Lords Sitting of 27 October 1997

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

Lord Morris of Manchester
The Right Honourable Alfred Morris, having been created Baron Morris of Manchester, of Manchester in the County of Greater Manchester, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Rix and the Lord Ashley of Stoke.
Lord Garel-Jones
The Right Honourable William Armand Thomas Tristan Garel-Jones, having been created Baron Garel-Jones, of Watford in the County of Hertfordshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Viscount Cranborne and the Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
Clive Brooke, Esquire, having been created Baron Brooke of Alverthorpe, of Alverthorpe in the County of West Yorkshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Gladwin of Clee and the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.
Lord Hardinge of Penshurst—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
2.50 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will request that the United Nations Conference on the Environment undertakes a comparative analysis of the various risks, nuclear, environmental and other, facing humankind with a view to the formulation of international policies calculated to give world civilisation the best possible chance of surviving.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, better known as the Rio Earth Summit, agreed a comprehensive blueprint known as Agenda 21 designed to achieve worldwide sustainable development. In June in New York a special session of the United Nations adopted a programme of action for the next five years with the aim of accelerating the implementation of Agenda 21. This was based on a
876
detailed analysis by the UN system of progress made since Rio and the challenges facing the world, including in areas of particular interest to my noble friend such as radioactive waste.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that Answer which is, frankly, more encouraging than I had expected. However, we are here, as the gracious Writ which has recently been read draws to our attention, to consider the difficulties and dangers of current affairs. That is precisely what this Question and the Answer of my noble friend address. I hope that my noble friend will consider my next point. I am aware, of course, of some of the work which has been done, but so far I believe there has been no attempt to make a comparative analysis. I recognise the difficulty of that, but it is important that such a thing should be attempted. I hope that my noble friend will be able to assure us that such an attempt is not beyond the range of the United Nations conference.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in my reply to my noble friend I mentioned that a detailed analysis by the UN system has already taken place. We share my noble friend's concern with regard to the importance of the UK commitment to environmental protection. Therefore the Government have identified Agenda 21 as one of the main vehicles for achieving that protection. The Prime Minister made it clear in New York that we must bring international, national and domestic agencies into play.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if the objective of sound environmental management for the world community as a whole is to be achieved it will be essential that the countries of the developing world and third world play their part? For that to be possible, does my noble friend agree that it will be essential to ensure a transfer of resources to the third world to enable it to introduce environmentally friendly policies? Will she assure the House that significance will be attributed to this crucial issue in the forthcoming White Paper on development?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, proposals have been made with regard to following up discussions held at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting which has just concluded in Edinburgh. The matter that the noble Lord mentioned was discussed in some detail. The Edinburgh Commonwealth economic declaration contains a strong and clear message on the environment. Heads of Government stressed that it is incumbent upon the global community to strengthen co-operation on sustainable development. They underlined the need for a successful outcome of the forthcoming Kyoto conference. Commonwealth Heads of Government also discussed the importance of working to halve the proportion of people in extreme poverty by the year 2015, and to seek to reverse the decline in

877
development assistance, recognising the role of the ODA as an essential instrument of partnership for promoting development and for poverty reduction.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the increasing concern of research scientists who find that endocrine disruptors, for example, DDT and its breakdown products, pthalates, PCBs and organochlorine pesticides, cause tremendous trouble because they pass to the foetus through the placenta and to new born babies through breast milk? They cause reproductive problems and cancer in the reproductive organs of both males and females. This is a worldwide problem. Will Her Majesty's Government consider asking the multinational chemical companies to fund research to make sure that their products are safe and do not have long-term effects on the reproductive systems of the human race?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank the noble Countess for that question. As regards approaching international companies with a view to establishing specific research, I prefer to write to the noble Countess with details of work that is being done and approaches that could be followed in the future. The Government have analysed risks as regards endocrine disruptive products. We are taking a leading role in international activities to evaluate the risks of such endocrine disruptors. If serious risks to people or to wildlife are identified, precautionary action will be taken at an early stage.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, does the Minister agree that given the previous government's undertakings on nuclear and environmental issues, including the negotiation of the comprehensive test ban treaty and the preparation of a detailed strategy for meeting our Rio commitments, Britain is in a unique position to lead the world by example in developing sustainable development policies? How does the Minister intend to encourage the United States to follow suit?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is obviously extremely important to the Government to work in co-operation with all other countries. I am having trouble reading my brief as I am unable to see without my glasses. I shall try to find the appropriate response. I apologise for that. I shall write to the noble Lord. The US recognition that this issue must be addressed is welcome. We are pleased that the US has now put a proposal on the table for the Kyoto conference. The real negotiations can now start. Obviously we should like the US to do more, but it has made a welcome first step. Both the UK and the EU have welcomed the stance of the US. We shall encourage it to seek to meet the EU target with regard to a 15 per cent. reduction in CO2 emissions by the year 2010.

Nuclear Warheads
2.59 p.m.
Lord Carver Lord Carver asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many nuclear warheads they have at present and how many they propose to maintain when the planned Trident fleet is complete.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, I am withholding the information concerning current nuclear warhead numbers under exemption 1 of the code of practice on access to government information relating to defence, security and international relations. Our future deterrence requirements, including warhead numbers, are being examined in the Strategic Defence Review.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that singularly uninformative reply. Can he explain to the House what the effect, if any, would be on the deterrent value which the Government attach to these weapons of publishing their numbers, as was recommended in 1993 by his right honourable friend who is now the Foreign Secretary, and is favoured, I believe, by the Council for Arms Control of which the noble Lord himself is a trustee?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am obliged, as ever, to the noble and gallant Lord for pointing out that the information I failed to give the House was identical to the kind that he would have briefed Ministers to give in his period of distinguished service as Chief of Defence Staff.
Precisely the questions to which he has referred are being considered in the defence review: that is, whether or not we shall be in a position to give more information along the lines the noble and gallant Lord requires.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, is the Minister aware that any increase in the number of warheads will have a deleterious effect on the remainder of the defence budget? Will he please consider whether this money would be better spent elsewhere within the defence budget?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no proposals for increasing the warhead numbers which were announced by the previous government.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister inform the House what percentage of defence expenditure is attributable to the Trident programme and whether he regards it as good value for money?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, when "Vengeance" is rolled out and becomes fully operational—it should be rolled out in the middle of next year—the annual operating costs of the Trident system will be probably of the order of £200 million, which is rather less than 1 per cent. of the total defence budget. Bearing in mind

879
that Trident will then be performing the role that used also to be performed by the WE-177 bombs, I regard it as excellent value for money.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the greatest issues facing us all is that of proliferation; and that it is essential for the future of humanity that we win more convincing and positive support for the non-proliferation treaty? In that context, while many of us have nothing but full support for the Government's general policy in this sphere, will my noble friend therefore agree that it is crucial to demonstrate to the world that we shall deploy on Trident no more missiles and no more warheads than is absolutely essential for the policy we have enunciated?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I have no difficulty in giving my noble friend precisely the assurances he requests. As I pointed out a few moments ago, with the elimination of the WE-177 free-fall bombs, Trident will be performing both a strategic and sub-strategic role. Therefore we are gaining two assets, as it were, for the price of one.
I should also like to say this to my noble friend. It is equally important that we try to do something about the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction in addition to that of nuclear warheads.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, in the light of the noble Lord's request to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, that he await the defence review, will the Minister please tell the House the purpose of the two-day debate on defence being held today in another place and the debate in this House next week? We find ourselves in some difficulty since we do not know what will be in the defence review.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his appointment to his new position. I look forward to jousting with him for many months in our respective positions.
As I am sure the noble Lord realises, the Strategic Defence Review has two parts. The first part is virtually concluded and I must not anticipate the remarks of my right honourable friend in another place. The first part was Foreign Office led and related to discussions about the roles and responsibilities which we think it appropriate for this country to assume for the next 20 or so years ahead.
The second part relates to the assets necessary to fulfil those responsibilities and the resources necessary to procure those assets.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether the £200 million running costs include the amortisation of the capital cost of Trident?
880
Will he also say whether it will be possible for Trident to be used independently—that is, independent of the United States satellite guidance systems?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question is unambiguously yes.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, with great respect, I think that we should move on to the third question, in particular as my noble friend has had one bite at this cherry this afternoon.

National Health Service: Integrated Healthcare
3.5 p.m.
Baroness Rawlingsasked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to promote integrated healthcare in the National Health Service over the next four and a half years.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, there are several different definitions of integrated healthcare. However, I believe that the noble Baroness refers to the publication of a document entitled Integrated Health Care—The Way Forward for the Next Five Years? produced by the Foundation for Integrated Medicine. It was launched by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales at a lecture last week which both the noble Baroness and I attended. The Government welcome the publication. We shall be considering the report in great detail and with great care. Department of Health officials are arranging meetings with its main authors to discuss the detailed proposals.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her helpful Answer. What proposals have Her Majesty's Government for establishing relevant centres for integrated healthcare?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will be aware, at this stage the report is a discussion document with no special policy indications within it. As I said in my Answer to her Question, we are discussing all the issues carefully. We shall look at the ways in which some of the healthcare suggested by the report could best be offered. My colleague, Professor Swales, who is the director of research at the Department of Health, will be meeting Professor Stephen Holgate, the main author of the research issues contained in the report, within the next few weeks.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, is the Minister aware that more and more general practitioners are now referring patients with skeletal and locomotor disorders to osteopaths and chiropractors, especially in the light

881
of the comprehensive training programmes and the rigid control of qualifications which now exist in those professions with statutory regulation? It is now possible for general practitioners who are fundholders to cover the costs of such referrals. Is it the Government's policy that a similar facility will be available to GPs who will be involved in commissioning in the future?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord for the great help he has given to successive governments precisely in the area of appropriate regulation in these complementary therapies. Yes, indeed, our plans to reform the internal market, which will place greater emphasis on local co-operation and participation in the commissioning of healthcare, should make those services more responsive to patients' needs and wishes. The fact that it was exclusively patients of individual fundholders who benefited in some places from the offer of complementary therapy was not considered satisfactory. We wish to broaden that.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in view of the variety of definitions of integrated healthcare, will the Minister confirm whether her department is looking at the American model of integrated healthcare? It combines disease management and pharmaceutical benefits management and is leading to a number of innovative healthcare solutions.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for providing another definition. One could also say that integrated healthcare might be health and social care. Indeed, the American model of disease management is of great interest. It is something that the Department of Health is looking at.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, with the problem of antibiotics becoming resistant to various infections, what research is being undertaken on alternatives to antibiotics?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Baroness on the detail in answer to her question as regards complementary alternatives to antibiotics. However, the provision of alternative therapies, or integrated healthcare to use the term of this Question, is a matter that many practitioners have been considering.
Earl Howe: My Lords, what is the Government's policy on the question as to whether there should be statutory self-regulating bodies to oversee the professions which specialise in complementary therapy?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, mentioned, there are statutory regulations for a certain number of therapies. The question of trying to identify the precise regulation needed for others is under consideration. The noble Earl may be interested to know that a recent report on this matter by the Department of Health indicated 143
882
registering or umbrella bodies covering 14 major complementary and alternative medical disciplines. To extend that number through individual statute would be a very extensive exercise indeed. The encouraging point was that most self-regulation did seem to be working; less encouraging was the indication that standards were somewhat diverse and public accountability patchy. It is a matter that we must continue to address.

Jobseekers Act: Benefit Sanctions
3.10 p.m.
Earl Russellasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the operation of sanctions under the Jobseekers Act.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the Government believe that unemployed people have both rights and responsibilities. We are offering a wide range of quality help to people to find work. But it is a long-standing principle that benefit sanctions are imposed if people unreasonably cause or prolong their own unemployment. We are evaluating the jobseeker's allowance, including people's experience and perception of benefit sanctions, and we shall keep all the benefit rules under active consideration as we develop our Welfare to Work plans.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. She referred to people unreasonably prolonging their own unemployment. Perhaps I may direct her attention to some cases in the NACAB report, Benefit and Work. People left jobs, for example, in a wine bar where a woman had been three times assaulted; driving a heavy goods vehicle which was unsafe; a man suffering from angina who left heavy work which was giving him heart attacks; and a pregnant woman leaving a job where she was regularly lifting heavy boxes. These examples carry disqualification from benefit up to 26 weeks. Does the Minister believe that those people were unreasonably prolonging their unemployment?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I cannot comment on those individual cases. On the face of it, I should have thought that they were not unreasonably prolonging their unemployment. As the noble Earl is aware, there is a procedure for appeal involving an adjudicator. Those sound like cases where that procedure ought to have been used.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I certainly accept her strictures as to the tightening up of disciplinary procedures? There was widespread agreement that they possibly needed tightening. According to the report mentioned by the noble Earl, which I have read, in practice citizens advice bureaux and other voluntary organisations have plenty of evidence to suggest that benefit officials take a tough line and are unwilling, unless pressed by independent advisers, to apply the concessions allowed by the rules.

883
The report gives ample evidence and a number of examples. I am particularly concerned about the rules that cater for unemployed people with health problems or disabilities. Such people are allowed to place restrictions on their availability for work—for example, on the number of hours that they can work or the types of work that they are able to do. It does not matter that the effect of the restrictions is that a person is extremely unlikely to find a suitable job, provided that the restrictions are reasonable in the light of a person's physical or mental condition. Yet the report is full of examples of people who have been rejected although they fulfil the conditions. Will the noble Baroness give an assurance that the Government will take account in their review of the examples in the reports issued by the citizens advice bureaux and return with reasonable suggestions and proposals that would be more acceptable to people in those unfortunate circumstances?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords. It is extremely important that the Government take seriously a report of this kind and examine the examples that it provides. The Government are undertaking an evaluation of JSA and of the sanctions regime established under the Act. A piece of research is being undertaken by the Centre for Research and Social Policy based at Loughborough University. The post-JSA element of that study is starting this autumn and the report should be published some time next summer.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government, when in Opposition, were never supportive of sanctions and penalties for people who were prolonging their own unemployment. Therefore we welcome the Government's present policy in this area. How many young people up to the age of 25 are now out of work? Secondly, do the Government have any plans for changing the way in which they count those people as unemployed?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome that the noble Baroness gives to the Government's policy in this area. However, her question on the numbers of unemployed young people is rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I will write to the noble Baroness and give her the precise, up-to-date figure. It changes every day of the week and I do not have it before me.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is widespread concern that jobcentres are not doing their job or are doing it in a heavy-handed fashion? What action will her department take to ensure that the inspectors monitor the work of those employed in jobcentres?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am not in fact aware that jobcentres are not doing their job. They have an extremely important responsibility. To my knowledge, those who work in jobcentres carry out their difficult task to the best of their ability and with great commitment. It is always important to monitor and
884
evaluate the work of any government agency. The Government are doing so and take the matter very seriously. Where failures occur, we will immediately do our best to rectify them.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in reply to my first supplementary question the Minister invoked the right of appeal. Is she aware that under the Jobseekers Act no benefit is paid pending an appeal? Does she agree with the view expressed by her noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham in the previous Parliament that that denial is fundamentally unjust?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am perfectly aware that until an adjudicator has examined the issues, no benefit is paid. However, the important point is that there should be no delay in adjudicators undertaking this work. Again, the Government are committed to ensuring that that will not happen.

Business
3.17 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on economic and monetary union. I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement following the end of the Minister's initial reply to the Opposition spokesmen should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. There is a mandatory limit of 20 minutes from the end of the Minister's initial reply to the Opposition spokesmen.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move that the first report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be agreed to.
Moved, That the first report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 28).—.(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. The Ceremony of Introduction
The Committee has agreed that there should be an examination into the possibility of making changes to the ceremony on the introduction of peers into the House. The Committee believes that the proper way of proceeding is for the Leader of the House to table a Motion for an Humble Address to Her Majesty the Queen praying that Her Majesty place Her prerogative and interest at the disposal of the House for the purpose of considering alterations to the introduction ceremony. A debate on this Motion (and a vote, if desired) will give the House the opportunity to express its views.
The Committee was informed that it had been agreed through the usual channels that, on those Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays when three introductions were scheduled to take place, the House would sit at 2.15 p.m. Meetings of the House at 2.15 p.m. for introductions are well precedented.
2. Implications For The Lords of The Commons Select Committee on Modernisation
The Committee took note of proposals made by the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons (HC 190 & 191) and agreed to consider at the appropriate time whether it would be desirable to make any consequential changes to Lords procedure.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Ceremony of Introduction
3.18 p.m.
Lord Richard Lord Richard: rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty that she will be graciously pleased to place her prerogative and interest so far as they may be concerned at the disposal of the House of Lords for the purpose of the consideration of alterations in the ceremony of introduction.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is with a certain degree of anticipation that I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I feel a little unsure of what to expect from the List of Speakers in this debate but I do know one thing: that this House takes it traditions and procedures very seriously indeed. I am therefore prepared for nothing less than a full and thorough debate. I hope that this Motion will provide the House with an opportunity for all those interested to make their views known on this important, if arcane, subject.
I should like to begin with a few words about the Motion before the House today. It is not a Motion to change the procedure for the ceremony of introduction; it is a technical Motion asking Her Majesty to allow the consideration of changes. As the ceremony of introduction is principally a matter for the Sovereign and not for the House—a topic to which I shall return later—technically the House needs to agree the Motion and receive Her Majesty's reply before we can even begin to consider options for change. However, perhaps I should say that that does not preclude a full debate this afternoon.
I am sure that the House will expect me to give some indication of the changes I have in mind to propose in due course if this Motion is agreed and I shall not disappoint your Lordships in that. It is, however, my clear understanding, on advice, that our procedures cater for this: although the House cannot formally consider changes to the ceremony until Her Majesty has given her permission, that does not preclude individuals from expressing their opinions and exploring ideas today. Indeed, we could hardly debate whether an humble Address was needed without discussing the reasons why.
I should also add that I am aware that some might question—indeed some have questioned—the propriety of the procedure committee having produced the report that the House has just accepted in advance of the House's agreeing to my Motion today. It would have been possible for me to have just tabled this Motion after discussion with the usual channels, but I considered it important to obtain the blessing of the
886
procedure committee before even tabling today's Motion. That also had the advantage of enabling various background papers to be made available to the House. I hope that the House will agree that that was the most sensible and courteous way for us to proceed.
Perhaps I may make one further procedural point before coming to the substance of the Motion. If the Motion is agreed to and Her Majesty gives her consent, there are a number of procedures which could then be followed to take forward the will of the House. The procedure committee could, for example, consider the ceremony itself, or perhaps a special Select Committee could be appointed. No discussions have yet taken place within the usual channels on this question, but I hope that noble Lords who have views on how we might proceed if the Motion is accepted will make them known during the debate.
I should now like to look at the ceremony itself. In this context I should say at the outset that I am not in favour of the most radical change of all: doing away with the ceremony entirely and requiring life Peers to go through no greater formality than is now observed by the hereditary occupants of our Benches when they succeed to their seats—namely, taking the oath and signing the roll. I am not in favour of what I call that most radical option because I recognise that, for those Peers for whom their new title is an honour personally bestowed, the day on which they first sit in your Lordships' House is a great occasion, for the Peer, their family and friends. A ceremonial introduction is a part of that sense of occasion and is a moment of significance for the House. I accordingly believe that an appropriate ceremony should be retained.
I suggest, however, that the present ceremony is no longer entirely appropriate. Some of its components no longer carry any meaning in the House and make even less sense to the public. It is also too long. It seems to me that an appropriate ceremony should meet three aims: first, it should provide a proper and public introduction of a new Peer to the rest of the House; secondly, it should be dignified and in accordance with the traditions of the House; and, thirdly, it should be conducted in a manner which does not lead to boredom in the House and disdain for our procedures. I do not believe that the present ceremony meets those aims.
There can be no doubt that the ceremony does provide a public introduction for a new Peer and for that reason I am in favour of retaining a ceremonial that takes place in the Chamber of the House rather than behind some beautifully gilded but firmly closed doors.
In one sense one could argue that the ceremony is in accordance with the traditions of the House, since it has been largely unaltered since 1621; but I suggest that longevity is not an entirely convincing justification. All traditions begin somewhere and the present ceremony was imposed upon the House by James I. He regularly created new Peers without ceremony. Indeed, he created peerages at an unprecedented rate in return for the large sums of money that he could secure for a peerage.
It may be that the King had become embarrassed at his involvement under those circumstances in personal investitures such as his predecessors had for centuries

887
carried out. Whatever the reason, it was in the course of the year 1621 that the new ceremony was devised and imposed upon the House, perhaps as an assertion of authority by the new Earl Marshal appointed that year, whose successor, I am delighted to say, will speak later in the debate. The House had then not sat for six years and was not involved in the formulation of the new ceremonial. It was presented with a ceremony which was largely an amalgamation of the procedures which the Sovereign had carried out at investitures—which took place sometimes, but not always, in Parliament—together with the previous procedures of the Lords for receiving a Baron by Writ. Hence, in looking to preserve the best of our traditions, as I accept that we should, we must not lose sight of where they originated—in the particular circumstances of a particular Sovereign over 300 years ago.
Nor should we lose sight of the fact that this ceremonial is not strictly part of our procedures at all, nor were the procedures used before the arrival of the present ceremony in 1621. Strictly speaking, introduction ceremonies have never been part of the proceedings of this House.
Hence in saying that I agree with the need to keep in touch with tradition, I stress that we need always to be aware of what our traditions mean. Furthermore, there is another perspective on such matters, one looking to the future rather than to the past. The lifetime of this Parliament will extend into the 21st century and, however those in some parts of the House feel about it, change is in the air. I ask the whole House to consider carefully whether a ceremonial of this kind fits as it stands with the kind of efficient and businesslike working second Chamber that we aim for or indeed with the well known dictum of many, particularly on the other side of the House, that the House of Lords "works". It may work, but does it not sometimes also creak under the weight of unquestioned tradition and accumulated precedent? I also believe that the dignity of an occasion such as an introduction is bound to suffer if repeated at length and ad nauseam.
As far back as the 1960s, when options for reform of the ceremony were discussed, there was a feeling that the ceremony had become repetitive and that the House was becoming bored with it. The fact that the House is never full for introductions also indicates to me that Peers in general may not be particularly keen on this ceremony and that the wishes of the House as a whole should be considered—the wishes of those who do not come to see it as well as those who do. There are certain elements of the ceremony which may seem somewhat ridiculous to the general public and are indeed awkward for many of those who have to undergo it.
If I may set out my own personal stall for a moment, I believe that a public ceremony, in accordance with tradition but appropriate for the present, would include supporters, robes to give a sense of dignity, the reading of either the Patent or the Writ and the handshake with the Lord Chancellor to the acclamation of the whole House. I might add that Peers by descent receive a similar Writ which is not read, but I do not consider that
888
the placing of a new Peer and the accompanying doffing of somewhat difficult and ancient hats serves any modern purpose whatever.
Indeed, the placing could be argued to be divisive and out of accord with the spirit of the House that all Peers are equal. It also reflects a time in your Lordships' House, long since gone, when Peers were arranged geographically in the Chamber in ermined ranks according to their degrees of peerage. Only a few vestiges of that practice remain. Accordingly, I believe that the placing of Peers on introduction should now be omitted from the introduction ceremony.
The doffing of hats too seems to be somewhat unnecessary. Its purpose was, perhaps, to reveal a Peer's face. Yet, for most of the ceremony now, Peers are hatless—male Peers are hatless anyway—and wholly visible. On a purely practical note, the corner of the Chamber in which the new Peer is placed is not exactly in easy sight of everyone present. If I may digress for a moment, that is yet another area where the procedures for hereditary Peers have become less onerous than those established for Life Peers. In the 16th century, Garter regularly "placed" all new Peers, whether by succession or on creation. The hereditary Peers have long since escaped that particular tradition.
I understand that many years ago Garter used to receive a fee for the placing of Peers, whether by succession or on creation. In that respect, I am very grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for drawing my attention to a monograph on the introduction of Peers in the House of Lords written by Sir Anthony Wagner in 1967. As I am sure the House will know, the powers, duties, advantages and fees payable to Garter were set out in a tract of the late 14th century or early 15th century, which survives in a number of copies, entitled: Jura debita et largitates appertinentes de antiqua consuetudine Armorum Officialibus secundum morem et consuetudinem Angliae. Your Lordships may feel that that needs translation into a more modern language. In Norman French it reads: Ces sont les Droiz et largesces appartenant et d'aunciennete accoustumez aux Roys d'Armes selon l'usance du Angleterre.
Why did it change? I fear that I have to tell your Lordships that, yet again, money seems to have played a part. Again, I am grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the monograph in question. It seems that when the new ceremony was devised, Garter, the Clerk of Parliaments and possibly other officers were accorded specific fees in connection with it on condition that they abandoned the fees that they had previously received on the first entry of Peers coming in by descent.
So there is nothing particularly moral or indeed particularly honourable about the fact that doffing of hats takes place on the introduction only of Life Peers. It would seem that in 1621 it was felt that repetition of the ceremony would clearly be so great after the number of Peers that James I had created that better and more proper arrangements for the payment of the Heralds were necessary; and so it took place.
Perhaps I may just make one other remark about that matter. It seems to me that, if the object of the introduction is that a new Peer should be introduced to

