Lords Sitting of 17 November 1998

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to deliver the Long Fox Annual Lecture at the University of Bristol on Wednesday 18th November, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Product Price Anomalies
2.36 p.m.
Lord Cadman Lord Cadman asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the prices paid by British consumers for foodstuffs and other commodities, which are reported to be higher than those in other European Union member states, are consistent with the existence of a single market within the European Union.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, the European Single Market is designed to provide for the competitive supply of goods and services across the Community. It cannot guarantee uniform pricing, although this may to some extent occur as a result of consumers being able to choose the cheapest source of supply where this is practicable.
Lord Cadman: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, is he aware that it is not only foodstuffs that are involved but also many other things, ranging from motor vehicles to beer and from rail and bus fares to the cost of money? Does the Minister agree that these anomalies, within what I have always taken to be a single common market, are likely to get worse and result in this country becoming the most expensive in the EC? Therefore, would it not be appropriate for the Government to start working towards achieving some convergence?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, prices are made up of many constituent parts and they vary because of issues such as the exchange rate, taxes, wages and costs. I do not believe that there is any evidence to suggest that we are totally out of line in pricing across a very broad range of goods. There are certain areas involved. If the pricing is uncompetitive for reasons which are against the law, it will be examined and investigated by the Office of Fair
1118
Trading. There is no evidence to show that we are becoming the most expensive source of products in Europe.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, in the spectrum between perfect competition at the one end and imperfect competition at the other end, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, at present, we are far closer to the end marked "imperfect competition" in the European Union as regards a whole range of consumer goods?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, as I said in answer to a previous question—and I shall repeat it to my noble friend—if there is evidence to show that we are moving towards the imperfect competition end of the scale which strays from being imperfect to the state of being illegal, such matters can be challenged by the OFT. I should point out to noble Lords that the new Competition Act, which, if I may say so, was sensibly passed by this House, will give the OFT far stronger powers to pursue these cases. I believe that that is all to the good. Indeed, I hope to see us moved up to the more positive end of my noble friend's spectrum in the very near future.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, as foodstuff is zero-rated for VAT in this country while in most countries of the European Union it is charged to VAT, can the Minister say why foodstuff is not a great deal cheaper in the United Kingdom than on the Continent?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, some foodstuffs are a great deal cheaper, but not all. As I said, if there were evidence to suggest any illegality in that respect, I am quite sure that the OFT would seriously consider the matter. Indeed, as noble Lords know, it is at present considering the profitability of supermarkets. If that is shown to be more than adequate due to any illegality, action will be taken over pricing.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say when imperfection becomes illegal?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I shall leave that matter to my legal friends rather than trying to identify any particular stance at this stage. I feel more comfortable leaving such matters in the hands of experts.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, is the Minister aware that The Sunday Times carried out a comparative analysis between Britain, France, Germany and Holland at a shopping-basket level in supermarkets and that, in every case, we were by far the most expensive? Indeed, in the case of the comparison with Holland, which also has sales tax, we were more than 25 per cent. in excess. Is that not evidence to suggest that there is something wrong with the pricing structure in the UK?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I am aware of such surveys. I believe that the Express and the Standard have carried out a survey; and, indeed, the noble Lord may

1119
be correct to say that The Sunday Times has done so. If there is evidence to show that we are out of line in terms of the profitability of our major supermarkets due to some improper actions on pricing, no doubt the OFT will come to that conclusion. However, it is far too early to draw such conclusions. At this stage, I should also fall back on the answer that my noble friend gave last week to a similar question—namely, that these surveys are by no means statistically valid.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, the Minister has talked about statistics, but has he noticed a recent report which suggests that the average household in the UK has gone from spending 33 per cent. of its income on food to 10.9 per cent. at this time? Does the noble Lord agree that the British food chain is under greater surveillance than ever before and that food scares are almost a daily occurrence?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, if the noble Lord's statistics are correct—naturally I do not carry those in my head—and the percentage spend on food has dropped, given the fact that we are becoming a nation of bon viveurs, that would suggest that food prices are falling rather than rising. I regard that as extremely good. As regards safety in the food chain, we are trying to improve our performance and our vigilance on that safety That, too, is all to the good of the consumer.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there can be no law applicable to these particular circumstances either in the United Kingdom or originating in the Community? Is he aware that only on Saturday last I succeeded in obtaining stewing lamb, which is the cheapest form of all meats in that field, for £4.59 per kilo, while the price available to the farmer for the whole animal was under £1? Can he reconcile that difference or does he agree that there is no law at all in this field?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, it is difficult to apply law to raw material cost within a system which has a long supply chain through to the retail outlet. It would be unwise of any government to try to opine officially on values, costs and prices within a chain. I agree with my noble friend as regards that matter. I hope that he had an extremely good luncheon of stewed lamb.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, apart from the current investigation that the OFT is carrying out on prices and profitability in domestic supermarkets, are there any plans to investigate prices charged by supermarkets on the Continent? I do not wish to add to the anecdotal or unscientific evidence from any of us as regards the things we have bought. However, from our home in the country we frequently travel to Calais. The saving gained on the purchase of just a few items more than pays the cost of the car journey and we have a super lunch in France too.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I am not aware of any further study being undertaken into supermarkets abroad. If such a study is undertaken I shall inform the
1120
noble Baroness of it. If the consumer can find attractive prices abroad—there is evidence of that—goods will be imported into that market to compete against our own. That is the wonderful free choice that we have and the advantage that the European Union gives us. Long may it continue.

House of Lords Reform: Consultation
2.46 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will require the forthcoming Royal Commission on reform of the House of Lords to undertake a campaign of information and consultation with the general public.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the Government made clear that one of our main reasons for favouring the approach of the Royal Commission to consider long-term reform of the House of Lords is to enable the widest possible consultation and debate to take place within a structured context. Although obviously it is not for the Government to prescribe the exact procedure for the Royal Commission to follow, we would expect it both to inform and consult the general public on the issue of House of Lords reform.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that encouraging response. Are the Government prepared to commit the resources necessary for an effective public information and consultation campaign? In 1992 the Local Government Commission engaged in what was undoubtedly the most full and wide-ranging exercise in public consultation hitherto. Its expenditure was £15 million. This may not be a question that the Minister can answer directly, but will the Government be likely to encourage that kind of expenditure in this case?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am wary of the expression "public relations campaign" which I believe the noble Lord used and of the large sum of money which he mentioned. But I hope the House will be assured that we shall take appropriate action to consult public opinion.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I welcome the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for the idea of building a public consensus on the reform or the future of your Lordships' House. However, does not the noble Baroness think that it would have been much better to have appointed this Royal Commission immediately after the previous general election? There might even have been a chance that it could have made a substantial report by now and we could be considering a full reform rather than merely the half-baked stage one reform which the Government are at the moment pressing upon us.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I do not wish to trouble the noble Viscount with concern about language but I think there is a difference between consensus and

1121
consultation. I believe that I have committed the Government to appropriate consultation, and we shall certainly fulfil that. As regards the timing of the Royal Commission, the noble Viscount is well aware that from the time of the election manifesto we have always said that the stage one reform—as it has become colloquially known—is a stand alone piece of constitutional reform which we seek to achieve on its own. We see the second stage, and the organisation of the Royal Commission to inform that second stage, as being a sensible way to proceed.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the recent report of the Electoral Reform Society in which it boasted that hundreds of its members had packed the public meetings of the Jenkins Commission? Will she ensure that the Royal Commission is protected from such unscrupulous exploitation?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I said in my Answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, I do not believe it is for the Government to dictate the arrangements of the Royal Commission, but I am sure that it will be sensible of previous examples.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware—
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords—
Noble Lords: The Bishop!
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: Thank you, my Lords. Does the Minister agree that the recommendations of the Crick Report, Education for Democracy, would be well served by such a campaign because the campaign could then be not just about the reform of the House of Lords but about the whole question of representative democracy?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, all of us who are interested in reorganising some aspects of the constitutional settlement and looking at the broader ways in which representational government can be improved are aware of the interesting suggestions of the Crick Report. It is not necessarily directly relevant to the work of the Royal Commission but, nonetheless, plays a valuable part in the general discussion on those issues.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, third time lucky and blessed by the Church. On the question of consultation, is the noble Baroness aware that a MORI poll on 1st November showed that two-thirds of the electorate oppose the Government's proposals to abolish the extant hereditary entitlement of noble Lords to sit and vote and their proposal to set up a wholly nominated Chamber? Is that not an expression of opinion to which the Government ought to defer?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I should be very surprised if the noble Lord were seriously to suggest that the Government should defer to the results of any
1122
public opinion poll, however reputable. This Government are normally accused of paying too much attention to some aspects of polling, so I would be surprised if that were a serious suggestion.
In response to the noble Lord's question about a particular poll, I suspect that it is one of those instances where one needs to look at the nature of the question that was asked as well as the result.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say when the Royal Commission will be appointed and whether that will be simultaneous with the publication of the White Paper? When is the White Paper likely to be published? Will it accompany the publication of a Bill following the Queen's Speech or may we expect it sooner?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, would not want me to pre-empt in any way the Queen's Speech next week. I repeat what my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn and I both said about a month ago during the two-day debate in your Lordships' House on this question: the White Paper will be published in the context of the publication of the Bill.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there will be some anxiety centred on the machinery of consultation? It would be quite nice to be assured that Ministers will actually listen to the answers, instead of letting the public speak to empty air. It would also be comforting to be reassured that the answers will not be handled by a regiment of spin doctors, of whom we have had more than enough.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will be comforted by my original Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in which I said that it was precisely because the Government were interested in wider consultation and views beyond the original proposition (which was simply that a committee of both Houses of Parliament should look at the issue) that we have established the mechanism of setting up the Royal Commission. Of course, we shall be extremely interested in how the Royal Commission seeks to proceed, but we would not wish to prescribe its way of working.

National Minimum Wage
2.53 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many employees who now earn less than the national insurance lower earnings limit of £64 a week will be lifted above this limit by the introduction of the national minimum wage; and what would be the annual cost of providing those that remain with the right to full contributory benefits.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness bows of Heigham): My Lords, data from the Labour Force Survey indicate that about 900,000 people will be floated above

1123
the lower earnings limit as a result of the national minimum wage, assuming no change in the number of hours they work.
With regard to the second part of my noble friend's Question, I am afraid that it is not possible to make reliable estimates of the cost of paying contributory benefits to employees who remain below the LEL.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. If I understand her correctly, she says that something like 50 per cent. of the 2 million people who suffer from the fact that they do not receive contributory benefits will be lifted out of that position by the national minimum wage. That leaves 900,000 who will not be lifted out. What will the Government do about them? The Minister says that she does not know the cost. What is the attitude of the Government to the estimate of the cost made by the TUC recently, which, as I understand it, said that it would cost £250 million for the whole lot—that is, for the 2 million or so? Therefore, it would cost £125 million for the 900,000 who are left. Can the Minister tell me where we could do more good for less money?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the first reason why we cannot confirm or challenge the TUC figures is that we do not have statistics on that basis. The reason why most people are below the lower earnings limit is not so much because of low pay—although that undoubtedly exists—but because some people, especially married women, work very short hours. Someone could work four hours, for example, and be paid £15 an hour, but still be below the lower earnings limit. Therefore, it is not clear to me whether my noble friend is asking that people who work only one hour, two hours, three hours or four hours should nonetheless be entitled to the full range of contributory benefits. If that were the case, they would be better off out of work on contributory benefits than in work and earning.
The second reason why it is difficult to answer my noble friend's question—I have tried to find the answer to this, but cannot—is that at the moment many people who do not qualify for contributory benefits receive income-related benefits and those are household assessed, whereas contributory benefits are individually assessed. For both of those reasons, we simply are not able to confirm my noble friend's figures, much though I would like to be able to do so.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, although I welcome the fact that many people will be taken into the contributory benefit network, are the Government prepared to consider taking a further step and look at the possibility of moving from benefits which are based on contributions, in particular the state pension, to a system under which the state pension would be based on residence in the United Kingdom?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we shall be producing a pensions Green Paper by the end of the year. A whole range of such issues will be discussed in that. In practice, one qualifies for a state pension through one's national insurance contributions or, if one is a married
1124
woman, by virtue of one's husband's contributions. Alternatively, one can qualify for income support, which is higher than the state retirement pension level now. So, in practice, we already have universal state pensions such as the noble Lord describes.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that because many women tend to work part time for long periods, the laws in relation to contributory benefits discriminate against women much more than men? Is there not a possibility that that discrimination could lead to a possible future reference to the European Court of Justice?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I understand that the UK arrangements comply with EC law. The German equivalent of the lower earnings limit was tested in the European Court recently and was upheld.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as the effect of the national minimum wage on new recipients of the national minimum wage will be an increased liability for tax and national insurance, and a loss of benefits, including housing benefit, does the Minister agree that the Treasury may very well be the main beneficiary of the national minimum wage, rather than the low paid? If the Minister does not agree with that analysis, will she find out whether the Government will be willing to publish some case studies of the net financial effect of those new recipients receiving whatever they receive as a result of the national minimum wage?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is certainly true that the national minimum wage should reduce people's reliance on means-tested benefits by something like £343 million a year. In other words, taxpayers will no longer subsidise the exploitative low-pay employer. That must surely be desirable.
The wider question is this. For far too long Britain has been a country of low pay, long hours and low productivity. The employers offering the lowest pay are those who also demonstrate the lowest productivity. With the national minimum wage our expectation is that for the first time there will be an incentive for employers to invest in people as well as plant, and thus raise the productivity of our economy, which is what we all need to see to face the future.

Constitutional Reform and the Channel Islands
3 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their plans for constitutional reform include modernisation of the relationship between the Channel Islands and the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we have no plans to change the existing constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and the Crown dependencies.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I believe I have the most recent document on the constitutional relationship between the Channel Islands and the UK; it is dated April 1971. I refer to the joint memorandum by the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Does the Minister agree with the statement in the document that the British islands are an entity in the eyes of the world and that Her Majesty's Government will be held responsible internationally if practices in the islands overstep the limits of acceptability? Does he also accept that the picture reputedly given by the Edwards Report, of which I have seen a draft, is of an islands administration overwhelmed by the scale of the funds now passing through and severely under-staffed? Does he agree that that raises questions regarding the good governance of the islands and their relationship with the United Kingdom, which ought now to be investigated?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the latest paper that I have on the constitutional relationship between the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Her Majesty's Government was published in 1973. It is the report of the Kilbrandon Commission, which I commend as fascinating reading. We are responsible under international law for the islands' international relations and for their defence. They have a domestic competence and they have no representation at Westminster. The present relationship seems to work well.
The report produced by Mr. Andrew Edwards is to be published on Thursday. It is probably more appropriate if I comment on that report when your Lordships have had time to read and inwardly digest it.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government's support for the OECD document on so-called harmful tax competition poses a potential threat to the relationship between the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands, as does the campaign in Europe for tax harmonisation?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the OECD document was drawn up in consultation with Her Majesty's Government. It includes a saving clause which relates to the relationship between Her Majesty's Government and the Channel Islands. Based on my personal knowledge over the past year and a half, I can say that relationships are good and harmonious because we do our best to maintain a co-operative and friendly relationship between the three islands and Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, will the Minister add to the Written Answer that he kindly gave on 27th July regarding the date by which the European Human Rights Convention will be implemented in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man so as to ensure
1126
equal protection for all British citizens throughout the United Kingdom and the islands in regard to basic rights and freedoms? Is the draft legislation available? Please may we examine it and know when it is likely to be published and in force?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, all three islands have quite a good record in that context. The Attorney-General of Jersey raised with the then Home Office officials the possibility of enacting such legislation as long ago as 1992 and was told that the Home Office did not think it a good idea. The States of Guernsey issued a public statement on 22nd May this year anticipating that they would be able to submit a draft law to the Home Office for the usual pre-audit before the end of the year. In December last year, the Isle of Man made it plain that it intends to introduce legislation to give effect in Manx law to the ECHR.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not desirable that they should also mark and learn from it first?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as a member of the Kilbrandon Commission perhaps I may confirm that the people of the Channel Islands have democratic self-government while enjoying the full protection of the United Kingdom and with the advantage of being represented by the United Kingdom in almost all international affairs.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yes. As the noble Lord indicates, the islands have domestic competence and authority as to their own legislation, subject to the override that Her Majesty's Government have the residual powers in respect of the overall good governance of the islands. That was stated in the Kilbrandon Report and, I am happy to repeat, remains the true constitutional analysis.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, since the Kilbrandon Commission reported, the scale of offshore funds handled by the Channel Islands has altered astonishingly, and that that raises large questions regarding the future legal and financial relationship between the Channel Islands and the United Kingdom?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. There has been a substantial inflow of capital—international capital in particular—to the islands. That was one of the reasons why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary asked Mr. Edwards to carry out his review. He has consulted the islands widely and they have been extremely helpful and co-operative. The report will be hot from the press on Thursday of this week.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's remarks. I speak as the bishop who serves the two Channel Islands bailiwicks of

1127
Guernsey and Jersey, although of course that does not mean that I speak for them in this House. Will the Minister give the House an assurance—especially at this time of particular interest and attention in the light of the forthcoming publication of the Edwards Report itself rather than of leaks and drafts—that all those who speak either on behalf of the Government or as their representatives in any sense will be as well informed as the Minister has shown himself to be this afternoon on the constitutional position? Does he recognise that in the light of some comments made over the past months in another place and elsewhere, there is a need to offer some reassurance on these matters to the population of the Channel Islands?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, sometimes people speak from misunderstanding and sometimes from a desire to make mischief. When Mr. Edwards introduces his report to the wider public on Thursday, not only shall I be there, but there will be representatives from each of the islands. That is a good indication of the co-operation that presently exists and which we wish to see maintained, reinforced and continued.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Gilbert will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the Territorial Army.

Alliance & Leicester plc (Group Reorganisation) Bill [H.L.] (formerly Girobank plc (Transfer) Bill [H.L.])
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons Message of 12th November 1998 be now considered; and that the Promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in this Session in order to proceed with the Bill in the next Session of Parliament, notice of their intention to do so having been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 12 noon tomorrow;
That the Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than noon on the second Sitting day in the next Session with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on the Bill in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
1128
That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to the Bill in the next Session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 12 noon tomorrow and that all fees due on or before that day have been paid;
That the Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than noon on the second Sitting day in the next Session with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on the Bill in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to the Bill in the next Session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message was ordered to be sent to the Commons desiring their agreement thereto.

European Parliamentary Elections Bill
3.8 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendment be considered forthwith.
Moved, That the Commons amendment be now considered forthwith.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF A COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to HL Bill 88 as first printed for the Lords]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
1 Clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out ("a registered party, or").
2 Page 2, line 2, at end insert—
("(2A) Each candidate shall declare that he is either—

(a) the candidate of a party (and shall name that party); or

(b) an independent candidate.

(2B) There shall be added together the number of votes given for each party's candidates in each electoral region.
(2C) The number arrived at under subsection (2B) shall be the number of votes for the party for the purposes of this Act.").
3 Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
("(5A) After the allocation of seats to the parties, the order of candidates in each list shall be such that the candidates are ranked in terms of the votes each received, with the candidate with the highest number of votes appearing first.
(5B) If two or more candidates have the same number of votes, their order on the list shall be determined by lot.").
4 Page 2, line 18, at end insert (", following the rearrangement required under subsections (5A) and (5B)").

ORIGINAL COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU TO WHICH THE LORDS HAVE DISAGREED
4A After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
Review of electoral system
(".-(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint one or more persons-

(a) to review the operation of the system of election provided for by section 3 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 as substituted by section 1 of this Act, and

(b) to make a report to the Secretary of State within six months from the day of appointment.

(2) The Secretary of State shall carry out his duty under subsection (1) within one month from the date of the first general election to the European Parliament which takes place after the coming into force of section 1.
(3) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of any report received under subsection (1)(b) before each House of Parliament.").

FURTHER COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU
4B The Commons insist on their disagreement to Lords Amendments Nos. 1 to 4, do not insist on their original amendment in lieu thereof to which the Lords have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu of the Lords amendments—
4C After Clause 2, insert the following new clause-
Review of electoral system
(".-(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint one or more persons-

(a) to review, in accordance with subsection (2), the operation of the system of election provided for by section 3 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 as substituted by section 1 of this Act, and

(b) to make a report to the Secretary of State within six months from the day of appointment.

