. The Government could make a good start by giving back to local authorities of all colours a whole range of responsibilities. They have been almost completely stripped of power.
For my sins I had the privilege of being leader of what I believe to be a very great city, Manchester. It had a good and progressive council that had various responsibilities. The council was run mainly by Labour and Conservative members, some of outstanding ability. There were members of both parties who were the equal of any Cabinet Minister I have ever seen at the Dispatch Box in the other place. One does not see such talent today because those people were not replaced by people of a similar calibre. There is nothing for them to do. They have been stripped of all power. For example, my noble friend Lady Hayman dealt with a little Bill today. We hope that it may mean that local authorities can begin to build council houses again, though that has never really stopped, even though councils have been denied the necessary funds.
When I was in local government the biggest landlords in the country were local authorities. I do not mean to say that I wanted to see everyone ensconced in a local authority house; it was time to review the situation. But your Lordships will know that when I spoke about housing from the Dispatch Box, periodically I asked the Government why local authorities were not allowed to build houses. Some of them still had the funds in the form of capital receipts but they were in abeyance. No Minister could give a reason. I was just told that it had been decided that councils would not build any more houses. That was in spite of in-depth reports on the housing problem, especially at the bottom end of the social scale. I refer to the report of the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Runcie, Faith in the City and the report on housing commissioned by the Duke of Edinburgh. Once again that was a non-party body of people involved in housing drawn from all sections of the community. That report showed the road ahead, but did the government listen? They did not want to know. We reached the position where eventually council house

421
building almost ceased. I was always told that it would be the responsibility of the Housing Corporation and that it would hit the target of 63,000. I do not think it ever got above 40,000. In the last year of that government's term of office it was down to less than 40,000, from the figure of 100,000 council houses being built when Labour left office. That was their form of democracy.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, telling us why Labour lost the election in 1992. There may be a little truth in what he said, but I do not think that he was completely right. At that time the electorate had not tumbled to what the government had been doing to them. But will he tell us what he thinks happened on 1st May to cause such a dramatic change, because everything seemed to be going along in the same way? There must have been something to cause the electorate to demand a change.
If you want to do away with democracy, do away with the elected people who represent the points of view of the public. They can be removed. I lost my seat at the general election. I thought that I had worked hard, but the electorate did not want my party at the time. So I was removed. But what mechanisms did the Government put in place? Time after time Bill after Bill was rammed through this House giving Secretaries of State unlimited powers to do what they wanted. It did not matter what was said in the Commons or in this House. Why do your Lordships think all the fiddling and sleaze went on in the quangos?
I know of a case. I shall not name it. Noble Lords will know what I am talking about. Instead of being dealt with properly, one of the chief perpetrators ended up with a knighthood and another job. He is still in that job. When we talk about using power properly, we must be careful. I shall not make excuses for this new Government if they go over the top. I am a politician who believes that people should have their say. It would not be the first time that I have gone into the Lobby against my own government. My noble friend the former Chief Whip will bear that out. When I was in another place I was sacked from a job I did not know that I had for doing that.
Having said all that, it has been a good debate. I hope that we will shall see some powers that have been taken away from elected authorities returned to them as quickly as possible. Then we might start to have an increasing number of people of quality coming back into local government, people who can shoulder the responsibilities. They have shown in the past that they can carry out those responsibilities properly. I am not saying that everything in local government is right, but it is far better than dictatorships appointed by Secretaries of State which answer to no one.
5.23 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Birdwood for giving us the opportunity to discuss this matter. "Decentralisation" and "greater accountability" are buzz words of the moment. The modernisation of our constitution is necessary to impose,
422
"limitations on parliamentary sovereignty and additions to popular sovereignty".
There is nothing wrong with that per se but, as my noble friend Lord Birdwood implied, that shift towards a greater and purer pluralism is deceptive.
Will Hutton makes the point:
"The paradox of Thatcherism/Majorism is … that a strong state has been required to impose market freedoms and a wider individualism, taking to new extremes the centralising tendency built-in into the British state which has been obvious since 1945".
He is less forthcoming in acknowledging that that is as much a paradox for New Labour as it was for previous administrations.
What is extraordinary about the Government's constitutional experiment is that, among all the eulogies extolling the virtues of more power to the people, there are parallel thrusts towards less accountability and a strengthening of the executive. That is a sleight of hand, a giving with one hand while taking away very much more with the other.