889
the House, so far as I personally am concerned, I frequently know the Life Peers who are coming in rather better than I know the new hereditary Peers coming in by succession. When I made that point to an hereditary Peer the other day and questioned why there was such a great difference, I am afraid that the only answer I received was "Well, of course, we all know them.". My Lords, we do not. If the object is recognition and presentation of the Peer to his or her peers in this House, it should apply either equally or not at all.
I have said much about tradition and the need for change but I have not yet said anything about the question of time. There can be no doubt that introduction ceremonies absorb the prime time of the House at the start of the day, when Peers are looking to get on with important business. The House has recently given careful consideration to a number of aspects of its procedures, with a view to improving time management. But this ancient ceremony has remained unscrutinised. That is another reason why I hope that the House will agree to this Motion today: so that those questions of timing can be examined. I am also conscious that our procedures allow Peers to take their seats only slowly, spread over a number of weeks after announcement. A number of those who have been summoned by Her Majesty to be "personally present" to give counsel "waiving all excuses" are still unable to do so because they are in a queue to take their seats. I assume that that is acceptable as an excuse that cannot be waived; if so, it seems to be a little extreme. I do not believe that the present lengthy wait is appropriate or in accordance with the dignity that a peerage confers.
Let me deal with one argument that I have heard; namely, that this is all a put-up job and a ploy by the incoming Labour Administration, so that it can flood the House with Labour Peers. The present composition of this House is that on these Benches there are approximately, even with all the newcomers, 148 or 149 Labour Peers. The composition on the other side is that there are now no fewer than 498 or maybe 499 Peers, life and hereditary, to take the Conservative Whip. Flood, my Lords? It would need a deluge—and all I am looking for is a trickle. But even leaving aside that kind of watery simile for a moment, it seems to me that a situation in which somebody is made a Peer and then has to queue up because of the details of the ceremonial is frankly absurd and we ought to examine it. While I accept the need for the House to spend some time on the introduction of each new Peer, I do not consider that the current delay before introduction is right or makes sense.
Therefore, I believe that the time has come for the ceremony to be considered. We need a dignified ceremony with real meaning, which combines the strength of tradition with the needs of a modern legislature. But all I seek today is the agreement of the House that the process of consideration should begin. Passing this Motion today will not commit the House to change—I wish that it would do so, but it does not—but merely provides the first of the formal mechanisms required. If the Motion is agreed, the House will have
890
ample and proper opportunities to give its views and accept or reject any change proposed in due course. I commend the Motion to the House.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty that she will be graciously pleased to place her prerogative and interest so far as they may be concerned at the disposal of the House of Lords for the purpose of the consideration of alterations in the ceremony of introduction.—(Lord Richard.)
3.37 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, it is my entire good fortune that by sheer happenstance I have this very day taken part as one of the supporters of a new Peer. That circumstance has enabled me to have experienced in the laboratory of reality the nature of the ceremony which I myself underwent only some six years ago.
One of the emotions that assailed me when I followed Garter and Black Rod in all their glory into your Lordships' House was the feeling that man is clearly not a rational beast. Your Lordships will perhaps be more aware than most of the justice of that observation. It seems that man still has a need for ceremony, just as he always has. Before any noble Baronesses in the House rise in protest, let me say that I use the word "man" in the sense of mankind.
I must observe also that even the most revolutionary promoters of man as a rational being recognised that underlying emotional need. One only needs witness what in all conscience one can only call the absurd rituals invented by the holders of the most extreme opinions of the first French Revolution, or, indeed, occasionally the Soviet regime at its most dreary and depressing, to realise that regimes which were supposed to be based entirely on the rationality of man saw that there was a gap which their rational opinions could not fill. I have to observe that, in general, self-consciously modern—dare I say "new"—regimes are at least as vulnerable to the temptation to invent new and modern ceremonies (as I am told the Scots found this week), as are anciens régimes of the most dyed in the wool kind.
Most ceremonials, unlike the ceremonials of the French Revolution, grow up through happenstance, through muddle and, as the Lord Privy Seal pointed out this afternoon, even through the idleness of kings. As he said, our own introduction ceremony is one such, since it in part originates from the reluctance of James I and VI to confront directly the consequences of his mass sale of peerages to fund his personal extravagances.
Some ceremonies have been refined or even re-invented in modern times, often to their and our advantage. I am told by those who know more of this than I that much of our admired present day ceremonial was invented by King Edward VII. We have certainly become better at it in the 20th century, as anyone who has read accounts of the coronation of George IV and Queen Victoria can testify.
But well performed or ill, rational or irrational, symbolically clear or muddled by the accretions of time, we have a need for ceremonial to mark occasions of significance. It is for that reason that the House is right to hold a ceremony of introduction for a new peerage;

891
indeed, I wholly agreed with the sentiments expressed by the Lord Privy Seal, at least in that respect. I underline the use of the word "peerage" as opposed to the use of the word "Peer". A peerage in the present House of Lords is the institution rather than the Peer himself or herself, whether life or hereditary. However, I would be insulting the House if I did not acknowledge that many noble Lords individually qualify, certainly in the public mind, as institutions in their own right.
To that extent I agree with the Lord Privy Seal. The question therefore is not whether we should have an introduction ceremony at all—it is clear from what the Lord Privy Seal said that we should—rather, it is whether the present ceremony is dignified or appropriate. The Lord Privy Seal feels that it is not. I know that that view is expressed both inside and outside your Lordships' House; I have even heard the adjective "Gilbertian" applied to some of our proceedings. It is because there are differing views and because those views are being expressed on both sides increasingly forcefully—perhaps as a result of the prevailing atmosphere of change to which the Lord Privy Seal referred—that we should be grateful to him for proposing the Motion we are now discussing.
I confess that I have a greater affection for ceremony than our almost aggressively casual age will allow, at least in our national life. I also enjoy, perhaps rather more than the Lord Privy Seal, the quirks that usage and forgotten symbolism insert into some of our national ceremonies. I note that affection for ceremonial is often a matter of fashion and, as anybody who has children will know, fashion is a pendulum which can swing unpredictably to and fro.
I note also that the present Government wish to abolish the hereditary peerage. It is the hereditary peerage whose existence justifies a large part of the ceremonial that affects not just this House of Parliament, but on occasion both Houses. A new utilitarian quango which would be the House that would emerge after phase one of the proposed government reforms would look even more ridiculous in socialists' eyes if it retained all of what they feel is the flummery of a hereditary peerage.
It is a little curious, therefore, that changing our existing ceremonies should assume such a high priority over changing our composition. In that context, I hope that the Government will not feel that I am being unduly impertinent if I make an entirely constructive suggestion. If the Government feel that the existing ceremony is absurd, then clearly they have an interest in preserving it in full in order to point out all the better, perhaps at the margins of their argument, that we are a ridiculous House and that that is a good example of our absurdity.
For both those reasons—one perhaps more serious than the other—I feel that the timing of this initiative is a little premature. It may be better to consider the ceremonial attaching to this House after the abolition of the hereditary peerage than before. Nevertheless, I am happy to recommend to the House that we should accept
892
the Motion. It gives us an opportunity to express our views, as the Lord Privy Seal pointed out, and, like him, I suspect that those views will be diverse. They will give any committee that emerges from our proceedings to consider the matter a suitably difficult task to perform in order to synthesise what it has heard and report back to the House as a whole in due course.
I am happy, if the House agrees, to leave the nature of the body which is to consider these matters to the usual channels. No doubt your Lordships will want to express views on the nature of the body concerned and I can undertake that the usual channels on this side of the House will listen carefully to the views expressed. Indeed, your Lordships may feel that a Select Committee rather than the Procedure Committee or a sub-committee of the Procedure Committee may be a suitable vehicle for such an inquiry. However, the usual channels will be wise to be guided by your Lordships' views.
There will be much temptation in the public prints tomorrow to poke fun at your Lordships' activities this afternoon. Nevertheless, this is a matter of importance to your Lordships' House, and, as the Lord Privy Seal said, to the public's view of this House. It is also a matter of importance to new Peers, their families and friends, for whom the day of introduction is a great day, often the culmination of a long and distinguished career.
In that context I say, with the greatest respect to the Lord Privy Seal, that I hope that any Select Committee—if that is the body that emerges to examine this question—will not worry too much about the length of the ceremony. There is a via media in all these matters. I am told that the average amount of time the present ceremony takes is around 12 minutes, and that perhaps is not such a long time during the daily proceedings of your Lordships' House—in normal times as opposed to the queue mentioned by the Lord Privy Seal during the course of his remarks this afternoon. It is a solemn and important occasion and certainly, sub specie aeternitatis, it seems to me that this is not something which need detain us too much, so long as we do not lengthen the ceremony.
With your Lordships' permission I should like to make just one or two further points. I want to refer to the 2.15 p.m. start and our practice since we reassembled after the summer to introduce three, and I believe on one occasion four, Peers on the same day.
The Lord Privy Seal: My Lords, three Peers and a bishop.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the Lord Privy Seal for correcting me; three Peers and a bishop. I thought a bishop was also a Peer but I may be wrong about that. In view of the queue that has built up, thanks to the extraordinarily unusual circumstances now obtaining in your Lordships' House—there are an unusual number of new creations awaiting introduction—that practice is clearly justified. However, I hope that when we return to what will perhaps be more normal conditions we shall be able to return to our previous practice. I understand that that is the Lord

893
Privy Seal's intention, and I welcome it. Equally, I hope that the House will reject the idea of a production line Friday. That would be a way of cheapening the ceremony as far as concerns the introduced Peer and, I suspect also, cheapening the dignity of your Lordships' House.
With the greatest respect to the Lord Privy Seal, I do not altogether believe that the very large number of Peers now being introduced has a great deal to do with the shortage of Labour Peers. Perhaps we are conflating two arguments. I hope the Lord Privy Seal remembers that I was one of those who greatly sympathised with his dilemma and indeed admired the extraordinary work rate and effectiveness of the Labour Peers in Opposition. He also knows that I strongly felt that he always had a powerful case for increasing the number of Peers at his back, perhaps at the expense of the number of Tory Peers that were introduced. The Lord Privy Seal will remember conversations that he and I had in private on that subject. I hope he will forgive me for referring to it but I am stung into doing so by his remarks earlier this afternoon.
I have given, perhaps rather elliptically, some of my personal views on this subject, but this afternoon's debate is, above all, an opportunity for your Lordships to express your opinions. It would be wise for both Front Benches to listen to what your Lordships have to say, to see whether clear themes emerge from the debate, to refer the matter to a body which might be set up with the agreement of the usual channels and then for the matter to be brought in the form of a Motion to your Lordships' House so that your Lordships can agree or disagree with what the usual channels recommend. In that context, I greatly look forward to hearing what is said in your Lordships' House this afternoon. Certainly, from the list of speakers, it will be an interesting and informative debate.
3.53 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Motion seeks to permit further discussion of the matter. It seems to me that the only reason for rejecting the Motion would be if there were nothing to discuss and no change was in contemplation. But even if the ceremony had been unchanging over the centuries, it could change now, coming up to a new century. However, according to the paper which the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, was so good as to draw to your Lordships' attention in the Procedure Committee and which I found so interesting, the ceremony has changed. The Leader of the House mentioned changes that have occurred. I could not help noticing that there was a custom, no longer applied, of paying a fee to Garter on one's way in.
I read in that paper, too, that a number of peerages have been created where no ceremony was involved. In other words, the ceremony has evolved and could, in my view, evolve further. I was struck as well—I say this perhaps against myself—in noting from the paper that there was a time when a Barony—a mere Barony—was not regarded as an honour, not being of such high status as other forms of peerage.
894
In the late years of this century there has been a change in how the peerage is regarded. Increasingly, it is coming to be regarded as a job; it is a task of work; a job to be done. I regard myself as very honoured in being in your Lordships' House but particularly honoured in being trusted with what I regard as a most important job of work. I accept that we women are, of course, something of a modern innovation, so perhaps my words are themselves untraditional. I admit that I did not have any words of criticism for the ceremony when I was introduced six years ago. I was too baffled to move on to any criticism. I am glad to note now, having taken part in ceremonies of introduction in support of colleagues, that there is rather more explanation as to what is happening during the ceremony. That is an entirely good thing.
The Leader of the House referred to the danger of public disdain for our procedures. That is what is mostly in my mind. Like the two noble Lords who have spoken, I believe that it is essential to preserve our dignity in whatever form of ceremony of introduction we end up with. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said that the ceremony had been referred to as Gilbertian. The comment that that is no one's fault but Gilbert's has an impeccable logic to it. Nevertheless, it is something we should have in our minds. We should seek to maintain dignity, or perhaps achieve a little more dignity than we are achieving at present and achieve an appropriate character for introductions to a part of the legislature in a modern legislative body.
Like the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, I believe that it is to some extent repetition that is in danger of undermining those two attributes. Like him, I agree that a production line Friday would be a bad idea. Inevitably, those are personal views. What mattered to me was coming in and taking the oath. The Letters Patent and the Writ were a necessary basis for that. Assuming that the robes are a mark of status, which is how they are regarded in the House and by those who look at us from outside—not that they are to indicate equality, as is the case with robing in other walks of life—I have to say that I rather dislike them. To those noble Lords who comment on doffing hats, I would say that it is far harder to keep a hat on one's head when bowing low, as we women Peers have to do, than it is to take it off.
However, those points are trivialities. What is most important is that there is a job to be done and, as has been observed, a Writ of Summons to be answered. The point made by the Leader of the House about delay in introducing those who have been appointed to take part in your Lordships' proceedings is a most important one. In a modern democracy, seeking to retain the best and improving the rest of the ceremonial is most important. I believe that the ceremony is at least worth full debate. There will be many different views as to possible changes. But, as I say, the only basis for refusing to agree to the Motion is if there is no argument at all for some change.
My views may be at one end of the spectrum. I have perhaps expressed them deliberately in a rather extreme fashion. However, there is a whole spectrum of views which deserves thorough discussion. I would urge your Lordships to support the Motion.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, in view of the number of your Lordships who wish to participate in this debate, I shall be very brief. I am relieved to hear that the Lord Privy Seal is not suggesting that Her Majesty should be asked to place her prerogative and interest at the disposal of this House for the abolition of the ceremony of introduction. It is, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said, a very great honour to be a Member of your Lordships' House and to be introduced for the first time.
I agree with what he said about the importance of ceremonies. I can think of three ceremonies in my life which made a deep impression on me. The first was in 1946 when two of our soldiers who had defected to the enemy came back to join the regiment, claiming that they had been fighting behind the lines for us. They were drummed out of the regiment. It was a very moving ceremony and it made a great mark on everyone who witnessed it. The second was when I was brought to the other place as the Speaker Elect, Mr. Weatherill, and went away as Mr. Speaker. Within a year they had forgotten my name completely. Mr. Ian Mikardo once introduced me to his constituents as Sir Jasper More. The third occasion was on 15th July 1995 when I was introduced into your Lordships' House.
I cannot speak for the Cross Benchers and neither would I presume to do so. Nevertheless, when we heard just before the Summer Recess that this matter was likely to come before your Lordships' House, we did have a discussion about it at our Thursday meeting. That was before I had read a most interesting paper on the origins of the introduction of Peers by Sir Anthony Wagner and Mr. J.C. Sainty, who later became the Clerk of the Parliaments. I know that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, will be drawing attention to that and I shall not trespass on it this afternoon.
I believe that there is perhaps a good case for leaving well alone, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has already said, because of the 50 new Peers who have recently, or who are about to join us. They will not be affected by the changes. Since the Lord Privy Seal has said that he is thinking of a "dribble" of new Peers into your Lordships' House rather than a flood, I believe that the matter could well be left until we come to the major matter—
Lord Richard: My Lords, I put it more elegantly than a "dribble". I said a "trickle".
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, it is much the same thing so let us call it a trickle then. I should have thought that the matter could have been left to when we come to discuss the major changes which, I understand, we are likely to have before us in the days to come.
If there is a case for speeding up the introduction, perhaps I may make three very modest suggestions. The first is that the Letters Patent and the Writ should be combined in order to save a small amount of time. Unlike the Lord Privy Seal, I am in favour of the ceremony of placing. That should be done from these Benches—actually from this Bench—rather than from
896
the usual third Bench, because, as I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, if one is on the Conservative Benches one has to crick one's neck to recognise them anyway. From this Bench it would be a simple matter. I am in favour of keeping the ceremony of doffing hats, but once rather than three times. On my estimate that would save about five minutes of the ceremony.
I would also be in favour of continuing the 2.15 p.m. start. As the noble Viscount Lord Cranborne has said, that would encourage fuller attendance in the Chamber. As I have said, the ceremony of introduction is a very significant one for Peers of first creation and for their families as well.
I end on a purely personal note. Your Lordships may not be aware that my Peerage is somewhat different from others, in that it arises from a Motion on the Order Paper of the House of Commons. All Motions there are debatable and this Motion was certainly debated because there are very few occasions where Members of the other place can debate the finances of the Royal Family. I have a dozen charming letters saying in effect, "No hard feelings, mate. We've got to seize our opportunities 'ere". And they did. So my Peerage came a little later than others who were created at that time.
In my modesty I thought that someone might write to me and suggest that it would be a good idea if I came and joined your Lordships but nothing happened. Eventually, my wife prodded me in to coming to see the Clerk of the Parliaments, who asked me if my Letters Patent had been published in the London Gazette. Most of us do not read the London Gazette. I just got in, I believe, the day before the Summer Recess. I remember saying then to the Clerk of the Parliaments, going back to my days in the Army, "Is it like being in the Army?" He said, "What do you mean by that?" I said, as some noble Lords may remember, "The Sergeant Major would say, 'Come on, get fell in. Them what's keen got fell in previous'". I believe that "them what's keen" were certainly "previous".
I end by saying that I hope that this ceremony will not be greatly changed other than with those modest suggestions that I have made. I would be very much in favour of the matter being considered by a Select Committee and then perhaps through the usual channels.

European Monetary Union
4.6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement which has been made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on European Monetary Union.
"Since the end of the Second World War Britain has faced no question more important and more contentious than that of our relationship with Europe.
"Divisions within governments of both parties, and hence indecision, have made British policy towards Europe, over many years, inconsistent and unclear.

897
"The economic consequences of these weaknesses have been a loss of international initiative and influence, recurrent instability and continuing questioning of our long-term economic direction.
"To break with this legacy, and to establish clear national purpose, which has eluded us for decades, economic leadership is essential, and Britain must now make the difficult decisions on Europe, however hard.
"The decision on a single currency is probably the most important this country is likely to face in our generation. Yet until now, there has been no detailed examination by government of the practical economic issues of EMU. There has been no proper preparation for a decision, because no previous government could agree on whether they supported it in principle, nor whether there was an overriding constitutional objection on grounds of sovereignty or not; nor whether, even if a single currency worked and worked well, the government would wish to be part of it. Forms of words like "keeping the option open"—while no preparations were ever made to render the option practicable—have similarly served as a pretext for postponing the hard choices.
"Now is the time to make these hard choices and set a long-term direction for our economic future in Europe.
"So I will deal, in turn, with the question of principle, the constitutional implications of EMU, and the economic tests that have to be met. In each area, I will set down the Government's policy.
"When we came into Government I asked the Treasury to carry out an assessment of the economic tests that have to be met. Accompanying my Statement is this comprehensive and detailed Treasury assessment which I am publishing today, copies of which are available in the Vote Office.
"I start with the question of principle. First, the potential benefits for Britain of a successful single currency are obvious: in terms of trade, transparency of costs and currency stability. Of course, I stress it must be soundly based. It must succeed. But if it works economically, it is, in our view, worth doing.
"So in principle, a successful single currency within a single European market would be of benefit to Europe and to Britain.
"Secondly, it must be clearly recognised that to share a common monetary policy with other states does represent a major pooling of economic sovereignty.
"There are those who argue that this should be a constitutional bar to British participation in a single currency, regardless of the economic benefits it could bring to the people of this country.
"In other words, they would rule out a single currency in principle, even if it were in the best economic interests of the country.
"That is an understandable objection and one argued from principle. But in our view it is wrong. If
898
a single currency would be good for British jobs, business and future prosperity, it is right, in principle, to join.
"The constitutional issue is a factor in the decision, but it is not an over-riding one; rather it signifies that in order for monetary union to be right for Britain the economic benefit should be clear and unambiguous.
"So I conclude on this question of principle: if, in the end, a single currency is successful, and the economic case is clear and unambiguous, then the Government believe Britain should be part of it.
"There is a third issue of principle—the consent of the British people. Because of the magnitude of the decision, we believe—again, as a matter of principle—that whenever the decision to enter is taken by government, it should be put to a referendum of the British people. So whenever this issue arises, under this Government there will be a referendum. Government, Parliament and the people must all agree.
"So we conclude that the determining factor as to whether Britain joins a single currency is the national economic interest and whether the economic case for doing so is clear and unambiguous.
"I now turn to the Treasury's detailed assessment of the five economic tests that define whether a clear and unambiguous case can be made. These are, first, whether there can be sustainable convergence between Britain and the economies of a single currency; secondly, whether there is sufficient flexibility to cope with economic change; thirdly, the effect on investment; fourthly, the impact on our financial services industry; and fifthly, whether it is good for employment.
"Of these, the first and most critical is convergence: can we be confident that the UK business cycle has converged with that of other European countries so that the British economy can have stability and prosperity with a common European monetary policy? That convergence must be capable of being sustained and likely to be sustained—in other words, we must demonstrate a settled period of convergence.
"Currently Britain's business cycle is out of line with our European partners. Interest rates here are 7 per cent. This is the level the Bank of England has set in order to achieve our inflation target. But in Germany and France interest rates are close to 3 per cent. Across the continent, because business cycles are more coincident, short-term interest rates have been converging for some time.
"This divergence of economic cycles is, in part, a reflection of historic structural differences between the UK and other European economies, in particular the pattern of our trade and North Sea oil. These differences are becoming less distinct as trade with the rest of Europe grows and the single market deepens.
"But divergence is also a legacy of Britain's past susceptibility to boom and bust: the damaging boom of the late 1980s; the severe recession of the early