(2) The review shall consider, in particular, how the ability of electors to vote for particular persons on a party's list of candidates might affect the results of an election.
(3) The Secretary of State shall carry out his duty under subsection (1) within one month from the date of the first general election to the European Parliament which takes place after the coming into force of section 1.
(4) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of any report received under subsection (1)(b) before each House of Parliament.").
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do insist on their Amendments
1130
Nos. 1 to 4 to which the Commons have disagreed and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4C in lieu thereof.
When we discussed this issue last week I was able to point out the total lack of support that the closed list received from the Government Back-Benches both in this House and in the other place. Indeed, in this House the only vocal support for the closed list came from the Front Bench of the Liberal Democrats—the message on the Back-Benches was rather different—thus justifying their newly-found places on various Cabinet sub-committees.
In your Lordships' House three Government Back-Benchers spoke entirely about the merits of whether or not your Lordships had the legitimacy to send the amendment back to the Commons. None of them defended the closed-list system. Indeed, they went further. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, started off by saying:
"I should make clear that I prefer the open list".—[Official Report, 12/11/98; col. 853.]
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said:
"I am not concerned about the issue of open lists and closed lists".—[col. 861.]
The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Parkside, stuck to his principled position on the closed list and said:
"I shall continue to oppose closed lists".—[col. 858.]
All three noble Lords went on to say that your Lordships should not send this matter back to the Commons, but your Lordships disagreed and decided to do so.
One of the great advantages is that in another place yesterday two Government Back-Benchers broke cover and came out openly in favour of the closed list. These brave souls deserve a mention in this particular battle: Mr. Martin Linton of Battersea and Mr. Stephen Twigg of Enfield Southgate. Unfortunately these two brave souls were rather dwarfed by yet another four Government Back-Benchers voicing their dislike of the closed list. They added their words and voices to those that we heard the previous time, two or three of which I quoted to your Lordships when we discussed this matter last Thursday.
Let me draw your Lordships' attention to two out of the four voices that have emerged from the shadows and said "The Lords are right. We do not like the closed list either. We think it should be an open list". The first was Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, who had this to say yesterday:
"I feel very strongly about this matter. I speak tonight not because I believe that we are being asked to choose between an inadequate system and an even more inadequate system, but for a very different reason. I saw the effect of list systems on the European Parliament and the control that all political parties exercised. I explained time and again—wrongly, it now appears—that we would find it difficult to accept that system in Britain, because we had a genuine commitment to a constituency link and we believed that the individual was tremendously important in our system of government. I believe that very strongly".—[Official Report, Commons. 16/11/98; col. 705.]
Mrs Dunwoody said two things: one about the constituency link and the other about the individual. I accept that the constituency link will be broken by PR,

1131
but I acknowledge the Government's manifesto commitment to a system of proportional representation. In their manifesto they said:
"We have long supported a proportional voting system for election to the European Parliament".
I may not agree with that sentiment, but I accept it. Nothing I am asking your Lordships to do today, or have asked your Lordships to do on previous occasions, prevents the Government from honouring their manifesto commitment to have a proportional representation system for elections to the European Parliament. The important thing that Mrs Dunwoody said is that the closed list system—which is the one we are being offered—denies our belief that individuals are important. An open list acknowledges the importance of individuals. The individual candidate is important. The electors have a right to choose not just the party but also an individual within that party. That is important.
That view was taken up by Tony Benn—one of your Lordships' fiercest critics. I am pretty certain that he felt a bit uncomfortable with your Lordships being alongside him in this particular argument. He said this:
"I base myself on the simple principle that democracy will be destroyed if people cannot vote for and remove candidates, and if candidates are simply instruments of whatever may be a party's majorities and machinations when an election comes…The only person the electors can rely on is the candidate whom they have heard, argued with, listened to, voted for and can vote out. Give that up, and we not only wreck the European elections but begin to undermine the basis on which this House"—
the other place—
"comes to debate issues and ultimately to decide them".—[col. 687.]
The closed list system is also pernicious for the European elections. Before the last European elections, I was on government business in Paris and I met, two weeks out, a lady who was at the top of the list in one of the other European countries. I expressed surprise that she had taken a day out to come to Paris to have dinner with Transport Ministers; I thought she might be out electioneering. She dismissed me rather airily and said, "I do not need to electioneer. I am top of my party's list. I have no problem". That illustrates the problem.
I have read the Home Secretary's most recent defence of the closed-list system—as, no doubt, have most of your Lordships. I read his defence yesterday and his previous defences. One thought keeps going through my mind as I read his defences. It came to the top of my mind when I watched the Home Secretary last week. Is the Home Secretary keen on the closed list because he knows that next June it will result in an even lower turn-out than the low turn-outs we have come to expect in European parliamentary elections? That, allied to a dislike and distrust of party machinations which go to create the closed list, will actually bring PR into such public odium that Jenkins and all his work will be easily destroyed. That is a suspicion that keeps coming to my mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in his usual eloquent way, has advanced three propositions in favour of the closed list. I have no doubt that he will
1132
tell us first about Northern Ireland. Yes, the closed list system was used to deal with the exceptional circumstances in Northern Ireland. But is the noble Lord saying to your Lordships that the same exceptional and special circumstances apply here in Britain? The closed list was used for a deliberative forum with a specific agenda to bring very disparate parties into negotiation. Does the noble Lord think that such is needed in the European Parliament to bring disparate parties into negotiation?
My right honourable friend John Major made it very clear that the list system was not ideal. He used the words "not ideal" on 21st March 1996 in answer to a question from the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister. The current Prime Minister, Tony Blair, asked his question in this way:
"As I am sure that the Prime Minister would agree, the solution on the election process is certainly not ideal".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/3/96; col. 499.]
If it was certainly not ideal for the Northern Ireland forum, how can it be ideal for the European Parliament?
Then there is the interesting idea that first-past-the-post is a closed list of one. A Member of the other place, Mr. Harry Barnes, who expressed his views against the closed list quite forcefully, said:
"We cannot have an open list of one, therefore we cannot have a closed list of one".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/11/98; col. 691.]
That is exactly the point. There is no comparison between the first-past-the-post, one-person-one-vote system and the list system.
The third argument that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has used to your Lordships is that only the party can be trusted to elect a balanced ticket with the various interest groups represented. That is an interesting lack of faith in Labour's own voters. There is not much "Trust the people" here. It is "Do not trust the people. Trust the Labour Party, trust the Liberal Democrat Party, trust the Tory Party. We are here to help you". One can almost hear the electorate being told that.
Mr. Austin Mitchell—a man whose European credentials are impeccable and whose devotion to first-past-the-post is certainly not good; he actually believes in PR—said this:
"We shall do well in the elections"—
This is about the Labour Party; this is Austin Mitchell ingratiating himself with his Front Bench to see if they will give him a job at long last—
"but we arc telling the electorate that they cannot make any choice—they must vote as the party wants them to vote.
That will produce a festering resentment, which will do us no good. It is a basic flaw in democracy…We should maximise choice. They will resent it if they feel that they cannot pick and choose within the list".—[col. 702.]
Let us look at the amendments that the other place have sent back to us. Talk about crumbs from the rich man's table! Yes, we can have a review—but there is no guarantee about what the Government will do if the review comes down against the closed list. Your Lordships had little faith in that last week. So now we are promised in the new amendment that the review will look in particular at the way the closed list operated. I

1133
cannot for a moment imagine what else the review was going to do other than look at the closed list. Was it going to look at the shape of the ballot paper; or at how the campaigns were funded; or at the ability of the electorate to place their cross? Really, this last offering is not even a crumb from the rich man's table. Yet, it does matter how electors place their cross. Do they place it against an individual name, sending their choice to be their representative in Brussels; or do they place the cross against the party and the party decides who goes to Brussels to represent the party in Brussels?
Much will be made of the undemocratic nature of your Lordships' House. But when matched against the totally undemocratic nature of the closed list system, there is no comparison.
Moved, That the House do insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 to which the Commons have disagreed and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4C in lieu thereof.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I have studied with great care the debate that took place yesterday evening in the House of Commons, hoping not for the first time that I would find there some new and persuasive argument that would put me ad idem with so many of my former colleagues and present colleagues in the Labour Party here in the House of Lords. But I searched in vain. Indeed, the arguments were hardly put forward in terms of merit. They were put forward in terms of the Commons versus the Lords—the will of the House of Commons must prevail over that of the House of Lords. As a general principle, I agree with that without any trouble. However, on this occasion I think it has been used bogusly. It is not a true description of what is at stake.
What is at stake is whether, faced with the choice of two systems of proportional representation, which many of us dislike in any event, we should go for a system which greatly increases the powers of officials—of what I previously called the "selectorate"; whether we should deliberately, with our eyes open, do that in a period when, on the whole, centralised power is being challenged everywhere; and whether we should do that deliberately in this case in preference to a system which gives no such extra power to what is basically an unelected or very indirectly elected committee of officials who choose who are to be members of the European Parliament in the future.
Of course, I looked once again at the arithmetic of the last time we voted. When one looks at the number of votes cast by the Conservative Peers, whether hereditary or appointed, one reaches a certain total. That total, if they had had no other support from more independent sources, would not have enabled them to win last time. The Government would have won the vote if they had been faced with a combination of Conservative Peers, hereditary and appointed. The Government would have won the same vote on 20th October. But they did not win. It is bogus to describe this as being one of those classic conflicts between hereditary Peers dominating this House through the Conservative Party and the democracy outside. It is
1134
a false description. We owe it to ourselves to have at least a minimum of intellectual honesty and rigour. I cannot bring myself to support what the Government propose.
I want to go just one step further. I remain puzzled at the insistence of the Government and of the Commons. It is an amazing persistence. It is true that the Bill is now getting very near to the deadline. In a very short time we may actually play this game of ping pong once more, but the Session will come to an end. It may well be that the Government will lose the Bill. Why on earth should they take such a risk? Surely they do not invest such merit in a closed electoral system. The Back-Benchers can hardly bring themselves even to acquiesce in it, let alone to support it. Are they to risk the Bill for that? Good heavens, it is ridiculous. I have been scratching my head about it.
Under Article 190 of the Treaty of Rome we are committed to a European Parliament elected by a common procedure. Under the treaty we are required to harmonise our system with that of the European Union. It has not yet reached the point when that is an instruction but it is there in the treaty and sooner or later a regulation will come forward requiring us to make that alignment. For all I know, and for all the House knows, there may have been some tacit understanding between the Government and their European allies that they will bring forward such a procedure and bring the British system into alignment with that of the majority of countries in the European Union; or it may be that the Government, so anxious to establish their European credentials, have gone out of their way to make a gesture of good will, as they would see it, to our European friends and neighbours; in which case, I think it is bad judgment—I say no more—but it does not give any additional argument for the Bill in the form in which it has been presented to us.
So, with great reluctance, I have to say this to my colleagues. I am not persuaded. I cannot vote for what is proposed. If the Government do persist, they may well lose the Bill. But, need we be very sad about that? If they do lose the Bill, they will then find that they have already in being a system which, although far from perfect, is based on first-past-the-post and the constituency system which most of us in any case prefer.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for long and I hope the House will excuse me for not having spoken at the Committee stage or the Report stage or at any of the three previous votes we have had. There are elements in the progress of the Bill which are somewhat reminiscent of Sherlock Holmes—the mystery of the dog that did not bark in the night. I shall come to that in a moment.
Perhaps I may give a brief summary of the position as I understand it. There have been four voting systems: first-past-the-post; the single transferable vote; the closed list; and the open list. Those four systems have been discussed interminably. On first-past-the-post, in their manifesto the Government made it clear that they wanted to bring in a system of proportional representation for the European elections, so first-past-the-post could not be considered. At this point

1135
I should like to take up the Conservative point of view because I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, explained the situation very well at the Committee stage of the Bill on 24th June. The noble Lord stated:
"I want to make quite clear to the noble Lord"—
he was referring to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham—
"and his friends"—
I guess he was referring to those on the Liberal Democrat Benches—
"that while I may decide to discuss the finer points of the myriad of proportional representation systems, that in no way removes my objection in principle to any or all of them. My firm view is that the first-past-the-post system is the simplest and the best system whereby people can elect representatives to Parliament".—[Official Report, 24/6/98; col. 268.]
That was succinct, clear and unambiguous.
Then we come to the single transferable vote system. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, proposed amendments to bring in the STV system at both Committee and Report stages. Our party is strongly in favour of STV, but the single transferable vote does not work well with an electorate of 43 million and just 84 seats to be decided upon, and therefore regretfully we were unable to support those amendments. The system does, of course, work well in general elections.
Then we come to the closed list. I want to make clear that for both the closed list and the open list the candidates are decided upon by the party. In our party we vote for the candidates. When comparing the two systems, there is no fundamental difference on this important point.
In the closed list system the electorate votes for the party. The names of the candidates are on the list, but electors cast their votes for the party and not for the individual candidates.
In the open list system there is also another method of voting. At Committee stage our party proposed a system known as the Belgian system. I will not explain it; noble Lords must know it inside out and backwards. That system would enable electors to vote for either a party or individual candidates. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, saw what he described as a small defect in the system, and indeed it does exist. In about three out of 24 elections carried out under this system someone low down on the list has received more votes than someone higher up on the list but has failed to be elected because of the way the quota is allocated. Because of that defect, when we divided the House on the proposal, the Conservatives—particularly the Front Bench—were regrettably obliged to sit on their hands.
All was not lost because the Conservatives put forward an amendment proposing the Finnish system, in which I think there is merit. Under that system one votes for each candidate, and many here have made a great deal of that point. If candidates appear in alphabetical order on the ballot paper or are randomly selected in a list system, electors can make a good selection if they know who all the candidates are, and so the system would work well. In practice, as I think almost everyone
1136
here knows, most people will not know the candidates by name and will therefore inevitably cast their votes from the top of the list of the party which they wish to support.
I should like to quote again from that well-known Conservative Party speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. What he said was important because he wanted to ensure that the system he was proposing would work well. He said:
"Alternatively, I suggest that the parties should be invited to place the candidates in the preferred order so that the top person would gain a slight advantage in the top position".—[Official Report, 24/6/98; col. 337.]
He thought that that would make a small difference and would at least meet what the parties required.
We now come to what I call the Sherlock Holmes element. With regard to what happened next Sherlock Holmes might have asked, "What was the curious incident about the vote on this amendment at Committee stage?" Watson might have replied, "But there was no vote". "Exactly", Sherlock Holmes would have said, "that was the curious incident; the matter was not voted upon". However, there was a reason for that. The noble Lord's reason was very simple: it was getting late; it was twenty to ten. Although the issue was very important, the noble Lord was not prepared to put it to the vote and so we could wait comfortably for the Report stage of the Bill, when the noble Lord again moved the amendment. At the end of the debate he declined to test the opinion of the House, on the grounds that many would perhaps not support him, which seems unlikely to me in view of what happened at Third Reading.
Two votes that should have taken place were not called for and we thus came to the twelfth hour—Third Reading. This is not the way that Bills should be amended if one is serious about amending them. We now realise that what the Conservatives wanted was not to bring in an open list system but to defeat the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Shore, stated, if the Bill were lost, we should go back to the first-past-the-post system, which is what they wanted at the outset.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am that Back-Bencher whom the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, mentioned a few moments ago. I should like to inform him and the House that I was eager and willing to speak in the debate last Thursday but, out of courtesy to the House, because I thought that the House had probably heard enough by that stage and because I suspected that there were a few day return tickets that needed to be cashed in, I decided not to speak on that occasion. I am delighted this afternoon to have the chance to speak briefly in support of the Government's position on the Bill. I know that I speak not just for myself but for many Members of this House.
My interest is not as a candidate: I am not number one, three or 11 for a European seat on the 2nd June. My position is much less exalted. I have been for many years the elected chairman of the Northamptonshire and

1137
Blaby Euro-constituency Labour Party. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, in his seat this afternoon. I am a fairly new Member of the House and I hope that the House will be tolerant if I inadvertently breach some of the rules of debate.
This debate is not about internal party affairs, although noble Lords on all sides have at various stages tried to make it so. Each party has chosen its candidates in its own way, and I dare say that none has been perfect—except as regards the Liberal Democrats, of course! The candidates are now in place and anxious to get on with it.
There are real disadvantages in the system advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I hope that the court will be gentle with me as I go through them.
Noble Lords: The House!
Lord Bach: I am glad that noble Lords are still listening to me. Of course, I meant to say, "the House".
It is possible that under this system a candidate might be elected who has received fewer votes than an unsuccessful candidate. That is bad in itself, but, for a party which supports first-past-the-post, it is the ultimate sin.
Secondly, under the proposed system party labels will be mentioned as part of the ballot paper, but there will be no mention of a party order of preference. We are talking about electoral areas which are regions of Great Britain with millions of electors, not about counties and not about cities, let alone constituencies or wards. How on earth will the electorate be able to choose sensibly in order—I emphasise that—from the ballot paper? This is not an attack on the intelligence and good sense of the voting public—I believe that they showed great intelligence and good sense on the 1st May 1997—but plain common sense. We all belong to clubs or organisations big and small that every year hold postal elections for, say, an executive committee. A list of names appears, sometimes with a short biography. But soon after we start to put down crosses we find that we are voting randomly and for the most stupid of reasons. We are not making a judgment about a candidate's abilities at all. How much more likely is that when dealing with regional elections with perhaps three or four million voters in each region? It will lead to chaos and unfairness.
Perhaps I may quote briefly from a publication entitled Counting on Europe by Professor Dunleavy, Dr. Hix and Dr. Margettes:
"Open list ballot papers are more complicated. The ballot paper will be much longer because all the candidates will have to be listed with tick boxes. People may feel obliged to look over all the names, a lengthy business in the South East region where with 11 seats there could be 40 or more candidates…some people such as the elderly, those who have difficulty reading, first-time voters, and people who are just attached to the existing way of doing things may dislike the ballot paper or find it confusing".
That major study of voting systems, carried out just after the 1997 general election, provides good survey evidence that British voters do not like complicated ballot papers with multiple names and tick boxes. They
1138
have a strong preference for simple, short ballot papers. All the evidence suggests that this would amount to a real injustice, not just to women or ethnic minorities but to those who are discriminated against because their surnames unlike mine are at the end of the alphabet.
I come to my third point which was dealt with so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in his speech last Thursday and in his letter to the Daily Telegraph earlier this week. Each individual will be fighting against every other candidate including—perhaps specifically—members of his or her own party. Here I attempt to help the party opposite. This is a particular danger for the Conservatives where candidates who are selected clearly disagree with each other on their attitude towards Europe. For example, in my region the number one Conservative candidate is under the impression that the Second World War continues and that the Germans are our enemies to the death, while the second candidate is an ex-member of the European Parliament whose pro-European views make Sir Edward Heath look alike a Eurosceptic.
At Report stage on 12th October, just after I entered this place, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, moved Amendment No. 13 which proposed,
"the setting up of a commission within six months of the first election to be held under the Bill in order to report within two years on the merits of the electoral system that is proposed".—[Official Report, 12/10/98; col. 761]
He said nothing about an open list then. As the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, said, that did not arise until Third Reading.
Yesterday the Home Secretary in dealing with the amendment that is before the House today proposed a review within seven months, not two years, of the operation of the system of elections. The review will consider the ability of electors to vote for particular people on a party list and how that may affect the result of an election. The noble Lord has got his way and there is to be a review. That review has been strengthened since last week by a concession from the Secretary of State. If the noble Lord does not accept that, more cynical people than I may begin to wonder whether the motive behind all this table tennis between the two Houses is something rather different from the merits of the Bill.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, got to his feet first; perhaps he should speak now.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, so far no Back Bencher on this side has spoken to the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has tabled a later amendment it may be useful to hear him at this stage.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I shall speak briefly because I have tabled an amendment that may not be called if the vote goes in a certain direction. I have listened throughout these proceedings to every word that

1139
has been said by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I agree with him. It appears that several noble Lords opposite and Members of another place on the Government Benches agree with what my noble friend Lord Mackay said. This is a terrible example of cronyism that we see very often under the closed list system. Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody who was with me in the European Parliament in the 1970s is right to point that out.
If one is at the top of the list one wins easily; if one kicks against the pricks during the Session of a Parliament one is pushed off the list or, as the French say, biffé de la liste and the party leadership has the last word on the matter. That is what we have seen happen in the Labour Party. With the greatest respect, we have not seen it in the election of candidates for the Conservative or Liberal Democratic parties. I again declare my interest in that I was elected as a member of the closed list in the London area.
It is very difficult to campaign in this system under an open list as proposed by those who see the individual as the main criterion. For example, in the London area there will be some 6 million voters and 10 candidates for each of the major parties. There will be perhaps 40 or more candidates seeking the votes of those 6 million voters. Each of those 40 candidates must go for that one cross and get the message across to the millions whom he hopes will elect him. How is this to be done other than to some extent on a party basis?
I know that we cannot have a closed list, which is abominable. My noble friend on the Front Bench is quite right. But if there is a possibility of a voter being permitted to vote for someone he knows, or knows of, or has read about, that is excellent. However, I believe that in 90 per cent. of cases—as emerges from those countries where lists of this kind exist, such as Belgium, Finland, Cyprus and elsewhere—the voter votes for the party. Rightly or wrongly, he takes the job lot or group. That is why the mixed list is, I believe, the least obnoxious of those that have been mentioned in these proceedings.
There are 187 types of proportional representation available for Parliament to choose from, but I believe that the mixed list is the one which works best. I do not relish the idea of campaigning with colleagues of one's own party, ostensibly on their side but secretly in rivalry with one's own party. I am sorry to say that but I know that that would happen. I hope that that does not come to pass. I have worked, I hope, as a colleague with the other nine members of my list and I should like to be able to do so, all for one and one for all, without trying to steal a march on the others whenever I get half a chance.
Therefore, I ask noble Lords to concede that my noble friend has won the argument good and proper in your Lordships' House and in another place. He has shown that the leadership of the party opposite has not put up a very good performance over the selection—the parachuting—of candidates into the ballot paper. I ask noble Lords to look at the practicalities of the matter. Most of the candidates for the three major parties are already selected—nearly 300. The party activists, I
1140
submit, do not relish the idea of going back to square one and starting on the first-past-the-post system which has been the law up until now.
We have carried the ball several hundred yards down the pitch, if I may use a rugby analogy. We have to decide now whether to go for the line or kick for touch. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will consider my amendment for the mixed list system. Though not perfect, it has a great deal of merit. However, on this particular Motion, I shall abstain.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I have had a somewhat rough passage.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we have just had a Conservative speaker. I think we should now hear from this side and then perhaps from the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, first we heard from the noble Lord on the Front Bench over there. We have had no Back Bencher—
Lord Carter: My Lords, I suggest that we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Parkside, and then from the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, I confess, from the outset, that I have lost count of the number of times we have discussed this issue. I must also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. There is not a great deal of difference between the government amendment defeated last week and the government amendment before us today. It is also fair to say, as I said on that occasion, that at least the Government had offered an olive branch—a review of the electoral proceedings to be conducted soon after the European parliamentary election. I regret that it was not possible for the national executive committee of the Labour Party to say that it would review its method of selecting candidates for future elections. That would have been an even bigger olive branch and would have been even better received within the Labour Party.
This Bill is probably one of the most bizarre ever presented to an assembly. It is worth mentioning that it appeared before the House of Commons last November, more than a year ago, and here we are, right up against the wire, still discussing what has now turned out to be the most controversial Bill the Government have put forward in a very long Session.
If the Bill receives Royal Assent, it is worth examining the impact. The Conservative Party and the Liberal Democratic Party would gain a substantial number of seats within the European Parliament. There is even a chance that the Scottish nationalists and the Welsh nationalists would gain an additional seat. In fact, the only loser would be the Labour Party who, at the last European parliamentary election, won 62 seats. Although one cannot be totally precise, it is a certainty that Labour would lose between 22 and 25 of those seats. Additionally, there has been considerable turmoil in the party over the method used to select our candidates. The major support within the party for the