Reforms to the Labour Party demonstrate the point. The modernisers have expunged debate and criticism. Discipline, as measured against the merest whiff of dissent, is all. Control is now concentrated in an elite at the centre. Far from giving more power to the people, that stultifies the freedom to express any, let alone a minority, view. It disavows that the lifeblood of any democracy is the free expression of ideas.
I do not make that point from any partisan bias. As Hutton suggests, the "centralising tendency" is endemic within our system. What disturbs is the hint of hypocrisy with which New Labour has carried it forward into government. The whole nation, not just the party faithful, is now exhorted to join the "new euphoria". As Janet Daley puts it:
"Mr. Blair actually seems to believe that there is something called the People who have one unified voice and mood, and who will be best served by making party differences disappear or blur into a 'constructive' back-scratching club that freezes out dissidence at both ends".
We are all being coerced into supplication to a "one-and-only"—thereby, essentially exclusive and intolerant—Blairite vision, and any and all minority views are thereby being emasculated.
It is an essential quality of good government that it accedes not only to the existence but also the merits of views other than their own. That is the seedbed of true tolerance and compassion. As Roosevelt said:
"No democracy can long survive which does not accept as fundamental to its very existence the recognition of the rights of minorities".
Contrary to what seems to be this Government's intent to characterise those views with which they disagree—whether from within or without their own ranks—as the last refuge of the scoundrel or lunatic, they are inherently beneficial. That is important at any time, but becomes infinitely more so as we experience,
"the most limited political spectrum that Britain has had in living memory".
In that, I am uneasy that the concept of parliamentary sovereignty—with its chain of accountability from the people through MPs, to the executive—seems to be metamorphosing into a doctrine of the "Divine Right of

423
the Commons" as dictated by the governing party. I share also the discomfort of my noble friend Lord Birdwood at the burgeoning power of the media within the democratic process.
Of course, that interdependence is nothing new. It is an essential symbiosis. There must be an intimate relationship between the substance of policy and its presentation. Only in that way can it be subjected to critical examination by the public. To that extent the media are very much part of the matrix of parliamentary accountability but, as an article in the Daily Telegraph suggests:
"Where past governments were content to fill Parliament with pliant placemen, Mr. Mandelson will not rest until he has done the same with the media. Manipulation of consent is the name of the game. The ultimate aim, of course, is to maximise the government's power".
As part of that, we now hear that there is to be a "school for spin" for government press officers. In effect, New Labour is seeking to absorb the Civil Service into its campaigning team. That manipulation of consent, sinister enough of itself, is bolstered by the fact that, as was said in The Times:
"The real political debate takes place in the studios of W12, not the chambers of SW1".
That in part represents a triumph of populist opinion over public interest. That is a fine distinction, but the reality is that government is about hard choices. It is for the Government to make up their mind on the merits of the issue, not by holding up a finger to see how the wind blows. But policy, in so far as it exists, and its presentation are now almost wholly concerned with perception: how it will play in the minds of voters. The tail is wagging the dog. Hence the massed legions of focus groups and so on under whose siege we now operate.
Of course, at one level these are part of the process of consultation, but they also have the less desirable effect of reducing policy to the status of product. The point is that pursuit of market share is no substitute for proper governance because of the way in which such an emphasis can subvert the democratic process and work against minority interests. Recent firearms legislation illustrates the point. Of course there is a public safety dimension to that debate.
Nor do I question the sincerity and integrity of those campaigning for a ban. But we should not lose sight of Dryden's warning:
"The most may err as grossly as the few.".
There is a very real sense in which, in political terms, all that has mattered is the stampede—and votes—of the herd. Concern over freedom and fairness, it seems, can be shouted down if sufficient moral outrage exists. More and more the sine qua non of modern politics is to go with the flow of "tabloid populism". A kind of political ethnocentricity goes to work. The idea that things are intrinsically right or wrong has given way instead to whether they are expedient. What matters is to cherry-pick those minority interests that have most resonance with the electorate. This worship at the altar of the populist deity, as well as entrenching the power of the executive, strengthens the supremacy of popular
424
opinion over public interest. Government become no more than "a dedicated follower" of the electoral fashion of the moment.