899
1990s; and the previous government's failure to raise interest rates early enough in the current economic cycle.
"Since coming into office, the Government have introduced long-term measures to ensure that we are capable of maintaining stability by giving operational responsibility for interest rates to the Bank of England and by implementing our deficit reduction plan for public borrowing.
"We will need a period of stability with continuing toughness on inflation and public borrowing. The Treasury's assessment is that, at present, the UK's economic cycle is not convergent with our European partners and that this divergence could continue for some time. To demonstrate sustainable convergence will take a period of years.
"I turn now to flexibility. To be successful in a monetary union, countries will need even more flexibility to adjust to change and to unexpected economic events once the ability of countries to vary their interest rates and exchange rates has gone and the euro and a single European interest rate are in place. Flexibility may be particularly important for the UK if there is any risk that our business cycle has not fully converged with those of the other EMU members.
"The Treasury assessment of the second test is that, in Britain, persistent long-term unemployment and lack of skills—and in some areas lack of competition—point to the need for more flexibility to adapt to change and to meet the new challenges of adjustment. The Government have begun to implement a programme for investing in education and training, helping people from welfare into work and improving the workings of our markets.
"Of course, other European countries need to tackle unemployment and inflexibility to make sure Europe as a whole is able to withstand any shocks that arise. The Government will continue to argue that employability, flexibility and stronger competition policies must be a top priority so that monetary union can be successful.
"The third test is investment: whether joining EMU would create better conditions for businesses to make long-term decisions to invest in Britain. The Treasury assessment is that, above all, business needs long-term economic stability and a well-functioning European single market. It concludes that membership of a successful single currency would help us to create the conditions for higher and more productive investment in Britain.
"But the worst case for investment would be for Britain to enter EMU without proper preparations and without sufficient convergence and with all the uncertainty that would entail.
"The fourth test asks what impact membership of the single currency would have on our financial services industry. EMU will affect that industry more profoundly and more immediately than any other sectors of the economy.
900
"The Treasury's assessment is that we can now be confident that the industry has the potential to thrive whether the UK is in or out of EMU, so long as it is properly prepared. But the benefits of new opportunities from a single currency could, however, be easier to tap from within the euro zone. This could help the City of London to strengthen its position as the leading financial centre in Europe.
"The fifth test relates to employment. For millions of people, the most practical question is whether membership of a successful single currency would be good for prosperity and jobs. The Treasury assessment is that our employment-creating measures, and welfare state reform, must accompany any move to a single currency. Ultimately, we conclude that whether a single currency is good for jobs in practice comes back to sustainable convergence. A successful single currency would provide far greater trade and business in Europe.
"The Treasury assessment is that in vital areas the economy is not yet ready for entry and that much remains to be done. The previous policy of keeping options open, without actively making preparations, has left parts of the economy unprepared.
"Our overall assessment is that Britain needs both a period for preparation and a settled period of sustainable convergence. Both require stability.
"Applying these five economic tests leads the Government to the following clear conclusions. British membership of a single currency in 1999 could not meet the tests and therefore is not in the country's economic interests. There is no proper convergence between the British and the other European economies now. To try to join now would be to accept a monetary policy which would suit other European economies but not our own. We will therefore be notifying our European partners, in accordance with the Maastricht Treaty, that we will not seek membership of the single currency on 1st January 1999.
"The issue then arises as to the period after 1st January 1999. We could simply leave the options open, as before, but with no clear direction either way for the rest of the Parliament. That would be politically easy but wrong.
"There would be instability, perpetual speculation about 'in or out', 'sooner or later', which would cause difficulties in the financial markets and for business and industry.
"It would make it harder to prepare for the possibility of a single currency because every step in preparation, every time the issue was discussed, would feed fresh bouts of speculation.
"It must be in the country's interest to have a stable framework within which to plan; and we are fortified in this because, on the economic tests we have set out, the practical difficulties of joining a single currency in this Parliament all point to the same conclusion.
"There is no need, legally, formally or politically, to renounce our option to join for the period between 1st January 1999 and the end of the Parliament, nor

901
would it be sensible to do so. There is no requirement under the treaty for this. What is more, no government can ever predict every set of economic circumstances that might arise.
"What we can and should do is to state a clear view about the practicability of joining monetary union during this period. Applying our economic tests, two things are clear. There is no realistic prospect of our having demonstrated, before the end of this Parliament, that we have achieved convergence which is sustainable and settled rather than transitory; and the Government have only just begun to put in place the necessary preparations which would allow us to do so. Other countries have for some years been making detailed preparations for a single currency. For all the reasons given, we have not. Therefore, barring some fundamental and unforeseen change in economic circumstances, making a decision during this Parliament to join is not realistic. It is also therefore sensible for business and the country to plan on the basis that, in this Parliament, we do not propose to enter a single currency.
"There are those who urge us to seek consent in principle in a referendum now or soon, but with a view to entering some time later. Any serious gap between the referendum and the actual entry date would undermine the conclusions of the referendum.
"Because the essential decision is economic, it can be taken only at a time when government and then the people can judge that sustainable convergence has been established.
"So, in our view the interval between the decision to join and our joining must not be unduly protracted.
"I have said that if a single currency works and is successful Britain should join it. We should therefore begin now to prepare ourselves so that should we meet the economic tests we can make a decision to join a successful single currency early in the next Parliament. At present, with no preparation it is not a practical option. We must put ourselves in the position for Britain to exercise genuine choice.
"The questions of preparation are immense—practical questions for business, as well as for government. Euro notes and coins will, for example, be circulating across Europe from 1st January 2002. Some companies like Marks and Spencer have already decided to prepare to accept euros in Britain. Others will want advice on what is best for them.
"Because both the Government and business must prepare intensively during the next years, we will commence work on the detailed transition arrangements for the possible introduction of the euro in Britain, including the introduction of notes and coins should we wish to enter; step-up the work on what business should do now to prepare for the introduction of the euro in 1999, whether we are in or out; and work with business on what government must do to prepare for EMU should we decide to join it in the next Parliament.
902
"To help with essential preparations, I have invited the Governor of the Bank of England and Sir Colin Marshall, the President of the CBI, to join me and the President of the Board of Trade in leading a standing committee on preparations for EMU. I am pleased to say that they have agreed. I am also inviting the President of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce to join us. I can also announce that from January a series of regional and sectoral conferences on preparations for monetary union will be held.
"Also, the Prime Minister has today decided to extend Lord Simon's Treasury responsibilities to include European business preparations in the Government, covering the long-term planning of the new standing committee.
"In addition to these practical preparations, there are reforms we can take which are both right in themselves in the national economic interest and which will help us to meet the five economic tests.
"We will promote greater flexibility in the UK economy and in Europe through our Getting Europe to Work initiative.
"We will be introducing new competition legislation, which draws on the best of European and wider international policy and practice as well as continuing to negotiate to secure the best interests of our financial sector and for opening up the single market in financial services.
"We will set as one of the key objectives of our EU presidency completion of the European single market.
"In my Mansion House speech I said that if we succeed in strengthening the ability of the British economy to sustain growth with low inflation, and if international conditions permit, I would hope to lower the inflation target. So we will monitor our inflation target and do so in the light of the European Central Bank; and we will ensure that our fiscal rules and our deficit reduction plan continue to be consistent with the terms of the stability pact, thus underlining our commitment to avoid an excessive deficit under Article 104c of the Treaty and supporting greater coordination in ECOFIN.
"In Britain's interests we need to keep inflation low and public borrowing firmly under control.
"The single currency will affect Britain, in or out of it. It is in the British national interest for it to work. Vital decisions will be made during our EU presidency in the first half of next year. We will use our position constructively and supportively and we will play a full part in ensuring its launch is successful—something that is in Britain's interests as well as Europe's.
"To sum up, we believe that in principle British membership of a successful single currency would be beneficial to Britain and to Europe. The key factor is whether the economic benefits of joining for business and industry are clear and unambiguous. If they are, there is no constitutional bar to British membership of EMU. Applying the economic tests, it is not in this country's interest to join in the first wave of EMU starting on 1st January 1999 and, barring some

903
fundamental and unforeseen change in economic circumstances, making a decision this Parliament to join is not realistic; but in order to give ourselves a genuine choice in the future it is essential that the Government and business prepare intensively during this Parliament, so that Britain will be in a position to join a single currency, should we wish to, early in the next Parliament.
"On Europe, Madam Speaker, the time of indecision is over. The period for practical preparation has begun. Today we begin to build a new consensus—modern and outward looking—for a country that throughout its history has looked outward to the world.
"We are the first British Government to declare for the principle of monetary union; the first to state that there is no overriding constitutional bar to membership; the first to make clear and unambiguous economic benefit to the country the decisive test; and the first to offer their strong and constructive support to our European partners to create more employment and more prosperity.
"The policy I have outlined will bring stability to business, direction to our economy and long-term purpose to our country. It is the right policy for Britain in Europe. More important, it is the right policy for the future of Britain, and I commend it to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for repeating the Statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the other place. Certainly this Statement was needed to clear up the confusion over the Government's policy in relation to the single currency over the past few weeks. Contrary to an assurance given to me on Wednesday when I raised this issue, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has not been asked to clarify the events of the past few weeks or to give any explanation of the confusion at the centre of government.
What is one to deduce from the article in the Financial Times of 26th September by Robert Peston? Does one conclude that it is without foundation? If so, who is the Minister quoted in that article? Indeed, in the article in The Times on 18th October it was quite clear that a Minister was quoted because another of the spin doctors had told him that the Minister quoted in Robert Peston's article was not in the decision-making loop. I believe that is a lovely phrase. If he was not in the decision-making loop they must know who he is. Can noble Lords be informed who was the Minister who made that statement to Robert Peston?
But if Robert Peston's article in the FT of 26th September was false, why did it take three weeks before the Government decided to try to clarify the position? Over those three weeks they watched an entirely false market in both equities and sterling being created in the City. They knew why that was happening and they did nothing to try to rectify it.
904
Further, the Statement gives no explanation as to why on the afternoon before Robert Peston's article appeared the value of sterling began to decline markedly. Equally mysteriously, on the 17th October, the day before the Chancellor gave the interview to The Times, the value of sterling began to rise from the start of trading to the end of it. Perhaps the spin doctors were at work. It is not just that we ought to be told; it is absolutely incumbent on the Government that they tell us what is going on.
I believe that it took the noble Lord about 19 minutes to repeat the Statement. It contained a good deal of lovely language. If that flowery language was stripped away it could perhaps be best summed up by the rather briefer words that I have used; namely, that the matter should be judged on whether or not it is good for Britain. That seems to me a far quicker explanation without all the flowery language. If that is, indeed, what the Government now believe—in other words, they agree with the previous government's policy—I welcome that. I am not entirely sure that I should not read the flowery language more carefully, and I shall come to some of it.
We were assured by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who was brought in to help the Treasury team last week, that when it came to the referendum question on the single currency there would be a triple lock. I read carefully, and listened carefully, to the words of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I presume that the triple lock will be for this Parliament; the next Parliament; for any Parliament; it will not be just for this Parliament. I can assure the noble Lord that my party's pledge of a referendum, which was mocked by the Labour Party when we made it, and then, of course, like so much else in the past two years, adopted, is for whenever a Conservative government decide to go in. Is the lock just for this Parliament or will it feature in the party opposite's manifesto at the next election'? That is a question to which we should like to know the answer.
On the issue of the period of convergence and the convergence of the economic cycles, which is one of the important tests, I wonder how long the settled period is. One part of the document talks about developing sustainable convergence and that that will take a period of years. The single currency will not be up and running among those who join in 1999 until 2002. How many years after 2002? That is important. If the Government want to have stability, they should explain what they mean by that sustainable convergence.
My worry, although the phrase "a period of years" reduces it, is that as we are out of "sync", which I gather is the expression in the trade cycle, we shall find, in two, three or four years' time, as we go into a labour recession, that our statistics meet those of a European revival. Therefore, for a week or two, a month or two, or whatever, there will be convergence, but a different convergence. It is the convergence of two buses passing for a brief moment whose journeys are in opposite directions. I hope that the Government mean "a period of years". I want to hear the Minister underline the fact that it will not just be convergence coming about for a

905
few moments, so to speak, because one is going down and the other is going up, but that it will be genuine convergence.
I brought the message of flexible markets to you Lordships many times. Flexible markets in this country have not been helped by the Government signing up to the social chapter. It is not this country that has the problem with flexible markets; it is the problem of our friends in Europe.
The employment test is clearly a bigger problem for our friends in Europe than it is for us. If, when they receive it, noble Lords look at UK membership of the single currency—the assessment document produced by the Treasury—Chart 2.2 shows clearly what we all know. Thanks to the policies of the previous government, this country's unemployment rate has been declining while the unemployment rate of our principal competitors in Europe has been increasing. They have something to learn from what we have been doing. My concern is that in our determination to get alongside them we shall damage the very unemployment reduction that we have all welcomed. I notice that the Government are now welcoming it also.
As to the conclusions on EMU, I notice and welcome the fact that the Government have decided to take advantage of my right honourable friend John Major's opt-out. I find it ironic, given the derision encountered by my right honourable friend when he came back with the opt-out, that the Government are today saying to this House that they are going to use the very opt-out upon which they poured such contempt.
The Statement deals with the question of the rest of the Parliament, and says that simply leaving the options open would not be the right thing to do. I can see that. Then the Government say that,
"in this Parliament, we do not propose to enter a single currency."
So far, so good, but later the Statement says that,
"barring some fundamental and unforeseen change in economic circumstances, making a decision this Parliament to join is not realistic".
That caveat seems a little odd. I wonder what it adds up to.
I notice and welcome the fact that the Government are making preparations for the euro. So were we. Indeed my right honourable friend Mr Kenneth Clarke was constantly at meetings doing just that with our European friends. I welcome in particular the expansion in the Treasury of the remit of the noble Lord, Lord Simon. I wonder whether I shall have the pleasure of crossing swords with him across the House when he comes to answer for the Treasury, so relieving the poor overworked Deputy Chief Whip of answering for the Treasury and just about every other department sometimes, it seems to me.
I seriously hope—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Simon, is capable of answering for himself and crossing swords with me—that the noble Lord will answer for his Treasury responsibilities and, indeed, for the whole of the Treasury, in particular on the European question. I have to say that, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce
906
of Donington, we have two or three little tests in the next week or two which will give the noble Lord, Lord Simon, the opportunity to answer for the Government.
I notice, on the question of preparations, that there is nothing about the ERM. Noble Lords will recall that it is laid down in the treaty that a country has to be in the ERM for at least two years prior to entry into the single currency. Does that figure as part of the Government's plans for the future? When might they be doing that? Will that be in this Parliament? Or is it something else that they will leave? Will they leave it to the other side of a referendum?
The peroration for this—I am sure that the pro-Europeans would think it if they listened merely to the peroration—sounded like a clear decision to enter. Yet elsewhere the Statement says that it will be a period of years before a decision can be made. That seems to reflect a fair degree of conflict inside the Government. It is a conflict reflected in the press briefings I mentioned earlier. It sounded a bit like Saint Augustine's, make me chaste, Oh Lord, but not yet. I believe that fear of a referendum and fear of the reaction of the Murdoch press has had a great deal to do with the Statement we have heard today.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, we naturally welcome the constructive, pro-European framework into which the Statement is set. That is a vast advance on the unrealistic scepticism, mingled with sour with which the previous government approached the subject. At the same time, there is a major tactical misjudgment as to how to approach this most vital, and, on the experience of successive governments, dangerous subject.
The Government would have kept better command of events and more fortified their position had they decided to go for an earlier decision. I accept that there are technical reasons associated with the different phases of the UK and Continental economies as to why entry in 1999 is difficult, although I believe that statesmanship is often most marked when it rises above technical reasons. However, even if entry is to be delayed, an earlier referendum—they are committed to a referendum—would have been desirable.
I am confident that with a firm lead from the Government, and the economic and political line-up which would have followed, a referendum at a fairly early date could have led to a successful conclusion in favour of entry into a single currency. I speak on the issue with a recollection as president of the Keep Britain in Europe campaign at the time of the 1975 referendum. Six months before that referendum we were in a far more adverse position. I am amazed to see, on the latest figures, that 37 per cent. still pronounce themselves positively in favour of going in. That is in the face of a complete dearth of any propaganda from the previous government or, to be honest, from almost anyone else. Therefore, I believe that 37 per cent., as a starting point, is a remarkably favourable base. As noble Lords will recollect, the 1975 referendum, starting from a more unfavourable point in the autumn of 1974, resulted in a two-to-one majority on quite a high turnout.

907
I believe that the period of "wait and see" is bound to be somewhat deleterious to our influence in Europe, although not necessarily permanently or disastrously so. Waiting to see if an action is successful before one decides whether to join is not traditionally the most noble or glorious course. Very few Victoria Crosses have been won that way. Nevertheless, I welcome, first, the new constructive tone; secondly, the fact that the constitutional and/or sovereignty arguments have been so decisively set aside; thirdly, the fact that action is to be taken to explain and advocate the reasons for going in; and fourthly, as I understand it, the fact that the detailed preparations will welcome, more or less, the use of the euro as a parallel currency in this country. I say in passing that I am extremely glad that the responsibilities of the noble Lord, Lord Simon, have been extended to include that aspect of the matter. From these Benches, we greatly welcome that and believe that the noble Lord has very much to contribute. Fifthly, I applaud the positive desire to get us into "sync", the current phrase, at the earliest possible moment.
The Statement is far from eradicating the chronic British national disease of always being late which has afflicted successive governments since 1950. But at least we now avoid complaining about what others are doing or indulging in complacent and mis-placed scepticism and an attachment to the shadow of sovereignty while allowing its substance to be gobbled up by the global economy which has played a major part in reducing the Conservative Party to the state in which it finds itself today. The European issue has been a great destroyer of governments and Prime Ministers. I hope that that lesson has at least been partially learned.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, for different reasons, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their response to this important Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, used the first three minutes of the time available to him complaining that I took 20 minutes to discuss the issues but refusing to consider the issues at all. He was concerned only with the surface politics of the past three weeks. I am sorry to say that he does not appear to have read or listened to what was said from this Dispatch Box on that occasion. I do not wish to spend much time on the matter but surely it would be right for the Official Opposition to pay attention to what the Chancellor said rather than to major, as the noble Lord did, on the press speculation which surrounded those statements.
For our part, the position has been entirely clear and has not changed. In other words, we said at the very beginning that we saw formidable obstacles to joining in January 1999. We set the Treasury the task of examining the economic criteria—I stress that the economic criteria are far more important in the long run than the largely fiscal criteria laid down at Maastricht—saying that when that review had been completed we would come back to Parliament and state our position. That is exactly what we have done.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, finds agreement with us in that we both think that the criterion for membership or otherwise should be what is good for Britain. But that is an extremely minimal degree of
908
agreement, is it not? It is the absolute lowest common denominator of agreement. Of course, we all think that it should be good for Britain but what we think is good for Britain and why we think it is good for Britain is subject to a great deal of disagreement. On this side of the House we have set out our stand in this Statement. We have ruled out those options which are not tenable and have set our path for the future with all the clarity and responsibility which have been called for.
In more than 10 minutes, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, did not make a single reference to his own party's policy reaction to the Statement: he was concerned largely with trivia rather than with the major thrust of the Statement or government policy. The noble Lord asked me whether the triple lock will continue; whether it is still the combination of the view of the Cabinet, Parliament and the people in a referendum. I believe that the Statement makes clear—and I can understand that in a long Statement, the noble Lord may have missed it—that that commitment to a triple lock continues as long as is necessary and if necessary into the next Parliament.
The noble Lord asked about the definition of a settled period of sustainable convergence. That is a very serious and important question, and he was right to raise the matter. We do not know in terms of numbers of months what is the definition of sustainable convergence. We cannot say in terms of a number of days what is a settled period. But the forward markets give us some idea of what it is likely to be. It is because we wish a settled period of sustainable convergence to be the primary criterion for us that we have been obliged to say that we do not see that we shall be entering or making the decision to enter within this Parliament.
As to the question which the noble Lord raised about the rules for the time between a decision to enter and the final adoption of a single currency, the rules for later entrants will be the same as the rules for original entrants.
The noble Lord chided us on first criticising and then using the Maastricht opt-out. I believe that he has a point there. It is true that the result that came back from the Maastricht Treaty negotiations has proved valuable. I think that that was recognised in both Houses of Parliament when those matters were debated.
The noble Lord asked about the meaning of the caveat of "wholly unexpected and unforeseen circumstances." I have made it clear that although we are determined to be proactive in making sure that our preparations are powerful and effective, no government—this Government or any other—can be certain under all circumstances that we can predict what the economic circumstances will be in the future. But if the noble Lord is claiming seriously that the Conservative government made real preparations for entry into the European Union, all I can say is that he certainly fooled me. Much more important, he certainly fooled the leaders of business in this country because there has been no significant element of conviction by the business community, as has been made clear by the CBI and many others, that the Conservative government at that time, even under Mr. Kenneth Clarke, expected

909
seriously that we should enter European monetary union and therefore expected British business to make realistic preparations. If that had been so we might have had something proposed by the last government along the lines of the standing committee which is now to be established and we might have had someone of the calibre of my noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury taking responsibility for such matters in the Treasury. However, we did not. In all of this there was no proper response to the issue of policy which I believe this country expects to be debated within the next few years. On future occasions, I hope that the noble Lord will feel it possible to join in the debate rather more seriously than he did today.
I turn now to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. Of course I am grateful to him for what he said. I know that he recognises how serious we are and how important is the change in policy which has been announced. The noble Lord confirmed the importance of the Statement in that this is the first government to declare for the principle of monetary union, to declare that there is no overriding constitutional bar and to declare that it must be "clear and unambiguous" economic benefit which determines the final choice which will be made by the people of this country.
I was slightly surprised by the noble Lord's suggestion that it would be desirable to go for an early referendum, even if we were not proposing to act upon it until a later date. The noble Lord described our position as being a tactical misjudgment. However, if a referendum is to be a genuine consultation of the British people, I suggest to the noble Lord that it must be taken at a time when both the Cabinet and Parliament have satisfied themselves that these serious economic tests have been achieved, so that it is possible to put the position to the British people with a sufficient degree of confidence.
The noble Lord described the change from the position of "wait and see" of the previous government. I agree with him. I rather like the suggestion in today's press reports that we have moved from a position of "wait and see" to one of "prepare and join". It is for the judgment of the British people to determine whether or not that is the case. I very much hope that it will be.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, when repeating the Statement, the noble Lord referred to the importance of stability and coherence. He will no doubt agree that, to achieve those two objectives, control over internal interest rates will be needed. Therefore, having divested themselves of control over interest rates, does the noble Lord believe that the Government will reverse their policy in that respect? Alternatively, are they prepared to leave the settlement of such matters to those whom they do not control?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have not divested ourselves of control over interest rates. We have said that the short-term decisions on interest rates shall be the responsibility of the Bank of England, which
910
will in turn act in accordance with criteria having particular reference to inflation which will be set by government. That is not abandoning responsibility in any sense of the word.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, many of us will be most grateful to the Government for having made such a clear Statement this afternoon. One thing is absolutely clear; namely, that we have at least four years during which informed debate can take place, not only in this House and in another place but also throughout the country. Can my noble friend say whether the Government will use their best endeavours, not least by example, to prevent the arguments that will be forthcoming from becoming sloganised instead of being examined critically on the basis of the facts as they become available?
Further, can my noble friend say whether the Government are prepared to accept responsibility for making as many facts as possible, not slogans, available to the whole country—and, indeed, to this House and another place—so that we shall be able to arrive at rational decisions while respecting the views of others, but nonetheless be able to speak on the basis of our own convictions based upon the facts which are produced to us for our consideration?
In that connection, can my noble friend say, finally, whether the Government will do as their predecessors did in 1984 and make available to this House and another place a cost-benefit analysis of our developing relations, not only with Europe but also with the rest of the world? Speaking personally for a moment, I should say that the Government have my utmost goodwill. I hope that we shall not have sonorous platitudes from them that pass for statesmanship, but that we shall have statements of real intention and of real honesty.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to my noble friend for his constructive contribution to the debate. Indeed, I would be the last person to say that there should be any inhibition in this House or anywhere else on informed debate. My noble friend was right to draw the attention of the House to the need to avoid sloganising. My noble friend asked whether we would publish a cost-benefit analysis of the issues that face us in preparing for membership of the European monetary union. The Treasury document referred to in the Statement, which my noble friend will not yet have had a chance to read, is very much a precursor to the kind of cost benefit analysis that he requests. It would not be a good idea for us to be publishing such cost-benefit analyses at regular, predetermined intervals. However, as information becomes available which is relevant to the debate, we shall of course make it available to the public and to Parliament.
While talking about informed debate, I must emphasise the fact that we are not simply embarking upon a period of four years, or whatever, of debate; we are embarking upon a period of preparation. Unless we use the time available to us for preparation for entry into EMU, the question which we put to Parliament and to the people in a referendum will be meaningless. There