1141
method adopted seems to be from some members of the national executive committee and those candidates who are in a winning position as far as the ballot is concerned. It is difficult to find many other people who support either the closed list or the party's methods. If the Bill does pass, there will be major losses within the party. We will have a party that is rather split and somewhat angry.
However, if the Tories carry the vote tonight and the Bill is lost, Britain will revert to 84 contests in single member constituencies conducted under the first-past-the-post system. It will also mean that in the Labour Party the original rules will come back into play and the party members in each of those European constituencies will select their candidate by the traditional method. The NEC method of selecting candidates will have been killed. Labour will hold most, if not all, of the 62 seats it currently has and we will have a happy and united party. In other words, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, that he has an interesting choice tonight as to whether or not to force his amendment to the vote. If he does, the Labour Party will be the undoubted winner and the party will greatly rejoice that the old system of selecting candidates is restored. I shall be very interested to see what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, does when the Question is put.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I suppose I am not the first Member of your Lordships' House to have been given a somewhat rough passage by the Government Chief Whip. Nevertheless, let there be no bad blood between us. I have the deepest respect, as I always have, for holders of his office.
Your Lordships will be doubly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Shore, first, for an excellent speech. I have heard him speak many times and recognise him as a cogent debater, even though I have not always had the luxury of being able to agree with him. Your Lordships also have another ground for gratitude; namely that as I agree with him totally on this occasion, I have been able to shorten my remarks considerably. While I am on the subject of brevity, perhaps I may say that I know of no other word more generally abused in your Lordships' House and elsewhere. Perhaps I may delicately refer to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, from the Liberal Benches. He also promised to be brief. I feel quite happy to give the same undertaking here, knowing that it will not bind me overmuch.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, if I could have his attention for a moment, bewildered me somewhat. First, he mentioned in passing that he was addressing a court. There is no court visible to me. The nearest I can get to a court is the Bench of Bishops. The noble Lord might care to apply himself to some occupants of the Bench of the right reverend Prelates for guidance and representation at a higher court. I suspect he will need it.
I do not mind very much what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wears. As long as he observes the rules of general decorum—and I am sure that we can be confident of that—I shall be perfectly comfortable. However, there are other issues on which I join in the fray with some eagerness; and this is one. I dislike very much indeed the idea of any political party handing me
1142
a sanitised list of approved candidates. It is a horrible idea. It is a considerable pleasure and privilege for me to find myself in warm agreement with Mr. Tony Benn. He made the point yesterday in another place that,
"Candidates are chosen by a selection process within their constituencies … If we get away from that principle, MEPs will always look to the party leader, not to their constituents".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/11/98; col. 685.]
As I have grown older I have found it easier to restrain the enthusiasm which I feel for political parties. In my declining years I should like to make this point: that for me political parties are the only thoroughly nasty things of which, in the interests of safety, you must have more than one.
I have thought hard about this issue. I have said this in your Lordships' House before in one of those dim, twilight hours when there is no one here to listen. I had the advantage of rehearsing it on that occasion; I shall therefore repeat it with, I hope, more polish. I know of no one who becomes more intelligent, wiser, more charming, nicer, more gracious, more anything favourable that one likes, when he wears a party hat than when he does not. I am the first to testify to the charm of the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip. But when he wears a party hat, I have to be very careful of him. If the noble Lord has anything to say, I shall be pleased to hear it.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Shore, is no longer in his place. I thought that he was absolutely right when he said that this occasion was not just another one in a long-running dispute between the two Houses. Much has been made of the defects of your Lordships' House, real or imagined. Very little has been said about those of another place which—let me use my customary restraint and moderation—falls somewhere short of being wholly immaculate. I hope that that will not give offence elsewhere. We in your Lordships' House have very little power. Those who sit in another place, who have to an extent been sanctified by a popular vote, have not earned anyone's gratitude or applause when they persist in handing over the power that they have been given by the people to party machines. Whips and all the myrmidons of spin doctors and the rest take over power which was given to people who sit in another place; and in my view they are greatly to be blamed for that.
I earnestly hope that this amendment will be passed, not out of any partisan, fractious wish to see the party which I sometimes support win a vote. This is not that kind of issue. It goes to the root of our whole system. When I hear the eloquent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shore, and when I find people like Mr. Tony Benn with whom I do not regularly agree coming down as emphatically as they do against what the Government propose, I very much hope that the amendment will be carried.
4 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I was almost overcome to hear the encomiums that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, paid to our Chief Whip. Remembering the performance of my noble friend Lord Peyton (perhaps I

1143
may call him that) in the last Parliament, I am not sure that his Chief Whip will pay the same encomiums to him.
However, I must make a confession. I find it difficult to display the same enthusiasm and passion that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, or my noble friend Lord Shore can summon up about this matter. It is of course important, but to make the same speech, as I have heard them both do, time after time seems to me to require a degree of faith that I cannot summon.
I wish to make two observations: first about the issue; and, secondly, about the tactics of the Opposition. First, I have listened to the debates. I have voted only once, which demonstrates the degree of my enthusiasm; and I have read what happened in the Commons yesterday. If anything has been demonstrated by the series of debates, and in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, it is that he can be guaranteed to prove that there is no system of voting in this country which will be fair and just—none at all. He admits that even the first-past-the-post system which some of us in our old age still support has its defects. Yesterday, in another place, I heard the Home Secretary demonstrate—I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, did not refer to it today—that under the amendment it would be possible for someone with a smaller vote to be elected against someone with a bigger vote from a different party. What system is that? Is that accurate or not? I understand that it is accurate.
Let us imagine a situation in which one of the parties (let us not name names) has half a dozen candidates, one of whom is so popular, so well respected, so well known, and can command so much audience that he gains a vote that is much larger than the rest of his colleagues. I refer, of course, to the noble Lord, Lord Archer. By virtue of his own magic popularity, he can carry with him a series of third-rate candidates who otherwise would not have a chance. That is the effect of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
We all know that the Cross-Benchers are the epitome and the residuary of wisdom and intelligence in this House. I say that because I do not want them to vote today. Do they think that they are doing a service to the cause of democracy by voting for an amendment which will elect someone with fewer votes than someone else from another party? The plain truth is—and here I am almost in line with the Cross-Benchers; and I repeat my first observation—there is not a perfect system. What has been proposed by the Opposition is certainly not a perfect system. I confess that I am not over enthusiastic about the system here, but we have to choose one system.
I come to my second observation as regards the tactics of the Opposition and I include my noble friends Lord Shore, Lord Stoddart and all the others whose enthusiasm I so much admire. What gives them the right to say—unelected as they are and accountable to no one—four times in a row, "We insist that you, the Government, and the Members of the Commons shall lose your Bill"? They have no right at all to say that.
1144
No, I am not giving way to the noble Lord, Lord Shore. He knows that if he were in the Commons he would be defending the right of another place against this House and all-comers as he did time after time when he was there. Apparently, he and other noble Lords are going to seek the opinion of the House this afternoon and will try to wreck the Bill.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, if they are not trying to wreck the Bill, why do they not withdraw their amendments? Why do they not accept the wish of the other place and of the Government which won the election? What right have they got to insist on their view against the elected Members of another place? They know that they have not. I have genuine admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and for the way in which he conducts himself. Indeed, if I were Leader of the Opposition I would begin to have some fears about my own position.
As regards tactics, of course the Opposition can carry the measure today and they can send it back again to the other place. It can force the Government to lose the Bill if it wishes to do so. But I believe that in the long run the Opposition will regret it. I do not believe that the Opposition Front Bench believes that it is carrying all its own people with it on this issue.
When one seeks reasons for its attitude, I believe it is the growth of a self-confessed hooligan tendency in the Conservative Party. Perhaps I may adapt the words of a forbear of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, about consultation, and repeat that I would as soon consult my valet as consult the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, about political and parliamentary tactics. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition should take his party in hand. It is time it stopped playing games of this sort. It knows very well that in any other circumstances it would not persist in an issue which is not of fundamental constitutional importance. It is a second-level issue. We are faced with a series of opposing proposals on this matter and none of them is perfect.
I say again to the Cross-Benches: we have been promised a review to see whether we can achieve a better voting method out of this situation. It has been said that the Opposition will be consulted as I am sure, will all others including, no doubt, the Cross-Benches. In any other circumstances than these and with any other Opposition, it would have said, "Yes, we have carried the day three times. We understand that we are not going to win. We shall co-operate". Indeed it asked for the review and now it has been conceded the Opposition continue to object.
I have taken no real part in this matter, but I believe the time has come to stop playing games. The Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, should call off their troops and let us go forward. They can say to the Commons, "We still take the view that was taken by a majority in this House, but we do not insist on the Bill being lost and therefore we do not vote for this measure today".
4.15 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I have to answer the question which the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, put to the noble Lord, Lord Shore, since he would not allow him to answer for himself. The right by which the noble Lord, Lord Shore, speaks and votes in this House is contained in his Writ of Summons to this House. That is his right and that is why he is using it as he should. I say also to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, that it is not this House that would lose the Bill. It is in the hands of the Government's business managers. It is up to them whether they lose the Bill or not. They may find that the Bill is not the perfected thing that they would wish, but they can still have it provided they compromise with this House on this one amendment.
As regards questions of constitutionality and whether hereditary Peers like my noble friend Lord Onslow should take any part in this or whether he should send his valet in his place, a new point was raised by a noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches. He was critical of my noble friends for not voting with him and his colleagues on their amendment. Would he really have accepted the votes of my noble friends who have inherited their peerages? Would he have thought it invalid if they had voted with him or are their votes only invalid when cast against him? It was a specious argument and we have heard many of them. I am well aware that the House is in no mood for any more.
As a former chairman of the Conservative Party I would regard the closed list system, as I always have, as a monstrously wrong and undemocratic system. If voters are faced with a list of Conservative candidates for the European Parliament they should choose from among them those whose opinions are closest to those of the voters. What is wrong with that? Why should they leave it to my successor, as chairman of the party, to do the job for them? The argument as regards the closed list has been knocked on the head already today.
Perhaps I may remind the House of this fact. I inherited in my party, defended and passed on to my successors, the principle that in any parliamentary or local authority election it is for the local people to make their decision on the Conservative candidate. If they do not like any of the so-called approved list candidates, they are free, as they always were, to introduce a candidate of their own. Central Office is duty bound to endorse him unless there is some ghastly fact against him such as being an undischarged bankrupt. That is the democratic system which we have. The closed list system would be entirely against it.
In his heart I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, knows that. He has all the enthusiasm for this measure which the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, had for the beef-on-the-bone order. I was assured of my confidence in that view when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Williams, speak on this issue on Radio Four on the morning following the last vote in this House. The noble Lord is a lawyer. I noticed that throughout the interview both the volume and pitch of his voice rose steadily. He was a lawyer under pressure knowing he had a bad case, abusing the interviewer as there was no defendant.
1146
If the Government are defeated again today and if the noble Lord, Lord Williams, appears on the radio tomorrow morning, I would advise everyone to move their best glasses well away from the receiver. He no more believes in his case than do those on the Benches behind me or on the Labour Benches in the House of Commons. They know that this measure gives excessive power to the party apparatchiks. It means that a candidate or a sitting member will not have to worry whether he pleases his electorate; he has to worry only whether he pleases the "selectorate" of his apparatchiks. That is why the system is popular in continental Europe where they are long accustomed to the superior power of the political classes over ordinary men and women in the street. That is why this House should stay firm and why the Government must then decide whether they wish to keep the Bill or whether they wish to lose it.
Lord McNally: My Lords, it was the chairman of an American assembly who said, "Everything on this matter has now been said, but unfortunately not everybody has yet said it." I believe that the House is moving to a conclusion on this matter. I am pleased that we have had some vintage performances. The noble Lord, Lord Shore, and I have been on opposite sides of Common Market arguments for more than 30 years. It is interesting to note that those in the Labour pantheon who have been exhibited here today have a common theme in their attitudes towards Europe. But, of course, all decisions here are made on the highest of principles and personal motivation.
Perhaps I may say why these Benches have been consistent throughout. This Bill, if any Bill, is our Bill. It was not in the Queen's Speech. It was following persuasion by the Liberal Democrats that the Government brought forward the Bill to honour their manifesto commitment and ours to introduce a system of proportional representation for the European elections. That is an issue to which we have been committed by treaty for two decades or more. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Shore, could have brought it forward if he had supported the attempt of the Callaghan government to introduce proportional representation almost 20 years ago. So let us be in no doubt about the political issue. The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat Party are putting forward legislation which is four square with their manifesto commitments and has been supported, as my noble friend Lord Callaghan pointed out, successively in another place.
What we have seen from the Conservative Party is the unmasking of the guns. Almost all speakers have said that they are for first-past-the-post. I repeat that first-past-the-post was not the manifesto commitment of the Labour Party, not the manifesto commitment of the Liberal Democrats and not the wish of another place. I believe that it would be a constitutional outrage if this House used its unelected majority to thwart the wishes of the electorate expressed at the general election and those of another place elected through the democratic process.
The noble Lord, Lord Shore, asked whether there was a hidden agenda. Listening to the debate and watching the Conservative ranks I wondered sometimes whether

1147
we were having a dry run for next year. When the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, started calling on his Writ of Summons to justify committing this constitutional outrage, I wondered whether next year the Writs of Summons would be dusted down to justify trying to thwart the elected government and their manifesto commitment.
Let us be in no doubt what has happened during the past few weeks. When the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was able to boast that he had come within two votes of those cast on the previous occasion on which we voted, I wonder how many independent voices we had heard and how dangerous was that Front Bench fingertip control over the hereditaries for this so-called independent House. Like the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, I say to the Cross Benchers, "Do not be lured into a Conservative Party game." The noble Lord, Lord Bach, was right to speak about a court. I understand his mistake because the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is attempting a piece of grand larceny as regards this Bill. It has gone through every process of this House. We have brought it legitimately through the House and have argued our case. Some of the issues we have lost, but there is no doubt that the will of another place has been expressed clearly. The party putting the Bill through this House has the democratic mandate from the electorate for its manifesto and the approval of another place. I ask this House to pause before it sets a precedent which I believe would damage its reputation just when we are looking hard at how it should be reformed.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I speak with what I hope is an independent voice. I am not against the Government. I am not a Euro-sceptic. I am not, I hope, part of the hooligan tendency. I am even in favour of proportional representation.
I sat through the debate in your Lordship' House last week and listened carefully to everything that was said. I have listened carefully to everything that has been said today. I remain deeply unhappy about the principle of the closed list. It seems to me that it is at the heart of our democratic method that the individual voter should be able to express an opinion about an individual candidate.
I am well aware of the enormous complexity of proportional representation. I am well aware that there is no perfect system. I warmly support a great deal of what Her Majesty's Government are trying to undertake in their programme of legislation. I want to see the United Kingdom playing a full and vigorous part in European affairs. I would like to see us reaching the point at which we can present to this House and to the other place a system of proportional representation which carries conviction and wins general approval. However, I remain deeply unhappy about the closed list.
There are many imperfect systems. I believe that the closed list is one of the most imperfect. I remain unconvinced by the arguments of those asking us to resist the amendment. I propose to vote again for the
1148
amendment. I believe that we shall be doing the right thing by the democratic principles which have prevailed in this country for a very long time.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, your Lordships' House is a remarkable House and today again has been a true occasion for the connoisseur. I wish to offer a word or two about the profound heart of the matter and about where we are.
This House is a revising Chamber. It should not seek to become a dictating Chamber. The facts are that the vote was won by the Opposition with the votes of hereditary Peers on every occasion. There were 47 on 20th October; 29 on 4th November; and 58 on 12th November. The figures bear thinking about because they fail to meet what happened in another place. In February there was a government majority with the Liberal Democrats and others of 174. In March, it was 180. On 27th October, it was 207. On 10th November, it was 182. The last time we indulged in this "ping" they said "pong" by 187.
We have discharged our duty to ask the other place to think and think again. I want to put this gently and neutrally. I suggest to your Lordships that to insist further is to be abusive of our system. I believe that one should pay careful attention to what my noble friend Lord Callaghan said, bearing in mind particularly that he has made no secret of the fact on any occasion before your Lordships that he really prefers first-past-the-post and is not a devotee of any PR system. He rarely speaks in your Lordships' House. For my own part, I believe that I can say that I have never heard him make a contribution which has been without value and without deep thought. Sometimes he has spoken in a way contrary to what I should have hoped, but he never speaks without thought and considered weight.
I am sorry to say that the argument is rather over-egged. Perhaps I may quote, since that seems to be the habit these days, from Peter Riddell in The Times of 17th November of this year. He said:
"The open-list system has a number of disadvantages. It encourages candidates of the same party",
the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell,
"to compete against each other and may produce perverse results",
the point made by my noble friend Lord Callaghan,
"whereby some candidates can be elected with fewer votes than someone who fails to get elected".
That is incontrovertible. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, astute mathematician as he formerly was and presently remains, has never tried to dispute it. It is fact.
I continue with Mr. Riddell:
"A closed list allows parties to ensure that women and ethnic minorities have a better chance of being elected by putting them higher up the list. The choice is not straight forward and it is certainly not a grand matter of principle".
If it were a grand matter of principle, I should not be able to produce this little pamphlet which is headed "Here is your Euro-team. Conservatives in the European Parliament". It has a closed list of one to 10. The noble

1149
Lord, Lord Bethell, referred to it last time, but I believe that his point was insufficiently taken. He is number three.
What is said by those devotees of the grand principle which cannot be impugned, impeached or even questioned? I shall read it. It states:
"The number of MEPs elected from each party will be proportionate to the votes cast for that party in the region".
Well, well, is that a closed list or is that a closed list? That is what the Opposition are fighting on. Perhaps I may say to anyone who uses the word "bogus" about any argument that I may offer to your Lordships for consideration, bogus me no boguses.
This is an occasion for the connoisseur. My noble friend—we call each other that because we both mean it—Lord Tebbit presents himself as the champion of the ordinary man, one of the levellers and diggers of the English Civil War. You could have fooled me.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, talked about a sanitised list of 10 candidates. He always stood for election in Yeovil as a sanitised list of one candidate and so, nine times in 33 years, did my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney.
If you want to have a perfectly open system for parliamentary elections, we can do as they do in the United States and have a write-in list. We do not have that. Parties bring forward policies. Some people will disagree with some policies and must therefore opt to vote for a list which they partly support, or not. Parties must bring forward lists of candidates. There cannot be internal squabbling and fighting between the candidates, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, again said. A list is put forward for the electorate to decide upon.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is shrewd but his disability is that I always listen to him. I demonstrate that. He answered my argument about Northern Ireland by saying that it is only a deliberative Assembly. But that is normally what the European Parliament is described as. It forms no government.
I go on to what he did not deal with. The Government of Wales Bill has gone through the other place and your Lordships' House on a closed list for the top-up seats. That is excellent for Wales. My noble friend Lord Sewel and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, will be able to remind me that a little time was spent considering the Government of Scotland Bill in your Lordships' House. What is the system for Scotland? It is a closed list.
I am sorry to say—and I do not say this with any particular harshness nor, indeed, is the pitch or the tone of my voice rising so that your Lordships' spectacles, if not your Lordships' drinking glasses might be in danger—this is not a point of pure principle. It is a device; it is a stratagem. All oppositions are entitled to deploy their devices and to manipulate their stratagems, but only so far. I can do no better for your Lordships than to repeat what my noble friend Lord Callaghan said. The game has been played for long enough. Our colleagues in another place were elected. Some of your Lordships disparage them. I never do because they have
1150
the courage to stand for election. They were elected. None of us was. This is now becoming a wholly improper abuse of power.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have certainly had an interesting debate. If I have done nothing else, I have brought before your Lordships an excellent performance of old skills honed over the years by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff. To an extent, I suppose that his argument is enhanced by the fact that he believes quite honestly and openly that first-past-the-post is the best system.
However, he argued his case persuasively and cleverly as befits someone who managed to remain as Prime Minister for quite a long time without commanding a majority in the other place. Therefore, I was not in the least surprised that it was a clever performance and it certainly gave us all a lesson on how to perform in front of your Lordships. I shall read it with some care.
The noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, clearly reads my speeches. Perhaps I may say to him that that is a temptation which I have so far resisted. I suggest that he joins me.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, came out of the closet and owned up to agreeing that the closed list is the best system. He asked us to be gentle with him and I shall be. He sang in harmony with Tony, and I do not mean Tony Benn but the other one. He said something interesting which the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff and the Minister also mentioned; that is, that somebody with a lower vote could easily be elected against someone with a higher vote. I am sure that the Minister accepts that that is true only between the parties' lists. Within the parties' lists with the open list system, the people with the highest vote will be elected. I accept of course that someone may be elected with a lower vote than somebody else on another party list, but that happens all the time when one compares one constituency with another. Nobody complains that he received 30,000 votes and was beaten while the chap next door won 20,000 votes and was elected. Nobody complains about that. That is a false premise. People will be able to understand the system. The ballot paper will not be too complicated. Noble Lords who think that should look at the German system.
My noble friend Lord Bethell explained why he does not approve of the closed list. He mentioned some of the problems which occur with the open list. On balance, I believe he would agree with me that the problems with the closed list are greater. He indicated the defects of the closed list from his experience in the European Parliament. I believe that my noble friend is trying to help the Government by suggesting another system which they may try. I must say to my noble friend that I am not happy with the Belgian system and neither is the Home Secretary. However, my noble friend has certainly given the Government some food for thought if they need it.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said. "This is our Bill". I thought that let the cat out of the bag. I say to those on the Government Back-Benches, ye ken noo

1151
who has got you into this problem. But the noble Lord did not explain why the open list is not PR. I return to my point. The Labour Party's manifesto states:
"We have long supported a proportional voting system for election to the European Parliament".
Frankly, the open list is an election system to the European Parliament by PR. So I say to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who seems to be worried about it, that there is no problem in relation to the Government's manifesto.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford made it clear that individual voters should have some say. That is all we ask for in the open list. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, and I enjoy jousting—at least, I hope that he enjoys it because I certainly do. The noble Lord mentioned the Scottish and Welsh Bills. I did not like the list system as set out in the latter, but the fact is that both pieces of legislation have the majority of the Members of that parliament and assembly elected by the first-past-the-post system: the list only comes in for the minority for the top-up. Therefore, it is not the same as the European Parliament where everyone will be in the list system.
The noble Lord also said that the argument was over-egged. If that is so, why not accept the open list? I suggest to noble Lords that it is not just the majority in the other place that they should listen to; indeed, they should also heed the voices in another place. Those voices represent a very unhappy troop behind the Government on the issue.
My noble friend Lord Tebbit made the position clear: it is up to the other place. This Bill does not necessarily need to be lost if your Lordships agree with me today. The other place can come back—it is to be hoped—with a substantial compromise which might persuade us actually to accept it, instead of these rather meaningless crumbs of comfort that they think will buy us off.
The Government could also accept the open system which is consistent with their manifesto; indeed, they have the time to do so. I think that we should ask them to do it again and to come back, if they wish to do so, with something sensible. Alternatively, and better still, if they wish to accept that the open list is every bit as proportional as the closed list, perhaps they will accept the open list. I wish to test the opinion of the House on my Motion.
4.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 261; Not-Contents, 198.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ampthill, L.