As Charles Secrett of Friends of the Earth has suggested, single-issue adherents are distrustful of our process for this very reason. Not without justification, people do not see empty rhetoric and manipulation of their interests as an appropriate or effective way of addressing their concerns. In this sense, we can be justifiably concerned that political responses to their aspirations seem to be guided more and more by a process of auditing electoral consequence. This approach frustrates rather than enhances both the interests of minorities and the concept of "the greater good".
My noble friend Lord Birdwood cited John Stuart Mill's distinction between true and false democracy. This is a point of especial relevance in the contours of our democratic process today. In this—and I am conscious of a tinge of irony here—I have saved the last word for Oscar Wilde. I wonder to what extent we will be obliged by this Administration to live under the yoke of his assertion:
"Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.".
5.33 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, this has been an exceptionally interesting debate with some notable contributions, not least from the noble Earl, Lord Northesk. Such was the diversity of the contributions, I shall take as my text what I believe to be the central issue. To draw on John Stuart Mill, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, in his introduction, we are talking about the will of the majority and the protection of the rights of minorities. Incidentally—and it is a matter to which I shall return—it is a paradox of British constitutional arrangements that we have had the will of the minority without the protection of the rights of the majority.
I remember going to Colombia 10 years ago with one of those American institutes which has more money than sense and sends people around the world to advise such as the Colombians on their democratic system and the protection of human rights. We were not an enormous success, as one can tell from the results. However, I was struck by the fact that in the minds of the Americans on the deputation there was no conflict or difference between majoritarian democracy and the potential for the protection of the rights of individual minorities. They assume that democracy is a package within which everything is contained and if the will of the majority prevails surely everything will be all right. For reasons that several noble Lords have mentioned, I do not believe that to be the case.
I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, for introducing the subject. The fact that it has been moved from the Conservative Benches is particularly appropriate. It must be difficult to adjust from the Conservative's long years of majoritarian rule to the new experience of being the minority not only in the country, which the Conservatives were through the long years of majoritarian rule, but a minority of course not

425
in this House but in another place. It prompts the deep reflection which led the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, at a similar point in history when Labour won the election, to discover the concept of elective dictatorship. When the other side get their hands on the levers of power it always prompts a rather deep existential angst about, "Where is it all going? Aren't we in deep trouble now that the wrong people have got their hands on the levers?".
We on these Benches have long practice of being a minority. We know all about minority status. No one can tell us anything about it because we know exactly what is involved. I suggest that it draws on several comments that your Lordships have made.
There are three elements to the discussion. The first is the political institutions. The Government have set their hand to the most ambitious programme of constitutional reform that this country has seen for a very long time. In that, we on these Benches are marching with them shoulder to shoulder. Proportional representation, which your Lordships would expect me to mention, has a bearing on the matter because it ensures that, broadly, people are represented in proportion to the views held in the country.
With respect, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, was mistaken about a Bill of Rights. The essence of such a Bill, whether it is simply the incorporation of the European convention, which the Government are proposing, is to state that there are limits on executive power—
Lord Birdwood: My Lords, I was at pains to frame what I said as a question. I did not intend a pejorative colouring in my reference to a Bill of Rights.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. If he is not being pejorative I wish in return to be positive. I believe that there is a strong case for saying that if one regards the rights of the individual as inviolable then there are limits on executive power. I hope that that will be one of the results of the legislation which the Government are contemplating.
Next, there is the question of freedom of information, to which we hope the Government will turn sooner rather than later. Freedom of information is precisely about the individual and minorities having available to them information which too often in Britain has been available only to the Executive and to the Government.
Thirdly, there is devolution, about which the noble Lord, Lord Dean, was not too enthusiastic. It recognises that the elective dictatorship is susceptible to being broken down by the stronger local government to which he referred and by allowing centres of power other than Whitehall and Westminster.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, have not the effects of the devolution process so far shown that for the first time the electorate in England has been lumped with us and denied the vote?
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, that is a fair point to which no doubt we shall return in debates in
426
this House. In addition to political institutions there arises the question of whether we have diversity of media, to which my noble friend Lady Williams referred. The Conservative Party was not at all averse to trying to manage the media, to getting close to the owners of the press and television and to getting a favourable press for their policies and views when in government. It is not altogether reasonable to attack the Labour Party for trying to do the same. That is an issue for the country as a whole and for all parties. It must be wrong for there to be, first, an over-concentration of ownership; secondly, for there to be an over-concentration of the ownership of certain technologies which represent gateways into the media system; and, thirdly, for there to be insufficient diversity of editorial view. I understand the concerns which my noble friend expressed about recent developments at the BBC.