911
is no point in putting forward a question to which the answer is, "Yes, we would like to do it, but we are not ready". It must be a period of active preparation rather than a period of theoretical debate, however well informed.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the noble Lord said earlier that it was in Britain's national interest not only that we should enter successfully when we do—indeed, that is obvious—but also that it is in our national interest that the single currency system as a whole should work in the longer term. Can the noble Lord tell us what we are to do to contribute to that task, whether from a position of "out" or "pre-in" or "in" the system, given the fact that the whole system will remain extremely fragile for many years; that there is not much convergence throughout the whole of Europe let alone between Britain and the continental economies; that there is very little labour mobility; and that we remain extremely vulnerable to the major kind of shocks that nearly destroyed the old ERM and which could destroy us again, as threatened by Asia?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. The Statement refers to our responsibilities in the first six months of the presidency next year and then subsequently for ensuring that EMU does work, even during the period when we are not members. Although we take part in the work of the European Monetary Institute at present, that will cease when its responsibilities are transferred to the European Central Bank. However, ECOFIN will carry on and we will still be a part of it. Discussions and decisions on the single market will continue and we shall remain part of that process. It will still be the case that trade barriers within Europe will have to be dismantled and we shall play a part in the decision making as regards that dismantling. In all of those areas we shall still play an active part, as we shall in the Council of Ministers, on decisions on trade between the member states of the European Union and the operation of the single currency. It is difficult to be more precise at the moment about the way it will work until we see how the UK presidency proceeds. However, I can give the noble Lord an assurance that we shall seek to be closely involved in these decisions and to make sure that nothing happens that will rule out our subsequent entry when the time is right.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, is there not a basic contradiction and inconsistency in the Government's position because despite the encouraging words, fundamentally there has been no commitment? Can the Government really expect industry to spend tens of millions of pounds—and in some cases hundreds of millions of pounds—on preparation for an event which according to the Government may never take place?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know what a commitment is if it is not the commitment that has been declared this afternoon. We have declared for the principle of monetary union. We have declared that there is no constitutional bar and that the unambiguous economic benefit to this country is the
912
overriding criterion. But we have also said—as we have always said—that this is a decision of such importance that it has to be a decision for the British people. If we were to abandon the triple lock and if we were to abandon the principle of a Cabinet recommendation to Parliament, and then a recommendation through a referendum before legislation is introduced, we would abandon the pledge we have already made. We cannot go further than we have done in ensuring that this is a democratic decision while at the same time ensuring that it is realistic in economic terms.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I wish to ask my noble friend about the criteria for convergence as our inflation rates have converged and our unemployment rate is better than that of Europe. Are we now to consider only interest rates; that is, is it when interest rates converge that we shall think we are in sync? Are they short-term interest rates or long-term interest rates? Do we wait for a complete cyclical agreement to rejoin after a full cycle has been gone through, in sync, or do we do so before that happens?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, cyclical convergence as we have described it is wider than inflation rates or indeed inflation rates plus interest rates. I do not think our inflation rates have converged. It is certainly not true to say that our short-term interest rates have converged with those of most other European countries. My noble friend is of course quite right that one of the major benefits of a single currency will be the reduction of longer-term interest rates. We saw some benefit in that direction immediately after a government took over who were prepared from the beginning to re-examine the question of European monetary union. As to my noble friend's specific question about how convergent economic cycles have to be, the answer is that they can never be completely convergent. The judgment we are making now is that the lack of convergence between our economy and that of other European countries is so great that the economic benefit, which is our fundamental criterion for membership, simply does not exist at the moment. In answer to my noble friend's final question, it would not have to be seen through a whole cycle in order to be proved. Indeed the whole thrust of the Government's economic policy is to avoid the kind of cyclical boom and bust which has been the characteristic of our economy for so many years.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm quite categorically that the commitment of this Government is that the debate will ensue on the basis of full factual information, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, as to when and if it is right to go in, and that we will not go in unless it is considered, on objective analysis, that it is—as put quite simply by my noble friend—in the interests of Britain?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, unless there is some trap which I do not expect from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I think I can agree with him. However, I shall have to read his words carefully. I do

913
not know whether the noble Lord has ever appeared on those television programmes where one is asked the same question 10 times in the hope that on one occasion one will be out of sync, and that answer will be taken up as it is in conflict with the others. However, in principle, the noble Lord is right.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, there is no trap and I do not appear on television programmes.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the Statement referred many times to greater EU trade. Will the Government concern themselves with the effect of embracing a national minimum wage and social chapter that would render our capacity to compete more difficult? What was the Treasury advice on the effect on this country's non-EU trade of which we have a far greater percentage than our partners?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I reject that premise. I do not agree with the noble Viscount that a minimum wage would affect our competitiveness and make it harder for us to compete, particularly in Europe. But having said that, he will recognise that many European countries have minimum wages. It is still a matter for determination and we have a commission under Professor George Bain which is considering at what level a minimum wage is set.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I asked a question about non-EU trade of which we have a far greater percentage than our partners.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the share of our international trade with other European markets continues to increase and my rejection of the noble Viscount's original premise applies to non-European trade too.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the Chancellor has emphasised the risks of going in in 1999, and has ruled out entry then, and of course there are risks for every country going into the euro. However, what the Chancellor has not spelt out, it seems to me, are the risks of this country not going in. I refer to possible speculation against the pound. If the pound becomes overvalued, and if we have high interest rates, the economic risks for this country are great. Will the Government try to instigate a broader debate on not only the risks of going in but also the risks of staying out when there is a successful launch of the euro?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am bound to say I thought that a large part of the Statement was taken up with an assessment of the risks both of going in and of staying out. I thought that we had recognised that in a balanced way. The assessment which the Treasury has made of the economic tests, which are our criteria for the decision to join, has led to the conclusion that going in is a risk not worth taking. However, that is alleged against an assessment of the risks of staying out. If I may indulge in some advertising, I refer the
914
noble Lord, Lord Hooson, to the document of my noble friend Lord Currie on the pros and cons of EMU, a summary of which was published by the Treasury in July. I believe that document sets out the situation fairly and that it is still applicable.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I think the whole project of EMU and a single currency is so risky that I would not touch it with a barge pole? Is he further aware that my noble friend Lord Desai asked him a number of questions about convergence which I believe he did not answer? Just whom will we be convergent with? Are we to be convergent with the Stalinist French, or with the Germans, or with the Italians, or with the Spanish with their unemployment rate of 22 per cent? If we are to be convergent, how long does my noble friend think convergence will take, and what will happen to the British economy while we are converging with those states?
Will my noble friend give absolute priority to employment and a continued reduction in unemployment, until there is full employment in this country? That was what I thought the Labour Party was about—and I hope is still about.
Finally—the question was asked of him by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne—has any estimate been made of the total cost to industry, commerce, Government and individuals of preparations for something which may not happen? I sincerely hope that it will not happen.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend has the supreme virtue of consistency. I have never been in any doubt as to what he felt about these issues; and I am not put in any doubt by what he says now. I hope that my noble friend Lord Desai will agree that I answered his questions about convergence criteria. I did not answer a question—I had not been asked it—about with whom we are convergent. My noble friend Lord Stoddart seems to think that there is something wrong with having convergent economic criteria with those who have different economic policies. One of the points that my noble friend will have to learn is that a single currency does not mean a single economic policy common to all countries. There will still be considerable scope for variation in economic policies, significantly for the protection of high and full employment, as he asks.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to appreciate that his Statement came as something of a disappointment to many loyal Euro-realists on this side of the House? We had begun to hope that the Labour Government were going to be so foolish as to join this crazy scheme. In order to support that position, can I ask the Minister whether he is aware how difficult it is now to find foreign exchange dealers in the City who will tell the truth as to how ill fated they regard the whole EMU project to be because they have already taken out enormous forward positions which will prove very profitable when it fails to fly, as they are sure it will?

915
Perhaps I may raise two final points of detail on his Statement to the Minister. First, he agreed with the value of our opt-out. Before he is convinced of that, can I ask the Minister to examine the 10 articles which are left in the Treaty of Rome which are not excluded in the protocol giving us our opt-out and which may nullify it in the end? Finally, when he considers the cost of preparation for EMU, will the Minister be very honest with the public as to the costs of transition to this absurd currency in the future and put them against the much vaunted savings in transaction costs?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, let me deal with the noble Lord's last question first. Yes, of course we shall be very honest with the British public about all aspects of the costs of entry into the European monetary union, although I do not think that in the wording of the referendum we shall talk about "this absurd currency".
At the same time, I sympathise with the disappointment of those whom the noble Lord calls the Euro-realists in the Conservative Party. I had rather thought that those he calls Euro-realists—some of us call them Europhobes—had taken over the Conservative Party. I rather look forward to the next election when we shall see how far the noble Lord's views dominate the manifesto of the Conservative Party.

Ceremony of Introduction
Debate resumed.
5.14 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am very glad that the speakers on the Motion have seemed to be in favour of it because it is an argument which will rumble on if we do not bring it out and discuss it thoroughly.
Before I get down to the subject of the Motion, I wish to pick up one remark made by the Leader of the Opposition. He said that this Government wish to abolish the hereditary Peers. Not so, my Lords. We are not abolishing hereditary Peers. They will carry on as they have always done, healthily and happily I hope. All we are abolishing is their right to vote. But that is an argument for another day.
The opinions which I express this afternoon are my own based on 15 years in this House and, I suspect, several hundreds of introductions, most of which I seem to have attended. Given the pressure on parliamentary time, the increase in the number of introductions, and the likelihood that these trends will continue, it seems right to consider whether the current ceremony meets our present day requirements. I am grateful to the Clerk of the Parliaments for his extremely useful document, even if the Lord Privy Seal suggests that it may be improper. It has been very helpful to this debate.
There is a widely shared view that the present ceremony is too long and comic in parts, and for those of us who out of courtesy attend as many as possible, however well disposed we may be towards the participants in the ceremony, the repetition is tedious. I sympathise with Black Rod and Garter and the Clerks
916
who have double duty since they must also attend rehearsals. Therefore they have to sit through the ceremonies twice as many times. Yet, as my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal said, we recognise that for the new Peer and his or her family and friends it is a special day and for them we must ensure that the occasion is memorable and dignified.
There have been today a number of suggestions for shortening the ceremony. They are probably all worth considering. I agree that the ceremony could be shortened by replacing the slightly absurd three bows by one bow from a Front Bench. I believe that that was the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. That would have the added advantage of allowing existing Peers to occupy the Back Benches before the ceremony and would cut down some of the scuffling that takes place afterwards.
There is a suggestion that new Peers could be introduced in groups. But that would not only detract from each individual's experience, it would also reduce the most valuable quality of the present ceremony: that of allowing the House to recognise the newcomer.
I suggest—I know that my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal does not agree with this—that the best solution would be to return to the practice of an investiture by the Sovereign. This would more than compensate the new Peer for any feeling of being part of a group. The new Peer could then attend at a later date to take the oath in the way that Peers by succession do at present. We would then have the opportunity to recognise him. It would also meet the objection of my noble friend Lord Richard to the queue which Peers must join in order to take their seats.
Finally, I do not favour the suggestion outlined in the Clerk's paper that there should be a different ceremony for the Honours list and the working list. Such a distinction would undermine the principle of equality which is one of the greatest assets of this place. In any case the attempt to distinguish between the two groups could cause confusion outside. Any observer of our activities will know that there are some Peers on the working list who do not work, and some Peers on the Honours list who work very hard indeed.
I hope that we may soon reach a decision on how to proceed. The present ceremony is outdated. It needs changing both to save time and to preserve the dignity which should attend what is still an important honour for those concerned.
5.19 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may start by offering an apology. I am a member of the Procedure Committee but was unable to attend the committee meeting which discussed this matter. Perhaps I may also declare what I might call a negative interest in so far as I have never participated in an Introduction ceremony. I have never been introduced myself and have never acted as a supporter because Earls have not exactly been the flavour of the decade and therefore not many have been introduced. It is a slight quirk that the Government apparently seem to wish to see vaporised those who are here by the procedures which they have in mind.

917
I was interested in the speech made by the noble Lord, the Lord Privy Seal. It was deeply enticing. I found it fascinating. I always like to make a speech when I have the noble Lord the Leader of the House on my side. It is rather like being back at school playing toy soldiers; you always like to have the howitzer on your side.
I am afraid that I could not agree with the noble Lord in his conclusions. To me, the ceremony is tremendous—full of colour, ritual, pageantry and symbolism. That is very important. I am glad that the noble Lord the Leader of the House agreed.
The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, made an impressive remark. He said that he was impressed by three ceremonies in which he had taken part. I have not taken part in so many as that. I was impressed with the one ceremony in which I participated; namely, the opening of Parliament. I was accorded the privilege of carrying the Cap of Maintenance. At the rehearsal which took place the day before we were all in our plain clothes. I was given a piece of rolled up paper and told, "That is the Cap of Maintenance". I looked at it, slightly surprised. Nevertheless, I carried it round, and we all walked around in what might be described as a shambolic way. However, when the actual day arrived, everyone was dressed up in uniform or in their robes, and they all had a part to play. It was not the individual who mattered; it was the person. Instead of having a rolled up piece of paper, I was given a piece of wood with a hat on top of it. That added to the pageantry, too.
Symbolism is very important. You can tear anything to pieces, rather like a tapestry, by pulling at any particular thread; you can make an absurdity out of anything. The noble Lord the Leader of the House said that part of the Introduction ceremony is ridiculous—people lifting their hats and putting them back on. I do not see that that is any more ridiculous than a Peer kneeling in front of the Lord Chancellor. Nor is it any more ridiculous than the fact that Finance Bills are passed in old-fashioned French. Of course you can make a mockery of it if you wish to, but the whole is quite important. I would not wish to see it changed in that respect.
There is an argument that the ceremony takes too long. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, made that point; and she said that part of it was tedious. I do not find it tedious. It is remarkable. And almost everyone made the point that it is valuable to those who have been made Peers and to their friends. It is a great honour. Nowadays one is told that it is not an honour; it is a job of work. But it is, in fact, a great honour to be made a Peer. It is therefore right that the ceremony should continue.
If 11 minutes is too long, what amount of time is sufficient? If it is cut down to eight minutes, is that all right? Or should it be five minutes, three minutes, one minute? I really do not think that the length of time is a factor. Perhaps the matter should be viewed in this way. The Government of the day have decided, for reasons that we all understand, that they wish to create a large number of Peers. It is commonly said that it is not an honour but a job of work. So how does the poor new
918
Peer carry out his job of work? When he comes to this House he makes speeches. If a whole lot of new Peers are created, they all come along and make a whole lot of speeches; the debates get longer, the proceedings get longer, and the Government of the day say, "Help, we must cut this down. How shall we cut it down? We must cut down on the Introduction ceremony; that can be reduced from 11 minutes to eight minutes". That will apparently make a vast difference to the proceedings of your Lordships' House! That is not the case at all.
It seems to have escaped many of your Lordships that the greatest contribution your Lordships can often make to a debate is for your Lordships to keep your Lordships' mouths shut. That is then to the general satisfaction of the remainder of your Lordships' House, if not to the satisfaction of the person on whom the retribution has been visited.
One has to be fairly careful when these matters are altered. I know that the Government are very keen on modernising almost everything. There is nothing wrong with that, provided that the modernisation is good. Last week in Edinburgh we heard the ghastly, whacky modern rendition of the national anthem in Edinburgh. It was a total disaster for the monarchy, the National Anthem and everyone listening to it. I hope that we do not make any similar mistakes. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will be very careful before making too many strident suggestions in this respect. He suggests that the matter should be considered by a committee. Perhaps it should. However, I hope that the committee will remember that, very often, when experimental limits of 30 miles an hour are introduced they seem to end up being there for ever. Whenever a double yellow line is laid down for an experimental period, it is there for ever. One has to be very careful when altering a ceremony such as this to make quite sure that any alteration is an improvement and not a disfigurement. Personally, I should like to see the ceremony remain as it is. It is not a waste of time at all. Nor do I think it is ridiculous. It enhances the prestige of the Peers taking part, and it enhances the prestige of this House.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I venture to intervene in the debate for one short, simple reason. An analogy that I can recount to your Lordships might be of some relevance. I refer to the ceremony of taking Silk, or becoming a QC. It is an enormous honour to be in the Silk list. It is a moment of great joy for one's family, who take part in the ceremony. One sees wives attending with a look of cheerful glee at the prospect—which is a total illusion—that, with the treadmill of junior work behind him, the husband can at last be at home pulling his weight occasionally.
In 1961 I took Silk. It was a vintage year, because my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman was in the list; so was the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. In those days the Silks—there were 20 of us—were lined up on the left-hand side of the court, and went round every court in the Royal Courts of Justice. The judge who presided would utter these words to each of the successful applicants:

919
"Her Majesty having been pleased to appoint you one of Her Counsel Learned in the Law, you will take your seat within the Bar accordingly".
You then walked to the front row; you stood in the middle; you bowed to the right; you bowed to the left; you turned round and bowed to the junior Bar—with some enthusiasm, because you were going to rely on them to some extent for future work—then you bowed to the court itself, and then sat down. The judge presiding then said: "Mr. Brown, do you move?", which was a request to know whether you had any application to make. You resisted saying, "with difficulty, my Lord", and silently got up and walked out. That took between two and three minutes per Silk. The variation—50 per cent.—which I timed on a small calculator on one occasion, showed that one must not be too intolerant about the variation in time taken by Silks when they get down to the real work.
That ceremony occurred in every court. It took up a great deal of time—time that was being paid for by litigants whose cases were being interrupted. Gradually the procedure has been streamlined. The appearance now takes place only before the Lord Chief Justice's court. He sits with the Master of the Rolls on his right and the President of the Family Division on his left. That has cut down the time enormously. It has in no way detracted from the importance or attractiveness of the ceremony. It has given rise to no form of criticism. On the contrary, it is an enormous relief to the judiciary, to the Silks involved and to the litigants, who would otherwise have their cases disrupted. It occurs to me that that is an analogy which might interest your Lordships.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has given us this opportunity to express our views on Introductions, at a timely moment when we are having such an orgy of them. I am particularly grateful as I am a member of the procedure committee but, as I was abroad, missed the meeting on 15th October and the discussion which took place then. The minutes of that meeting tell us nothing of the discussion, but I think we can assume a good deal of it from the speech of the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal at the opening of the debate.
I congratulate the Clerk of the Parliaments on his interesting, comprehensive and impartial paper. It is very satisfactory to know that there is no reason why we should not change the procedure; I, for one, am strongly of the opinion that we should.
I was interested to hear the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and his firm view that we should stick to present procedure. It reminded me of the speech that he made in 1958 during the Second Reading debate on the Life Peerages Act when he was so forcefully against the introduction of women. His views are not always absolutely up to date!
I was surprised that Garter thought that most Peers do not want change and I should like to know how he came to that conclusion. Which Peers did he canvass? I was not one of them.
920
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has indicated that the Conservative Back-Bench Peers would not support change, but I do not think the noble Viscount said that in his speech today.
The Introduction ceremony has evolved over the years and this seems a suitable moment for a further evolution. We are told that the Commons is modernising, and we ourselves have made a number of changes over the past few years in the way in which we conduct our business.
During the summer I spoke to a large number of Peers about this matter. That was before the marathon to which Peers have been subjected over the last two weeks and to which they continue to be subjected. I believe that all those to whom I spoke supported change, favouring a shorter ceremony.
I was interested to read of the debate in March 1975. The arguments for change listed in (a) to (j) in paragraph 15 of the paper by the Clerk of the Parliaments are totally convincing, with the possible exception of (f), that a shorter ceremony would encourage more Peers to attend. I question that. I shall not waste time by reading out the rest, as I am sure that noble Lords have them before them.
I find the arguments against totally unconvincing except for (e), that the ceremony is a great occasion for new Peers, their families and friends. I believe it is, but a shorter ceremony could still be a great occasion and perhaps more comfortable for those with children or grandchildren in their party who may well become bored with the present ceremony, unless they look on the whole thing as a pantomime—as in some ways it is, but that aspect should not be encouraged.
A ceremony of some sort is necessary for fellow Peers to see and recognise the new Peer since not all are widely known. It is an important day, even for the blasé. Equally it can be ridiculous: the clambering up to the back bench, particularly when a Peer is slightly disabled; and the three doffings, Peers sometimes forgetting whether to put their hat on their head or their breast, with watching Peers giving them marks out of 10.
I was interested that, although he did not speak in the debate in 1975, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, then Leader of the Opposition, for whom I have the greatest admiration, supported change, as did Lord Shackleton in 1971—a long time ago—when he was Leader of the Opposition, saying that the ceremony was too long.
Like my noble friend Lady Nicol I do not think that Peers on the Honours List and those on the list of working Peers should be treated differently; Peers are equal. Nor do I support mass Introductions on a Friday, for the reasons given by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I see that that would be convenient for those who organise the business, but it would not be a special day, a special occasion, for the individual Peer and the family and friends. I guess that there would be a poor attendance and the objective, that the new Peer would be made known to his fellow Peers, would be lost.
To sum up, I favour a shorter ceremony but a dignified one, which I believe the present ceremony is not. The reading of the Patent could still take place but

921
not that of the Writ. If we retain doffing, we could have one instead of three and perhaps the front Cross-Bench or the Privy Council Bench could be used instead of having Peers clamber up to the back one.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, when a Motion identical to this was tabled in March, 1975, I tabled an amendment against it which was carried by over three-quarters of the House then present. I should therefore explain why, in default of any other noble Lord taking such a step, I have thought it right not to do so today.
On that occasion the humble Address was moved by a single government Back Bencher. When the Leader of the House moves such a Motion, however, I believe it would be a discourtesy for your Lordships not to accept it and to give the proposal the appropriate amount of scrutiny. But I should not like it to be thought that acceptance of the Motion unamended today means that the House as a whole has changed its mind.
Your Lordships will, of course, listen to everything that is said on this subject at every stage and a final decision will only be taken when the matter eventually comes back to the whole House. But I must tell your Lordships that my present view—and nothing that I have heard so far in the debate this afternoon has altered it—is the same as it was in 1975.
Even if it should come about that, by saving 10 minutes at the beginning of the day, the House might either rise 10 minutes earlier or get that amount more business done, I would still wish to preserve this ceremony for its own sake.
The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal said that he already knew most new life Peers and that that could not be said for new hereditary Peers. But he misses the point. The ceremony is not so much to introduce the Peer to the House as to introduce the House and its traditions to the Peer. Is it such a very dreadful thing to ask him to jump through a few hoops to this end at the start of his time here? It is certainly not begrudged by 19 out of 20 of the new Peers themselves, and it is appreciated by their families and friends. It is validated by 376 years. Shorten it or tamper with it in any way and it will only go back to 1997. What is accepted as a compromise by one side of the argument is almost always seen merely as a stepping-stone towards total change by the other. Just how long would the new, abbreviated, ceremony last?
It is an awful modern habit to try to do away with tradition. But this House works by tradition. Take away this most spectacular one, the first to be encountered by every new Peer, and which of the remainder will be safe? The Salisbury-Addison Convention is no more than a tradition, but how would we get on without it? It is accepted that the Leader of the House is Leader of the whole House and not just of the party in power. In the absence of a Speaker, there is acceptance of the Leader of the House as the ultimate arbiter in any dispute over order. My Lords, those are just a few of the traditions that will be at risk if this ceremony goes.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend the Leader of the House and Lord Privy Seal for introducing this debate, it may be useful to make three points on the basis of principle and precedent and then provide some words of explanation.
First, as other noble Lords have said, this House is a working House of Parliament. We are all summoned to treat—that is, to discuss—and to give counsel—that is, to advise Her Majesty, in practice the Government of the day—on arduous and urgent affairs of state.
Secondly, when we sit in the House of Lords we are all equal. Whether we be Barons or Dukes, Bishops or Archbishops, Lords of Appeal in Ordinary or the Lord Chancellor himself, we have equal rights to speak. When we vote in the Lobbies, our votes all weigh the same.
Thirdly, there is a precedent for a very simple ceremony of Introduction. When Peers by succession take their seats for the first time they simply, without robes or supporters, take the oath, sign the Roll and shake the Lord Chancellor by the hand. I commend that procedure to the House. I am bolstered in that commendation by the support of many of my colleagues in this Chamber. I believe that this is the only occasion in my parliamentary experience—I suspect it will be the only occasion in future—when Labour colleagues on this side of the House support the hereditary position.
By way of explanation, it is worth highlighting that a distinction can be recognised between Letters Patent, which confer the honour of a peerage, and the Writ of Summons, which summons us to do our duty by discussing the affairs of state and offering advice. But we also need to recognise that ceremony is important. That is a point to which a number of previous speakers have alluded. From the papers considered by the Procedure Committee and made available to us, it appears that the present ceremony of introduction is not, strictly speaking, part of the procedure of the House. It was interesting to learn that King James I may have been too embarrassed to invest titles personally owing to the fact that he was rumoured to have sold them to his cronies. I wonder whether that is the origin of "It's in the post". There is also the hint that the Garter King of Arms devised the present ceremony to ensure that he was paid, since he received a fee for such ceremonies.
We are entitled to be curious as to why conferring a peerage, unlike other honours conferred on citizens of this land, is not done personally by Her Majesty in Buckingham Palace. In that regard I support the suggestion of my noble friend Lady Nicol that the Sovereign should confer the title and that would provide the opportunity for the ceremonial.
So far nobody has raised the question of the use of parliamentary robes. We all attend State Opening in our robes, with the Sovereign present. I argue that the use of parliamentary robes and the use of coronation robes should only be considered in the presence of Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs or successors. Having considered the matter in due debate and given serious thought to whether Peers may use their parliamentary rights on some other occasion, other than when the