Ackner, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Addison, V.

Annaly, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Astor of Hever, L.

Ailsa, M.

Attlee, E.

Aldington, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

1152

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Greenway, L.

Bell, L.

Halsbury, E.

Beloff, L.

Hambro, L.

Belstead, L.

Hampden, V.

Biffen, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Blaker, L.

Harlech, L.

Blatch, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Blyth, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Boardman, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Bowness, L.

Haslam, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Headfort, M.

Brentford, V.

Hereford, Bp.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Higgins, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hogg, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Holderness, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Home, E.

Butterfield, L.

Hood, V.

Butterworth, L.

Hooper, B.

Cadman, L.

Hothfield, L.

Caithness, E.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Carnock, L.

Inglewood, L.

Chalfont, L.

Ironside, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Chesham, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Clancarty, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Jopling, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Coleridge, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Colwyn, L.

Kenyon, L.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Killearn, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Kimball, L.

Courtown, E.

Kingsland, L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Cox, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Knollys, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Cranborne, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Lawrence, L.

Cross, V.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Cuckney, L.

Leigh, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Limerick, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Liverpool, E.

Davidson, V.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Deedes, L.

Lloyd-Webber, L.

Denham, L.

Long, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Lowry, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Lucas, L.

Donegall, M.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Downshire, M.

Luke, L.

Dudley, E.

Lytton, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Elles, B.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Marlesford, L.

Erne, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Exmouth, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Ferrers, E.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Flather, B.

Merrivale, L.

Fookes, B.

Mersey, V.

Forester, L.

Middleton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Freyberg, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Gage, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Gainford, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Monson, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Glentoran, L.

Montrose, D.

Gray, L.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Moran, L.

1153

Mottistone, L.

Renwick, L.

Mountevans, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Romney, E.

Moyne, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Munster, E.

Rowallan, L.

Napier of Magdoda, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Naseby, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Nathan, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Nelson, E.

Sandford, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Savile, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Norrie, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Northbourne, L.

Sharples, B.

Northesk, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Norton, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Slim, V.

Onslow, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Stair, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Stewartby, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Palmer, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Palumbo, L.

Strafford, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Patten, L.

Sudeley, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Swinfen, L.

Peel, E.

Tebbit, L.

Pender, L.

Teviot, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Thatcher, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Phillimore, L.

Trumpington, B.

Pike, B.

Vivian, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Waddington, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Wakefield, Bp.

Plumb, L.

Wakeham, L.

Quinton, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Warnock, B.

Rathcavan, L.

Waverley, V.

Rawlings, B.

Westbury, L.

Reay, L.

Wharton, B.

Rees, L.

Wilcox, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Winchester, Bp.

Renton, L.

Wolfson, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Calverley, L.

Addington, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ahmed, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Alderdice, L.

Chorley, L.

Alli, L.

Christopher, L.

Amos, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Annan, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Avebury, L.

Crawley, B.

Bach, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Barnett, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

David, B.

Bath, M.

Davies of Coity, L.

Berkeley, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Blease, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Desai, L.

Borrie, L.

Dholakia, L.

Bragg, L.

Diamond, L.

Brightman, L.

Dixon, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Donoughue, L.

Brookman, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Dubs, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Eatwell, L.

Burlison, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Burns, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

1154

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Ezra, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Dorner, B.

Falkland, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mishcon, L.

Gallacher, L.

Molloy, L.

Geraint, L.

Monkswell, L.

Gilbert, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Goodhart, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Newby, L.

Goudie, B.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Nicol, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ogmore, L.

Grantchester, L.

Paul, L.

Gregson, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Peston, L.

Grey, E.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hacking, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hampton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hamwee, B.

Puttnam, L.

Hardie, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Razzall, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Rea, L.

Haskel, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hayman, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Healey, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Richard, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rochester, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hollick, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sawyer, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hooson, L.

Serota, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sewel, L.

Hoyle, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Simon, V.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Ilchester, E.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Inchyra, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Strabolgi, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Islwyn, L.

Taverne, L.

Jacobs, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Thornton, B.

Judd, L.

Thurlow, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Thurso, V.

Kirkwood, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Leathers, V.

Tordoff, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Uddin, B.

Lockwood, B.

Varley, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Longford, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L,

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Ludford, B.

Warner, L.

McCarthy, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Weatherill, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Whitty, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Wigoder, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

McNair, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McNally, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Maddock, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Mallalieu, B.

Wright of Richmond, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agree to accordingly.

The Territorial Army
4.55 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, with permission I will repeat a Statement made a few minutes ago in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a Statement about the future organisation and structure of the Territorial Army.
"When I announced the conclusions of our Strategic Defence Review on 8th July, I said that I was determined that the Territorial Army should become more relevant, more usable and better integrated with the rest of our forces. Since then, we have analysed how to put that vision into practice and engaged in detailed and widespread consultation with those most expert on the Territorial Army.
"The decisions I have taken will produce a tauter, stronger Territorial Army ready to play its part in facing tomorrow's crises. The changes are faithful to the design that I set out in my Statement on 8th July.
"We said we would consult widely, and we have especially with members of the TA themselves, and the TAVRAs. We said that we would listen, and we have, to the many representations that have been made by honourable Members and others. The final structure reflects many substantive changes from the initial proposals circulated for consultation.
"The theme of the SDR was modern forces for the modern world. The fact is that we no longer face a threat to our national survival, but crises and risks are still real and operationally demanding. We can expect little warning of trouble, and we are likely to have to go to the crisis, rather than have it come to us. This places a premium on the Armed Forces which are flexible and usable and ready to react. At the same time, however, we need to retain a foundation on which we could generate larger capabilities should a strategic threat to NATO ever begin to re-emerge.
"Tomorrow's Territorial Army will be central to both these needs, like the Royal Navy and RAF reserves, both of which will grow as a result of the defence review. The TA will no longer be a general reserve for general war in Europe, but a wholly integrated and vital part of a single capability—regular and reserve—for overseas deployment. We can achieve this by giving the Territorial Army clearly defined operational roles in support of expeditionary forces and structuring it accordingly. There will be a clear shift of emphasis so that we can use the whole of the TA, and not just part of it.
"We will make sure that the people who make up the units will be trained and available at the time we need them. At present most units are manned only to the extent needed to achieve low levels of readiness. This will change. More units will be held at higher readiness. The last government's decisions effectively limited most TA units to only 90 per cent. of their establishments. As a consequence the strength of the TA today stands at are around 54,000. This
1156
Government, though, will ensure that the TA of the future is fully resourced for its roles. The Government will be prepared to call up the TA in formed units if needs be in situations short of direct threat to the United Kingdom itself, like the Gulf War. What we are proposing is a radical shift away from the TA's traditional image as "weekend warriors" towards a new, more heavyweight role in the world after the Cold War.
"This is a change which will, I believe, be welcomed by the TA.
"I have set out details in a document I placed in the Library of the House over an hour ago; and both myself and my honourable friends the Ministers of State for Defence Procurement and for the Armed Forces have written to honourable Members with an interest, and those letters should have reached them before this Statement.
"The structure set out in our document will, first and foremost, enable tomorrow's TA to meet the operational demands that will be placed on it in future. Secondly, it will encompass a degree of insurance for the unexpected—that is, should a strategic threat to NATO ever re-emerge.
"But there are third and fourth elements to our proposals. These reforms will enable the TA to maintain a widespread presence throughout the nations, regions and counties of the United Kingdom. The Armed Forces must continue to be linked to the local and national communities they serve and the TA is, again, vital in achieving this. Many honourable Members have stressed the important role of the Territorial Army as part of the visible presence of the Armed Forces across the country, and as a source of practical help to local communities. We share these views and took explicit decisions to reflect them fully in our plans.
"Finally, in the forefront of our minds, and of many honourable Members', has been the need to secure and promote the cadets, and in particular to protect those units which share premises with the TA.
"I have made clear on many occasions my strong support for the cadets. They are not a recruiting organisation, but a self-standing and successful youth movement. But even so, whereas on average only 8 per cent. of today's regular Army have been in the TA, some 25 per cent. have experience of the cadets.
"Consequently, our aim has been to protect cadet units as far as possible from disruption during the transition to the new structure. In many cases, we will retain existing TA centres for cadet use, even when they are no longer to be used by Territorial Army units. I can assure the House that in no case will we dispose of a centre until alternative facilities have been provided for the cadets, although some temporary dislocation is inevitable. I have set aside up to £12 million to meet these needs.
"In addition, I will allocate £3 million extra to the cadets over the next four years. In the summer, I told the House that, to meet the requirements we envisaged placing on it, the Territorial Army would need to be about 40,200 strong.
"Following our detailed analysis and consultation, we have decided that a modest increase in that number is needed: the result will be a TA of 41,000—in other words, a reduction of some 13,000 on today's strength. To put this into perspective last year we lost almost that figure through natural wastage alone. In total only 87, of Britain's 455 TA centres will close outright. A further 27 will be retained for the cadets. Four in every five centres will remain.
"These decisions will fulfil both the country's operational need and the Armed Forces' role in the community that they serve and in which they live. This outcome is not some number determined by an arbitrary exercise in cost reduction, but is securely rooted in a thorough analysis of policy and military need. It has the full backing of the head of the Army, the Chief of the General Staff, Sir Roger Wheeler and the whole Army Board. In this and in its operational justification, it is no different from the rest of the Strategic Defence Review.
"I know that some would have wished us to go further, and to maintain the reserves at much higher levels than we have proposed, just in case. But the nation just does not need such large numbers, and I cannot justify them either militarily or as a Minister spending the money of taxpayers.
"Nor is the self-esteem of the TA likely to survive if it has no real military purpose and is stuck frozen in some Cold War glacier. But we have not presumed that we can predict the future, nor that it will be a continuation of the patterns of the recent past. So the TA will continue to be a basis for the regeneration of larger reserve forces should the country ever need them.
"We have also taken pains to implement change in a way which is sensitive to the pride and commitment of volunteers, and to their regimental traditions and ethos. Tomorrow's Territorial Army will retain substantial, though reduced, numbers of infantry. In future, there will be 15 new infantry battalions and they will choose their own names. I am pleased to tell the House that all existing TA infantry cap-badge affiliations will be maintained at company level. Not a single cap-badge will be lost.
"Traditions in the TA Yeomanry will also be maintained, through a nationwide representation of Yeomanry squadrons. We will also ensure that the Yeomanry has a real job to do and strong linkages to the regular regiments of the Royal Armoured Corps. TA Yeomanry squadrons will have access to the same equipment as the regular counterparts, including the Challenger 2 main battle tank, and to the major armoured training areas.
"We have also reflected carefully on the recommendation of the Select Committee on Defence on the nuclear biological and chemical role of the Territorial Army. The SDR included the creation of a regulation unit—a joint Army/RAF organisation—to improve significantly our current capability in this important area. Under initial proposals, the TA Yeomanry would have contributed a single squadron to that unit. But I have decided, in light of the
1158
committee's observations, to retain two squadrons of TA Yeomanry devoted to the support of regular forces in this role. Tomorrow's TA structure will reflect a greater emphasis on specialists and units of the supporting arms and services than has previously been the case. These will provide, as now, the full range of combat and combat services support for a military deployment: signallers, artillery, air defence, logistics and engineers, and, of course, medical services.
"Both regular and reserve medical services were, I regret, neglected by the previous government. We will, therefore, seek to increase substantially, by over 2,000, the manpower available to the volunteer Army Medical Services.
"The Strategic Defence Review was also crucially about people. Volunteer service will be more demanding in future, and it will continue to provide rewarding opportunities unparalled in most other walks of life. There will also be opportunities to contribute to our new mission of defence diplomacy overseas. The TA of the future will be an enterprise to which we wish to attract the best. A new recruitment campaign will ensure that this message is clearly conveyed. But retention is just as important. In recent years, for example, up to a third of the TA's recruits have been leaving within a year of joining. That must change. There will, therefore, be a package of improvements to personnel management in the Territorial Army—in particular for individual members of the TA who volunteer for service in Bosnia and elsewhere abroad. We are overhauling antiquated arrangements for keeping track of individual TA members. A new reserves training and mobilisation centre will start training individuals for overseas deployments from April next year.
"We will improve education and training opportunities; and ensure through the provision of personal development records that the value of an individual's experience and training in service is recognised—to the benefit of the individual and, we hope, of his or her civilian employer.
"The Territorial Army has a first-class record of responding to the need for change. An essential part of the Army throughout this century, it has always had to be flexible in size and organisation. It expanded to meet both World Wars. Since then it has been disbanded, re-raised, reduced, and expanded again, to meet development in warfare and a changing threat.
"The changes I am announcing today will mean that, for the first time in many years, tomorrow's Territorial Army will have a clear role and purpose for the future. Tomorrow's Territorial Army will be better manned, trained, supported and integrated—able to meet the challenges of the world after the Cold War. In short, a Territorial Army fit for the future—both valuable and valued by the whole country. I commend these reforms to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. I am particularly grateful to him for his courtesy in briefing me this morning on the two documents setting out the proposed changes in the Territorial Army. The details of the changes and the cuts are given in full in these papers, which noble Lords will have the opportunity of reading. I believe that we in this House would be wrong in the limited time available this afternoon to pick up the problems, important as they are, of individual units and TA centres.
This House has been ill done by in the time given for discussion on defence matters—I must emphasise that in no way do I blame the noble Lord for that. We received some time for debate on the SDR before the Summer Recess, but no further time has been given. In another place there was a two-day debate on the SDR on the first two days when the House returned last month and, subsequently, a day on the Army. It may be that Members of the other place do not work as hard as your Lordships. This is the first real opportunity that we have had to discuss these serious matters. I hope the Minister will assure the House that there will be a chance for proper debate (welcome as it is, this is not such) and if possible before Christmas.
Since July, noble Lords, Members of another place and Territorials have been desperate for information on exactly where the cuts forecast in the SDR would fall. The comprehensive nature of the documents that we have now been given explains in part why it has taken so long. But they do not, I believe, make clear quite what is happening. We were told originally that the Territorial Army would be cut from 59,000 to 40,000. This last figure has now been revised to 41,200 from a total of 54,000. But what is the proposed cut? I was startled to find out from the Assistant Chief of the General Staff in the presence of the Minister this morning that, while the nominal roll is 54,000, the effective parade state is 32,900 and that, consequently, the reduction in numbers will be 13,000. I hope, and have been told, that achieving the reduction in numbers will be treated sympathetically; but to do it, as is planned, in six months will take some doing. Having said that, it is clearly desirable to complete the changes before next year's camp season. If the new numbers are to be so low, let us hope that they give the TA its full ration of time.
But is the cut in the infantry from 33 battalions and 16,000 men to 15 battalions and 7,100 men and in the Yeomanry from 2,100 men and seven regiments to 1,300 men and four regiments desirable? These cuts, and the cuts in other arms, seem to damage the capability of the TA to form a structure on which rapid expansion of the Army can be based in the event of an emergency. Paragraph 9 of the report states that these changes will,
"enable the TA to provide a framework upon which larger reserve forces can be built should the country need them".
I would suggest that that is exactly what the restructuring does not do. While the number of TA centres to be closed is fewer than we had been expecting, 87, it leaves large parts of the country without any real TA base at all. In the whole of North
1160
Yorkshire, for instance, there will be only one centre, at Scarborough, plus one for cadets only at Northallerton. I hope I am wrong, but it looks as if the Government are abandoning the TA in the country areas where it has traditionally been so strong, and concentrating on the cities.
In the Statement the Secretary of State proposes a shift from the traditional image of the TA as weekend warriors. TA personnel such as my noble friend Lord Attlee, who earlier this year spent six months in Bosnia, would deny that faintly pejorative description. But if it is justifiable it must be countered by the ability of the Territorials to act as formed units, which these cuts make more difficult. Camps may be interesting when at last the single Welsh battalion, two companies from the north and two from the south, at last get together. It may make the Highland Light Infantry seem like a Women's Institute.
The proposals to strengthen the cadets and to ensure that many of their headquarters which are closing for the TA itself remain open are welcome, as is the plan to spend £12 million to meet their needs. The Secretary of State has drawn attention to the number of recruits to the regular Army who come from the cadet forces. A considerable number, admittedly smaller, come from the TA but, when it has been resolved to increase the numbers in the regular Army, the Government are making it more difficult by cutting back the areas from which the recruits come.
The Secretary of State points out that the planned numbers have been increased from 40,000 to 41,200. That shows what heavy lobbying can do, particularly if it is done by Scots. I doubt whether this is the end of the lobby and, if changes have been made since the SDR, there may well be more. The decision to retain two squadrons of the Yeomanry for a nuclear, biological and chemical role must be right, but I can only hope that these squadrons and all other units receive the proper equipment to carry out their designated role—for instance, not only to get the Challenger 2 tank to train with, but the transporter to carry it.
I may be wrong, but I have seen no figures on the savings which these cuts will achieve. I hope that the noble Lord may be able to help us in this regard. It has been said that a TA infantry battalion costs the same as a single torpedo. If the savings are as small as we have been led to believe, are they worth it? The sociological benefits of the TA and the cadets are enormous and the hidden cost savings that they generate would seem to have been ignored. It is true that the role of the regular Army and the TA have changed enormously since the end of the Cold War, but they still have a role.
The SDR, we have been told, is Foreign Office led. I hope it is realised that times change and that there may be a new conflict where we need a strong TA to back up the regulars. The Secretary of State underlines the fact that the TA remains an essential part of the Army. I must express some doubt that this review will enable it to fulfil that role if matters go wrong. It is a long time ago, but let us remember the unreadiness of the TA in the 1930s.

1161
I have heard a comment from a Member of this House that the review is "better" than we might have expected. I believe it is still not good enough; and while I agree that it is desirable, almost but not quite above all, to get a move on, I hope there is still room for further improvements. The noble Lord the Minister has my sympathy, as he will no doubt be inundated with questions on individual units which he cannot be expected to answer off the cuff. Today there is not enough time and I again express my hope that we will "very soon", in the words of the noble Lord when we were looking forward last week to this Statement, have the opportunity for a comprehensive debate on all matters concerned with the defence of the realm.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Statement. It seems to us in many ways an improvement on the original proposals. We recognise, too, that the role of tradition has to be balanced against the post-Cold War needs of reserve forces, the absence of a threat to British national territory and the need therefore for reserves which are flexible and can be mobilised in a crisis, and which should therefore be maintained in a higher form of readiness. It is, I assume, the absence of a home defence requirement that most justifies the cut in the number of infantry battalions. We are all aware that a number of the infantry battalions were at a low state of manning and readiness. We hope that the number that we are now to have will be maintained at a much higher recruitment level and will therefore be much more combat ready. We also welcome the footprint of the territorial centres as set out in this report. It covers the country much better than many feared.
I hope that the Minister will not be too committed to the maintenance of cap badges in all instances. After looking through the report that he kindly gave me this morning, I think that both battalions, the 4th Gordons and the London Scottish, in which my father once served, have now come down to the level of platoons. I am not sure that each platoon should be entitled to maintain its own individual cap badge. We need to have a more flexible infantry—regular and reserve—and to move towards broader regiments, even towards a corps of infantry, without too many local, historical regiments of the type of "I want to serve in the regiment that my great-grandfather served in". That builds in a huge amount of inflexibility and is not helpful for future requirements.
I have three questions upon which I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy me. First, there is very little in this Statement or in the document about aid to the civil power. That was one of the questions raised in response to the initial proposals, in particular in terms of civil emergencies and disasters. We have found territorial forces worthwhile in those sort of situations in the past. I am not sure that that has been entirely thought through. There is perhaps an overlap between the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence in terms of civil defence which requires further investigation.
1162
The defence of the home territories nowadays is much more concerned with illegal immigration and drug smuggling on the coast. I have been struck by the extent to which cuts in naval reserves and coast guardforces, as well as cuts in land forces, have left very large areas of what is now the European Union's and Britain's external frontier entirely unguarded.
My second question is about the closer integration of reserves and regulars, which I welcome. I would urge the Minister to consider the possibilities of taking this further. It seems to many of us that, if we wish to have reserves in a high state of readiness, the more the volunteers in the reserves are able to have short periods of service with the Regular Army—the more people can move through periods of full time service for one, two or three years—the better the reserve forces will be supplied.
The third question concerns the educational role of reserve forces. There is reference in the Statement and in the supporting documents to the provision of NVQs and the provision of skills for the otherwise unskilled. For the cadets and the reserve forces, especially in our cities, this is one of the very useful functions in peacetime of reserve and regular forces. It is about the harnessing of the energy of the young—in particular the young who do not have very many skills—and the giving to them of a sense of real pride in what they have achieved. The American professional forces have begun to do this successfully with what otherwise would be the unemployed underclass in their cities. I hope that, in consultation perhaps with the DfEE, the Ministry of Defence will also consider that local reserve forces are part of a strategy of life-long learning.
We welcome these proposals very strongly, although with some reservations on all sides about particular units and particular parts of the country. But that. I suspect, is another debate.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am much obliged to both the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and the noble Lord, Wallace of Saltaire, for the extremely fair way in which they have greeted the Government's proposals in respect of the Territorial Army. I shall do my best to take on board the points they have raised.
First, with respect to the amount of time available for defence debates, I would welcome more time spent discussing defence in this House, as would the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. Unfortunately, as your Lordships are well aware, others of your Lordships are quite happy to spend a lot of time debating obscure constitutional matters at the expense of the time available for discussing the sort of matter we are talking about today.
This is not the first time that the state of the Territorials has been discussed in your Lordships' House, even in the short time that I have been a Member. If it is any help to the noble Lord, when I was last on my feet talking about the Territorials I said that I hoped very much that there would be a debate on SDR before Christmas. I still hope that that will be case, but the noble Lord knows that I can give him no assurances. I expect, the Lord willing, to be speaking in the debate