The third issue is the question of culture, the culture of civil society which is partly made up by the media and partly by the values which we all share. I am proud to say that the introduction to my party's constitution says that:
"No one shall be enslaved by ignorance, poverty or conformity".
It is the word "conformity" on which I wish to place some emphasis. We must recognise that over-conformity is the enemy of learning. Karl Popper, in his great work The Open Society and its Enemies, talked about what constitutes a society which is capable of making progress. It is the ability to learn. We learn only through disagreement, through debate, through learning from experience and through not concealing things which go wrong but trying to learn positively from them. For example, if one sees non-conformity as a possible enemy there is an overwhelming tendency for political correctness to take over in the belief that there is a correct way of seeing things. I do not believe that at all. Diversity of view is an important driver of change in society.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, might refer—and he did briefly—to freedom of association and expression. Those are rights provided expressly in the European Convention on Human Rights, which I hope your Lordships' House will shortly be enacting into law.
Perhaps I may address one remark directly to the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The noble Lord and I have shared many late nights in this House on the subject of Northern Ireland. My noble friend Lord Alderdice sits behind me. Perhaps I may say that Northern Ireland and the current peace talks are the very paradigm of what we are talking about here because there is a minority in Northern Ireland and there is a majority. The only way in which to reach an equitable settlement in Northern Ireland is to contemplate that those who are at present the majority in Northern Ireland might, at some point in the future if the people of Northern Ireland agree—and I think it will be a very long way away—become a minority in a united Ireland. In discussing that subject, it is extremely important to remember that minorities of today become majorities and majorities become minorities. Therefore, the rules that we put down are the rules that we all share.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in offering congratulations to my noble friend Lord Birdwood. I offer my congratulations to him also on his timely arrival. Some of us thought that sadly this debate might never take place. We were very pleased to see my noble friend arrive and, as a result, we have had a very useful and constructive debate.
It is often the case that an Unstarred Question of this kind is the first opportunity for one to make a speech as a spokesman on this or that from the Dispatch Box. This is the first occasion, other than at Question Time today, when I have had the opportunity to speak on home affairs. I have been amazed at the range and breadth of the debate and I offer my commiserations to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who must wind up the debate in what I understand will be a mere 12 minutes. I shall try to keep short my remarks so that the noble Lord will have extra time, should he wish, to address all the points put to him. However, I am sure he will agree that even if we were to have a five-hour debate or even a debate lasting all afternoon on this subject, the noble Lord would have an equally difficult task in winding up a debate of this sort which covers a wide range of different subjects.
My noble friend spoke of attacks on this House as a mere talking shop. My noble friend made it clear that that is not so. He quoted from John Stuart Mill, Jefferson and Sydney Smith. I did not know the particular Sydney Smith quotation but I rather like it—that minorities are almost always right. That is very encouraging to us on these Benches at the moment. Perhaps I may add one rider to the remark that minorities are almost always right. My view, formed when I sat on the Front Bench opposite, and one to which I still adhere, is almost the opposite of that. I believe that possibly, when all Front Benches are in agreement, they are almost always wrong. I ask all Front Benches to bear that in mind. We shall try to make sure that we are not often in agreement with the Government because we feel that we have a duty to oppose. I hope that that duty will be joined in as often as not by, if I can express it in this way, our noble friends in opposition on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Having said that, I was extremely interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said about his experiences in Colombia, and that they may have had a less than positive effect in relation to the advice given to the Colombians on the procedures to follow in creating a proper democratic government. The noble Lord might like to look at Gulliver's Travels and the descriptions which Gulliver gives of some of our early 18th century political institutions to, I think it was, the King of Brobdingnag who was increasingly mystified. He gave those explanations in all good faith, thinking that he was describing matters as perfectly as he possibly could. That is something which might bear looking at when any of us ever contemplates constitutional reform.
That brings me also to the mention by the noble Lord of proportional representation. I imagined that there would be some mention of proportional representation by the noble Lord's party. I was justified in that thought
428
because the noble Lord raised the matter at the end of his speech. Very often it is seen as the universal panacea for dealing with the interests of the rights of minorities. I do not share the noble Lord's views. His view that proportional representation would allow all peoples to be properly represented is not one that I share. It allows not for greater representation of the people but greater representation of the parties. That must be seen as very distinct from the noble Lord's view. It is certainly something which is very different.