923
sovereign is present, we must ask whether we run the risk of, if I may so describe it,lèse majesté. In the future, will we see a situation in which some impoverished Conservative hereditary Peer decides to go on a speaking tour of America in the glare of television lights, complete with his parliamentary robes? I do not suggest that it will happen but we need to be clear that that kind of thing would be the wrong way to proceed.
Finally, I have argued a principled point of view, but I appreciate that we may wish to move in stages. On that basis, I hope that if the reading of a document at the introduction of a Peer to this House is deemed necessary, it is the Writ of Summons that is read. That will be a salutory reminder to the new Peer and all those present of the reasons why we sit here in Parliament.
5.44 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, King James VI made 47 new Peers in 18 years. The Government have created over 60 new Peers in a few months and we are now sitting at 2.15 p.m. on three days a week so that nine or more Peers a week can be introduced. At that rate they will all be through comfortably before Christmas.
Now we are gathered together here to decide whether to request of Her Majesty that she should graciously permit us to tinker with the Introduction ceremony so that new Peers can be processed more quickly than has hitherto been possible without reducing the time available for other parliamentary business.
First, it may be pertinent to ask why there is such a hurry to process new Peers. I accept the undeniable fact that numbers on the Labour Benches have in past years made it difficult, owing to the age and infirmity of many of their number, to man the Front Bench. But a glance at the Government Front Bench now makes it quite clear that that is no longer the case. The Leader of the Opposition has assured the House that, so far as he and his colleagues are concerned, the Salisbury convention will be observed. Therefore, the Government are in no danger of this House failing to pass important legislation for which they have a mandate from the electorate, even without all the new Peers that they have announced. Therefore, I cannot help wondering whether the reason is that the Government are not prepared to tolerate what all governments hitherto have had to tolerate; namely, losing any Divisions on amendments to Bills, however sensible and desirable those amendments may be. If that is the case, democracy is flying out of the window and dictatorship is coming in at the door. Under those circumstances, there is no point in this House existing. It would be more honest, as my father often said, to abolish it, so that no one in this country was in any doubt that there was single chamber government.
Next, one might ask whether we are so short of parliamentary time at present in this House that 11 minutes per new Peer cannot be spared from the day's business. I do not think that we are. If the object is to make time for more legislation, we must ask ourselves whether more legislation is desirable.
924
I shall comment on some of the suggestions made for curtailing the ceremony. It has been suggested that the reading of either Letters Patent or the Writ or both should be omitted. Both are of importance. The Letters Patent make the individual concerned eligible to receive a Writ and the Writ is what makes him eligible to sit in this House. If one were to be omitted, I should prefer it to be the Writ since that is always the same except for the name of the Peer. But I do not believe that either should be omitted. The time saved—about 2½ minutes in each case—is very little.
It has been suggested that the "placing" of the Peer be omitted. The doffing of hats has been described by some as "very comic", "absurd" and "Gilbertian"; and we have been told that some Peers taking part feel ridiculous. I suggest that it is possible to poke fun at almost any ceremony—and very enjoyable too—but that does not mean that the ceremony is pointless or that it should be altered or abolished, particularly when it is of great antiquity and part of the traditional ceremonial of the Mother of Parliaments, which is the envy of the world. There is nothing undignified in it so long as it is carried out in a dignified manner, as is usually the case. Not long ago, when hats were normal streetwear for men, it was the custom to remove them. No doubt that was because when greeting people with a how one had to remove one's hat first so that it did not fall off. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and her colleagues should buy some hat pins. I hope that, if wearing hats by men becomes fashionable again—as assuredly it will one day—that custom will he revived.
If it comes to that, one could quite well poke fun at the custom of shaking hands. That is no less ridiculous than bowing and taking off one's hat and it can be quite painful. As for the plea of feeling ridiculous, those who do might think a little less of themselves and their image and a little more about the significance of the ceremony in which they are taking part. I wonder whether it does anyone any harm to feel ridiculous occasionally. It may even be quite good for those—very few, but there are a few—who come to this Chamber puffed up with a sense of their own importance.
As initiation ceremonies go, it is very innocuous. After all, candidates are not expected to be smeared with some filthy substance or eat or drink some disgusting concoction. But be all that as it may, there are probably as many new Peers who enjoy their introduction as not. Why should they and their families be deprived of their great day in order to accommodate the prejudices of a few individuals who have come here ready to reform us before they have even arrived.
Those who have read the paper on the The origin of Peers in the House of Lords, as probably most who are taking part in the debate will have done—it was mentioned by the Lord Privy Seal and the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill—will be aware that page 124, footnote 2, reads:
"The question why three bows and neither more nor less figure both in the old and the modem ceremony is often asked. The answer probably is that three has been a sacred number in widely separated times and places, both non-Christian and Christian, and that this is merely one example among very many. A good collection of references to three as a sacred number will be found in the article Numbers in James Hastings, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics

925
[volume 9] where it is suggested that though their currency is by no means confined to these, three and nine as sacred numbers are especially characteristic of the Indo-European peoples from Vedic and Iranian religions through Greek and Roman, to Teutonic and Celtic down to Christian. Among many examples the following of thrice repeated ritual actions may be worth mentioning: the Greek funeral pyre was circumambulated three times; in the offering to Mars and Sylvanus for the welfare of cattle the offerings were three portions each of spelt and wine; Varro records that a formula against gout was repeated 27 times; Celtic mythology is full of triads, and in particular the deiseal or ceremonial circumambulation was performed three times; Adam of Bremen describes a spring festival held every nine years at Uppsala at which nine of each male kind were offered".
In Christianity we have the Trinity and a whole echelon of supernatural beings ranging from seraphim down to angels, nine different varieties.
Your Lordships will all have different views as to the significance or otherwise of numbers. It will not have escaped notice that nine bows are made in the Introduction ceremony. The significance of numbers is part of ancient wisdom which is not understood today and at which it is fashionable to scoff. I wonder whether that is wise. For my part, I should not like to dispense with a part of the ceremony, the reasons for which are of far greater antiquity than the ceremony itself and have religious and mystical connotations which I do not suppose many of us understand. I certainly do not.
I am not superstitious about many things but I am about indulging in the kind of hubris which rejects anything that it does not understand on the grounds that it is just an old superstition and nowadays we know better. I hope your Lordships will reject any suggestion that the Introduction ceremony should be abolished or curtailed. If we once lose it we will never get it back again, and it will no doubt be the catalyst which will trigger the abolition of more of our lovely, colourful ceremonies which makes this House unique among second chambers.
5.53 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, a remark of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, which struck me was when he said that the Introduction procedure is inherently part of the procedure of the House as it exists at the moment, and for that reason a delay until the Labour Party decides what it will do with us should take place. It occurred to me then and when my noble friend Lord Ferrers spoke—if the Lord Privy Seal and his party are to abolish hereditary Peers—that there was talk of appointing some hereditary Peers as life Peers. If my noble friend Lord Ferrers and I were to be so appointed, it would be nice if I could be a supporter of my noble friend and he a supporter of mine; then we too could join in the ceremony from which to date we have been excluded.
If one is to reform anything, one needs to know what one is reforming. I am one of many on the Procedure Committee who is grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for drawing our attention to the paper on the Introduction of Peers in the House of Lords. That goes some way to answering the remark made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who said that our procedures are held in some disdain by some members of the
926
public. In fact, it is a lack of understanding of our procedures which leads to such a view, if such a view exists—I do not believe it does.
Some people may say our procedures are antiquated and that there is a great deal of history to them, and others will knock them; but when one reads how they came into being one is in a better position to argue with those who want change. Change is always in the interests of the business managers; it is in their vested interest to have a shorter introductory ceremony. I confess to sitting on the Front Bench opposite at times wishing the Introduction ceremony were shorter so that I could get on with what I saw as an important piece of legislation. That was a personal view and not the view of the House. The view of the House is that the Introduction ceremony is a good ceremony and, if there is to be change, it should be considered carefully by all.
I seldom disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, but I disagreed on one point this afternoon. The noble Baroness said that the ceremony was boring for children. I know of at least one child today who was enthralled by all three ceremonies and would happily come again to watch more, despite the length of time they took. The argument on the length of time the ceremony takes put forward by the Lord Privy Seal smacks of an argument of the lowest common denominator. There can be nothing substantial in it. As my noble friend Lord Denham said: "What are we shortening it for?" I hope that the argument is disregarded.
There is justification for looking at the ceremony, to its dignity and whether it fits the procedure of the House; but the argument based on time is a complete fallacy. At the end of the day if we save six or eight minutes it will make no difference to this Chamber. Similarly with the doffing of hats and the bowing, as the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said. It is a mystical and inherent part of the procedure and I would hate to see it change.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it may be thought presumptuous that I should seek to make a contribution to the debate, having been introduced only two weeks ago, against a background where many contributors to the debate have had long experience of speaking in this House. But I do so because my memory of the ceremony of the Introduction may be more graphic than most because of its recent occasion.
I can report that against a background where my work in politics has always been at the radical end of my party and where my family also support a great number of causes of a radical kind, that all my family of two generations—both my generation and the next, which so often defines myself as being in a somewhat fuddy-duddy role—agreed that they enjoyed the experience and felt that it had been a highly significant day. That was certainly my impression.
While there are good arguments, as my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal indicated, for reducing the time involved in the Introduction ceremony, there is at least one aspect which we ought to bring within a modern

927
framework. Of course we are talking about tradition. But this House is a house which has existed on the basis of adaptation of tradition to modern realities, otherwise it would long since have been swept away.
What is the basis of newly arriving Members of the House being introduced and doffing their hats to the Lord Chancellor from the Opposition Benches? I waited for 18 years to form part of the governing party in this country and was introduced to this Chamber from the Opposition Benches. That cannot make sense. It is to deny the significance of party. I can quite understand why King James I was none too interested in party. He certainly wanted no faction that challenged his power. But we are in a different age. Everyone knows that party is the reality of politics.
We all know that we take our places in the House on the basis of party or that those without a party who wish to represent themselves here from a more neutral stance sit on the Cross-Benches. We sit because of our designation. Surely therefore the ceremony should take into account that basic fact. If we are relating any part of the ceremony to the actual taking of one's seat, it should be the other way round from the position at present. The Member should not be introduced from the Opposition Benches but he or she should be conducted to the Bench on which he or she proposes to sit. That is the basis on which we are all here.
On this occasion I disagree with my noble friend Lady Nicol, who suggested that the solution might be investiture elsewhere. It is important that we are introduced to the House. What was said earlier is right. The purpose of the ceremony is so that the new arrival can be recognised by the House to which he or she has been introduced. However, I certainly think there is a good case for speeding up the ceremony. We should look again at the old tradition which denied the concept of party or from whence one came and bring that into the modern era.
6.1 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. I salute him in that, unlike me, he arrived in the House on merit. I was delighted to hear that his family spent an enjoyable afternoon watching his Introduction into the House. I would not wish to deprive them of that enjoyment. But perhaps he might like to ask them this question. Would they like to see three times a day the ceremony we have when we introduce every life Peer, be they temporal or spiritual? The ceremony takes 11 minutes. We will have spent 200 minutes debating whether we should have the ceremony. We could have introduced 20 Peers during that time. However, I think it well worth debating the issue.
I thank the Lord Privy Seal for giving us the opportunity to debate this point. I also thank that distinguished servant of the House, the Clerk of the Parliaments, Mr. Michael Davies, for his six-page memorandum. It is lucid, concise and impartial. We thank him for it. In it he mentions everything. There is, in a sense, nothing more to say. However, because we are Members of the House, we have a right and a duty to pronounce.
928
I declare an interest and I shall try not to grind an axe. I entered your Lordships' House in July of last year. I regard it as a privilege and an honour, and not as a job. I have a job elsewhere. I personally do not mind if the 800 or so hereditary Peers are removed from the House. I hope that I shall go with dignity and grace. But I point out to the Lord Privy Seal that there is indeed a better way of entering the House; and I did it.
I needed to produce four documents: my birth certificate, my predecessor's—in my case my father's—death certificate; and my parents' marriage certificate. I had to get them in the right order. I also had to produce a letter signed by a relation, who was a Member of your Lordships' House, who had in fact, and by luck, been in my parents' house probably on the day that I was conceived. He had to state that I was more than likely the son of my father. I did that. I then produced those documents to the Crown Office. I salute it for its hard work. Then there was a gap of 10 to 14 days while the Lord Chancellor—the predecessor of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack—and other legal experts perused the documents. I sympathise with Peers who have to wait a number of weeks to be introduced. I found 14 days to be frustrating as I wished soon afterwards to vote against one of the more ludicrous Bills then being introduced by the gentlemen on my left.
I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will consider putting before the Procedure Committee not only how we might change the system for introducing Life Peers but whether we can speed up the process of introducing hereditary Peers into the House. We all have the same rights once we are here. I am always suspicious of those who bring in historical tradition when they want to avoid a change. In my opinion, this ceremony of 340 years or so is a modern one. Let us not forget that this House is a thousand years old. If you want an example of how our predecessors entered the House on introduction, you have only to look at Pugin's statues around the Palace. They did not have robes. They came in working dress—what all of us are wearing now. We are wearing our working clothes.
Noble Lords will recall that once the Patent and the Writ of Summons are read out at the Dispatch Box noble Lords have the opportunity or option to take an oath or affirm. Why could not the Procedure Committee consider the option for life Peers who have earned their honours to have either the à la carte menu or to be introduced, as I would wish if I were a Life Peer, in working dress? Why should we not be more flexible? We are indeed a flexible Chamber.
I was delighted to hear the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. I can confirm that my ancestor, the first Earl, went to receive his Patent from the sovereign. As a former serviceman I can tell the House that if I had been deserving of an honour I would have gone to Buckingham Palace to receive that honour from the sovereign. I would regard that as the greatest day of my life, not a rather modern ceremony that we observe here far too often.
I hope that the committee will consider the options that I have put forward. I welcome the Lord Privy Seal's earnest and genuine desire to reform the House. I hope that he will not let us down.
6.9 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I much welcome the Motion of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal as I certainly believe that the ceremony of Introduction should be changed. I well understand my noble friend's wish to achieve a consensus on a compromise position, but I also believe, as he does, that it is important that a variety of views are put on record about this matter today.
I shall be brief. I do not really consider that this subject requires lengthy discussion. There certainly ought to be more important matters of state and, indeed, of society, on which to spend our time and energy than this. It seems to me to be a remarkably simple and straightforward issue. We are a bicameral Parliament and our methods of introducing Members to it should be the same in both Chambers. Another place has a perfectly adequate and dignified method of introducing a new Member to the existing Parliament. Apart from the two sponsors it is akin to the method used in this House for hereditary Peers. We should have the same.
My noble friend Lady Nicol made a very interesting suggestion about an investiture. What happens in this House should be the same as in another place. I note from the excellent memorandum prepared by the Clerk of the Parliaments that one argument against change in 1975 was,
"Although parts of the ceremony were absurd so too were many other parliamentary ceremonies."
I find the conclusion that because there are other absurdities we should keep this one rather than change them all, rather quaint, if not downright bizarre. I am sorry to say that the words which I have quoted describe a great deal of the discussions which go on about this particular topic. It is simple. I know that I do not speak for myself alone when I say that we should harmonise our procedures of Introduction with those of another place and let us, for all our sakes, try to come into the 20th century, at least before we find ourselves in the 21st century.
6.12 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, this debate has gone on for a very long time and many points have been covered. I do not want to go over them again. Perhaps I may make one or two observations. The first is to the noble Lord, Lord Davies. The reason the new life Peers are introduced to the Barons' Benches is that the House is divided geographically. If an Earl is introduced he will be introduced on the Earls' Benches and a Duke to the Dukes' Benches. Bishops go to the Bishops' Benches. The House is divided geographically, in addition to being divided as we now speak.
Secondly, we certainly need some ceremony of Introduction and there is no question about that. The life Peers enjoy it, as do their families. It is no mean achievement to get to this House, as has already been said. We should also take note that tradition is often much better if it is updated.
I take the point of the three bows. I am told that that comes from the religious significance of the Holy Trinity, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. That sort of
930
thing now seems to be slightly out of date and perhaps one bow will do. I would like to say how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, who suggested that the Introductions should be made from the back of the Cross Benches. The new Peers would then be seen; it is a central position and it is a much more appropriate place than the Back Benches where I am standing.
The point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, as regards Silks being created was excellent. That is an example of updating of great sense. It obviously made the ceremony shorter, but just as significant. I end by saying that I also believe that the Letters Patent and the Writ of Summons, which are so similar, being read twice seems too much.
James I got himself into an appalling muddle by selling peerages and eventually solved the matter by ordering Garter and the Earl Marshal to produce a more standard method of introduction in public in the Chamber of the House of Lords. That was promulgated on 29th August 1621 by the Earl Marshal and Garter. I would like to see an update promulgated after your Lordships have debated the matter in great depth and the Queen has agreed to it. She can then order the present Earl Marshal and Garter to produce an updated version for the introduction of Peers.
Finally, the updating of tradition is vital. I am in charge, by the great luck of tradition, of the opening of Parliament. I first did it in 1975 when my cousin died. The ceremony has been changed enormously. We just update it. Her Majesty makes recommendations. She always has to approve everything because it is her ceremony, her Parliament and her day. We should update and make ourselves more modern. It will then be much more pleasing for the new Peers and for the public.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to follow the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk. It was certainly interesting to hear what he had to say. I am sure that many Members of this House will be pleased at the proposition he put forward about the necessity to update and modernise our procedures.
I say at the outset that I am very grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate as a Member who took my seat only in June and whose memories of that occasion are quite vivid. It is a very great pleasure and privilege to serve in this House. One of the things that I have been strongly influenced by since I was elevated to this House is the number of friends, relatives and people whom I did not even know but who knew me in my former constituency and who have all said that it was an honour that had been given to me which was well earned. I am very grateful for those comments.
When considering the ceremony I recognise that it is historic and that most of it is dignified, although when I witnessed the hereditary Peers coming into the Chamber, saying a few words at the Dispatch Box and then walking down to shake hands with the Lord Chancellor, I wondered why on earth I could not do that instead of having to go through the procedure that I had to follow. I had a very large group present when I was

931
introduced. My wife, my sons, my daughter, in-laws and sisters all enjoyed the occasion immensely. They sat in the Gallery and told me later how very proud they had been to see me come in and to watch the ceremony that followed until the doffing of the hats. I thought that my eight year-old grand-daughter summed it up when we assembled on the Terrace to have tea after the event. She said to me, "Grand-dad, you didn't half look stupid in that long red dress, standing up and sitting down and putting on and taking off that silly black hat." Not half as stupid as I felt, I thought, when performing that particular act.
We also received a video of the ceremony and on three occasions we have had groups of friends round to watch the ceremony. All were very impressed with the significance of the ceremony, except for the doffing of the hats. On each occasion they almost fell off their seats with laughter. One of my friends said, "If Hollywood had made a film about the House of Lords and shown that procedure, I would have said that Hollywood had gone too far on this occasion."
When I came into the House a large group of my colleagues from the other place came to see the ceremony. Very few Members of the other place watch the ceremony of induction into this House. They were absolutely dumbfounded at the doffing of the hats, but they loved the rest of the ceremony.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Leader of the House for explaining to us the procedure of the doffing of the hats. Apparently, it has gone on since 1621. Having been introduced into your Lordships' House and participated in the ceremony, I asked one of my long-serving noble friends about the raison d'être for the doffing of the hats. His answer was, "I don't really know, but I presume that it has something to do with the Holy Trinity". The noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, mentioned that, as did the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, who spoke from the Cross Benches. That explanation may be correct, but having watched the ceremony of the doffing of the hats from these Benches, the only thing that I can say about it is that it is awful. It rates from bad to dreadful. I have no doubt that when I performed I was absolutely dreadful. I certainly felt greatly embarrassed.
I should say at this point that I do not support the proposition that the ceremony should take place in the presence of Her Majesty, presumably at Buckingham Palace. The ceremony should remain in this House and I believe that the new procedures which the Leader of the House has outlined are to be welcomed.
Last Thursday my noble friend Lady Amos was introduced and was supported by my noble friends Lady Blackstone and Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde. To me and, I hope, to other Members of your Lordships' House, it was a distinguished and dignified occasion because noble Baronesses do not have to doff their hats; they simply bow to the Lord Chancellor. I was impressed by the dignity of that ceremony but, unfortunately, the next introduction featured noble Lords so back we went to the awful spectacle of putting the hats on and taking them off. I strongly support the proposition that that aspect of the ceremony should be
932
removed. It would undoubtedly shorten the procedure but, in my view, the strongest argument in favour of change is that leaving out only that element would increase and enhance the dignity of the House.
I should like to comment also on the ceremony of kneeling to the Lord Chancellor when one hands over the Writ. I have nothing against kneeling to the Lord Chancellor but when we become Members of this House many of us are getting on in years and our knees and hips are not as sound as they used to be. You sometimes wonder if you will manage to get up again. If we follow the suggestions made by the Lord Privy Seal, perhaps the Lord Chancellor will be able to dispense with his hat. I say no more about the Lord Chancellor's hat. Perhaps, however, he could stand up and there could be a dignified handshake at the Woolsack.
I am sure that all of us want to maintain the dignity of this House, and I am sure that people outside, particularly when they have a loved one being introduced into this House, would like some ceremony retained. I believe that it would be a great improvement if we were simply to omit the doffing of the hats.
6.23 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I am glad that this debate refers to the "ceremony" of Introduction. The word "ceremony" must never be forgotten and I am glad that most noble Lords have supported it this afternoon. Introduction to this House is one of the most important days in the life of any new Peer and his or her family. I have watched the total concentration and pleasure on the faces of those families and have realised what it means to them. Any Peer who is bored or finds the ceremony awkward need not attend. The majority of us, however, remember our own Introductions and in our minds remember those awesome words of our Writ of Summons:
"Considering the difficulties of the said affairs and dangers impending, waiving all excuses",
that we should attend and speak.
Sadly, our work is no longer widely reported in the media, but it must never be forgotten that this is a working House. When we are introduced we enter a lifelong duty to the work of this House. We are individually responsible for order in debates. This is one of the most daunting places in which to speak as so many experts are present and our contributions must therefore be well prepared. A new Peer needs to be aware of those duties from the start. There should certainly be no difference in sense of duty between honoured peerages, working peerages or, in my mind, hereditary peerages—and certainly not between men and women. We all have an equal duty to this House. Our present ceremony underlines that fact and it has stood the test of time, as is shown by the regularity of attendance and the high standard of debate and order in our House.
Reading the suggestions that have been made for changes, it is clear that the Oath must remain. The Letters Patent must be read and I believe that the Writ must also remain. When three new Peers are introduced on any one day, if all new Peers were present together,

933
the Writ could be read only once, but that does not happen so the Writ must be read each time. The only possible change which might be acceptable is that the part of the ceremony which is described as "placing" could be shortened by sitting and doffing once only. If that were to happen, as the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, suggested, between the Bar and the Table, the whole House would be better able to see and one group of Peers would not be disturbed from their seats. I believe that the ceremony should be of an individual nature, in front of the whole House, on a normal day, and should continue to be marked by the wearing of the robes. There may be future occasions when large numbers of new Peers have to be introduced, as is the case this Session, but I do not believe that that should make for a substantial alteration.
I often speak to different groups of people about the work of the House of Lords. They are always interested and are surprised at the amount of work that is entailed, its voluntary nature and the fact that we wear our robes only on Introduction and at the State Opening. I should like to see more media publicity being given to the important modern work of this House in its detailed amendments to Bills and the work of its Select Committees. However, I believe that the ceremony of Introduction should retain its historic, solemn and special nature and should not be substantially modified.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I said at the beginning of the debate that I was looking forward to it with a great deal of anticipation, and I have not been disappointed. It has been a fascinating afternoon. Various Peers have spoken in favour of preserving the existing ceremony. Some have spoken in favour of its total abolition. My noble friend Lady Nicol would like the ceremony to be removed totally from the Palace of Westminster and sent back to the monarchy, and presumably to Buckingham Palace. If I may say so, the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, spoke with his usual bluff common sense and expressed some of the views which I hold and which I hope that I expressed earlier.
I cannot help observing in passing that those on the other side of the House who have spoken in favour of retaining the existing ceremony have all been hereditary Peers, except for the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, who has just spoken. None of them has had to go through the ceremony. It seems to me that the ceremony should be more than a mere spectator sport. Those who have spoken in favour of preserving the existing ceremony have expressed that view because of what they have observed, not because of what they have experienced personally or because of their personal appreciation of the significance of the ceremony.
Some of the arguments in favour of the existing ceremony have been mystical; some have been based on tradition; some have been historical and some have been "inertial" in the sense that the ceremony is there, so we should not change it. What we have not heard a great deal of have been utilitarian arguments in favour of maintaining the ceremony. I believe that only the noble Lord, Lord Denham, advanced such an argument. I see
934
that the noble Lord and the other of the two cavaliers, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, are both in their places this evening—I am delighted about that—but I am not sure which is the howitzer which the noble Earl thought was on his side at the beginning of his speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Denham, said that the ceremony is important not only because it introduces a Peer to the House, but because it introduces the House to the Peer. The noble Lord nods his head in agreement. If that is true for life Peers why is it not true for Peers by succession? Why should not Peers by succession be similarly introduced to the House? Why should not the House similarly be introduced to those Peers? Is it believed that because they are Peers by succession somehow genetically or osmotically in the course of their upbringing they have accumulated such an innate knowledge of the virtues, proceedings and happenings in this House that they do not need what life Peers need? I shall give way to the noble Lord in one moment when I have finished my complaint. It seems to me that that was the only utilitarian argument that was put. If that is a valid argument then it should apply to all, but it does not.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I believe that hereditary Peers who are here by descent and who have inherited from fairly close relations will have learnt from them and by sitting on the steps of the Throne, as many of us do before we come here, the traditions of this House. They have been indoctrinated in those traditions. If I had been given the opportunity to go through the ceremony I would have leapt at it.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I hope that the Procedure Committee takes account of what the noble Lord has just said. Perhaps we can have two or three days of induction for all the hereditary Peers who are here so that they can go through the ceremony and thereby plant the imprint of total credibility upon their presence. I hear what the noble Lord has said. To say that somehow in the course of the upbringing of a Peer by succession he has acquired that which it is necessary for a life Peer to acquire by sitting on the Back Bench and doffing his hat three times does not strike me as a very convincing argument.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. It is not the doffing of the hat that is important but the bowing. The hat must be doffed so that it does not fall off when the Peer bows.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am floored by the noble Lady's remarks. I listened to the noble Lady's speech, in which she was almost totally in favour of preserving the existing ceremony. She now suggests that we can remove the hats. If we removed the hats to bow that would be an improvement. As my noble friend Lord Evans pointed out, at least we would not have to go through the strange ritual of removing the hat and putting it back on again. It is a hat that I had never seen before coming into the House. I know of no one who wears it. The only time that it is produced is on ceremonial occasions.