1163
on the Address on the Queen's Speech. We will have another opportunity of discussing defence and foreign affairs on that day.
As to the proposed size of the Territorial Army, it may help your Lordships if I go through, very briefly, the methodological process involved in arriving at our figures. I think your Lordships will be bound to concede when you have heard what I have to say, that it was in no sense a Treasury cost-cutting exercise. We started off with an attempt to reach the figure necessary for operational requirements. It was decided that we had a military requirement for 31,500 in the Territorial Army to fill 25,000 posts. I will repeat that. We had a military requirement for 31,500 to fill 25,000 posts.
We invited all our most distinguished former soldiers into the Ministry of Defence and exposed them to the thought processes and analyses that had led us to these conclusions. I am pleased to say that, without equivocation, not one of those distinguished and gallant former serving officers questioned the operational requirement. We thus started from a military requirement of 31,500. To this we added an OTC figure of 3,500 to bring us up to 35,000. The strategic defence review added a further 5,000 to the figure for non-operational reasons—reasons, I emphasise of footprint, links with the community and support for the cadets—bringing us up to 40,000. To that figure we have added a further 1,200 to take account of consultations with the TAVRAs, the chain of command, the individual arms and services. That is how the figure of 41,200 has been reached.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, asked me, in effect—I forget quite the language he used—how many of the Territorials were turning up and fulfilling in full their self-induced obligations. Out of the strength of the Territorials, last year some 32,000 were in a position to claim their bounty.
The noble Lord questioned the fact that we were trying to complete reorganisation in the space of some six months. He fairly acknowledged that we are trying to do it in that relatively short space of time to get it out of the way before next season's summer camps. A moment's thought among your Lordships will produce the realisation that it makes no sense at all to have people coming along to summer camps who, a few weeks later, will be released from the Army.
The noble Lord asked, quite fairly, whether the cuts in the infantry and the yeomanry are desirable. I repeat what I said a few moments ago. The operational requirement was for a figure much lower than the one we have reached on the basis of clear and unambiguous advice—for which of course Ministers accept responsibility.
The noble Lord said that there will be large parts of the country without a TA presence. I invite him and other noble Lords to look at the maps in the back of the first volume that we have distributed. Noble Lords will be able to judge for themselves exactly where the footprint will be. Even in those areas where it is apparent that a Territorial footprint may disappear—for example, in places in Scotland and Wales—it must be
1164
remembered that the regular services do have a presence. The links between the community and the Armed Forces is not being totally destroyed by the removal of Territorial units from a few places.
I emphasise again that four out of five Territorial drill halls will be maintained. We were at great pains to try to spread the agony as evenly as possible over the whole of the country. No one region has lost more than eight centres. Wales and Northern Ireland have been particularly well served. I think I am right in saying that they maintain about 85 per cent. of their current establishment whereas over the rest of the country the comparable figure is of the order of 70 to 75 per cent.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, said that it shows what heavy lobbying can do that we have increased the figure from our original proposals. Well, it could be heavy lobbying; it is just the fact that we actually sat down and listened. We had a consultation exercise and we took account of the representations made to us. I am sure the noble Lord recognises that.
Although I came armed with a good many answers to questions, I regret that I cannot answer the noble Lord's specific question on tank transporters. I shall find out in due course. He asked about savings. We expect the annual cost of the Territorial Army to be reduced by around £70 million from now on. With respect to the reduction in the Territorial Army estate, about which we consulted the TAVRAs from start to finish, we assume that disposal will amount to more than £40 million after allowing up to £12 million for the relocation of the cadets. I hope that I have covered all the points the noble Lord raised.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that we need a high degree of readiness for the Territorial Army. When he has had a chance to study the Statement he will find that we fully recognise that. I regret that I did not come armed with details of the units in which his father and his great-grandfather served. I do not propose to answer any questions on them this afternoon. There is an 84-page booklet with all the details. I have made no attempt even to memorise page one, let alone pages one through to 84.
The noble Lord raised three specific points. He asked about aid to the civil power. Of course we expect that the Territorial Army will still be in a position to provide aid to the civil power, but it will be doing that as part of the Army. We talk far too much in the Lords about the Territorial Army and the Army as though they are separate, often in a posture of semi-antagonism towards one another. They are the Army. When there is a civil emergency one needs the people who are already in uniform because they can get there quickest. That is not to say that the Territorial Army does not play an extremely valuable role. I shall pray in aid for the future the words of General Sir Michael Walker, C-in-C Land, in The Times on Saturday. He said that the Territorial Army will continue to help cope with local emergencies such as flooding. He listed a good many of its other jobs and said that the Territorial Army will be properly resourced for its task.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to cuts in naval reserves. I hope I misheard him because in point of fact both the Royal Air Force Reserve and

1165
the Royal Navy Reserve—I know that this will be welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Monro—will be increased by around 10 per cent. They are small and they are valuable and I am sure that the increases will be welcome to your Lordships.
The noble Lord said that we should try to take further the integration of the reserves into the regulars. That is the whole theme of my right honourable friend's Statement and the approach we have taken to the matter of the restructuring and "reroling" of the reserves. I can assure the noble Lord that we have his concerns very much in mind.
Finally, the noble Lord talked about education. As he will recall, that formed almost the peroration of my right honourable friend's Statement. We recognise the importance of education to the Territorial Army. I pay tribute to the Territorial Army which in various parts of the country has done better than the regulars in recruiting from ethnic minorities. That is something in which we can all take pride. It does not apply throughout the country because one does not find many members of ethnic communities north of Inverness. As it happens, that is down to the population distribution, but in city centres—for example, Bradford—it has done very well indeed. It is because of the fact that the parents of young men and women coming into the Territorial services recognise that they will get educational opportunities that recruitment has been so good. It is certainly our objective to see that process continued.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, one accepts that the reserves have to change in order to be flexible, modern and effective. One particularly welcomes the increase in the Royal Air Force Reserve and the Royal Navy Reserve. However, does my noble friend accept that the links between the military and the community are important? One welcomes the recognition of the role of the cadets, a matter in which I should declare an interest. Does my noble friend consider that the changes may well impel others to leave in addition to the substantial wastage that is normally experienced? In view of that, are the Government prepared to consider taking positive action to encourage recruitment and retention in those TA units which will remain, perhaps attracting transfers from those which will go, and to promote involvement in the cadet organisations?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend who is a great student of these matters. The points he makes are serious and important. When he studies again my right honourable friend's Statement he will see that my right honourable friend lays specific emphasis on the importance of retention. My noble friend raised the question of recruitment generally. We recognise that when a TA centre is closed recruitment in that area will be made more difficult. However, I hope my noble friend will recognise that some of the other steps we are taking will, we hope, improve recruitment. For example, for the first time in many years members of the Armed Forces will be allowed to wear uniform outside their establishments. That will raise the public perception of the importance and existence of the forces. I am sure
1166
your Lordships will be generous in giving credit to the Government for the recent initiative of my right honourable friend in inviting General Colin Powell to this country to instruct us in ways in which the American services have managed to recruit from ethnic minorities so that we can improve our performance in that respect. That will be another method by which we hope to increase recruitment.
I can think of nothing more important than retention. I remind your Lordships again that in the Territorial Army as it is presently structured we lose every year through natural wastage just about the equivalent of the reductions we are suggesting for the Territorial Army as a whole in the course of this review.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I must declare an interest. I served for a couple of years on the National Employers' Liaison Committee of TAVRA and since then I have maintained an interest in the TA. I am very reassured by what has been said about the contribution made by the ethnic minorities through their recruitment to the TA. I want to ask specifically about the London TA regiment and I hope I do not irritate my noble friend Lord Burnham on the Front Bench who asked us not to be specific about regiments. If that were to be disbanded, there would be a tremendous problem with the ethnic minorities. In the Regular Army the ethnic minority component is 1 per cent. whereas in the London regiment of the TA the ethnic minority component is 13 per cent. Indeed, in some companies, such as the company in Balham, the figure is 20 per cent. The work that the TA London regiment does in such areas is invaluable. I should like reassurance from the Minister that it will not be disbanded.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I have no idea what effect the noble Baroness has on her noble friend Lord Burnham, but I am sure that nothing she said would ever irritate me! With regard to the greater London area, we envisage that the great majority of the TA centres—some 37 of the 46 centres—will remain in use by the Territorial Army. Two centres, in Dulwich and Hornsey, will be retained for use by cadets. Centres at East Ham, Finchley, Kingsbury and Blackheath will close. Of the four Middlesex centres, only that in Vicarage Farm Road, Heston, will be closed. The 600-strong London Regiment will comprise six companies of TA infantry in eight locations: Battersea (the headquarters), Edgware, West Ham, Fulham, Balham, Davies Street, Westminster (for the London Scottish) and Camberwell (for the London Irish), and the Parachute Regiment will retain a company at White City, with a detachment in Croydon. I hope that that goes some way to meet the noble Baroness's concerns.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, as a former sapper sergeant in the 53rd Welsh Division of the Royal Engineers, may I ask whether the Minister is aware of the contribution which the Territorials have made to the British Army? Their grand performance in action should not be in any way dismissed. I urge him to recognise that the sappers have left behind them a proud tradition for those who follow after. These young men today eagerly point out

1167
that they hope to be as good as the sappers who preceded them. This is very important and I urge my honourable friend to see that the respect and honour in which these young men hold their predecessors—some of them their fathers and uncles—and in which the Territorial Army is now held, will not be damaged.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for giving voice to sentiments which I am sure will be echoed in every corner of the House. The sappers have for centuries performed an invaluable role in the British Army and will continue to do so. I am confident, as I am sure noble Lords are, that the present generation of sappers will fully uphold the glorious traditions of their forebears. I believe I am right in saying that there will be a small reduction in the number of sappers in the future, but that is driven exclusively by our assessment of operational requirements and in no way represents any diminution in the respect that we have for those regiments.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, while I in no way disagree with the comments and questions of my noble friend Lord Wallace, the Minister will be aware of the representations made by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford on behalf of 18 members of all parties in your Lordships' House about the lack of wisdom and foresight shown in seeking to combine the Royal Welch Fusiliers and the Royal Regiment of Wales. The reasons are entirely geographical—or perhaps territorial.
I have a map of Wales before me. It is right, as the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, pointed out, that a larger percentage of territorial centres are to be maintained in Wales. One has only to look at the map to see that they are all along the North Wales coast, in South Wales or in north-east Wales. There is a huge area in the middle with one small red dot. Communications between those areas make the situation very difficult. Experience shows that when one tries to combine headquarters, as I saw happen in the county of Powys, the cost of travel and of sustaining the relationship between the parts makes it not worthwhile. It would be better to maintain the two headquarters, with the staff establishment reduced to 60. I think I am right in saying that at present the establishment for the two headquarters is 200. If the number were reduced to 60—an enormous reduction—it would be far better for the efficiency of the Territorial Army to keep the two headquarters, would it not?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, whom I greatly respect in these matters, makes an extremely important point. This matter has been considered, and representations have been made to me outside your Lordships' Chamber on the points to which the noble Lord adverts. This was an operational decision, made in order to bring the TA into line with Army structures. I am not as pessimistic as the noble Lord may be about North Wales co-operating with South Wales. Let us give it a try. If in the fullness of time we find that it does not work, as the noble Lord
1168
somewhat pessimistically predicts, the matter can be looked at again. For now, that is the decision, and I am sure that everyone in Wales will co-operate with it.
Baroness Goudie: My Lords, I declare an interest in that both my sons were cadets. Can my noble friend say something about the link between the TA and the cadets through shared facilities? Will the Government ensure that the position of cadets is well protected?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me the opportunity to repeat the message which I thought I had already delivered. The matter to which my noble friend refers is one of the highest priorities that the Government have had in this exercise. I vividly remember being instructed in these matters in your Lordships' House shortly after I arrived here as Defence Minister. I confess that, to my shame, I knew little about the Territorial Army or the Army Cadet Force. I learned a great deal, and it was clear what the sentiment of the House was. My colleague, the Secretary of State for Defence, shares your Lordships' view of the Army Cadet Force. For that reason, no centre serving the cadets will be closed until another one is open. Some 25 centres—I believe that that is the figure but I am subject to correction—will be kept open just for the cadets. We shall spend up to £12 million on cadet premises, if necessary, and on an annual basis over the next four years some £3 million extra on the running costs of the cadets. I do not believe that we could make any clearer the message that the Government highly value the contribution of the Army Cadet Force.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, having been the president of a sea cadet unit, I shall read with interest about the changes that are to take place in the Territorial Army and the need to protect the Army cadet units. Can the Minister say what information will be provided in order to enable schools to explain the new arrangements for cadets within the Territorial Army proposals so that young people can still have confidence in taking up Army cadetships instead of sea or air cadetships?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I have a nasty suspicion that the noble Lord is tempting me down somewhat controversial paths into declaring loyalties or preferences between one set of cadets and another. We shall do everything in our power to continue to persuade parents and school teachers of the value of young men and women entering the cadet forces. We believe that we have been fairly successful in that regard recently. Recruitment figures for the Regular Army show that only 7 per cent. of the Regular Army had a previous history in the Territorials while over 20 per cent. had a previous history with the cadet force.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the Statement, which I have now had the opportunity to read. I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the Statement. I believe that this is the correct way forward for the Territorial Army, but I suspect that the cuts are too deep. I should like to put one specific question to the noble Lord. I declare an

1169
interest in that I served in a squadron of main battle tanks and also in the Territorial Army. I note with interest that the Territorial Army will have access to Challenger 2 main battle tanks. These are very complex beasts. Can the Minister tell the House what is the likely detachment to be assigned to maintain these battle tanks? Will it come from the regular forces or the Territorial Army? If it is the latter I suspect that these main battle tanks will not stay on the road for long because there is insufficient time for the Territorial Army to maintain these tanks.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl. I am not sure about the answer to the question. I believe and expect that those tanks will be maintained by the Regular Army. I emphasise that the territorials will have genuine use and access to these tanks, including firing their guns and driving them over training grounds, as is made clear in the Statement of my right honourable friend. To ensure that I have the position right as to maintenance, I shall write to the noble Earl to confirm the matter.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I thank the Minister for saying that Northern Ireland will not suffer the same cuts as everyone else. I declare an interest in the Northern Ireland Battalion. It appears from the list of infantry battalions that two battalions, the Northern Ireland Battalion and the South-West Battalion, have been left with only two companies. Other battalions have up to five or six companies. It is considered that two companies are below the critical mass for any battalion to operate, let alone on its own. I believe that the Government should consider this matter to see whether perhaps by attaching other units to such battalions the numbers will constitute a critical mass to support the Regular Army.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount for his representations. I am sure that he speaks from very considerable knowledge. I do not believe that this is the occasion on which I should enter into discussion of proposals for individual units, but I undertake to write to the noble Viscount about the important point that he made.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I welcome the Statement which is much more encouraging than I had expected. It is perhaps coloured by the fact that Davies Street in London where I served for many years is to be maintained as a TA centre. I hope that the Royal Greenjackets will have a good role to play in the London Battalion.
I should like to raise one specific query that arises on page 11 of vol. 1. In the final paragraph there is a passage that slightly puzzles me:
"Both infantry and yeomanry will also provide opportunities for their members to train as combat medical technicians, to reinforce the expanding Army Medical Services in the TA".
Is it the understanding of my noble friend that there will be medical technicians within the framework of those battalions, or does it mean that there is to be some kind
1170
of secondment which suggests that there may be drainage from infantry battalions into the medical services?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I fully understand my noble friend's point about drainage from infantry battalions into medical services. I always thought that the proposal embraced the first of the alternatives that he put before the House. But I shall check to make sure that I have it right. For the assistance of noble Lords, my noble friend referred to page 11. The document is not page numbered; perhaps it should be. I believe that my noble friend is referring to the end of paragraph 11. I do not seek to score off my noble friend but to assist noble Lords. My noble friend touches on a very important point. Possibly the most difficult task that the Ministry of Defence faces as a result of these proposals is recruitment of the numbers that we want to the medical services. That will be a very challenging task for all of us. I want noble Lords to know that we recognise it.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, today's Statement is to be welcomed because it ends a very long period of uncertainty for the TA which has disturbed morale and affected recruitment and retention. It will take time for the new organisation to settle down. Will tomorrow's TA be given a period of stability in which to carry out this reorganisation, and can it look forward to a period without review and change and with confidence in the future as long as this Government are in power?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord tempts me to look a very long way ahead. Having said that, that is part of the objective of the Strategic Defence Review. The whole point of the review is to give the services as a whole the confidence to look a long way ahead. We are looking five, 10 or 15 years ahead with respect to our procurement programme. The noble and gallant Lord will be aware that we have obtained a three-year guarantee from the Treasury as to the sums of money that will be available to the Armed Forces. That is a guarantee that no former Defence Secretary has ever enjoyed. I re-emphasise that the review of the Territorial Army is not separate from the Strategic Defence Review; rather, it is an inherent part of it. As a result I hope that it will benefit from the period of stability that we envisage for all of Her Majesty's Forces for the next three years and, further, for the whole lifetime of this and following Labour Governments.

Scotland Bill
5.56 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.—(Lord Sewel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MOTIONS MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OTHER LORDS AMENDMENTS AND A COMMONS AMENDMENT TO ANOTHER LORDS AMENDMENT
[The page and line refer to HL Bill 119 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
32 Clause 31, page 15, line 38, leave out ("subject to subsection (2)").
33 Page 15, line 39, leave out ("Presiding Officer decides") and insert ("decision of the Presiding Officer under section 30(1A) is").
34 Page 15, line 42, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Such a decision of the Presiding Officer shall not be capable of being overruled by the Parliament.").
The Commons disagreed to Lords Amendments Nos. 32 to 34 but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof—
34A Page 15, leave out lines 38 to 44.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 32 to 34 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34A in lieu thereof. These amendments address what is to happen if the presiding officer decides that a Bill or part of a Bill is not within the legislative competence of the parliament.
During an earlier stage of the Bill your Lordships' House made clear that your Lordships were concerned that Clause 31 as drafted provided that the presiding officer could be overruled by the parliament if he decided that a Bill was outwith the competence of the parliament. Noble Lords argued that this would put the presiding officer in an untenable position and would weaken his authority. The House wanted to ensure that the presiding officer was not brought into conflict with the parliament in this way and argued, quite persuasively, that the parliament should not be able to overrule its presiding officer. The Government have listened to the concerns of the House and in these amendments do not seek to undermine them but to address a new anomaly that arises.
We do not think that we can leave Clause 31 as amended by your Lordships' House. It would mean that the presiding officer would have an unchallengeable power to decide questions of legislative competence. We believe that this is an uncomfortable and undesirable position for him or her to be in and these amendments seek to address that. The presiding officer has an important role. However, it is intended that he or she is to be politically impartial. These amendments help to preserve that neutrality. What we have provided for in these amendments ensures that the parliament has the benefit of the presiding officer's views as to the competence of the parliament to consider a Bill. The presiding officer is required simply to make a statement about the competence of a Bill. That is a view to which the parliament will no doubt want to pay particular attention. However, it will then be for the parliament to decide what to do. In some cases, it might decide that
1172
some is clearly ultra vires and reject the Bill at an early stage. In other cases, it may decide to amend particular offending provisions. If there is still concern at the end of the process, by which time the Bill becomes an Act—indeed, the question of vires could develop during the passage of the Bill through the parliament—as Members of your Lordships' House know, we have the provision that it is open to any one of the Law Officers to refer the matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That is the main forum in which devolution issues, matters of vires, should be properly considered.
I do not believe that there is justification for leaving the presiding officer with the right of absolute veto from the start on what constitutes vires and ultra vires. I hope that noble Lords would agree that the question of vires is simply not the same as the Clerks of the Public Bill Office ruling amendments out of order (oh, that they would do it more often!) or Madam Speaker in another place deciding that a Bill is a finance Bill and should not be considered by this House. The question of whether a Bill falls within the competence of the parliament is on a completely different scale.
We are considering issues surrounding the devolution settlement. I am absolutely convinced that it would be entirely inappropriate to leave one person with the power to decide what legislation the parliament may or may not consider in an area which may raise difficult legal issues. As the Bill stands, this clause creates a dead end, quite at odds with the rationale behind the Bill, which is that ultimately matters of vires should be determined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
We have built into the Bill a carefully thought-out mechanism for ensuring the resolution of disputes over the vires of a Bill of the Scottish parliament. Leaving the presiding officer with a veto would mean that these provisions would in many instances become redundant; they would not come into play at all. The presiding officer's view and judgment, if unchallengeable, would bring the curtain down on the question of vires at a very early stage. It would mean that the Bill could not be introduced if the presiding officer considered it outwith the parliament's competence. That is too much responsibility to put on any individual person, no matter how well advised—and I am absolutely confident that he would be well advised. I believe that that should rightly be a matter ultimately for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. We should not seek to build in ways of preventing the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council from determining matters of vires.
In coming before your Lordships' House today we are setting in place a system that will ensure that the boundaries of the parliament's competence are properly mapped and that a consistent body of law emerges. If we do not do that, we risk the interpretation of one office holder dictating the limits of the settlement where the law may be uncertain and subtle.
We took on board the points made by the noble and learned Lord at an earlier stage and by other noble Lords on the issue of the role of the presiding officer in