My noble friend Lord Birdwood asked a whole range of very difficult questions. He asked what effect a Bill of Rights might have on minorities. He sought comparisons with other governments. He asked whether there should be a more dominant role for the various European institutions. He asked about devolution, plebiscites and their use. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, gave her views on referendums. I share a great many of her views about the dangers of referendums. Should we have referendums on more and more subjects, that is something which Parliament as a whole should look at in greater detail.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the noble Lord give an assurance to the House that when the Scottish devolution Bill is being considered in this House, he and his party will vote against the proposals for proportional representation which are likely to be put in that Bill, even though the outcome may be no Conservative representation at all in the Scottish Parliament?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was giving my views on proportional representation. I have not said that I believe that PR is always the wrong route to pursue. I certainly would not like to see it in our imperial Parliament. There may be arguments for it on other occasions. The noble Baroness will have to wait until the Bill comes before the House to hear other noble friends of mine, and possibly myself, address those specific questions. However, as I was saying, we should be most concerned about the use of referendums, plebiscites, or whatever one calls them, on every possible occasion. If we are to make greater use of them, I see that there is a case, as has been put on a number of different occasions, for stricter controls and guidelines regarding how they should be run and in what manner.
I particularly welcomed what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said about ethnic minorities, especially as regards their role in the Civil Service. She was right to say that we have not seen enough at the highest levels. Indeed the noble Baroness quoted from the research conducted by Keith Vaz, a Member of another place. I believe that some of what he produced gave a rather negative picture. For example, he implied that there were very few members of ethnic minorities in different ministerial offices. In my eight years in government in a whole range of different departments—indeed, four different departments—I certainly did not find that to be the case. It is possible that there may not be enough of them at the higher levels of Grades 4, 3 and above, but I do not think that that is the case in

429
private offices. However, I have not read the report in detail and would certainly welcome the chance to do so in the future.
Following on from what the noble Baroness said about the position of ethnic minorities in the Armed Forces, I have to say that I greatly welcome the announcement by the Ministry of Defence that it is to conduct a recruitment campaign. Indeed, I wish it well. I hope that all like-minded people will wish it well in terms of making the Armed Forces more representative of the community at large.
I was most interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, said about this House, especially as he seemed to start with a defence of this place in the year 1983 stating that it acted as the only opposition to the then government. The noble Lord went on to say, somewhat more critically, that there were very few members of my party when we were in government who stood up to be counted, as I believe he put it, against the then government. Again, I have to say that that was certainly not my experience in my time as a Minister as I went down to defeat after defeat after defeat. Perhaps I should not exaggerate the number of defeats that I suffered for fear that Chief Whips or former Chief Whips might remember. However, I can assure the noble Lord that there were many occasions when those on my own Benches were sticking the knife in and twisting it pretty hard. I can tell the noble Lord that they were there and that they were prepared to be counted.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. However, I should point out to him that I believe he will find that a good percentage of those Members came from one of the most involved professions with an interest in those particular Bills; namely, the legal profession.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot remember whether it was particularly lawyers who were defeating me on the different occasions that I was defeated in this House. Indeed, it is not my particular memory that lawyers were the ones sticking the knife in. I have had lawyers do so, as have many others. However, at this time of night we should not cast aspersions on a very honourable profession and one which I have the honour to be part of; indeed, I see that other lawyers are present in the Chamber tonight.
I must now bring my remarks to an end. Some pretty fundamental questions have been raised by this Unstarred Question as to just how we can ensure that the views of minorities, whomsoever they may be, are heard. It may be the case that we are all minorities. We must consider how those views can be taken into account when government, especially in another place, have such an overwhelming majority. I dare say that the same questions would also be raised were we to have proportional representation. Just because the majority wishes something, that does not always necessarily mean that minority views or beliefs should be ignored in favour of those of the majority.
One of my noble friends quoted the example of Dunblane. Indeed, one could add the views of different people on hunting or on the ritual slaughter of animals.
430
Obviously, there must be occasions when the majority views do override those of the minority; for example, when the views of the minority are so objectionable that that has to be the case. But that is a very difficult situation and one which needs to be addressed.