935
I do not want to venture into another area, but I inform the House that the most difficult ceremony of which I have experience is that which takes place at the proroguing of Parliament. A group of five or six of us sit there and do nothing except take our hats off seven times. We file in; we sit down; we take the hat off seven times and then turn round and go out. I find it difficult to convince myself, let alone any of my friends, relations or the country outside, that anything is added to the prorogation ceremony of Parliament by my sitting there and taking off a strange article of headwear.
If it is now proposed that we should abolish the hats but preserve that part of the ceremony without the hats it is at least a step forward. It is only a millimetre but I recognise it for what it is.
I do not propose to go into all of the details that have emerged in the course of this debate. I shall read them with very great interest. I merely observe that no one has said that the House should not pass the Motion standing in my name. I was most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, for what he said about that. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, I went through the old Silk ceremony. My anitiquity is not as great as his. I remember spending a day moving from court to court and bench to bench. It is true that one bowed to both sides, to the rear and then to the judge. Mr. Richard was asked if he moved. I got up, bowed and then walked to the next court and did it all over again.
I am very glad that the inevitability of gradualness, at least as far as concerns the law, has produced a more sensible approach to that ceremony—I have no complaints about having a ceremony—than we appear to have had so far in this House. I hope that I made it clear at the outset that I was in favour of a dignified ceremony. I also hope that I made it clear that I was in favour of a ceremony which was consonant with the traditions of this House. But, with respect, it is not good enough for noble Lords to say that this ceremony has withstood the test of time. For centuries the ceremony did not have to withstand the test of time. It was only with the introduction of life Peers to this House in 1958 that the repetition of the ceremony became apparent. Before that the only time that the ceremony was used was when a new hereditary peerage was created. Then, on the first occasion that the holder of that peerage came to this House he (as it was in those days) went through that particular ceremony. With the advent of the Life Peerages Act the door has opened. It is not true to say that the ceremony has withstood the test of centuries. It has been in existence for some 40 years. With great respect, far from standing the test of time it is audibly creaking. I believe that the time has come when we should take a serious look at it. I commend this Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
6.37 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Prohibition of small-calibre pistols]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, after ("firearm)") insert ("after the word "weapon" the words "(which includes an air pistol to which section 1 of this Act applies and which is designed to fire .22 or smaller diameter ammunition)" shall be inserted, and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, unlike the next few amendments, this amendment does not contradict government policy in any way. On the contrary, it is wholly in conformity with it. The amendment seeks to correct an anomaly created by the 1997 Act as a result of a drafting blunder made by the previous government. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 prohibited
"any self-loading or pump-action rifle other than one which is chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges".
During the passage of the 1997 Act the previous government in what was described at the time as a technical amendment substituted the words "rifled gun" for "rifled" in this section of the legislation. The inadvertent effect of that is that self-loading air pistols can be included as prohibited firearms.
It has been recognised by both the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers that it was not the intention of the 1997 Act to ban such air pistols. The Act creates a blanket exemption for air weapons in Section 1(2), but seemingly self-loading air pistols are caught by the reference to "rifled gun" in Section 1(3). This amendment is designed to clarify the situation.
I believe that the amendment is correctly drafted: I have taken a fair amount of trouble over it. If it is not correctly drafted I hope that nevertheless the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will accept it, because then the other place with the assistance of the Home Office can put it right. If it is not accepted now there will he no chance to rectify the blunder committed by the previous government. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I cannot support the amendment. It would allow a significant loophole in the Bill, because it would allow people to keep air pistols which fire pellets of .22 diameter or less at home on a firearm certificate. It is a greater exemption than was proposed under the 1997 Act, because under that Act these air pistols would have had to have been kept and used at a secure licensed pistol club.
These air pistols are not under the low calibre ones normally used for target shooting. These are high-powered air pistols—over six foot pounds. They can have a rapid rate of fire. They can be extremely dangerous in the wrong hands. In law there would be no check whatever on the upper limit of the power that could be developed for these pistols.
I understand that current international target shooting competitions use low power, uncertificated air weapons which will not be affected by the Bill. Throughout the

937
passage of the Bill, we have stated constantly that the Government are not disposed to agree to allow exemptions to the general ban on hand guns which the Bill seeks to introduce. In the light of my comments, I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I did not realise that it was the Government's intention to ban such weapons. I do not believe that that was general knowledge until now. In the light of what he has just said, I can only beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("the words "a small-calibre pistol" shall cease to have effect") and insert ("after the words "a small-calibre pistol" the words "which has a barrel length not less than 20.3 cm in length and which is incapable of holding more than one cartridge and is not derived from a multi-shot design" shall be inserted").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5 to 8 which are all consequential upon this amendment.
This is the last attempt to save something from the wreck caused by two successive governments effecting firearms legislation. The object is to enable Great Britain to continue to take part in pistol competitions in the Olympic and Commonwealth Games. The object of the amendment is to exempt a type of pistol known as a free pistol. I shall describe in not too technical terms what is a free pistol. It is a single-shot pistol. It is cumbersome with a fairly long barrel. It has no magazine. It is capable of single-shot fire only. It is used for deliberate shooting at paper targets at 50 metres and for no other purpose. It is a recognised discipline in international competition. It is one event in the Commonwealth and the Olympic Games. This type of pistol is totally impractical for any other purpose.
One could not carry out a massacre with such a weapon. It cannot be concealed with ease, and it cannot be folded. It is like a precision instrument. It has a stock which has to be tailored for the individual using it. It is hard to imagine it being used to hold up a bank or for any other purpose. It poses no threat to public safety.
If pistols of all types were to be banned, it would have a severe effect on this country in terms of international competitions. The UK will be unable to take part in any pistol competitions even if the people trained overseas, which few competitors capable of this kind of shooting would be able to afford.
We have the Commonwealth Games in Manchester in 2002. No UK competitors will be able to take part in pistol competitions. The same will apply to the Olympic Games. UK competitors will be unable to take part in pistol competitions. We shall be the laughing stock of the world.
When they introduced the legislation, the Government and the previous government were shooting at the wrong targets. Legitimate shooters are all law-abiding citizens. They are an easily identifiable soft target. The Government ignore the vast pool of underground
938
weapons held illegally by criminals. We have read today in the evening newspapers of the Home Secretary announcing an amnesty in Brixton. That is too little and too late. If the Government were to tackle the vast pool of underground weapons held all over the country, they would have the backing of the entire country, including the legitimate shooters.
The following amendments are all consequential. They remove references to small-calibre pistols. If your Lordships agree to this amendment, I shall move them formally. I hope noble Lords will feel able to support the amendment. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, what is important to recognise is that the highly specialised target pistols which are the subject of the amendment are as different as can be from normal .22 semi-automatic pistols or revolvers. Like the single-shot pistols which, as I think is generally known, can be bought anywhere in France by any adult without a permit of any sort, these take a long time to reload. Hence they are very much safer should they, by some unlikely mischance, fall into the wrong hands, than are conventional pistols, as Lord Cullen pointed out. What a tragedy it is that we never had a chance to debate the Cullen Report. So much misery might have been spared us if we had done so.
Unlike the simple French single-shot pistols, these target pistols, the subject of the amendment, are large. They are almost 12 inches long overall, extremely bulky, and almost as difficult to conceal as many a shotgun which is far more dangerous. They are more difficult to conceal than a knife or a mountaineer's axe which, as I pointed out on a earlier occasion, was used to assassinate Leon Trotsky in Mexico City. They are the very last implement that a person with criminal intent would ever choose as a weapon.
If conventional .22 semi-automatic pistols are perhaps only one quarter as dangerous as full-bore ones, then in turn these target pistols are probably one-tenth as dangerous, in practical terms, as conventional .22s. It is bad enough banning ordinary .22 pistols. Over a 50-year period such a ban might save 15 or 16 lives in all, insufficient historically and in terms of precedent to justify such a Draconian ban. We would save far more lives at far less cost to liberty and to the survival prospects of reputable businesses, if owners of baseball bats were required to keep them securely locked up at sports grounds when not in legitimate use for sporting purposes; or if bull bars on motor vehicles were banned.
This lack of a sense of proportion is far greater where these specialised target pistols are concerned. I doubt whether banning them would save as much as one life in 50 years. Have such pistols ever been used in crime? I doubt it. Exemption for this small number would at least enable Britain to continue to compete successfully in some Olympic pistol shooting disciplines. I urge your Lordships to put reason before unthinking emotion. I support the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as I explained in Committee on 15th July, the Government do not wish

939
to allow exemptions to the general ban on handguns which the Bill seeks to introduce. The amendment seeks to exempt single-shot small-calibre pistols from the general ban on handguns that we propose. We do not believe that it would be justifiable to treat one group of shooters in a special way which is out of step with the general approach taken by the Bill.
The amendment is inconsistent in another way. It seeks to exempt single-shot small-calibre rimfire pistols. But a pistol of exactly the same dimension which is centre fire is already banned by the Act introduced by our predecessors earlier this year. It would be extremely difficult for police officers or anyone else to tell the difference between those types of pistol without specialist assistance. The Bill intends to ban all firearms with barrels less than 30 centimetres long. If this amendment became law, it would be a recipe for confusion.
It is said that those weapons cannot be reloaded promptly. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to the Cullen inquiry. The evidence to Lord Cullen from Mr. David Penn, the chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council Technical and Research Committee said:
"With reasonable practice a shooter could get the reloading time down to about 5 seconds".
Lord Cullen said:
"I am content to accept that this could be achieved".
Therefore, we cannot accept the amendment. Perhaps I may indicate to your Lordships that there was a similar amendment in another place which was defeated by 333 votes to 123, a majority of 210. In those circumstances, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I am naturally disappointed by the Minister's reply. He raised the point about, for example, barrel lengths. The minimum barrel length mentioned in the amendment is merely an example. Many pistols have barrels much longer than that. That was merely an example and not intended as a firm statement of barrel length.
Small calibre rimfire is self-evident. It means .22. One of those pistols is totally unlike any other form of pistol of a larger calibre. It needs no expert to distinguish one from the other, even at first sight.
The Government are firmly committed to banning all types of pistol. I am sure that that has been a Cabinet decision. However, I hope that this amendment will be accepted and I ask your Lordships to support it.
6.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 81.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Congleton, L.

Haddington, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Halsbury, E.

Cuckney, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Downshire, M.

Milverton, L.

940

Molloy, L.

Rowallan, L.

Monson, L. [Teller]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Savile, L.

Newall, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Nickson, L.

Swansea, L. [Teller]

Palmer, L.

Wharton, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord

Addington, L.

Chancellor]

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Jay of Paddington, B

Barnett, L.

Judd, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Borrie, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Calverley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ludford, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Castle of Blackburn, B.

McNally, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mountevans, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Desai.L.

Nelson, E.

Diamond, L.

Newby, L.

Dixon, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Paul, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Plant of Highfield.L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gallacher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Ramsey of Cartvale, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Randall of Saint Budeaux, L.

Grantchester, L.

Rea, L.

Gregson, L.

Richard, L. (Lord Privy Seal]

Grenfell, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hamwee, B.

Sewel, L.

Hardie, L.

Simon, V.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Haskel, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hayman, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollick, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Whitty.L.

Hoyle, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.1 p.m.
Clause 3 [Consequential amendments and repeals]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
("(5) Payments made under a scheme made under subsection (1) above relating to small-calibre pistols shall be dispatched to claimants within 40 days of a valid claim being approved under the terms set out in the Firearms (Amendments Act 1997 Compensation Scheme.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4. It appears that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has what I might term the "big battalions" on his side this evening. I shall have to rely on sweet reasonableness to see whether he will agree to what I hope is a very small amendment and one which I believe he should find easy to accept. It does not relate to another exemption for

941
firearms. This is the third attempt that I and my noble friend Lady Blatch have made to try to create some sort of package whereby those receiving compensation for losing their firearms get their compensation within 40 days, or rather within 40 days,
"of a valid claim being approved"
by the relevant government agency.
I appreciate that we have made two previous attempts and that the noble Lord was not satisfied with those amendments partly for drafting reasons, if I may so put it. I hope that this third attempt has a better chance of meeting with his approval. I hope and certainly believe that the amendments are entirely workable because they are based on the provisions of the compensation scheme approved by Parliament under the 1997 Act.
In the first instance, the amendments require a shooter to submit a valid claim to the firearms compensation section (FCS), the Home Office division overseeing the compensation scheme. I hope that that deals with the noble Lord's objection to my earlier amendment when he pointed out that a 40-day deadline from the point of agreed valuation would not be practical in instances where
"there are perfectly innocent errors"
such as,
"incorrect bank details on a claim form"—[Official Report, 16/10/97; col. 585.]
The amendments cover this possibility as the 40-day limit does not begin to operate until a valid claim, without such errors, is submitted.
The amendments also ensure that a valid claim has to be approved by the FCS before the 40-day limit begins. It makes no difference what category the claim falls under. The 1997 compensation scheme states that a flat rate or listed payment under options A and B will be approved by the FCS once a valid claim has been received. Once received, a notification of the claim is sent out by the FCS and it is from this point that the 40-day limit would begin. Valid claims under option C (individual valuations) would not be approved by the FCS until agreement was reached between the latter and the claimant. At that point a payment declaration which says that the claimant agrees with the amount to be paid in settlement of the claim must be signed by the claimant and sent back to the FCS. Again, it is only at this point that the 40 day limit begins.
I do not believe that the amendments are designed to impose unrealistic pressures on civil servants. They would simply ensure that a compensation cheque is sent, or dispatched, to a claimant within 40 days after a valid claim has already been submitted and approved by the firearms compensation section. I believe that it is entirely in line with the Prime Minister's commitment made over a year ago to introduce a requirement on all government departments and agencies to pay their bills within 30 days. We are not even asking for 30 days; we are merely suggesting 40 days as an appropriate limit. It is a very modest little amendment. As I said, we have made three attempts to persuade the Government of its
942
virtue. I hope that the sweetly reasonable way in which I have put the issue before the noble Lord will allow him to accept it on this occasion. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have made it clear on behalf of the Government at all stages of this Bill that compensation payments for small-calibre pistols and ancillary equipment will be made as quickly as possible. I share the sentiment that lies behind the amendment and I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for the sweet reason which he demonstrated. However, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment, although I agree that the drafting is significantly improved since it first saw the light of day.
Normally, once a claim is approved for payment by the firearms compensation section, the payment will be sent to the claimant's bank account within a few days of that approval. The problem is that the amendment would impose a statutory requirement to send payments to claimants within 40 days of the claim being approved. There are bound to be some cases where, despite our best efforts or those of the FCS, some difficulty will be encountered in making payments. I give an example of such a case. A claimant may have entered his banking details incorrectly on the claim form, but that does not make the claim invalid. The claim is valid but the details are wrong. In such a case, we would have to delay until the correct information was made available. There is no guarantee that we would receive this information in good time to dispatch the payment within 40 days of the original approval of the claim, which would be valid despite the fact that the bank details might be inaccurate. It is therefore quite possible that in some cases, for reasons beyond our control, we would simply not be able to send a payment to the claimant within a specified time-scale and would thus be in breach of the law. Quite what sanction and consequences legally follow a breach of the law is not plain to me.
There is also the question of consistency. In Committee, many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, forcefully expressed the view that the compensation scheme for small-calibre pistols should be treated in the same way as the scheme for large-calibre handguns and should, therefore, be subject to the same procedure of parliamentary approval as applied to the earlier scheme. Your Lordships will recall that I promised to consider the noble Baroness's point; and. indeed, I did so. In effect, I accepted the thrust of her amendment by introducing a government amendment. We agreed to amend the Bill accordingly, thus achieving consistency between the two schemes.
However, the noble Lord's amendment seeks to have different treatment for the two schemes. There is no similar requirement in relation to the timing of payments made under the compensation scheme for large-calibre handguns, which was the production of the predecessor government. It would be very inconsistent, very strange and, indeed, very odd to impose such a requirement for the small-calibre pistol scheme alone. It would suggest that the owners of small calibre pistols were in some way to be treated differently, perhaps more favourably, than those who owned and were handing in large-calibre handguns under the scheme introduced by the previous

943
government. More than 26,000 small-calibre pistols have been surrendered so far under the ex gratia scheme.
Officials in the FCS are doing their best to process all claims as quickly as possible to ensure that those who have surrendered their firearms and other items because of the earlier legislation this year will not have to wait longer than necessary. There were some initial teething problems in setting up the computer system, but the payment system is now well established and working well. The FCS will tackle claims for small-calibre pistols surrendered under the new scheme with equal vigour.
I should like to make two points by way of fact which may be helpful. I understand that the noble Lord will not press this amendment. Just a few days ago I was able to tell him and your Lordships that £10.5 million had been distributed. In the space of a few days, up until last Friday, the figure had risen from £10.5 million to £16.9 million. Therefore I do not think it is fair to say that officials have been dilatory in this respect.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about persons who had not received their payments within a reasonable time. I said that if I were given any details in writing I would have such cases investigated within the department and that chief officers of police would be contacted. I have not received details of a single case. I do not make that as a forensic point; it implies that the scheme is working well. I refer to the difference between £16.9 million and £10.5 million which has been distributed in a matter of a few days. I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I refer again to the lack of details of any late payment and with great respect I invite him to withdraw his amendment.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that, as I expected, that reply had the sound of one of those notes with which we are all familiar which has the large word "resist" scribbled over the top of it. The noble Lord resisted and did so well. I think there is very little I can do. I see that we are in the presence of the noble Lord the Chief Whip. To save him a little time I should say that I have no intention of pressing this amendment tonight or for that matter on any other occasion. Therefore he can now send his boys and girls home, should he so wish. The noble Lord may remember that many years ago he was kind to me in allowing me to leave early. I believe that we were discussing the disability living allowance and disability working allowance Bill on Second Reading and the whole matter finished much earlier than we had originally expected and that allowed me to be present at the birth of my only daughter.
I take note of what the noble Lord has had to say on this amendment. I am grateful for the attempt he has made to deal with my points. I am also grateful that he stressed the fact that Home Office officials are working hard to make sure compensation is paid as speedily as possible. For that I thank the noble Lord and his officials within the department. I am sorry that he does not feel
944
able to accept this amendment, or at least to go some way towards accepting it. But I at least take some hope from the Prime Minister's commitment to encourage all agencies to settle their debts within 30 days. I hope that the spirit of that at least will be recognised by the Home Office in trying to deal with this matter and that the noble Lord will make sure that the concerns that have been expressed in this House both at this stage and on earlier occasions are noted and are dealt with. Having said that I have no intention of pressing this amendment, it remains only for me to withdraw it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
The Schedule [Repeals]:
[Amendments Nos. 5 to 7 not moved.]
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move, That this Bill do now pass. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his courtesy.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
7.15 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, we must say a few words before this Bill passes to the other place. I shall not speak for too long. However, over the past few weeks thousands of decent, law-abiding people have handed in their guns to police stations without any bother and without causing any hindrance to anyone at all. Many people have suffered the consequences of this legislation through clubs closing down, through businesses closing down and through other businesses making losses which they ought not to have made. Those are the consequences of this Bill and the previous Bill. I wish to draw attention to the fact that what we have done is not to hit criminals but to hit decent, law-abiding people who have obeyed the law without let or hindrance, without question and without causing problems to anyone at all.
The guns that are in the hands of criminals are still there. It is guns in the hands of criminals that are the cause of most murders. I remind the House, before we leave this legislation, of the figures for homicides in Scotland before Dunblane and before the firearms legislation was introduced. In Scotland there were 669 homicides between 1990 and 1995; 44 of those—only 44 of those—were committed with firearms. Of those 44, only three were committed with licensed firearms. In other words, out of a total of 669 homicides in Scotland, only .04 per cent. were committed with licensed firearms. Yet, we have had this legislation. How sorry I feel for all the people who have been so disadvantaged by the legislation.
I believe that the public reaction has changed. The public have now understood better what this legislation is all about. Many people believe that it is unjust legislation and that it has penalised the innocent because of the actions of one guilty man. I have said that before

945
and I say it again. I am quite sure that I shall repeat it on many other occasions because I believe that this has been a disgraceful episode in the history of Parliament. It has introduced collective punishment into our law which I thought had gone out with the demise of the Nazi regime in Germany. However, as I said, the public reaction has changed and the Government might yet feel a backlash.
During the passage of this Bill two reasonable amendments were accepted by the House. I sincerely hope that what I am told by the media—that is, that the House of Commons will just throw those amendments out—will prove to be wrong on this occasion and that Members of the House of Commons will read the debates that have taken place in this House and that they will feel some concern not only for the disabled but also for this country's standing in sport abroad and in this country. If the House of Commons has regard to those matters, its Members will accept our amendments. But if they do not do so and the amendments are returned here, I sincerely hope that the House of Lords will have the guts to insist on its amendments.
I shall not weary your Lordships with my views any longer except to say that I believe injustice has been done. I do not believe that this will be the end of the matter. I fear that the Government may want to take things further. On the other hand it is possible to introduce legislation to repeal other legislation. I hope that in due course we might find the opportunity to introduce a Bill to repeal what I believe has been a bad piece of legislation not only on the part of this Government but also on the part of the previous government who started it all off.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for his great courtesy and patience towards those of us who oppose the Bill. On an earlier occasion he described us as libertarians. That is accurate enough in my case. However, our opposition to the Bill has nothing to do with the abstract, theoretical libertarianism propounded in university debating societies. Rather, it is motivated by anger at the great cost inflicted, without adequate justification we contend, upon respectable, law abiding citizens. I make no apology for repeating what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said. I refer to the emotional cost to those suddenly deprived after 20, 30 or perhaps 40 years of the chance to practise their favourite sport. In particular, the disabled cannot easily switch to rifle shooting, if they can switch at all. I hope that the Commons will think very hard about throwing out that specific amendment of ours.
I refer to the staggering financial cost to dealers and part owners of gun clubs, many of whom face ruination financially. All that is for what statistically is likely to be a very small saving in terms of lives. The Gun Control Network, which seems to have an extraordinary influence over this Government, can see that the saving in lives may be small, but says in effect, "To hell with statistics. We must base our actions on instincts". That is a triumph of emotion over reason, the triumph of the
946
current, hopefully ephemeral, touchy-feely syndrome over calm, measured objectivity. Heaven help us if all future legislation is framed on that basis.
Having said that, I conclude by again thanking the noble Lord for his courtesy.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I underline what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said. The Bill will do nothing to improve public safety. The criminal element will still be quite unaffected. They will be laughing their heads off right now. I shall not be at all surprised to see a continuation of crimes involving firearms held illegally. I hope that the Government will bear this in mind and will urge the police to do all they can to diminish that underground pool of illegally held weapons. They cannot wholly eliminate it, but I hope that that is what they will do.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as someone who arrived, as it were, half-way through the Bill, perhaps I may offer my thanks to my noble friend Lady Blatch who first dealt with the Bill for the Opposition and offered me help and advice during the latter stages. I give my thanks, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who has been eminently courteous the whole way through. He has taken a great deal of trouble over the amendments and to answer the letters that I have sent him as speedily as possible, bearing in mind the necessity of dealing with certain matters between the different stages.
I wish to touch on only one matter. It was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. Two amendments to the Bill were moved by eminent Government Back-Benchers at the Report stage, supported by many on this side of the House. When I spoke to those amendments, I reminded the House that the Labour Party manifesto had promised a free vote on these matters. I very much hope that that will be borne in mind and that the colleagues of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, will take seriously that manifesto commitment and the advice that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, gave about reading exactly what was said in this place on those amendments. I hope that another place will consider long and hard before it overturns those two amendments. I hope that those in the Whips Office in another place, who offer advice to their colleagues, will be as restrained as they might be in the advice they give to their colleagues bearing in mind the promise that this is a matter which should be left to a free vote; and one which, being left to a free vote, one would hope was properly "unwhipped".
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for what noble Lords have said. I reciprocate by saying that I have met with nothing but courtesy from the noble Lord, Lord Henley. This must be the only establishment in the known world where at our age we can still be called boys and girls when we are let off to go home reasonably early.
The background is well known. The noble Lord is right. We fought the last general election on a manifesto commitment for a free vote on whether the ban introduced by the last Government should be extended