1173
deciding competence. It is better that he indicates his views, makes his statement and then the matter remains one for parliament to decide. If at the end of the process there is a real question of vires, we have the procedure that we have all accepted; that is, that it is open to any one of the Law Officers to move a reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That would enable the whole business of the law around vires to be built up in a consistent and coherent way. I commend the Motion to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 32 to 34 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34A in lieu thereof.—(Lord Sewel.)
6 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, as one of those who moved amendments on this issue in Clause 31, perhaps I may say that I am happy with what has been said. There will be a distinct need for prior discussion on the issue of vires before it is introduced. However—I have used these words before—the opposition in parliament will pounce on anything which seems to be ultra vires, and I believe that we can leave this issue to the process of scrutiny.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I do not know how my noble and learned friend will advise your Lordships on this amendment. I agree with the noble Lord that ultimately it must be correct that, where there are issues of ultra vires they should be determined by the courts. During the passage of this Bill, we have been trying to reduce the number of sets of circumstances in which there is the possibility that the courts will be drawn into determining issues which may have a political character, even though they contain issues of vires. For that reason, it seemed to me that the amendments we tabled previously were desirable. However, I would agree with the Minister on a personal basis that the line now taken by the Government is certainly preferable to that originally contained within the Bill. Once the Scottish parliament is established, I hope that where the presiding officer has concerns about ultra vires, he will make a clear statement to the parliament at an early opportunity. I trust that the parliament will listen carefully to what he has to say, even if it cannot be bound by it. If that is followed through, the risk that we would wish to avoid—namely, a conflict between the parliament and the courts—would be kept to a minimum.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I too do not know what my noble and learned friend will say. Can the Minister, when he replies, give us an assurance that this will not load the Judicial Committee with even more issues to consider than it will already have? I know that noble and learned Lords who are likely to be on the Judicial Committee—they are not in their places this afternoon—are worried that the work is mounting up and that they have many other matters to deal with, as well as the affairs of Scotland. Therefore, it would be
1174
helpful to have a reassurance that this change, which on the face of it sounds sensible, will not mean that they will have more work than ever.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, noble Lords will recall that at Third Reading we debated an amendment to what was previously Clause 30 which sought to provide that the presiding officer shall, on or before the introduction of a Bill in the parliament, decide whether or not in his view the provisions of the Bill would be within the legislative competence of the parliament and state his decision. The Minister may recall that on that occasion I foresaw that as laying the foundation for tabling an amendment which forms the basis of Amendment No. 34A which your Lordships are now invited to agree.
The Government's resistance to the form of the Bill when it was last before your Lordships' House was that it would effectively give the presiding officer—the speaker—a veto over which Bills could be introduced to the parliament and which Bills the parliament could consider. Indeed, it was suggested by the Minister on a previous occasion that that would place the presiding officer in a most uncomfortable and undesirable position. I suggested then, and I still adhere to the view, that it would be perfectly possible for the presiding officer to exercise such a jurisdiction which would not have been an absolute veto, as the noble Lord suggested; being a judicially reviewable decision it would be subject to review by the courts.
What is now proposed is that the procedure whereby the decision of the presiding officer could be overturned by a vote will now happen with either the Scottish executive or the Scottish parliament choosing to ignore the decision of the presiding officer. It is instructive to look at the words in the amendment to Clause 30: that the presiding officer shall decide whether or not in his view the provisions shall be within the legislative competence of the parliament.
The effect of the proposed amendment is that it would be perfectly competent for the executive and the parliament to proceed in the face of a decision by the presiding officer that a Bill was ultra vires. It has been recognised by noble Lords that any such decision would be reached after the taking of legal advice. Therefore I have a concern that the Bill as it is proposed to be amended would still lay open the possibility of the presiding officer's authority being weakened because he was not in a position to enforce a decision which he had reached on a question of vires. As the Minister said, it is true that ultimately a Law Officer could refer the matter to the Judicial Committee for a determination of any devolution issues involved. But that may be many months down the line and if the Bill had been debated and, in a situation of some political controversy, agreed to, I venture to suggest that if at that stage the Judicial Committee ruled against the vires of the Bill matters would be much worse than they would have been had the Bill been vetoed effectively at an earlier stage.
This is an example where those of us who sought to improve the Bill have unfortunately had our ideas rejected. As my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie said, the Bill as it stands is better than when

1175
it was introduced into your Lordships' House. I accept that if Amendment No. 34A is allowed, that will still be the position. However, I remain concerned that if the presiding officer reaches a decision, announces that to the parliament and is effectively then overturned, he will not command the respect that he should command. He will not command the respect which will ensure that the parliament operates in as sensible and responsible a way as possible.
Clearly it is not a matter on which it would be appropriate to insist on our amendments in the face of the views of another place. But I think it right that my concerns—I suspect that they may be shared by others—should be ventilated.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, perhaps I may respond briefly to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. I am always sensitive and conscious of the workload of noble and learned Lords. One would not want the Chamber to be deprived of their valuable observations on many issues if they were overworked on other matters. I do not think that there is any chance of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council being overburdened with work. That is my understanding. I cannot give an assurance, but that is the projection: that they will not be overburdened.
Perhaps I may return to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. First, there is a real, genuine difficulty with the position that he adopts. It is this. One could have a presiding officer who took a very narrow view of the vires issue and ruled over a long period of time that a series of Bills was ultra vires. With a change of presiding officer, a similar Bill coming into play might be accepted and perhaps might then go to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It upholds that it was within vires. That would mean that a series of Bills had been rejected on the ground of vires by one person without the possibility of test by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the body that was ultimately seen as providing the authoritative advice. I think that that in itself is unacceptable.
Secondly, we have to recognise that over, I imagine, a relatively limited period of time the advice that the presiding officer will receive from his advisers will be based on a developing body of law and decisions taken by the Judicial Committee. It is therefore a good idea to bring the Judicial Committee into play relatively early so that there is an authoritative set of decisions on which future presiding officers will be able to base their advice.
I ask the House not to insist on its amendments and to accept the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
128 Clause 89, page 43, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) he has asked an independent tribunal, established under subsection (9) of this section, to investigate and report on whether the person in question is unfit for office by reason of inability, neglect of duty or misbehaviour,
1176
( ) he has received a written report from the tribunal, containing a finding that the person in question is unfit for office by reason of inability, neglect of duty or misbehaviour and a statement of their reasons for so finding,
( ) he has laid before the Parliament a copy of the written report on the person in question,").
129 Page 43, line 22, at end insert—
("(9) A tribunal established for the purposes of this section shall consist of three persons selected by the First Minister from—

(a) the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary;

(b) peers of Parliament who hold or have held high judicial office as defined by sections 5(3) and 25 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876;

(c) members of Her Majesty's Privy Council who hold or have held high judicial office as so defined.").

The Commons disagree to Lords Amendments Nos. 128 and 129 but propose the following amendments in lieu thereof—
129A Page 43, line 11, leave out from ("Minister") to ("resolves") in line 12.
129B Page 43, line 13, leave out ("on that ground").
129C Page 43, leave out lines 17 to 22 and insert—
("(7A) Provision shall be made for a tribunal constituted by the First Minister to investigate and report on whether a judge of the Court of Session or the Chairman of the Scottish Land Court is unfit for office by reason of inability, neglect of duty or misbehaviour and for the report to be laid before the Parliament.
(7B) Such provision shall include provision—

(a) for the constitution of the tribunal by the First Minister when requested by the Lord President to do so and in such other circumstances as the First Minister thinks fit, and

(b) for the appointment to chair the tribunal of a member of the Judicial Committee who holds or has held any of the offices referred to in section 94(2),

and may include provision for suspension from office.
(7C) The First Minister may make a motion under subsection (7) only if—

(a) he has received from a tribunal constituted in pursuance of subsection (7A) a written report concluding that the person in question is unfit for office by reason of inability, neglect of duty or misbehaviour and giving reasons for that conclusion.

(b) where the person in question is the Lord President or the Lord Justice Clerk, he has consulted the Prime Minister, and

(c) he has complied with any other requirement imposed by virtue of any enactment.

(7D) In subsections (7A) to (7C)—
"provision" means provision by or under an Act of the Scottish Parliament,
"tribunal" means a tribunal of at least three persons.").
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 128 and 129 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 129A to 129C in lieu thereof.
The House will see that the Government have gone very far to acknowledge the concerns raised by noble Lords and noble and learned Lords in earlier debates. As the House knows, in this Bill we are setting out for

1177
the first time a clear statutory framework for the removal of judges of the Court of Session and the chairman of the Land Court in Scotland, thus trying to clarify the law in an important area. The provisions apply only in certain tightly defined circumstances. The procedures in the Bill only come into play where it is felt that a judge is unfit to hold office on grounds of inability, neglect of duty or misbehaviour. No one, least of all the judiciary, thinks it appropriate that such procedures should not be in place.
While we do not share the fears which have been expressed about the threat to judicial independence, we wholly agree with those who have stressed the importance of this issue. In opposing the amendments made in this House at Report stage, we argued that the Bill should contain the minimum safeguards but that the Scottish parliament should have as much discretion as possible to develop the procedures which will apply in Scotland for the removal of judges.
The debate in this House was seen by us as merely the beginning of the process of debate. That is still the case. In that respect we prefer the amendments which we have tabled to those adopted by your Lordships.
Your Lordships amended the Bill to write on to its face a tribunal composed exclusively of senior judges, specifically one whose membership was to be restricted entirely to Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and holders of high judicial office who were either Members of this House or Privy Counsellors. Those persons, it was proposed, should be given the task of reporting on the case for removing a judge and so acting as "gatekeepers" to the whole process.
The Government's Amendments Nos. 129A to 129C provide instead that provision shall be made for the First Minister to constitute a tribunal of at least three persons to investigate and report on the case for removal of a judge. The number within the tribunal reflects the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who is not in his place. However, I can also assure the House—it reflects another concern of that noble and learned Lord that there should be an uneven number—that if there are more than three there will be an odd number to avoid the difficulties to which the noble and learned Lord referred at an earlier stage.
The amendments ensure that the chairman will be a person who is eligible to be a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The First Minister still requires the approval of the parliament before he may recommend to Her Majesty that a judge is removed, but he may not seek that approval unless the tribunal has reported that the person is unfit. The tribunal's report must be laid before parliament so that it is aware of the views of the tribunal.
The amendments also enable the Lord President of the Court of Session to request that such a tribunal be convened as we understand that that is the wish of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, who is presently the Lord President. We have also retained a provision that where it is desirable that the Lord President or the Lord Justice Clerk be removed, then the First Minister must also consult the Prime Minister.
1178
It is envisaged that the rules of procedure for the tribunal will be established under an Act of the Scottish parliament. That Act will also, if the parliament wishes, make other provision in relation to the membership of the tribunal. However, we expect that the tribunal itself would not be a standing body, but be convened on an ad hoc basis, given that that process is likely to be used very rarely, if at all.
Before laying these amendments, officials discussed them with the Lord President of the Court of Session, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry. I understand that he was satisfied with the proposals in these amendments.
The House will see that a key difference between the approach proposed by the Government and that adopted here at an earlier stage is that it leaves open a degree of choice about how the proposed tribunal should be constituted. In other words, it leaves space for the debate just begun in this House to be continued in the parliament. The removal of judges quite clearly is not simply a matter of private concern for the judges themselves. It is an issue of serious public interest. There are legitimate debates to be had on the question of composition. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, recognised as much by admitting that there might be scope for lay involvement in any independent body charged with evaluating the case for removal.
This approach seems to us to strike an acceptable balance between providing a more detailed statutory framework on the face of the Bill and allowing scope for further reflection on this subject in the parliament itself. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 128 and 129 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 129A, 129B and 129C in lieu thereof.—(Lord Hardie.)
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I was one of the lay people who felt very strongly on this issue. The Government held their position so strongly right up to the vote and after saying that this House was wrong about the matter. That view was very mistaken. I believe that the people of Scotland will have cause to be very grateful to this House for bringing this matter so strongly to the Government's attention. The amendment changes somewhat the amendment tabled by this House, but for the better. I am extremely grateful to the Government for this notable U-turn.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, since this Bill was first debated in your Lordships' House the important role the judiciary will play in implementing the Government's devolution settlement has been stressed on more than one occasion. Therefore, it is a matter of some surprise—I suspect also to a number of noble Lords it will be a matter of some regret—that at this very late stage there remains any dispute at all as to how the Bill may best provide for the appointment and removal of judges.
These ought to be non-political issues and yet, very late in the day, we are faced with a very welcome change of heart, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy of

1179
Lour has just said, on the part of the Government. The problem is that these amendments were tabled in another place recently. That left virtually very little time for those involved to digest them. More importantly, they have left no time at all for us to consult. When the amendments were debated in the other place recently, the Secretary of State said that it is not always wise to leap to a conclusion either way during the final few days of a Bill's passage through Parliament. Yet some noble Lords may take the view that that is precisely what is being expected today in more than one respect.
When the amendments standing in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, my own name and that of my noble friends Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, were moved I made it clear that I was open to any suggestions to improve the composition of the tribunal and its role proposed in the amendment put forward and carried by your Lordships' House at Report stage. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has made clear, that was also the position of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey.
Therefore, I have to record a note of disappointment that the Government did not find it possible to consult with the Opposition about the detail of these amendments before they were tabled. It was quite clearly indicated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that there was consultation with the court and rightly so. But he will recall that at the very end of Third Reading when I raised this subject after the noble and learned Lord had made a statement, he said that amendments were to be tabled on the following day in the other place. Clearly, by that stage the practicalities of any proper consultation had passed.
As regards the details of the amendments, I would have preferred that the provision in (7D) set out at the foot of page 2 of the amendments should have been restricted to making provision by an Act of the Scottish parliament. I have some anxiety about that being made possible through subordinate legislation. As noble Lords will be aware, I am concerned that there are to be two forms of procedure for the removal of judges in Scotland whereas there is to be only one form of appointment. All Court of Session judges, the chairman of the Scottish Land Court, sheriff principals and sheriffs will have to deal with devolution issues. One suspects that in the early years of devolution it will be the lower sheriff courts where the bulk of the issues will first arise, however many ultimately reach the Judicial Committee. Therefore, it would have been helpful to have had the opportunity to comment on these amendments before they were tabled.
However, in the absence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and some of his judicial colleagues, I suspect that I would be unable to persuade your Lordships to offer any further resistance. That would be inappropriate because the Government have moved a long way to meet the anxieties expressed at an early stage about Clause 89 of the Bill, as originally
1180
drafted. Therefore, I join with my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour in welcoming what has happened at this late stage.
Lord Clyde: My Lords, I am sorry that certain of my noble and learned colleagues who took a greater part in this debate than I are not here to express their views about it. Speaking for myself, I offer mild congratulations to the Government on producing a formula which appears to be a not unreasonable compromise between the views expressed. I am sorry that there is no time scale for the appointment of the body, but as I have every confidence that it will never have to meet and will never have problems to resolve—such is the confidence that I have in the Scottish judiciary—I am content with the formula as it stands.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clyde, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, for their support for this amendment. I say to the noble and learned Lord that there may be transitional provisions brought in by order to cover the unlikely eventuality of there being an immediate need for the provision. Thereafter the Scottish parliament will deal with the matter.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, that this is not a political issue. It is with regret that some may have interpreted his speech as political. The reason is that he is operating under a misunderstanding as to what the Government originally intended. Unfortunately, that misunderstanding was reflected in the media.
It is my fault if I did not make clear the position at an earlier stage. It has always been the Government's intention to put in place procedures. The sole issue was whether the matter should be left to the First Minister and the parliament in discussions with the Lord President, or whether it should be on the face of the Bill. We listened to that debate and we have come forward with this amendment.
As regards consultation, the senior judge, the Lord President—that is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry—was consulted before the amendment was tabled. With great respect, I believe it to be important that we carry the judiciary with us on such a matter. It is not a political matter and in those circumstances it is not necessary to discuss it with noble Lords opposite.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
6.30 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
215 Schedule 1, page 57, line 5, after ("constituencies") insert (-of the Scottish Parliament").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
215A Because the constituencies and regions for the purpose of elections to the Scottish Parliament should be a matter for Parliament.

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON
215B That this House do insist on their Amendment No. 215, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 215A.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do insist on their Amendment No. 215 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 215A. For the convenience of your Lordships, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 216 to 220.
It is with a very heavy heart and considerable sorrow that I find myself here at the eleventh hour in the passage of this Bill asking your Lordships to insist on our amendment. I look back to the Second Reading of the Bill during what seemed a balmy summer and to the unalloyed joy I felt that the measure—that is, home rule for Scotland for which my forebears fought—should at last be coming to pass through the Scotland Bill. I now find it sad and extremely ironic that it is I who should be here to move the Motion.
I do not ask your Lordships to take this course lightly or without having thought about it considerably. I have indeed given great thought to the possible consequences. I am asking my noble friends and noble Lords from all sides of the House to support the Motion because I believe that the danger to the possible success—nay, the probable success; the almost certain success—of devolution by not accepting the amendment is far greater and graver than the danger to this Bill at this time.
I am aware that the arguments have been well rehearsed in your Lordships' House and in another place on a number of occasions. I wish to touch on them again. My first argument concerns the Scottish Constitutional Convention. It proposed 129 members of the Scottish parliament. That model was accepted both by the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party and we both fought the election on that basis. We both had a manifesto commitment to that model and together we obtained an overwhelming mandate from the Scottish people.
However, the constitutional convention's proposal was already a compromise. The Liberal Democrats always favoured 145 as the number; it is the number advocated by the campaign for the Scottish parliament. I am indebted to members of that campaign for reminding me of that fact and for their considerable support since I indicated that I wished to insist.
Although we have always accepted that there should be a reduction in the number of Scottish Members to the Westminster Parliament as a logical consequence of devolution, the Labour Party at the time of the election did not accept that. Rather they came to the view at a much later date and when in office. It was only at that very late stage that Labour proposed a reduction in the number of Westminster MPs and simultaneously insisted that Scotland and Westminster constituencies should have coterminous borders. I believe that that is the only issue on which we disagree.
1182
Since Second Reading we have warned that we regard this as an extremely serious breach of the constitutional convention. At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood made it quite plain that we regarded the issue as the most important in the Bill.
My second argument concerns the relationships between the various regions of Scotland. The constitutional convention argued long and hard about developing a system which sought as far as possible to satisfy the divergent views of the different Scottish regions. By and large, the model it proposed has successfully done that. There is real concern, particularly in the Highlands, that the supposed domination by Westminster will merely be replaced by a domination by Edinburgh. There is an equally valid concern in the central belt that hoards of tartan clad Highlanders will come down to dominate the Scottish parliament. The model put forward by the constitutional convention satisfies with delicacy the requirements of those two conflicting thoughts.
My third argument is a practical one regarding the working of the parliament. If in the beginning we need 129 members to make the Scottish parliament work, how can it continue to work when four years later its membership is reduced substantially to about 108? For example, if a government is to be elected on a 45/55 split of the vote, which is quite probable, with a membership of 108 the governing party will have 64 MSPs and the opposition 44. Out of those 64 must come the Scottish ministers, the assistant Scottish ministers, the private parliamentary secretaries, the chairmen of the committees and so forth. With pre-legislative scrutiny and all the work required for proper scrutiny in a unicameral system, will there really be enough people?
Those are my three main arguments, but I remind the House of three other arguments which are no less important. The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, speaking on Report, drew attention to the fact that we are in the process of constructing a building designed and equipped for 129 MSPs. What a silly waste if four years later the number is reduced to 108 with a potential further reduction.
During the same debate, my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie queried the morale of those elected on the first occasion to the Scottish parliament. Who will be the unlucky 20-odd and who will be the lucky 108? The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, responded, not flippantly but a little ungraciously, by saying that we should not legislate for the Scottish parliament on the basis of the morale of a few Scottish MPs. I disagree. It is extremely important that if this new exercise in democracy is to be successful we attract and encourage the very best people in Scotland to stand and, it is hoped, to be elected for the parliament. With that Sword of Damocles hanging over them, is it an encouragement for the best people to enter parliament? The point on morale made by my noble friend is one of substance which the Government should regard seriously.
Finally, my noble friend Lady Linklater made a very valid point about the requirement to have diversity in the Scottish parliament—to have ethnic minorities and

1183
a broad selection of women. She made the point very eloquently that the more you reduce the numbers, the less likelihood there is of having in the parliament a broad reflection of all shades which exist in Scotland.
There is a further argument which I deployed. If devolution works, I see no reason why further reserved powers should not move to Scotland. In that case, it is quite logical to suppose, with a successful devolution working well, that one might say that Scotland does not need to be represented by quite so many MPs at Westminster. It is perfectly logical to argue that Scotland should have less representation. If that were to take place, then automatically, because of that linkage, down goes the Scottish parliament again.
However, I am extremely glad that I read the Official Report of another place because there I saw one point which had escaped me. If the Jenkins proposals were to come into being, which must be regarded as a possibility, if not perhaps by everybody as a probability, it is probable that the number of Scottish constituency members would drop to 48. On the basis of 48 constituency members, that gives a total Scottish parliament of 85 members. The Government may argue that there is absolutely no difference between 129 and 108, although I suspect that most accountants would argue with them about that. However, if they are looking at a potential reduction from 129 to 85—some 44 MSPs—that really is substantial and of consequence. That follows, as day follows night, if these amendments are not accepted and the Jenkins proposals come into being.
What arguments have the Government put against that? There are two, the first of which is that coterminous borders are vital to avoid confusion. I shall turn to the Official Report of another place. The Secretary of State for Scotland, responding to your Lordships' amendments said:
"The practical point is that MPs and MSPs will be better placed to co-ordinate their constituency work and make sure that local interests are properly represented at Holyrood and Westminster … By contrast … if we were to accept the Lords amendments, a Westminster MP would in future find that he had probably more than one MSP with whom to work".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/11/98; col. 380.]
Earlier he said:
"All of us know from our own experience the surprising amount of confusion that often prevails in the minds of our constituents about how the various branches and levels of government interact and interrelate. I am often more clearly recognised by my constituents as a surrogate local councillor than as a Member of Parliament".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/11/98; col. 378.]
Put another way, the Government are saying that the Scots are too stupid to be able to cope with anything other than coterminous boundaries. I simply do not believe that. The Scots are some of the wisest voters in the United Kingdom. They have taken tactical voting to heart. There are Liberals who vote for the SNP to prevent another candidate getting in. Conservatives may vote Liberal to keep out a Labour candidate or Liberals may vote Labour to keep out somebody else. The Scots are extremely wily and they have manipulated the system more astutely than has been done in any other part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, to suggest that
1184
those canny Scots cannot work out where the boundaries are, is an argument which is as riddled with holes as a colander.
The practical building blocks of constituencies are local government wards. There is no difficulty in arranging those wards so as to create constituencies for Scotland which allow the numbers to be maintained at the proper level for Scotland and the numbers required for Westminster. There really is no argument there.
The other argument which I have heard—and it is the only other argument which the Government have put forward—is that the provisions were contained in the White Paper. As far as I am aware, there was no opportunity for Parliament, and certainly not your Lordships' House, to debate the White Paper. I stand corrected. There was. I cannot remember whether I took part in that debate.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, you probably did!
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, the Minister is probably correct. Oh well, score one to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and move on.
I contend that when the White Paper was studied by Scots—and I am sure that a great many Scots did study it—they took the decision to vote on the referendum in Scotland. They did not decide to vote on individual paragraphs or details but, rather, they decided to vote on the broad proposal that they wanted devolution in Scotland. They looked to us in this House and another place to make sure that we got the detail right. I am sure that there are an equally large number of Scots who did not read the White Paper and for whom all of this has come as a very nasty surprise.
I believe that I have put the argument as cogently as I can. Nothing that the Government have said at any stage of this Bill has been able to refute it. However, there are two other arguments which I have no doubt the Minister will seek to deploy. They are the constitutional arguments.
The first is that the Bill will be lost. It has always seemed to me that there are three great parliamentary falsehoods. The first is, "We promise to consult". At an early stage of this Bill, my honourable friend in another place thought that that was precisely what the Government had said they would do. Nothing came of it. No consultation took place and nothing was put forward.
The second argument is, "This is a wrecking amendment". I do not seriously believe that anybody can describe this as a wrecking amendment. These are highly practical, sensible and reasonable amendments to which your Lordships clearly agreed. No one can seriously say that they are designed to wreck the Bill. It is the reverse: they will strengthen it.
The third argument is that it is so late in the Session that the Bill will be lost. The Bill will not be lost. The Government have already pencilled in time for it tomorrow. I do not believe that the Government can hold that gun to my head. That is a gun which should be held more properly at the heads of the Government's business managers.