In a multicultural society—not an expression that I like, but one for which I suspect there is little alternative—such problems will be even greater. They are the ones that the Government should address and certainly those which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will, I fear, have to address in the 12 minutes which remain for him to make his speech.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, what a feast has been provided at the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood. I shall be acquitted of discourtesy if I do not mention the identity of every speaker with his or her particular points. If I were to do so, my 12 minutes would have come and gone. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, offered me the final benefit of the poisoned chalice of extra time. However, happily and in a civilised way, he snatched it back because he used all of his 10 minutes.
It is idle to think that all minorities are stereo-typical. They are not. Indeed, they vary with time and change. I should like to give your Lordships examples. My wife is Indian, so she is plainly in a minority in this country and in an apparent minority because her skin is brown. Her religion is Hindu. Therefore, had she lived in India, she would have been in the majority in that great multicultural society which remains a secular democracy, governed by the rule of law. As it happened, my wife was brought up in Durban in South Africa and was, therefore, part of a grossly oppressed minority for a substantial period of her adult life when she was living there, at a time when both her parents never had a worthwhile vote.
On the other hand, I am in a minority in my native land, Wales, because I speak Welsh. I am one of half a million; 2 million plus do not speak Welsh. I am in a minority where I live in Gloucestershire, in Evenlode, which is a hunting village. I believe I am the only Welsh speaker. I am constantly grateful that the English Liberation Army does not come and burn my house down. I am certainly in a decided minority in your Lordships' House. It will astound your Lordships to understand that I am not a hereditary Peer, nor have I ever been a member of the Conservative Party. So I am doubly disabled.
The fact is that the attraction of the United Kingdom is that it offers diverse tolerance. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is not present in the Chamber this evening. I like him and his vulpine sense of humour. But he is profoundly mistaken in the effect that his remarks had. I readily accept that most people take notice only of the headlines, whether in newspapers or concerned with the media as a whole. However, the noble Lord was wrong. There are no two ways about it. The greatness of this country, which remains great, is that it is decent and tolerant of dissent. That was the significant reason why the year 1789 came and went and we had no guillotines

431
here in this country. Even then society in this country was able to accommodate diversity and to be inclusive in the way that the late President Lyndon Johnson advised: it is better to have your enemies within the tent rather than outside the tent doing exactly the same thing.
We have much to learn from the United States. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, which was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. The Americans are able to deal with differences, though not perfectly in every way. They did desegregate the armed forces, but I am bound to say rather late in the day; and it was Truman who did it. That great President is much maligned. He was a public servant. He was asked what he was going to do when he went back to independent Missouri. Having been President of the United States in times of the most appalling stress and difficulty he said, "Put the grips in the attic". We need more people like that in politics.
If I may take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, we need more stubborn and mulish independents who want no place or preferment but who believe that the ideal of public service with no selfish, immediate purpose is still a noble one. It is from minorities that some of those public servants sometimes come. We need people to ask, "Who are these people to tell us what to do?". Indeed, some would ask who am I to say that as I am speaking from the Front Bench. I say it because I mean it. I bear in mind as a cautionary guide what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said immediately after 1st May:
"Only stand at the Dispatch Box and say things when they don't stick in your throat".
I believe that to be a useful guide for all of us, wherever we sit in your Lordships' House.
I wish to address one or two points put by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—I am breaking my own rule—because they deserve a reasoned response. He asked the Government to respect diversity. I entirely agree with that. We respect diversity and we shall continue to do so. He asked for fair and open consideration of others' views. I hope that we have made a beginning there. Certainly in the Home Office, the Home Secretary has stated firmly that all Parliamentary Questions must be answered as fully as possible and that all letters, whether from members of the public, Members of Parliament or the press, should also be answered as fully as possible. A number of your Lordships have been kind enough to say that they have detected a change for the better—not a perfect solution—at least in the Home Office.
The noble Lord asked us to be strong in dealing with misbehaviour. I agree with that. We have supported absolutely the Nolan crusade. We have invited Sir Patrick Neill to continue that work. We intend to bring forward legislation to deal with what has been a running sore in our society; namely, the funding of political parties, the registration of political parties and in particular the serious continuing vice of donations from foreign sources for questionable purposes. They do things better in the United States.
However, I parted company with the noble Lord when he asked for an assurance that the pace of change would be moderate. I use again that noble phrase from the
432
United States; we intend to move with all deliberate speed. Those three words have equal value. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, reminded me that trade unionists in GCHQ properly served the national interest but were abused monstrously for that by having their rights to free association taken away. I underline the point he made about that being a human rights issue. There is no moderate change of pace there. We gave them back their rights. They were entitled to retake those rights. We shall not delay on that matter.