947
to all handguns. There was a free vote in another place. There was a majority of 203 in favour of the extension of the ban. I think that that view has been taken into account in the approach taken by your Lordships in speeches in this House.
We have had a full range of views expressed, many of which I do not agree with, and some of which I do agree with. Everyone has approached the matter on the basis that if one disagrees one can do so with courtesy
948
and patience. In a moment or two, I hope that the Bill will start its journey back to another place. Whatever the views of that place about the changes your Lordships have seen fit to make to the Bill, I hope that the Bill can be introduced without delay to allow the ban on small calibre pistols to be in law by the end of the year. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Penal Policy
7.26 p.m.
The Earl of Longfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider the case for a penal policy based on Christian and humanist values.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I begin by thanking the highly qualified speakers who will take part in this short debate. I must also refer to the debate on matters not far removed from this subject which took place in this House on Thursday last. However, time does not permit me to try to cope in any way with those excellent speeches. I noted that the Minister, with his usual skill, appeared to be reserving himself for tonight's occasion. Certainly he abstained from replying to the severe criticism passed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, on Thursday last. We now have this debate.
I remain an almost obsequious supporter of this Government. They have now been in office for six months. During that time I have sought to keep up an average of two visits a week to prisons. With increasing urgency, the question is asked of me, "Will this Government of yours"—the questioners associate the Government with me perhaps more closely than the Government would wish—"be any different from the recent Government? In particular, will the policy be different from that pursued by the recent Government during their last few years?" As we know, in that period a certain Home Secretary whose name I mention too often in this House—I shall not refer to it again—introduced us to the slogan, "Prison works". Whatever may be said in favour or otherwise of that policy, it was new. It was not the policy pursued by the Conservative Ministers in the preceding 14 years.
Will the present Government continue with the policy that prison works? In case I am cut short after my few minutes allowed have elapsed, I wish to be clear that that is the question I put. I do not expect a definite answer tonight because I know that the Minister will wish to give the matter proper consideration. In the prisons these are grave matters. My brilliant colleagues must have time to think them over. That answer is being received with increasing impatience. I am not sure that I shall be welcome if I continue to give it without further proof. At present I am rather like someone who has a beloved son at school. He receives first class reports but the rumour is that the boy is becoming interested in drugs. However, the father refuses to believe it. I refuse to believe that the present Government are pursuing the same policy as the last Government, but I should like some indication that that is not so.
The Question I tabled refers to Christian and humanist values, which may not be quite identical. When I talk of Christian values, I think for illustration of someone like the late Archbishop Temple; and for humanist values I think of my late lamented friend, Lady Wootton, whom I had the honour of introducing into this House. I remember the trouble at the Table when she asked for the alternative form of words, which was not so popular in those days as it is now. They were two great penal reformers—great influences. Archbishop
950
Temple and other Christians would teach us to read yet again Matthew 25: "I was in prison and you came to me. In so much as you did it to the least of these my brethren you did it to me". That is the Christian inspiration. Lady Wootton would not have used those words; their formation was Christian. However, she would have agreed with the Christian leaders, at that time and since, that every human being who comes into this world is of infinite importance, whether or not we add the phrase, "in the sight of God". Any penal policy must take that into consideration, along with the safety of the public.
I ask the House to consider for a moment what an appalling legacy was left to this Government by the previous one. I do not speak in terms hostile to the Conservative administration in this respect over the past 18 years. We have had enlightened Conservative Ministers in this House. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Carr, spoke the other day, and the noble Lords, Lord Hurd and Lord Patten, have joined us recently. It is not a question of party politics. It is a question of a particular philosophy which was introduced in the last years of the recent Government, based on the phrase, "Prison works".
What do we find? In the past four years or so there has been an increase in the prison population of about 50 per cent. The official estimate is that the increase will continue rapidly. Meanwhile, the amount of money allotted to the Prison Service per prisoner has been reduced. The base of the service has been savagely cut. In the past few years the number of probation officers has been reduced by 10 per cent. It is reckoned that in the next two years or so it will be reduced by a further 10 per cent. The legacy is one of increasing numbers in prison, and at the same time steps being taken to economise on those who have to cope with prisoners, either while they are in prison or afterwards, or as an alternative to prison.
One may ask: why should it be officially calculated that the numbers in prison will go up and up? I do not expect a definite answer. The noble Lord is a skilled debater; he knows when to avoid a question that he does not wish to answer. Shortage of time will always come to his rescue. Why should that be the calculation? We were told by the previous administration that during the end of their period in government the number of crimes being committed was coming down. The latest figures that I have seen point in that direction. I do not necessarily take them at face value; however, we have to take what figures are offered to us. The total number of crimes in the past year seems to have come down. The total number of violent crimes, which I agree is highly relevant, has gone up considerably. It cannot therefore be argued that the forecast increase in the prison population in the next few years is due to an increase in crime. If so, I should be surprised if any Minister in the previous Government or this one argues that case. It is due to a more severe sentencing policy.
We may be told by the Government that sentencing is the affair of the courts; it is nothing to do with us. We need to study that answer very carefully. If a more severe sentencing policy is being applied by judges, it is certainly not the result of guidance from here. The

951
Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the other leaders of the judiciary are not responsible for such a policy. We must not associate them with it. I refer to the past; but of course it will happen in future and will be still worse if, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said recently, the new sentencing law comes into force. Taking a broad view, it is due to an atmosphere in which more severe sentences are passed. That atmosphere has come over the past few years from the government of the day. The question is whether this Government will repudiate the attitude that prison works which is producing the increase in the prison population. There is no ducking that question. It can be ducked tonight—though "duck" is an offensive word to use because it implies an act of cowardice, and I know that the Minister is a brave man. It can be postponed tonight, but it cannot be postponed for long. I leave that question in front of the Government. Will they follow the course that the Labour Party has traditionally followed of having some claim to being penal reformers? Will they in the end say, "No, we are going to follow the policy of "prison works"? In the last resort, the Home Secretary has a very heavy responsibility. On the one hand he is responsible to the public, who look to him to deal with crime at a time when there is great anxiety about it. At the same time, he is publicly known to be a Christian socialist. I cannot help reminding him that Christ came seeking to save those who were lost.
7.36 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for introducing the debate. We all recognise his great practical experience in matters pertaining to the Question that he has posed to the Government. It is interesting just how significant this whole field of criminal justice must be, as this Question follows the debate last Thursday to which the noble Earl referred.
I find the wording of the Question interesting. It is a question about values. I accept that Christian values and humanist values are different in regard to penal policy. However, I do not believe that policy arising from Christian and humanist values is likely to differ very much. The reason is that God, when he set out Christian values—biblical values—provided them to be best for human beings. Therefore the principles arising from the Bible are likely to be fairly similar to those arising from humanists. I shall take the debate largely along the lines of the policy that I believe the Bible sets out.
I should like to begin by reading a summary of volume 6, No. 1, of the Cambridge paper that was published in March this year. It sets out clearly where my own views are coming from. It states:
"The moral foundation of punishment is a problematic issue which has prompted several competing views. A biblical perspective is anchored in the principle of retribution: punishment is deserved in proportion to the seriousness of an offence. However, the biblical endorsement of retribution is qualified and carefully nuanced. The fundamental aim is not to inflict suffering on offenders but to reassert the existence of the moral order that governs human life. That moral order emphasises the connections between justice. right relationships and seeking after community wellbeing. For this reason, punishment should normally aim both at making reparation to victims and restoring offenders into the community".
952
Punishment is important not because of suffering to the offender but to reassert the broken moral order lying behind the law. It is the final two questions arising from my quotation upon which I wish to comment.
Justice needs to be sought between the offender and the victim: I believe that that is a biblical principle. There is much in the Bible and Christian thought on the question of repentance by an offender. There are several commands in the Old Testament for reparation or restitution to the victim. The Bible often requires repayment of double or more for a theft.
I am concerned that today the offender very often does not understand the impact of his crime on his victim. It is important that the penal system should do what it can to make the offender realise what his or her victim feels and provide an opportunity, when agreeable to all parties concerned, for the offender to meet the victim. I quote from The Times of 18th October:
"Young criminals who are forced to face their victims and hear the harm they cause are far less likely to reoffend, a pilot scheme has shown.
After an 18-month trial, Thames Valley Police said that only 12 petty criminals had committed new crimes out of 350 who took part. Normally about 100 are likely to reoffend".
I have frequently expressed concern in your Lordships' House about the very high rate of reoffending. This scheme for bringing an offender face to face with the victim seems to have dealt a blow to the reoffending rate. Instead of 100, only 12 have reoffended. That gives me great encouragement. Perhaps I may conclude on this point with a further quotation from The Times:
"offenders take part in a conference with the police and their families and meet the victim. Thames Valley Police found that many of the young criminals apologised and made reparation. In some cases they broke down in tears".
In this way I believe the penal system is working, in reducing the reoffending rate and reforming the offender.
The second point I wish to mention concerns reintegrating offenders into the community. This is aimed at reducing a rate of reoffending which is far too high. In the Old Testament punishment did not usually involve severing links between family and community. Very little imprisonment is mentioned; that is not the usual punishment. Clearly we need prisons, because we need to protect the public. That is a very important part of the penal system. Perhaps I may again quote from the Cambridge paper:
"Imprisonment can lead to unmerited hardship for dependants, place great stress on family relationships, result in permanent job loss and multiply contacts in the criminal world".
I believe that those four results flow from imprisonment. We must have imprisonment to protect the public but I do not think it is the best way of dealing with offenders.
I have spoken before on the issue of community service. I am always grieved that the rate of reoffending by those who have received community orders seems to be very similar to that by those who are imprisoned. I believe that we need to do much more exploration in relation to community service.

953
Ideally, prison should be seen as a pre-release centre. People should be placed in a prison as near to their home as possible—"community prisons" I believe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, called them. This has the great benefit that family can visit more frequently; there can be more meaningful visits from the local community; and programmes for reintegration into the community can be worked out from both sides, from both the prison and the local community. I believe that reintegration into the community stems from biblical values.
Education, about which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, spoke in last Thursday's debate, is important. Perhaps the noble Lord can say whether the amount of education in prisons, which was reduced last year, can be increased. Certainly the wider field of education is of help in penal policy, but education in prisons is an important point, too.
I hope that service in the community can be further explored with a view to reducing the high rate of reoffending. I believe that, if we get it right, that should happen, for the reasons I gave about its value.
With these points in mind, I hope that a biblical penal policy can lead to further improvement in the country generally.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, in what I say this evening I shall in some ways reinforce and respond to the very thoughtful observations of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford. Before I come to that, perhaps I may say that it is always a privilege for us in this House to hear my noble friend Lord Longford who brings to this incredibly complex, challenging and emotionally highly charged area of public policy a concern for what society should strive to be rather than settling for managing society for what it is. I believe that is the challenge we all have to face in political life: we must, of course, govern well but we must never settle for political technocracy in handling affairs as they are as an end in themselves. We must always be thinking of how society could be better and how we can move towards that.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, dwelt on the issue of reoffending. He also dwelt powerfully on the issue of enabling those who commit crime to understand the impact on those affected. The House should ponder those two important points very carefully.
In enabling the criminal—perhaps the young offender particularly—to understand the significance and consequences of the crime in which he has been involved, the approach to the time which that offender may spend in prison or some other institution is of vital significance.
As I said in a previous debate, I am privileged to be president of the YMCA in England. That organisation is doing some very interesting work with young offenders. We find, in the context of that work, that the reoffending rate is being significantly reduced. It is worth looking at why that is happening. First, tremendous emphasis is put within the institution on enabling young people to discover their own personality
954
and their own personal significance, and to begin thinking of themselves as someone who could be respected. Out of that personality development can more easily flow a significance of the consequences of the social action in which that person may have been involved.
The other day I heard a very powerful story which deeply affected me. I was talking with a retired chief constable who happens to have been very much involved in the work in young offenders' institutions. He told me of speaking with a young man who was about to be released. While talking about his forthcoming release, the young man began to cry. The chief constable asked him, "Why are you crying? Why are you weeping at this good thing. You are about to be released. What is making you react in this way?" The young man said, "Because this is the first place in my life where I have found anybody who cared, anybody who tried to make relationships with me or anybody who took any sense of responsibility towards me, and to which I find myself responding." That seems to me to have a powerful message for us in society as a whole.
But it also emphasises the importance of the quality of the work within the prison or institution. I worry about the pressure that is now being put, for example, on the educational programmes and work designed to achieve rehabilitation. It seems to me that that is the very last thing that should be under pressure. To put it no higher, the economic cost—not just the human cost—of neglecting rehabilitation and the important work on the personality and personality development of people who find themselves in such a situation can be immensely high. To cut back on that can be a false economy when one considers the consequences that may follow.
There is one other point I want to make in supporting my noble friend who has introduced this subject tonight. I recall that in a recent debate the Minister, whom I deeply respect, was at great pains to emphasise that we should not approach this subject as a party political issue because it is not party political. It cuts across party political divides, challenges us all and should not be demeaned by being looked at in that way. I agree. I hope however that he agrees with me that it is central to our whole consideration of value systems. If we live in a society in which the premium in social conduct seems to be put on succeeding on an individualistic basis without too much worry about the consequences of self-aggrandizement, although one may reach the pinnacle of society and become a hero in that kind of society, it undermines one's authority in appealing to those who are faced with all the consequences of deprivation, hardship, bad schooling and very little opportunity. It undermines one's authority in appealing to those people if one says that the hallmark of a decent society is unbridled individualism.
If we are effectively to approach the issue of penal policy strategically, we have to relate it to the whole issue of our social value system. How far do we take seriously our responsibilities to each other and recognise that we can only build a decent society in the realms of environment, education, health and much of social

955
policy, by working together rather than simply by looking after our own individual, perhaps narrow, family needs?
In that sense, although this is not a party political issue—I agree with my noble friend—it is important to recognise that it is central to what we believe is better in the prospect for society and what could be in society as distinct from simply what is in society. So I thank my noble friend yet again. We have to look not only at the whole issue of the pressures on our inner city schools, the exclusions and the pressure to succeed in those schools which leads to the difficult youngsters being excluded and thereby, perhaps, beginning to go down the road towards escalating criminal activity, but also at how one includes those young people in the system rather than excluding them. All those things come together.
In making those wider observations I hope that we remember also that in a sensitive and decent society we must not lose sight of the victim. Sometimes the pressures on the victim and the relatives and families of the victim are underestimated in our society. It may be treated sensationally, but the real psychological trauma which people encounter is, I believe, sometimes underrated. We need to do a great deal more in society to work on that. If we do not, it compounds prejudice and makes it more difficult to break out of the vicious circle of prejudice and incapability of taking a more enlightened and positive approach.
We also need to take very seriously the incredible pressure put on those who handle penal policy on our behalf in society, such as prison officers, those working in young offenders' institutions and the rest. It is easy for us to take strategic policy attitudes. But we must consider the sheer pressure, grind and demand made on ordinary men and women in the front line who are often very decent people trying to do the best job that they can. That cannot be underestimated. Therefore, we need to take our responsibilities in that quarter extremely seriously as well.
7.56 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, like other noble Lords I am grateful to the noble Earl not only for this debate but for his deep and long commitment to this crucially important cause.
If people are a danger to others, their freedom to do harm must be curtailed. They need to be kept in a secure place. So it is part of a Christian and humane penal policy that society as a whole has to be protected.
But are all those at present contained in prison a danger to others? The prison population has risen by over 50 per cent. since 1992. That increase is simply due to harsher sentencing. There has been no significant rise in the number of offenders appearing before the courts; rather, the climate of opinion has been created which favours sending more people to prison for longer periods. Overall, in all courts the proportion of offenders sentenced to custody rose from 16 per cent. in 1992 to 23 per cent. in 1996. In fact, only one in four of those sent to prison had committed offences involving violence, sex, robbery or drugs. Such numbers in prison
956
are not felt necessary elsewhere. We place more people behind bars than any other nation in Western Europe. Out of 100,000 people, we have 120 behind bars, France has 89, Germany has 84 and Sweden has only 65. Yet despite all that, we are not a nation that feels safer or more law abiding.
Containment is not, in principle, contrary to a Christian and humane penal system; nor is punishment. But punishment is not revenge. Punishment means bringing home to an offender the consequences of his actions, so that he experiences for himself something of the harm that he has done to others. But how is that best done? Containing people in prison deprives them of their liberty and helps to instil in people a sense that choices have consequences and wrong choices have harmful consequences. But, in itself, it can hardly bring home to the prisoner the hurt that he has inflicted on others. That is why one of the most promising developments recently has been the move to confront criminals with their victims, as part of the whole process of restorative justice, helping the criminal to be aware of what he has done and in some way to begin to make amends for it. I agree with every word of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, when he stressed that.
So much crime is an unthinking, short-sighted failure of the imagination, a failure to see that the victims are flesh and blood who hurt and suffer. I very much hope that the move to bring home to a criminal some recognition of the damage that he has inflicted will be developed in sensitive but purposeful ways.
Again, an essential aspect of the Christian and humane penal policy is deterrence; that is, deterring the convicted criminal and others from perpetrating such crimes in the future. But it is well known that prison itself is a great deal less effective in that regard than actually being caught and convicted. What deters is the certainty that one will be apprehended and tried. Unfortunately there is little certainty at the moment about that. Reputable research indicates that out of every 100 offences committed, only 41 are reported to the police. Of the 41 that are reported, few lead to a criminal being apprehended and sentenced. So in the end only four out of every 100 offences committed lead to an outcome through the criminal justice system.
It is a mistake to think that prison itself will deter. Because the public feels insecure with the high crime rate, people understandably call for more and longer sentences. But people need to be educated to see that what is really needed is a more certain system of apprehending and convicting criminals. That is what will deter.
No less important for a Christian and humane penal system is the hope, however faint in the short term, that people can be changed; that relationships can be restored and that a person can mature. That is fundamental from a Christian viewpoint. In Christ, all human beings are potentially redeemable; that is, they can grow into the person God intended them to be, reflecting his own light and love.
Unfortunately, prisons are now much less able to focus on that aspect than once they were. More people are being sent to prison for longer periods and prisons

957
are therefore overcrowded. In July 1997 11,000 prisoners were held two to a cell. At the same time, due to cuts in prison budgets, 1,100 prison staff took early retirement this year. Because of that there have been cuts in prison education and in time spent out of the cell in constructive activity.
Between 1995 and 1997 the time spent on education fell by 71 per cent. in prisons and young offender institutions. Again, in 1994 a prisoner could spend 26.2 hours each week in constructive activity; in 1996 it was down to 23.8 hours. There is less money to pay for education and constructive activity and fewer officers to oversee that work.
All that sets at risk the enormous gains made by the Prison Service in recent decades in terms of education, group therapy work, better living conditions and a general concern for rehabilitation. One aspect of that is the way that drug offenders are treated. They may well be committing more than one-fifth of all thefts and burglaries in this country. There needs to be a shift towards court order treatment and rehabilitation. At present two-thirds of government spending on drugs goes into enforcement and controls and only one-third into prevention, education and treatment. Yet current research into drug treatment programmes has shown that they produce large and rapid reductions in illegal drug use and related criminal activity.
It is good that the Government are advocating more court order drug treatment and it has been announced that there will be legislation for a new "treatment and testing order". There needs to be significant developments along those lines for the simple fact is that drug dependency leads inexorably to criminal activity. Simply locking drug-dependent criminals in prison bypasses the fundamental challenge which is to get such people off drugs.
All that points to the fundamental imperative of reducing the prison population. If people are in prison when they could be punished some other way because they are no significant threat to the community, then their imprisonment is inhumane and unchristian. If too many people are in prison, it makes it less likely that those who have to be in prison will receive the educational and rehabilitation programmes that they so desperately need.
A number of suggestions have been put forward as to how the prison population may be reduced without putting the general public more at risk. One important suggestion is that the Government should move urgently to lay down tighter statutory and non-statutory restrictions on the lengths of remands in custody. On any one day over 4,000 untried prisoners have been awaiting trial for over three months. An overall three-month time limit on custodial remands, together with accompanying limits on the various stages of the pre-trial process, could potentially have a substantial impact on the daily prison population.
The Government made a manifesto commitment to bring remand delays down to national targets. Again, we must look as a matter of urgency for improvement in that sphere. It is certainly a cause which is strongly supported by prison chaplains.
958
Important suggestions have also been made in relation to custody for young offenders—a specific concern of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury—and those prisoners with young children. As he said, the high rate of imprisonment,
"reflects wide injustice to many prisoners and their families. Remand prisoners frequently lose their jobs and even their homes and get behind with the rent. Family relationships are damaged, sometimes irretrievably".
Another concern of the Church is the increasing use of prison for women. The female population in prison has risen twice as fast as the male population, from 1,353 prisoners at the end of 1992 to 2,799 last August. Around half the women in prison have dependent children. Most of them are non-violent offenders and many have committed minor offences. It is difficult to see how imprisoning them can be the best way of changing their behaviour and bringing about a right relationship both within their own family and with the wider society.
We must say that despite the good will and professional efforts of so many in the penal system—I have been privileged to meet some wonderful governors and prison staff—the present criminal justice system cannot be described as either fully humane or Christian. If we look carefully at why we need containment, what constitutes punishment, how we can best deter and what we need in order to change people's behaviour, we see that there is a massive imperative to find an alternative to prison; to make prison itself a context in which people can be enabled to face up to the harm that they have done to others and where they can be helped to change their behaviour. From a Christian point of view we must never lose hope of that possibility.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Longford for introducing this short debate and echo the tributes that have been paid to him by other noble Lords this evening.
The debate in the terms in which he asked his Question concentrates on values. Values are extremely important when thinking about penal policy, for two reasons. First, it is at least arguable that some of the oscillations that we have seen in penal policy have been the result of not having a clear view as to what punishment is for. Any answer to that—whether it is for retribution, restitution, deterrence, rehabilitation or, more likely, a mixture—will need to confront quite deep questions in relation to moral values. We therefore need a greater degree of clarity as to what punishment is for.
Secondly, if we do not root our penal system in ethical values it will be buffeted about by political expediency. In addition, citizens who can discuss penal issues, imprisonment and so forth in terms of morality will find the field dominated by "experts". I do not doubt that there are experts in criminology, psychology and so forth; but they are not and cannot be experts in the purpose of punishment. That is ultimately a moral and ethical matter.