1185
Another constitutional argument is that we are an unelected Chamber and we should not frustrate the will of the people. I take that far more seriously. I agree with both those statements. We are indeed unelected and the sooner this is an elected upper Chamber the better. I ask the Government to get on with that because they have my full support.
More important, it is quite clear from the huge mailbag that I have received and from the comments that I have heard that there is widespread, almost wholehearted support, for these amendments throughout Scotland. I do not receive a lot of mail but I have never received such a postbag and from such diverse sources. Somebody somewhere, rather uncharitably, gave out the telephone number for our Liberal Democrat Whips Office with the result that yesterday the telephone was jammed and no business took place. I do not accuse the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, of doing that, much as I should love to. We have received tremendous support from all quarters.
I know that there is sympathy throughout Scotland for what we propose and for what I am asking your Lordships to insist on. On Report I said that someone somewhere, I did not know who or where, was against this because it seemed to me that there was sympathy for this everywhere, including in the Scottish Office. A noble Lord somewhere suggested that the voice against my proposal must be No. 10. It certainly seems that this is a diktat from No. 10. If that is the case—and I have never seen it refuted anywhere—it is a clear abuse of democracy when one man can use a vast mandate in the other place to push through something that is clearly against the will of the Scottish people. I do not think that it is this House which is being undemocratic.
I do not have behind me legions at my command; indeed, only a cohort of committed believers. I seek through my inadequate advocacy to persuade noble Lords on all sides of the House to follow me into the Division Lobby. I wish that my noble friend Lord Steel were here to help because he would have done it far better than I can. At one stage I even wished that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, had done it as he has enjoyed such success. However, there are limits and I could not quite go that far.
In the final analysis, imperfectly as I have articulated the case, I submit that it is unanswerable. We may only have a cohort compared to the legions opposite and beside us, but perhaps I may remind the Government that we are a cohort which, like Blücher at Waterloo, has come to the assistance of the thin red line opposite on many occasions—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Viscount Thurso: All we ask, my Lords, is that the Government accept these reasonable, practical and widely-supported amendments. I do not lightly ask your Lordships to insist, because I understand the gravity involved. I have to tell the Government that, even at this late stage, I would not insist if they were to give me any concession. Indeed, my honourable friends in another place were actually under the impression this morning that they were going to be offered a concession which
1186
we would have been able to accept. However, I understand that the Government are prepared to take a gamble on the fact that noble Lords on the Conservative Benches may not wish to insist on the amendment. That is a very dangerous gamble to take.
As I said, if any concession were offered, I would not insist. However, in the light of that complete stonewall from the Government I shall have no option but to ask your Lordships to insist on this important amendment.
Moved, that the House do insist on their Amendment No. 215 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 215A.—(Viscount Thurso).
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, I listened with great care to the noble Viscount who has just spoken. I believe that there are considerable merits in many of the arguments that he has put forward. I should mention that I am a prospective candidate for the Scottish parliament and also that I support the arguments on the subject put forward by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish at an earlier stage.
There are two key points involved. The first is that the reduction of MSPs by a substantial number from 129 to about 108 immediately after the creation of the Scottish parliament, or shortly thereafter, will mean a further upheaval and will be an unsettling start. However, there is also a key political point. The average size of constituencies in Edinburgh, for example, is about 51,000, but the average size in the west central belt is about 62,000. Therefore, if the Boundary Commission aims for parity, the Labour Party will effectively bear the brunt of the reforms which take place and the reduction in numbers. It may well be that the present stance of the Labour Front Bench is contrary to the political interests of its own party.
However, I believe that it would be wrong for the Conservative Party to seek to imperil the progress of the Bill at this stage when the House of Commons has rejected this particular amendment by a very large majority and when there has been a referendum result which has, by an overwhelming majority, shown what is believed to be the settled will of the Scots people.
The noble Viscount mentioned Blücher at Waterloo. I have to remind him that it was Wellington who, on the eve of the Great Reform Bill, said that he knew when it was necessary to withdraw. Although this Bill has not given rise to the same passions aroused by the Great Reform Bill, I believe that the Conservative Party would be wise to take heed of and follow the good advice of the Duke of Wellington on that occasion.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, it is most disappointing that this issue of the number of MSPs should be our final sticking point in the otherwise welcome and historic Scotland Bill. It is particularly galling that the Government have chosen this path, in the mistaken belief that the people of Scotland want or, worse, need to have the UK connection thrust down their throats. How the Government can believe that this issue of the Union is more important than the ability to carry out successful scrutiny of legislation is beyond comprehension.

1187
During the earlier stages of this Bill, the need for a second chamber was debated. It was ultimately dismissed on the grounds that the parliament would evolve sufficient stages of scrutiny to cover for its unicameral nature. It was the process of pre-legislative scrutiny that was held up as the solution to concern about depth of scrutiny. There can be no doubt that pre-legislative scrutiny will use up plenty of manpower—or MSP power—as the Select Committees set off to take part in the consultation processes, which, in this UK Parliament, would be thought of as being part of the White Paper stage of a Bill.
As there will be a presiding officer team of four and a Scottish executive of 18—and, no doubt, one or two others—the number of MSPs available for the pre-legislative task will be limited enough; namely, to a maximum of 107 Back-Benchers. That would be severely limited if there were to be only 86 available. The chances of there being a sufficient range of experience and interests becomes doubtful.
Scotland has sought home rule because the people found the old United Kingdom to be dominated by a majority from elsewhere. It appears that this desire to dominate is still deeply embedded in government thinking. It even extends to the advice given by the Cabinet to the BBC about whether we should have United Kingdom or Scottish news at 6 o'clock.
Further, this reduction in MSPs will not mesh in with the welcome electoral reform proposals of my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. The two different systems of representation will not mesh together. The Government's insistence on a reduced number of MSPs can also be portrayed as playing into the hands of the SNP, which can certainly offer generous and ample representation in a sovereign parliament. I have to support my noble friend's Motion.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I find myself in a very tricky position here for two reasons. First, I am an ardent devolutionist and have been since the 1970s. However, if I vote with the noble Viscount, I shall become an anti-devolutionist in some sort of weird way; that very much concerns me. Secondly, I am also very wary of the situation because of the Liberal Democrat viewpoint on it. An hour ago we heard the noble Lord, Lord McNally, say that under no circumstances should we have ping pong in this House. In other words, that we should not in any circumstances return the European Bill to the other place. But now we have the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, saying that we should do just that with this Bill. The former was speaking on a Bill which could not be lost under any circumstances, while the latter was speaking on this Bill which might be.
Therefore, it is a very worrying situation for the likes of myself. But one thing is crystal clear to me: there is one guarantee. There will be a major row if at the edict of this Westminster Parliament, which is seen as an English Parliament by many in Scotland rather than the British Parliament that it is, we take this right away and if the Government make the edict that we are to have fewer MSPs. Indeed, we will have a very serious constitutional crisis.
1188
On Second Reading, I said that what we give to Scotland we must not take away. I very much rely upon that argument to this day. However, to satisfy the West Lothian question it is now obvious, and I think generally accepted, that the number of MPs will have to be reduced. But at the same time the Government have insisted that the number of MSPs will have to reduce by the same ratio. At an earlier stage of this Bill I remarked—as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, mentioned—what a waste of money it is to build 20-odd offices too many in the new parliament.
If we are to reduce the number of MSPs almost immediately, what a waste of time it is voting the first time round. What an unseemly and unpleasant in-fight we shall have for seats. We have been told by the Minister that the Boundary Commission will take at least three years to report and let us know what it thinks. If the Boundary Commission cannot report before the first election, is a way out of this for the Minister to tell us that he would definitely allow the Scottish parliament to decide the number of seats for the second election? That would certainly be a way out of the problem as the measure would be seen to come from Scotland rather than from the English parliament.
This is a serious issue. After much thought I have decided to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, into his Lobby even though that goes against the grain in case we lose the Bill. However, he said clearly in his speech that there is time for the Government to come to their senses, and come to their senses they really must because it is vital that we let this parliament begin its life with sufficient strength and a determination to keep Britain together and the nationalists and the separatists under control. The only way it will achieve that is if the parliament is seen to be working by the Scottish people. If the Westminster Parliament is perceived to be taking away that right, the Scottish parliament will not work.
7 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, before the noble Lord resumes his seat I hope I may ask him a question. I very much welcomed his concluding words. But he said halfway through his speech that he thought the European elections Bill would certainly go through but was doubtful whether this Bill would do so if we insisted on this amendment. Will he explain why he is so certain, given the vote earlier today, that the European elections Bill will go through?
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, it is quite simple. As regards the European elections Bill, we shall have the European elections whatever happens. We may go back to the first-past-the-post system or we may have another system. Personally speaking I think we should have proportional representation as it has been outlined and that we should have an open system rather than a closed system. As regards the Scotland Bill, the whole of Scotland wants this measure and Scotland has voted for it in a referendum. We could be perceived as losing the Bill. Hereditary Peers such as myself and Conservative

1189
Peers such as myself could be perceived as preventing Scotland having the parliament it so desperately wishes to have.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I shall speak briefly. I have always understood that anyone who insists on an amendment at a stage such as this in the passage of a Bill is risking the Bill. I was aware of that when I voted on the European elections Bill but I considered that it was the correct thing to do because of the nature of that Bill. I am surprised that the Liberal Democrats are prepared to risk this Bill which, it is quite clear, the people of Scotland want. It has enormous flaws. One of the major flaws is the issue we are discussing. It is one of several flaws which will cause enormous trouble in the future. One dreads to think what row will arise when that which is inevitable comes about and the number of MSPs has to be reduced, and is reduced because of a decision at Westminster. I feel strongly about that. However, I think the Bill must become law with that flaw built into it. I am sorry about it but I would not dream of voting for the amendment at this stage because I believe it might well put the Bill at risk.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I shall speak briefly. I have hopes that the Government may regain their senses. As my noble friend Lord Thurso said, it is absolutely ludicrous to elect 129 people to a new parliament with the risk of abolishing a third of them. That is appallingly bad for morale and it could risk the success of the whole experiment. It is nonsense. Furthermore, as regards the 129 Scottish MPs, considering the nature of the country and the wide miles we have in Scotland for the population, there is no question that we can do with much smaller constituencies than in the United Kingdom. It is a different situation altogether. I have hopes that the Government may be sensible and I shall listen with great care to what the Minister says. However, I think our case is irrefutable.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, I, too, wish to support my noble kinsman. First, I reaffirm that we all wish the Bill to pass and we all want the parliament to work and to work as well as it possibly can. The fact that we are revisiting this issue yet again is a measure of just how much importance is attached to it. It is not just a question of the importance that we on these Benches attach to it—a total commitment from our earliest constitutional convention days—but also of the importance attached to it by the Conservative Benches who spoke long, loud and compellingly at Report in support of this issue. I well remember the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, speaking eloquently—as only he can, with the mastery of the Bill that he has—in clear support of this issue. Most particularly I believe that the Bill is wanted by the people of Scotland. It is blindingly clear to anyone who lives in Scotland, as I do, not just at weekends or holidays but all the time—we know this from opinion expressed in the street, on the media, in our postbags—how strongly people feel about this issue. I believe that my arguments to a large extent reflect the point of view of ordinary Scots.
1190
Why do people mind so much about this issue? I believe that the people of Scotland recognise that this number of 129 MSPs is needed. We need to retain the element of proportionality, the balance between the constituency member and the additional member. As the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has acknowledged many times, that gives stability. It gives proper rural representation and representation of smaller groups. It avoids domination by the central belt which is as much of an anathema in Scotland as the notion of domination from Westminster. It is recognised that that number of people is needed to do the job. My noble kinsman explained that in good and fine detail. It is recognised that that number was painstakingly worked out in the constitutional convention based on the number of parliamentary constituencies. We acknowledge that.
It is also recognised that there is an understanding that the Westminster and Holyrood constituency boundaries do not have to be coterminous. We accept that the reduction of the number of MPs at Westminster is desirable and necessary, but this is a new system with new boundaries. The electorate are quite used to that. We have different boundaries for MPs, for MEPs and for local elections. It is a case of a new system and new boundaries. It really is not an argument that administrative convenience should prevail on an issue as vital as this. Nor is it acceptable for one minute to argue that the electorate will be confused and unable to understand this matter. I do not have to tell your Lordships that Scots do not take lightly to being patronised in this way.
I believe there is a real worry in Scotland about being dictated to by Westminster. There are already too many worrying signs in the south, and also a perception that this is an ever more controlling government. There have been headlines since the summer about Dewar being dictated to by Blair and other headlines along similar lines. These perceptions have been growing ever since. There is also a strong suspicion that many more members of the Cabinet are being dictated to from on high on this issue. That does not encourage confidence in Scotland.
There is a clear understanding that to reduce the number of MSPs in four years' time is hopelessly impractical and costly. It is a sign of poor management to plan a building for 129 members and then to scale down the number of members to around 100. That is poor practical, financial and man management. Everyone will be looking over their shoulders, as my noble kinsman pointed out, wondering whether they will be there in four years' time. The sensibilities of MSPs may not be of concern to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, but this is not a way of encouraging confidence at the start of a new enterprise.
Why are the Government being so stubborn? I find it incomprehensible. They seem stubborn, refusing to change their minds—and that, of course, is a sign of weakness, not strength. Their arguments seem to boil down to coterminous constituency boundaries being essential and, if they are not, the electorate being terminally confused; and that the reduction to 100 MSPs is perfectly manageable for the job.

1191
To us in Scotland, those arguments appear condescending. They do not constitute a proper case. The Government appear deaf to the concerns and wishes of the Scottish people. I believe that the over-arching objectives, which should inform our thinking on this extraordinarily important Bill, should be to gain the confidence of the Scots in their MSPs; consistency in what is being offered; coherence and quality in what is being delivered; and clarity about the purpose and role of the parliament. Reneging on the original commitment made in the constitutional convention will undermine all those objectives, including the purpose of the parliament and the purpose of the Bill.
Finally, there will, I believe, be a serious political fall-out in Scotland. Scots will perceive this as another example of a controlling government who are failing to deliver on their promises. Anxiety will deepen and that anxiety can only play into the hands of those who argue for a complete separation from the UK—something none of us wants, ever. The "slippery slope" argument will possibly become more of a reality and, far from strengthening the UK, the political ties could loosen and we could find that the SNP will be laughing all the way to the political bank. Scots will also see that that will apply to all those, from whichever party or whichever side of this House, opposing the amendment. I believe that to do so is not just politically inept, but deeply dangerous. I urge your Lordships, from the bottom of my heart, to support the Motion.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am confused. Indeed, I am so confused that after this debate I shall telephone my doctor to see whether I can get an appointment because I think that I am hallucinating. I could swear that I heard a debate this afternoon in which the Liberal Democrat Benches were firm in their resolve that your Lordships' House should not question the Commons in any way, shape or form. Now, slightly different members of the same party are lining up to say that we should question the Commons.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, may I ask what the noble Lord is doing now?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not doing anything. I am just saying that I am confused by the Liberal Democrats.
We are considering a very strange proposition. We are now told that it is okay to throw a bit of the Scotland Bill back to the Commons, but it certainly was not okay this afternoon, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to throw what he described as "our" Bill back to the Commons. I presume that the Scotland Bill is not, in Liberal Democrat terms, "our" Bill yet the noble Viscount was trying to suggest that it was—at least as far as their membership of the constitutional convention was concerned.
My view is well known. I invited my noble friends to vote down this part of the Bill when the amendment was first put. I now have to decide whether to join the noble Viscount and send this part of the Bill back to the Commons.
1192
We had interesting Committee, Report and Third Reading stages in your Lordships' House. I suspect that they were more interesting than those in the other place. We have had a fair number of probing amendments; debates; and a thinking-through by all of us, including Government Ministers, of various parts of the Bill. More than 300 amendments have been tabled, largely by the Government in response to the debates.
Interestingly, through much of that probing, discussion and thinking-through of the Bill, we had one of three reactions from the Liberal Democrats. Usually, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon and myself were accused—usually by our half-clansman, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie—of wasting time, of boring for Britain—or was it for Scotland? I am not entirely sure—or of still being against the whole idea and still wanting to fight against devolution.
If I had tabled this Motion and suggested that your Lordships might like to join me in throwing this part of the Bill, and therefore the whole Bill, back to the House of Commons, the Labour Party's country cousins would have been the first on their feet to say that I had not yet learned the lesson of the last election and not yet taken on board the result of the referendum. I have taken them on board. My party has taken them on board. As my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas said, we have virtually all of our candidates in place to fight parliamentary seats. We are determined to do well in those elections and to play a full part in the parliament—and not in any way a negative part. Therefore, at this stage, I shall not give my opponents any ground at all for saying that my conversion is but skin-deep and that really, deep down, I should like to sabotage the Bill.
I shall not recommend that my noble friends support the noble Viscount. It is not that I do not think that the Government have become involved in a silly issue. To reduce the number of MSPs from 129 to 108 will not be easy. Frankly, it will not be easy to reduce Scotland's number of Westminster MPs from 72 to 58. Your Lordships have heard me talk on this before. That would mean carnage, largely in the Labour Party's backyard where the Boundary Commission has very kindly given piddling little seats of 47,000 electors in the case of Hamilton South and an average of 51,000 in the city of Glasgow. When that has to go up to 69,500 as it will—there will be real devastation in the Labour heartlands where, in some areas, two MPs will have to do although there are three now. There will be non-brotherly or non-sisterly squabbles about who could win. Dare I say it, "Why should I care?"? The blood will largely be on the Labour Party's carpet. The Scottish Nationalists will be one of the beneficiaries, like, I hope, my party.
My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon and I have no intention of delaying the passage into law of this Bill. We have had a good innings on it in your Lordships' House. I believe that we have made considerable improvements. Frankly, I think that the Government could have gone a bit further on this and a number of other issues, but I am not prepared to have headlines in the Scottish press along

1193
the lines of, "Mackay's last-ditch stand against Scotland Bill". Mackay is not making a last-ditch stand. Thurso can have it alone.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, in addressing this issue, I recognise that we are returning to one of the more substantive matters that divide us across the House. I want to place on the record the fact that I recognise the contributions that noble Lords directly opposite and those on the Liberal Democrat Benches have made to the way in which the Bill has evolved and been improved during its passage through your Lordships' House.
Perhaps I may advise the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that I totally accept that he has been sincere and consistent on this question throughout. I recognise that he does not see, and has not tabled, this Motion as a wrecking provision. However, I ask him to reflect for a moment on whether there is a difference between intention and effect. I am convinced that the intention is not to wreck; but the possible effect is that it could. The noble Viscount ought to think about that.
After our debate earlier this afternoon, I do not wish to make a heavy point on the constitutional issue. However, this House sent the matter back to the House of Commons by way of an amendment that it made to the Bill. It gave the other place the time and opportunity to think again. Members there did think again, and decided not to agree with the decision of this House by 303 votes to 173. So we have done our duty on an issue where there was a difference of view across this Chamber and between the two Chambers. We gave Members of the other place an opportunity to reflect and reach another view. On reflection, they decided to remain with their original position. It would at least be wise and prudent to reflect on the implications of a further round of ping-pong between the two Houses.
Perhaps I may reply briefly to points made during the debate, and to the rather lurid account of the internal workings of the Government given by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater. It is not something that I recognise. I can only say that she may be suffering from the effect of reading too many of her husband's articles. I caution and advise her against that.
The argument made by the noble Viscount was a strong one in that it is true that the figure of 129 was decided by the constitutional convention. The White Paper, upon which there was not only a debate in this House but on which the Government and the Liberal Democrats joined together in campaigning for and seeking the endorsement of the Scottish people at the time of the referendum, made it absolutely clear that the process would be that the reduction in the number of MPs at Westminster from Scottish constituencies would have an automatic effect on the size of the Scottish parliament. That was clearly spelt out. It was put before the people of Scotland at the time of the referendum and was endorsed by them; and the Liberal Democrats made their contribution in achieving that result. They fought on the issues in the White Paper, as we did.
The point was made that representation of the diversity and the regions of Scotland depends upon the parliament being a particular size. We can reduce
1194
the size of the parliament, but so long as the proportions coming from the various parts of Scotland remain the same, the integrity of the diverse nature of the parliament is protected. That diversity will not be undermined through a reduction in its size. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, indicated, there might be a greater balance in the composition of the parliament through a reduction in its size.
Another argument is that the Jenkins Commission reported and therefore, as it were, all bets are off and we return to square one waiting for the report to be implemented. So, the commission has reported; but there is no indication as to whether any of the proposals contained in its report will ultimately be implemented. If they are implemented, that will be done on a timescale which, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, will run beyond eight years. So there is plenty of time. Speaking hypothetically, if there is movement along the lines advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and his colleagues, it is some considerable way off. There is plenty of time and opportunity to adjust arrangements in Scotland to take account of that.
Let us now turn to the question of morale. For some reason which again I do not understand it seems that it is completely wrong to say that there is to be a reduction in the size of the Scottish parliament but at the same time say that it is absolutely essential that the number of MPs representing Scotland at Westminster ought to be reduced; that somehow one has an awful and damaging effect on the morale of members of the Scottish parliament but the other has no effect at all on the morale and general contentment of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster.
I return to a point that I made at an earlier stage. I have every sympathy for those who may be discomfited by the fact that the number of seats available to them is reduced—heavens above, I should quite like a few more seats to become available! However, that can never be a convincing argument for retaining the size of the parliament at any given level.
I return to the basic point. I do not think that the arguments advanced today and at earlier stages come anywhere near to undermining the Government's position. The strange figure of 129 seems almost to have been handed down, carved in stone—"It shall be 129, no more, no less". But it is not a magic figure. The figure came out of a process of discussion, and then building up from a constituency basis. The noble Viscount has already mentioned that at one stage the Liberal Democrats favoured a figure of 145. I was a member of the backroom group known as the constitutional commission. For my sins, I had responsibility for examining the electoral arrangements. I came up with a scheme that produced approximately 110. The number decided upon by the convention was 129, on the basis of using the parliamentary constituency building block. That is the constant unit that runs all the way through the deliberations and discussions. The Westminster parliamentary constituency is the building block for representation in the Scottish parliament, and that is added to through the top-up lists.