We shall not delay as regards the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights. There has been enough delay. Even in your Lordships' House 50 years allows for mature consideration. As I said earlier in answer to the Question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, we intend to issue the White Paper next week and to place the Bill before your Lordships as soon as possible. We have done away with the primary purpose rule in immigration. We have set up an asylum appeals tribunal in national security cases. Those areas were blemishes on our body politic and we have done away with them. As we promised in the manifesto, we have asked the people in Scotland and in Wales how they wish to be governed on a decentralised basis. In many ways I regard highly the way in which we have organised ourselves in this country. Part of my purpose is to improve that organisation, not to diminish it. We have suffered from centralised state control in a way which crept up on us. We hardly noticed that. The noble Lord, Lord Dean, is absolutely right. Enormous constructions of local government which existed at the end of the 19th century were destroyed largely for ideological purposes. The freedom to act locally in financial terms according to the wishes of the local electorate has been substantially leached away.
One has to be careful if one complains too much about spin doctors with regard to the press and if one complains that politicians ask themselves how a measure will fare with the voters. One must be careful because we represent the voters. The voters are the people who put us in a position to serve. The voters can withdraw their mandate at any time. It is tempting for someone to say that a policy is populist simply because many other people agree with it but he does not. One needs to be cautious about thinking that simply because a large number of people want something that one disagrees with, it is automatically wrong. The levers of power are with us at the moment. I think it was the Tammany Hall politician who said that when one has hold of levers of power one should be sure to pull them. I omit some expletives!
The Prime Minister has made it perfectly plain that he is alert to this matter. We have a large majority in the Commons. However, I assure your Lordships that certainly in the Home Office time and again Ministers have said, "This could be pushed through; we ought not to do it". I believe that a decent respect for other people's opinions is not only morally right, it is politically efficacious. Therefore one has the penny and the bun. That is a lifelong ambition of mine which I hope to see translated into practice.

433
The noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, asked about the ECHR. The purpose of having those rights in writing is that we believe that structural mechanisms are valuable. First of all they inform the citizen of what he or she is entitled to. Secondly, they form a basis for obtaining remedies in the domestic jurisdiction. It is shameful that people have to wait year after year and apply to Strasbourg when they could be accommodated here. What is equally important is that when governments know that written rights are incorporated in domestic legislation, that informs the mind and disciplines political policy and political action. When Bills are put before your Lordships' House or another place a Minister may be asked whether he is able to certify that a measure is in conformity with the incorporated ECHR, in the same way as now we have financial memoranda which are sometimes of value and sometimes not.
I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said. If I had a day and a half to reply, or at least an hour and a half, I could not do justice to this subject. All I can do is to assure your Lordships that the Government are embarked on a venture which we hope will change the political landscape of our country forever. The changes we are embarked upon are equivalent to the changes that were introduced in the context of the National Health Service after 1945. Nothing will ever be the same again. That means that over-powerful governments will be subject to check. I do not make a partisan point as regards my next point as I believe that it would be ignoble to do so. If the Conservative Party wholeheartedly joins in the election, the assembly in Wales is likely to produce a result
434
whereby of the 60 assembly members 12 will be Conservative; that is, 20 per cent. At the previous general election the Conservative Party in Wales gained 20 per cent. of the vote but no MPs. I do not think one could level the criticism that this Government are being selfish or exclusive. We want the Conservative Party to stand and we want Plaid Cymru to stand. We want all minorities to be decently represented.
Twelve minutes have passed. I am sorry that I cannot deal with further points. It is true that in our society discrimination against women and against ethnic and other minorities is endemic. There is no point in pretending the opposite. There is a long way to go as regards the Armed Forces. Dr. Reid and the CRE have made a start. There is a long way to go with the police. Sir Paul Condon and his predecessor have made a noble start with regard to the police. We know that things are wrong. We know that there are things wrong with this House. Perhaps I am becoming colour blind but I do not see enormous numbers of women and I do not see many ethnic minorities represented here either. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, and your Lordships who have contributed to the debate. All of us who sit in this House whether on the Opposition Benches, the Liberal Democrat Benches or the Government Benches, are enormously privileged to do so. We are privileged and we must seek to do the right thing.

Hailsham Cattle Market Bill [H.L.]
Bill withdrawn.
House adjourned at nine minutes past six o'clock.