959
I am worried that if we do not stress the moral dimensions of punishment the field will be taken over by various kinds of experts and our criminal justice penal system will become more remote from how ordinary people think and feel about it. The problem is that if those points are accepted—that morality is of vital importance when thinking about penal policy—how will we confront those ethical issues? We are often told that we live in a morally pluralistic society and can expect little in the way of moral agreement from people who have all sorts of faiths or indeed no faith at all. We cannot reason about the moral basis of punishment in an ethical vacuum—and we live in such a vacuum.
My noble friend suggested in the terms of his Question to Her Majesty's Government that there could be some kind of overlap between the Judaeo/Christian ethical tradition and the secular/humanistic tradition, though I hope that that applies to other religions also. If there is an overlap, it is to be found as other noble Lords said in the principle of respect for persons; that there are clear moral limits which should constrain how we deal with people, including those who have broken the law. The Christian roots of this doctrine, as the right reverend Prelate said, are to be found in the idea that human beings are created in the image of God, the secular idea rooted in the notion that human beings have qualities and capacities which are denied to other sorts of animals, not least the capacity for choosing between right and wrong. These distinctive human qualities are to be respected among those who have offended against the law; that is to say, respect for persons and some idea of human dignity seems to be the value that could be overlapping between both religious and humanistic approaches to this issue.
If that is correct, and some idea of human dignity and human respect is part of the overlap between Christian and non-Christian values, what might such a principle imply in relation to penal policy? The first and most important point is that those who have broken the law should be regarded as being properly responsible for their actions. It would be a very odd view of human dignity as the basis of human respect which did not count individuals as human agents capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong and the consequences of their actions. I say that because some approaches to penal policy would see the central concern of such policy in wholly therapeutic terms. I am not denying the relevance of a therapeutic approach in penal policy, but it can be overdone in so far as such an approach can displace the centrality of individual responsibility. If we see criminal behaviour as being a result of a pathological personality or as symptoms of some kind of mental pathology, there is a danger that we actually displace the idea of human responsibility. As I have already said, that sits rather ill with the notion of human dignity. We have to keep both of those in some kind of balance. The first thing that follows from the idea of human dignity is the centrality of the importance of human responsibility for one's own actions.
It also seems to me that the principle of respect would put quite clear limits on the role of deterrence in thinking about punishment. After all, the idea of
960
punishment as deterrence is justified by the fact that we are prepared to inflict punishment on an individual for the sake of other individuals and for the sake of social welfare. No doubt that is an important element of punishment, but the idea of respecting people involves the notion of not treating people just as means to the ends and purposes of other people. Therefore, if we take the idea of respect seriously, there must be limits on the use of the idea of deterrence in the justification of punishment and at the very least a deterrent approach to punishment must be much less discretionary than it might otherwise seem to be. If we are to respect people, we should treat like cases in like manner.
From this value certain restrictions would flow on the notion of deterrence. We certainly ought to restrict the opportunity for passing exemplary or quirky kinds of sentences because the pressure to deter a particular kind of crime in a particular place by passing a sentence on a particular individual seems so strong. That is unjust and incompatible with the principle of respect.
If you take the principle of respect seriously, what kind of view of punishment might it justify? It justifies much more the idea of punishment as restitution, reparation and retribution. The idea of retribution has not had a good press over recent years because it seemed to be inhumane and uncivilised. That is a fundamental mistake. The central theme of retribution, if one looks at the nature of retributive thinkers in the penal context, is that responsibility is both a necessary and sufficient condition of punishment—that it is because someone is responsible and guilty that he should be punished. Questions of rehabilitation and questions of deterrence are secondary to the fact of responsibility and forcing people to face up to the responsibility for and consequences of their own actions.
That is what retribution classically means in the Western philosophical and religious tradition. It has nothing to do with vengeance. It is quite different from vengeance. The differences are quite marked. Retribution or restitution implies the principle of proportionality, that the reparation to be made should be proportionate in some sense to the crime. There is an internal limit on the reparation to be made. Vengeance is or can be unlimited. Secondly, retribution is exacted in an impersonal way. Vengeance is always personalised. Vengeance may involve taking pleasure in the pain the person feels. That is not true of retribution, which is impersonal. Reparation is general and universal in a way that vengeance is not. It embodies a commitment to the idea that like cases should be treated in like manner. That is not true of personalised vengeance. Vengeance and reparation are fundamentally different. It does not help clarity over our understanding of what punishment is for to assume without further argument that reparation and retribution are necessarily the same thing as vengeance.
My own view is that the principle of respect, which is this overlapping moral value—perhaps one of the few we have in society across different moral traditions—justifies the major principle of punishment in terms of reparation and restitution and that the role of deterrence

961
and rehabilitation is important and indispensable but nevertheless secondary in terms of the nature of what justifies punishment.
The final point I would make—it very much echoes the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the right reverend Prelate—is that if we are to have a criminal justice system that embodies some principle of respect, within prison the regime should be one that encourages respect both in terms of building up a sense of responsibility for actions on the part of the inmate and also in terms of the way in which the inmate is dealt with. When I first came to the House the topic of the day was the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, following the Strangeways not. The regime that he laid down and argued for is the one we should go for and the one that would embody this principle of respect in prison regimes more than any other argument I have heard in the House over the past five years.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I am sure that over the years there must have been a number of occasions when a Private Secretary has gone into his Minister and said, "Minister, we have yet another Unstarred Question and it is also from Lord Longford", because the noble Earl has been nothing if not persistent over the issues we are discussing today. I am sure the whole House will agree with what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said when he referred to the noble Earl's deep and long commitment. We have all gained immeasurably from that as we have from this opportunity to talk about some of these issues again today.
It is also true of the noble Earl, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, that he is bipartisan and even-handed in his criticism. We shall find him as vigilant a hawk in following the behaviour of his own Government as he was a very fierce critic of what was done by Michael Howard in particular under the previous regime.
He is quite right to raise these issues on every possible occasion. We have already been struck by the number of occasions this evening when there have been references to the prison population. I make no excuse for making yet another one and making a reference to some different figures.
At the time of the debate on the gracious Speech on 19th May, there were 60,431 men and women in prison. Last Friday the figure was 63,174—an increase of nearly 3,000 in a little over five months. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, referred earlier in the year to the possibility that the prison population would grow to a figure of 68,400 by March 1999. That would be 2,600 more than the previous projection.
I do not necessarily expect a reply this evening, but at a later date. Does he still believe that, given the size of the increase in the past five months, that it is still realistic to talk of a prison population of 68,400 in March 1999? I confess that if matters proceed as they are now, I believe that there is a real possibility that the figure will be over 70,000.
962
In the course of the debate on the Address, I said that I hoped it would be a target of the Home Secretary to reduce the prison population by 50,000 by the end of this Parliament. Very wisely, he has made no forecast to date. But the time is coming when he must demonstrate to the House and to the public that the present movement, which is all in the opposite direction, is going to be reversed. It is very important indeed that a major target for the present Home Secretary is to reduce the prison population.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, was very critical—as he was this evening—of Michael Howard's formula that prison works. The truth is that sometimes it does, but more often it does not. It only works in the positive and obvious sense that it takes criminals off the streets for a while. But having been taken off the streets once, if the criminals continue to offend, then more harm may have been done by putting them in custody in the first place. I was very interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Plant, about the nature of deterrence. Prison is only justifiable if it is an effective deterrent first; and, secondly, if it is also an effective way of turning criminals into honest citizens. That is why the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, about re-offending and reintegrating former prisoners into the community are very important indeed.
It ought to be possible that prisoners are given opportunities that will enable them to take their place in the community thereafter. Given the decline in education and other facilities and the amount of overcrowding in our prisons, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford referred and the extraordinarily high figure of 11,000 prisoners held in cells designed for one person, I cannot believe that the present state of the prisons will result in any form of redemption for those in them.
There was a further report today from the Howard League for Penal Reform which for so many years has been the champion for those who want to improve our penal system. It refers in particular to the number of girls aged between 15 and 17 years of age held in breach of the United Nations convention and who are not persistent offenders. It said that the inquiry which had been conducted by the league showed that the number of girls being held in prison had more than trebled between 1992 and 1996. The report states that girls are held in adult gaols alongside older women and in breach of the United Nation's Convention on the Rights of the Child. As we know, it states that the gaols are overcrowded and not equipped to deal with the complex problems of teenage girls. The regimes are barely rehabilitative, with no special regime for the under-18s, which is further confirmation of what has been said in your Lordships' House tonight. The report states that hard drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine are easily available and that girls are at risk of emotional bullying, physical assault and self-harm. It is an appalling story for a civilised society which for many years did much of which it could be proud in order to improve the circumstances of those held in custody.
In the criticisms made of the previous Home Secretary the noble Earl, Lord Longford, often said—I certainly agreed with him and said it myself—that the

963
previous Home Secretary was motivated mainly by good opinions within his own party. I very much hope that the verdict on the present Home Secretary will not eventually be that he was principally motivated by fear of the tabloid press saying that he was soft on crime.
I understand, as I believe do all Members of this House, his deep concern, which I believe to be wholly genuine, about the problems on the housing estates and crime among younger people, particularly young children. But these are circumstances in which it is necessary to keep a cool head and to ask whether punishment is the relevant answer, and if it is, what form it should take.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in last Thursday's debate, which I am very sorry I was unable to attend, said that unless we get the confidence of the public, which means all sections of it, including the media and victims, we shall get nowhere. I agree if that is a statement for the longer term, meaning four or five years. But the Government must seek to educate public opinion and explain and argue the case and not simply follow what may be common parlance in the saloon bars. The previous government totally failed to seek to lead opinion except in the direction that they had already chosen to take. This Government have a very serious obligation to do something better.
The present Home Secretary said, I believe in the statement he made on 30th July in another place, that his overriding priority was to secure the safety of the public. That has rather become his mantra. But how? It is not necessarily by locking people up. I remind the Home Secretary of the memorable aphorism of the Prime Minister about crime. He referred to the need to deal with crime and the causes of crime. I shall be certainly very happy to judge this Government, when the time comes, by the extent to which they have genuinely acted both on crime and the causes of crime.
It cannot simply be a matter of blaming the families of delinquent children, expecting them to accept responsibility beyond their capacity to do so. Those who become criminals and those who are the parents of those who become criminals are what they are partly by the accident of birth; partly by the damage done to them in childhood; partly by the social and psychological consequences of events that they could not avoid; partly by deep changes in our society; and partly, it has to be said, by unemployment, poverty and the widening gap between rich and poor. These are matters which must be tackled if we are ever to find a solution to the very important questions which the noble Earl has raised tonight.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, I have considerable experience and knowledge of the number of Unstarred Questions which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has put down over the years, obviously not just on home affairs matters but on many other subjects. I remember some years ago the noble Earl putting down an Unstarred Question on
964
universities and polytechnics, as they then were, and the desirability of allowing the latter to change their title to the former. I also remember with some personal feeling that I was put in as the hapless Whip to respond to the noble Earl on that occasion. It was not long after that that he achieved exactly what he desired because the government changed their mind and the polytechnics were allowed to begin calling themselves universities.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that personal achievement.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it was nothing to do with me, but with the coincidence of time.
I put that example forward merely as a warning to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who will no doubt be answering many more such Unstarred Questions, of what he will have to expect over the coming years. Indeed, the noble Lord is already experienced in these matters. We had a similar debate only last Thursday when he was asked, following the Statement made on 30th July in another place, about Her Majesty's Government's proposals for the criminal justice system in England and Wales. On that occasion, my noble friend Lady Anelay spoke from these Benches; tonight it is my turn. One hopes that the noble Lord's simple answer to the Question is that, broadly speaking and bearing in mind our Christian traditions, our penal policy, which is a major part of our criminal justice system, is broadly based on Christian and, dare I say it, humanist values. I speak with less qualification with regard to the latter. I believe that that was true of the basis of the policies that we pursued when we were in government until 1st May and I trust that it will be true of the values pursued by the current Government.
I turn now to the question of finding a precise definition of a "Christian" penal policy. I say "Christian" rather than "humanist" because I do not precisely know what a "humanist" penal policy might comprise. Speaking as a Christian, it is clear that the definition of such a policy might vary considerably from speaker to speaker. I am grateful that we have heard tonight from such a range of different speakers, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford.
I think that the noble Earl would agree that there are certain absolute values—values that do not change over the years, to which I hope that we remain constant and to which we hope that our children will remain constant, just as our fathers and their forefathers were constant to them. However, I am sure that the noble Earl would be the first to agree that it is undeniable that views have changed over the centuries and that what were regarded as acceptable punishments in one era—and sometimes even seen as good, honest, Christian punishments, even being accepted by the Church—have now been abandoned because we have changed our minds about what is acceptable. I remind the right reverend Prelate that we no longer burn heretics. I am sure that he is well aware of that fact and considers it to be a move in the right direction. Indeed, we no longer burn witches although I understand that that was not so much a matter of punishment as an action in pursuit of evidence and

965
that if the "witch" survived the drowning, she would be burned. We have moved on from the stocks, whipping and branding and, dare I say this from these Benches, we have moved on from hanging for virtually every crime except, as I understand it, for burning the Queen's dockyards. All of those punishments have gone and I think that there is genuine consensus that most of them should have gone. I understand, however, that that is not always necessarily true with regard to hanging and capital punishment and that many people in this country and beyond hold other views, but tonight is not the occasion to embark on a debate about capital punishment. I merely make the point in order to outline the fact that our views about what is acceptable change from era to era.
I should now like to comment on one or two of the points that have been made. I shall try to keep my remarks fairly short so that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has sufficient time to respond. First, the noble Earl attacked the concept that "prison works". He referred to the vast increase in the numbers held in prison, as did the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. I accept that there has been an increase and that it is largely because many now go to prison for longer periods. I also accept that over the years there has been a steady rise in the number of crimes being committed—that is, until four or five years ago when we began to see a decline in the number of recorded crimes. One must ask whether the fact that some people stay in prison longer is making a difference to the crime figures because they are unable to commit crimes by virtue of being locked up.
The second point to which I should like briefly to refer was addressed first by my noble friend Lord Brentford and then by the right reverend Prelate. I refer to the idea that the offender often does not realise the effect of his crime on the victim. My noble friend referred to a report which I also saw in The Times about two weeks ago. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will be aware of it. It referred to a pilot scheme in the Thames Valley. His right honourable friend has made much of its effects. All that I have seen so far is that report in The Times and I am sure that like myself my noble friend Lord Brentford and others would like to hear a great deal more about it. Exactly what sort of offenders are involved? What sort of offences were committed? How does the scheme work? In what way are the victims being involved? Bearing in mind the time constraints on the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I do not expect to be given a detailed answer tonight—I see the noble Lord nodding his head in some relief—but I ask him, if possible, to make available to us a paper from his officials about exactly what effect the scheme has had. Many of us would like to know more about it.
My third point relates to the question of drugs, to which the right reverend Prelate referred. He made the simple point that dependency on drugs leads to crime. I accept that. The right reverend Prelate said that he would like to see a greater move away from enforcement and towards education. I would welcome that. We have heard that there is to be a new drugs
966
co-ordinator who, for some odd reason and absorbing something from across the Atlantic, is to be called the "drugs czar". However, the messages coming out of the Government are distinctly confused at the moment and the matter needs to be addressed. We have heard that, on the one hand, the Government want to appoint the so-called "drugs czar" to deal with the problem, but at the same time—this is deeply to be regretted—we have heard that leading role models for young people, people who have positively advocated the use of drugs, have still been invited to receptions at No. 10. The appointment of a drugs czar, on the one hand, and the issuing of such invitations, on the other hand, send out a very mixed message to a great many people. I believe that perhaps the Prime Minister himself should address that point.
I should now like to return briefly to some of the issues relating to penal policy which were addressed by my noble friend Lady Anelay last Thursday. Obviously, we are grateful that the Government have agreed to implement part of the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of our Crime (Sentences) Act, particularly for third-time serious sexual and violent criminals and those convicted of drug trafficking. We would also like to see some movement on third-time domestic burglars. I suppose that we live in hope. Nevertheless, can the noble Lord address my noble friend's direct questions and tell us whether the Government will implement those proposals when the resources are available and when he thinks that that will be?
Secondly, I was left in some degree of confusion by some of the noble Lord's responses last week. I wonder whether he can clear up that confusion following his attempts to deal with my noble friend's question relating to 12 year-olds who can be locked up on remand awaiting trial for offences for which, if found guilty, they cannot then serve a period in custody. What is the answer to that? I was confused by the Minister's responses, which started at col. 872 of last Thursday's Hansard, and would be grateful for some light in that area. Again, I should be more than happy if the noble Lord were to write to me on that issue.
In due course we are to have a major crime and disorder Bill. I give the noble Lord due assurance that this House will examine the Bill in great detail. I imagine that when the Bill goes through this House the Benches on all sides will be considerably fuller than they are tonight. I look forward to that examination.
I end by putting to the noble Lord a question that I am not sure he can answer. One hears that that Bill is likely to be introduced some time in November. Is the noble Lord aware at this stage whether it will be introduced first in this House or whether it will start its passage in another place?
8.40 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Longford for this debate. He is right to question and continually review the basis of our policies. I believe that the Government's policies as they develop are firmly rooted in the established deep values, of whatever origin, that lie at the heart of a civilized

967
society, identified, in words with which I entirely agree, by my noble friend Lord Judd. Crime is not the infringement of impersonal law. It is an offence against other individuals and the community at large. Often it blights communities and wrecks lives. We believe that to look to the criminal justice system to protect and nurture our fellow human beings and their quality of life is of itself a moral basis for penal policy.
My noble friend Lord Judd and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford spoke of values. We believe that fairness is one of the most important. We therefore intend to continue to develop monitoring arrangements across the penal system to ensure that there is no discrimination on any improper grounds. Furthermore, we intend to publish information to ensure that the system is seen to be fair. No more will there be any secret statistics. In December we intend to publish the results of the first year of ethnic monitoring of police activity. It is extremely important that the material be gathered and just as important that it be published.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, is quite right. As of last Friday there were 63,174 people in prison, which is the highest figure recorded. The noble Lord asked me about projections for the coming year. Those projections are being constantly re-examined and assessed. I have no more definite figure than that, but as soon as it becomes available I shall write to the noble Lord.
Simply to try to tackle crime and to treat people on the same basis of fairness is not enough. We are eager to defend the rights to freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, to a fair trial and not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Our penal policy is not one solely of retribution. A question was raised about the determination of the Home Secretary. It is he who has played such a significant part in bringing forward the White Paper on the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights and in the drafting of the Bill which has recently had its First Reading in your Lordships' House. The Home Secretary is determined to do what he believes to be right, which does not include bowing to the temporary pressure of any particular interest group. I believe that he has the capacity and ability to be a great Home Secretary.
My noble friend Lord Longford, in his gentle way, invited me not to duck or postpone. I hope therefore to follow his injunction. I believe that of all noble Lords he is entitled to have stated unambiguously in his presence that the Government's strategy is not based solely on prison. There will be some for whom prison is the only appropriate response. Prison is an expensive form of punishment that may not be the best or most effective option for less serious offenders whose crimes can be adequately punished by fines, community penalties or other alternatives. We want to give the courts the opportunity of imposing a range of tough community punishments that are not only effective but in which both they and the public generally can have confidence. We want penalties that work in terms of both reducing reoffending and reassuring the public.
968
For some people, prison is inevitable. However, when its use is required it should not be wholly punitive and negative. We want to provide constructive regimes for prisoners to ensure that they confront their offending behaviour. I should like to slot in at this point my response to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Henley. As soon as the full report is to hand I shall send it to him and other noble Lords who have expressed interest in this matter. I shall return to that in a moment in a rather fuller form.
We want to determine whether or not prison can offer constructive regimes. The Prison Service—I pay tribute to those who work in it—has enormous pressures. The current level of overcrowding undoubtedly reduces the quality of prison regimes. We have provided another £43 million for this year and next. I recognise that that is only a first step. We have national programmes to determine whether or not reoffending can be reduced. The sex offender treatment programme compels the relevant offender to recognise that his behaviour is wrong and teaches techniques to control relapse back into offending. The cognitive skills programme deals with the self-centred and impulsive way in which offenders make decisions. It attempts to teach them skills that they lack. We are developing a third programme targeted at violent offenders. Furthermore, developments that we have in mind—I hope that this is of reassurance and interest to, and has the support of, my noble friend Lord Longford—include specially designed programmes for women prisoners and integrated regimes for all prisoners which relate offending behaviour programmes to their day-to-day experience.
I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Plant. To focus solely on retribution denies the humanity and dignity of both offenders and victims. We believe that punishment is a moral necessity to signal society's disapproval, but that is a component and not the entirety. I agree with those noble Lords who have said that we must focus on changing the behaviour of offenders. That is particularly so with young offenders whose offences account for a quarter of all crime in this country. We have to do a good deal more than we have done in the past. We must be much more positive in dealing with youth crime and drug offending, as I mentioned a few days ago.
I agree with your Lordships that much anti-social behaviour and petty offending is born of selfishness, thoughtlessness and boredom. Often young offenders do not appreciate the effect of their behaviour. We want to make young people accept their responsibility, understand the harm that they have done and focus their minds and hearts on the fact that they cannot behave irresponsibly forever.
The Thames Valley Project is an example of the Government's strategy for tackling youth crime. The reparation order to be introduced in the Crime and Disorder Bill is designed by the Home Secretary deliberately to make young offenders see close up the effect of their acts on others so that they can learn a lesson from experience and be less inclined to act thoughtlessly in future. The Thames Valley project is simply an example of what the Home Secretary has in

969
mind. We believe that the reparation order can be an extremely fruitful weapon that will have your Lordships' support in due time.
We are particularly concerned about the family and the quality of relationships between parents and children. The level of parental supervision has led us to the conclusion that courts must have the opportunity to make a parenting order. Parents need assistance, support, guidance, and possibly direction sometimes, to provide effective supervision of their children.
We are replacing cautioning which has become wholly abused with a statutory final warning scheme. Young people who have a final warning will be referred as of necessity and direction to a youth offender team for a programme of intervention to address their offending behaviour with the intention of preventing further crime. There is such a multiplicity of agencies to deal with different aspects of the behaviour of young people that they need to be co-ordinated and brought together.
We know that drug abuse is at the heart of much crime, particularly for young people. That is the purpose of the anti-drugs co-ordinator, Mr. Hellawell, the chief constable. That is why we wish to have a drug testing and treatment order in the new crime and disorder Bill. The courts have been powerless to deal with those who are addicted, beyond the short stay that some of them have in penal institutions.
We need welfare to work extended to those who leave prison. Getting and keeping a job is the best means of keeping away from crime. That is why, under welfare to work, all young people leaving prison will have direct access to the new deal for young unemployed, with intensive job search assistance and a guaranteed place on one of the new deal options.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, that unemployment is a significant contributory factor to crime. Those who are excluded from work lack the discipline which everyone wants. They lack the opportunity for self-advancement which everyone needs. They lack, as I said the other day, self-respect and self-regard—two essential tools if they are to avoid crime. That is why we have set up the new social exclusion unit in the Cabinet Office to attend to
970
those deep, underlying problems. We will be drawing together welfare to work, educational disadvantage, public health, social housing, youth justice and job creation.
The influence of the family, as I said a moment ago, is critical. It is central in our belief. That is why the Home Secretary is bringing together Ministers from different government departments to take forward the development of policies in support of the family, finding out where the greatest problems arise, examining the effectiveness, coherence, and therefore expense, of existing policies and looking at the best aims and means for the Government to adopt.
I cannot stress too firmly our commitment to the victims. Within six weeks of taking office, in fairly straitened financial times, we increased the annual grant to Victim Support by £1 million. It is now £12.7 million per year.
Delays, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford referred, are a dreadful vice, not just for those who are incarcerated pending trial; they are a monstrous abuse and insult to victims who also remain in a different uncertainty. I endorse his view. We wish to press forward with the victim's charter. Many of its standards of service have been incorporated into the criminal justice system. Performance is being monitored. We believe that victims have a moral right to information. If charges are to be dropped, if cases are to be adjourned, the victims, the complainants, the witnesses, need to be fully informed.
Concern for others is a value shared by many different faiths. Some call themselves humanists, some Christians, some have no formal adoption of any particular religion, philosophical or moral stance. I hope that I have demonstrated briefly how the Government's approach reflects the essence of those values which my noble friend has so ably championed. If my noble friend Lord Longford is asked, on his frequent visits to prison, what the Government intend to do, how will they be different, what changes will we see in the next five to seven years, I hope that I have offered at least one or two acceptable suggestions as to what my noble friend might legitimately say to those who are the victims of crime and those who are the perpetrators of it.
House adjourned at six minutes before nine o'clock.