1195
Why do we want the Westminster parliamentary constituency to be the building block? The point is fairly made that it is possible for the two MPs to work effectively together. There is another, equally valid point; namely, that all Members of this House have frequently maintained their support for and commitment to the Union. If that is the case, wherever possible we want to embed the institutions of one regime in the institutions of the other. By maintaining that coterminosity of constituencies, we are embedding the electoral arrangements of the Scottish parliament in the electoral framework of the Union itself, which further strengthens the links between the two.
However, there is one argument that could have merit; namely, that somehow the reduction in numbers would have a major deleterious effect on the effectiveness and working of the parliament. It is an argument that has to be taken seriously. The difficulty with it is that we cannot give a definitive answer before the parliament has at least some experience of running its own institutions and structures.
In that context it is important to realise that the reduction in the size of the Scottish parliament is not something that will occur immediately or overnight. The Scottish parliament will have two full terms of operating with 129 members. That gives it both an opportunity to plan for the reduction and to see what the possible effects may be, in terms of its workings, of a reduction in size.
It might be of comfort to the noble Viscount that we recognise that during that period the parliament might take the view that a reduction in size from 129 to something more than 100 would seriously affect the way it operated. We recognise that through the system of pre-legislative scrutiny and the different ways of working that are being considered under the committee chaired by my honourable friend Mr. McLeish, it is possible that there may be arrangements that are totally innovative and require a significant number of people to operate effectively. If that came about—if the parliament took the view that its workings would be seriously undermined by a reduction in numbers—then it is open to the parliament to make representations to the Government of the day and to this Parliament. A thread that we have always accepted is that the electoral arrangements will remain reserved. It would be open to the parliament, in the light of experience—an experience which, by definition, we cannot have now—to say to the Government of the day, "Look, we think we have got a system which works well and effectively. It is in danger of being disturbed in a very deleterious way if this reduction takes place."
The Government are a listening government and are prepared to enter into discussion and debate and to formulate policies on the basis of experience. The opportunity would not be lost, at some time in the future—on the basis of practice—to reopen this question on the initiative of the parliament. On that basis, the Government cannot accept these amendments and would wish to oppose them.
7.30 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his opening remarks. I am grateful that he recognises that the last thing on earth I would ever wish to do is to put this Bill into jeopardy. I am grateful to him for recognising that my intentions are honourable. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this useful and interesting debate. I am sorry that so many noble Lords on the Benches next door now feel the need to retreat. I am not going to respond to them.
There are two points that I would like to make. First, with regard to the number of 129, the Minister mentioned that we were fixed to that one rigid number. I assure him that we are not fixed to that one rigid number. All we wish to do through the amendment is to give the Scottish parliament the power to decide. If it decided to come down, that is fine.
The other argument concerns the question that the Bill will be lost. I have thought long and hard about that. I believe that there is time and that it is appropriate for another place to consider the matter again.
7.34 p.m.
On Question, That this House do insist on their Amendment No. 215 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 215A.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 119.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McNally, L.

Alderdice, L.

Maddock, B.

Bath, M.

Mar and Kellie, E. [Teller.]

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Newby, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Calverley, L.

Ogmore, L.

Carlisle, E.

Razzall, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Rochester, L.

Dholakia, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Falkland, V.

Rowallan, L.

Geraint, L.

Russell, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Goodhart, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Grey, E.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hampton, L.

Hamwee, B.

Stair, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taverne, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hooson, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Inchyra, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Leigh, L.

Thurso, V. [Teller.]

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Tordoff, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Ludford, B.

Wigoder, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

McNair, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Barnett, L.

Ahmed, L.

Blease, L.

Alli, L.

Borrie, L.

Amos, B.

Bragg, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Bach, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

1197

Burlison, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Lockwood, B.

Chandos, V.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Christopher, L.

McCarthy, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Crawley, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Currie of Marylebone, L.

David, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Monkswell, L.

Desai, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Dixon, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Donoughue, L.

Montrose, D.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dubs, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Nicol, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Onslow, E.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gallacher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Goudie, B.

Rea, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Grantchester, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Gregson, L.

Sawyer, L.

Grenfell, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hacking, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hanworth, V.

Serota, B.

Hardie, L.

Sewel, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Shepherd, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Haskel, L.

Simon, V.

Hayman, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hoyle, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Thornton, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Tomlinson, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Islwyn, L.

Uddin, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Varley, L.

Warner, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Judd, L.

Whitty, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Kennet, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 215 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 215A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 215 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 215A.—(Lord Sewel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
216 Schedule 1, page 57, line 9, at end insert—
(". The parliamentary constituencies to which paragraph 1(c) applies are those determined by the Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1995, or those Scottish parliamentary constituencies determined following a report of the Boundary Commission for Scotland under paragraph 3 of this Schedule, except a parliamentary constituency including either of those islands referred to in paragraph 1(a) and (b).").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
216A Because the constituencies and regions for the purpose of elections to the Scottish Parliament should be a matter for Parliament.

LORDS AMENDMENT
217 Page 57, leave out lines 15 to 17.
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
217A Because the constituencies and regions for the purpose of elections to the Scottish Parliament should be a matter for Parliament.

LORDS AMENDMENT
218 Page 57, leave out lines 18 to 37 and insert—
("Redistribution of Scottish Parliamentary constituencies
3.—(1) The Boundary Commission for Scotland shall keep under review the representation in the Scottish Parliament and shall submit to the Scottish Executive a report either—

(a) showing the constituencies into which they recommend that Scotland should be divided in order to give effect to the rules set out in Schedule 2 (subject to paragraph 7 thereof) to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 ("the 1986 Act") in so far as they apply to Scotland, or

(b) stating that, in the opinion of the Commission, no alteration is required to be made in order to give effect to the rules set out in Schedule 2 (subject to paragraph 7 thereof) to the 1986 Act.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 81 of this Act, the rules in Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act as they apply to Scotland shall have effect in relation to the redistribution of the parliamentary constituencies referred to in paragraph 1(c) above.
(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (5) below, the provisions of sections 3, 5 and 6 of the 1986 Act shall, in so far as they apply to Scotland, have effect in relation to the reports and the workings of the Boundary Commission for Scotland's review of parliamentary constituencies for the Parliament.
(4) Subject to sub-paragraph (5), the provisions of section 4 of the 1986 Act shall have effect in relation to the draft of any Order in Council laid before the Parliament by the Scottish Executive for giving effect, whether with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in the report of the Boundary Commission for Scotland.
(5) References to the Secretary of State in the 1986 Act shall, for the purposes of this paragraph, be construed as references to the Scottish Executive and references to Parliament in the 1986 Act shall be construed as references to the Parliament.
(6) The Boundary Commission for Scotland shall submit their first report under this paragraph to the Scottish Executive no later than 30th June 2005.
(7) In that report, the Commission shall also recommend any alteration in any of the regions which, in their opinion, is required to give effect to the rules in paragraph 7 below.
(8) If the Commission do not make any recommendation under sub-paragraph (7), they shall in the report state that, in their opinion, no such alteration is required.
(9) A report making a recommendation for an alteration in any region shall state the name by which the Commission recommend that the region should be known.").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
218A Because the constituencies and regions for the purpose of elections to the Scottish Parliament should be a matter for Parliament.

LORDS AMENDMENT
219 Page 57, leave out lines 38 to 43
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
219A Because the constituencies and regions for the purpose of elections to the Scottish Parliament should be a matter for Parliament.

LORDS AMENDMENT
220 Page 57, line 46, leave out ("3(2)") and insert ("3(7)")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
220A Because the constituencies and regions for the purpose of elections to the Scottish Parliament should be a matter for Parliament.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 216 to 220 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons numbered 216A to 220A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 216 to 220 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 216A to 220A.—(Lord Sewel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
286 Before Schedule 7, insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE
PROCEDURE FOR SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION
General provision
1.—(1) Subordinate legislation (or a statutory instrument containing it) under a provision listed in the left-hand column is subject to the type of procedure in the right-hand column.
(2) This paragraph is subject to paragraphs 3 and 4.

Provision of the Act

Type of procedure

Section 2(1)

Type C

Section 11(1)

Type C

Section 14

Type D

Section 17(5)

Type J

Section 29

Type A

Section 33

Type I

Section 36

Type J

Section 52(2)

Type G

Section 54

Type I

Section 56

Type G

Section 58

Type G

Section 59

Type A

Section 61(5)

Type K

Section 64(3)

Type E

Section 67(4B)

Type K

Section 75

Type E

Section 83

Type I

Notes
The entry for section 54 does not apply to an instrument containing an order merely revoking an order under subsection (1) of that section.
The entry for section 75, in relation to an instrument containing an order which makes only such provision as is mentioned in section 75(3), is to be read as referring to type K instead of type E.
Types of procedure
2. The types of procedure referred to in this Schedule are—
Type A: No recommendation to make the legislation is to be made to Her Majesty in Council unless a draft of the instrument—

(a) has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament, and

(b) has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Parliament.

Type B: No recommendation to make the legislation is to be made to Her Majesty in Council unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.
Type C: No Minister of the Crown is to make the legislation unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.
Type D: No recommendation to make the legislation is to be made to Her Majesty in Council unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Parliament.
Type E: No Minister of the Crown is to make the legislation unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the House of Commons.
Type F: The instrument containing the legislation, if made without a draft having been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament and of the Parliament, shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of—

(a) a resolution of either House, or

(b) a resolution of the Parliament.

Type G: The instrument containing the legislation, if made without a draft having been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House.
Type H: The instrument containing the legislation shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of

(a) a resolution of either House of Parliament, or

(b) a resolution of the Parliament.

Type I: The instrument containing the legislation shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
Type J: The instrument containing the legislation shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Parliament.
Type K: The instrument containing the legislation shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the House of Commons.
Special cases
3.—(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the instrument containing the legislation would, apart from this paragraph, be subject to the type F, G, H, I or K procedure, and

(b) the legislation contains provisions which add to, replace or omit any part of the text of an Act (including this Act).

(2) Where this paragraph applies—

(a) instead of the type F procedure, the type A procedure shall apply,

(b) instead of the type G procedure, the type B or (as the case may be) C procedure shall apply,

(c) instead of the type H procedure, the type A procedure shall apply,

(d) instead of the type I procedure, the type B or (as the case may be) C procedure shall apply,

(e) instead of the type K procedure, the type E procedure shall apply.

4. If legislation under section 115(3) makes provision as mentioned in section 101(B1) then, instead of the type G procedure, the type D procedure shall apply.
5.—(1) An instrument containing an Order in Council or order tinder an open power which revokes, amends or re-enacts subordinate legislation under an open power may (in spite of section 14 of the Interpretation Act 1978) be subject to a different procedure under this Schedule from the procedure to which the instrument containing the original legislation was subject.
(2) An instrument containing an Order in Council under section 84 or 85 which revokes, amends or re-enacts an Order under either section may (in spite of section 14 of the Interpretation Act 1978) be subject to a different procedure under this Schedule from the procedure to which the instrument containing the original Order was subject.").
The Commons agreed to Lords Amendment No. 286, with the following amendment—
286A In paragraph 3(1)(b) of the Amendment, leave out ("(including this Act)").
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 286A to Lords Amendment No. 286. It all finishes with a whimper! It should not be me standing here—it should be my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale—because the words I shall use in relation to this amendment are quite simply that it is a minor and technical amendment. I beg to move.
1202
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 286A to Lords Amendment No. 286.—(Lord Sewel.)
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, had the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, been in her place, I am sure she would have used the words, "This is a technical and drafting amendment". It is entirely that and, in the spirit of consensus which we wish to pervade the Scotland Bill and the Scottish parliament in the future, we welcome the amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

  Northern Ireland Bill
  7.45 p.m.
  Read a third time.
  Clause 6 [Legislative competence]:
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs) moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 3, line 39, leave out ("the Parliament of the United Kingdom") and insert ("Parliament").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have burdened the House with a great many amendments in the course of the proceedings on this Bill. I indicated that we would do so at the outset of our deliberations. This is not an ordinary Bill; nor has it been prepared in an ordinary timescale. The motivation for our main amendments has been to respond to points expressed in debate, here and in another place. and to those made to us by the parties in Northern Ireland which will have to operate the mechanisms we are setting up. I hope it will be agreed that we are right to be responsive in this way. We have also had to make a large number of adjustments to the technical workings of the Bill, but I hope that that will be thought right, too, because technical flaws could interfere seriously with the smooth operation of the novel institutions for which the Bill provides.
  Your Lordships have shown great forbearance. We have only a few more amendments this evening. All of them are technical with the exception of some further reinforcement of the safeguards for audit standards in the devolved institutions, which I hope will be welcome to your Lordships.
  I turn specifically to Amendment No. 1. It is purely a drafting amendment to align the practice in referring to Acts of Parliament with that elsewhere in the Bill. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 7 [Entrenched enactments]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 2:
  Page 4, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert—
  ("(c) section 43(1) to (6) and (8), section 67, sections 84 to 86, section 95(3) and (4) and section 98.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 2 and 29, with which it is grouped, are technical. They represent a final tidying up of the arrangements by

  1203
  which the Assembly is prevented from encroaching on the main elements of the Bill, either by the subject matter of clauses being made an excepted matter or by the text of the clauses being entrenched under Clause 7; that is, protected against modification by the Assembly. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 3:
  Page 4, line 10, at end insert—
  ("(3) In this Act "Minister", unless the context otherwise requires, means the First Minister, the deputy First Minister or a Northern Ireland Minister.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, government Amendments Nos. 3, 5 and 26 are purely a matter of drafting and move one final time our old friend the omnibus definition of "Minister", which would now occur in its rightful place where the expression is first used in Clause 7. It will be deleted from Clause 9, and the reference in the interpretation clause—Clause 98—is corrected.
  Amendment No. 4, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is an amendment to Amendment No. 3. I am grateful to him for the amendment, which I believe seeks to clarify the drafting in the definition of "Minister" in Clause 7. However, I believe that the amendment is not necessary. I believe that, as it stands, the definition is entirely clear. Amendment No. 3 amends Clause 7 to include a definition of "Minister" as meaning,
  "the First Minister, the deputy First Minister or a Northern Ireland Minister".
  There can be no doubt who the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are; they are provided for in Clause 16. It is clear that the Bill's definition of a "Northern Ireland Minister" does not cover junior ministers.
  Clause 17 provides that the determination on the number of ministerial offices should cover,
  "the number of Ministerial offices to be held by Northern Ireland Ministers".
  The following clause, Clause 18, deals with how these offices are filled; namely, by the d'Hondt formula. The posts allocated by Clauses 17 and 18 are clearly the senior ministerial posts and are separate from the permissive provisions on junior Ministers in Clause 19.
  I do not believe that there is any doubt about the definition of "Minister" in the Bill, and I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will not feel it necessary to press his amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 3, Amendment No. 4:
  Line 4, at end insert ("other than those determined under section 19").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, had I had the benefit previously of hearing what the Minister has just said, I probably would not have put down the amendment. The Minister described the Bill as not having had an ordinary timescale. Since he has shifted the definition, it has not even had an orderly timescale, let alone an ordinary one.
  I do not yet understand exactly what a "Northern Ireland Minister" is. I am sure that the noble Lord can tell me. What kind of an animal is he? The noble Lord made clear many times in our proceedings on the Bill that the Government will not accept any amendment which seeks to alter the terms of the Good Friday agreement. I would be the first to agree with him that, since it was confirmed in a referendum in both the North and the South, that agreement was the expressed will of the population and that any unravelling—to use a word that the Minister has used in previous stages of the Bill—should be in response to the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland and not done arbitrarily from Westminster.
  The House will remember that the agreement states that executive authority is to be discharged on behalf of the Assembly by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and up to 10 Ministers with departmental responsibilities. The noble Lord described his amendment as a drafting amendment. It is in a sense a technical amendment in that it was introduced into Clause 9 as a definition which was required because the phrase "a Minister" appears in several places in the Bill and clearly ought to mean the Northern Ireland Cabinet, consisting of the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the departmental Ministers, as the noble Lord has just said. The departmental Ministers presumably have a measure of control over junior Ministers appointed under Clause 19, which the Government inserted in Committee.
  The purpose of my addition to the government amendment is twofold. Its first purpose is to thank the Minister for the amendment brought forward on Report to make it clear that junior Ministers must be members of the Assembly. I regret that I was not in the Chamber at the time to hear what the Minister very generously said on that occasion.
  Secondly, it is surely right to exclude junior Ministers from the body which I referred to a few moments ago as the Northern Ireland Cabinet. Clause 22(1), for example, does precisely that: functions may not be conferred legislatively on a junior Minister. It seems to me imperative that any definition clause, which the government amendment is, should make it clear as soon as practicable in the Bill what is included and what is not.
  I take what the Minister said in respect of my amendment to the government amendment extremely seriously. Nonetheless others may wish to discuss the matter. I therefore beg to move the amendment.
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for moving his amendment, if only because it gives us a chance briefly to discuss the role of the junior Ministers. I realise from his remarks at a previous stage of the Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, believes that there is not yet a consensus as to what functions they should exercise or as to how they should be appointed but that

  1205
  it is clear that they will not have a major role. In my opinion, it is important to know what role they will have, and this is a chance to discuss that matter. It is one thing to say that the role of junior Ministers is still unclear; it is altogether something else to say that they are outside our consideration. They will be an important part of the machinery of government in Northern Ireland.
  I think the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, would agree that his Amendment No. 6 would be redundant if his Amendment No. 4 were to be passed.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, and vice versa; that is quite right.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am one of those who expressed some hesitation about the appointment of junior Ministers. The Northern Ireland Office has functioned for several decades with sometimes four, sometimes five, Ministers managing all the departments, and indeed more than will be the responsibility of the executive, at least in the initial stages, because the Northern Ireland Office has had responsibility also for security matters as well as for the departments which are to be devolved.
  Nevertheless, I am not against the appointment of junior Ministers, if that is what is required in Northern Ireland. I can see that it will help in the management of the Assembly—which will be difficult enough, given the complexities—to have some junior Ministers to help the 10 departmental Ministers who will be in charge.
  I take this opportunity to draw attention to the fact that, although we have been told by the Minister at frequent intervals that we have to stick to the absolute letter of the agreement, the insertion of junior Ministers into the Bill is a departure from that agreement. Of course, I understand that it departs from the agreement with the encouragement of the parties in Northern Ireland; it is a matter that was not thought of when the precise words of the Good Friday agreement were settled. But there have been a number of other matters of the same character that we have discussed in the course of the Bill. This is one place where the agreement is being "bent", which I think may be a more appropriate word than "broken".
  As the Minister said, Amendment No. 3 once again moves the definition of "Minister". The noble Lord described it as moving the definition to its rightful place. As I said on an earlier occasion, I believe that its rightful place is in the definitions clause, Clause 98, which contains every other definition that applies to whole of the Bill. There are some definitions which apply to only one clause, and I think it is sensible to have those in the clause to which they apply, but it seems to me that general definitions are much better put in a single interpretation clause. When so many other definitions are contained in Clause 98, I believe that this one should be there as well. However, I made that point earlier and it did not commend itself to the Government, so I shall not press it at this stage.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am not opposed to the appointment of junior Ministers provided
  1206
  there is a general role for them. Being rather cynical, I cannot help but recall the time when Stormont was flourishing, admittedly in its last decade, when certain Prime Ministers occasionally appointed junior Ministers but did not seem to have any jobs for them. My cynicism then took root. I felt that when the Prime Minister of the day, whoever he might have been, was in some difficulty with his own party, it was perhaps a temptation to appoint junior Ministers to ensure that a vote of confidence could be carried without having to rely entirely on Back-Benchers. I hope that my suspicion was not well-founded, but, as an outsider at that time, I am afraid that that was my perception.
  At present the Minister and his colleagues have the responsibility for two major departments and, if I may venture to say so, discharge their duties efficiently and well. We should therefore consider very carefully whether there is a need for duplication of responsibility which I do not believe would be in anyone's interests. I believe that the First Minister and ultimately the Secretary of State may be under pressure from those who feel that unless all of the tiddler parties are placed in posts, junior ministries and so forth, it will be difficult to keep the peace. Although that may be an unworthy thought, we may need to be prepared for such pressure being applied at a later stage.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I suppose that the nearest thing to a cabinet in the Bill is an executive committee set up under Clause 20. That does not include junior Ministers but only the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and Northern Ireland Ministers; that is, those whose positions are established under Clauses 17 and 18. As to the role of junior Ministers, we shall have a greater opportunity to discuss that matter in the context of Amendment No. 6 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I do not wish to cut across the debate that we shall have then, except to say that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, made reference to "tiddler parties". I do not endorse such a pejorative expression. The smaller parties will not necessarily have an opportunity to have ministerial posts. We have left it mainly to the Assembly, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to decide what is appropriate in the way of junior Ministers. That is why the powers to establish junior Ministers are simply enabling. I say no more than that; otherwise, I shall pre-empt the debate on the next amendment.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this mini debate that went rather wider than I expected in the context of this particular amendment. When the Minister sought to pre-empt my moving the amendment I understood him to say that the addition of,
  "other than those determined under section 19",
  was unnecessary because it was quite clear that in his amendment deputy Ministers were not included. Therefore, I am delighted to hear that I have got it right. The noble Lord indicates by a nod that that is so. In that case, I am delighted that my amendment is not needed. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment No. 4, as an amendment to Amendment No. 5, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Amendment No. 3 agreed to.
  8 p.m.
  Clause 9 [Scrutiny by Ministers]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 5:
  Page 4, line 23, leave out subsection (3).
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 22 [Statutory functions]:
  Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 6:
  Page 12, line 24, leave out ("(but not a junior Minister)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 6 has a very simple objective. It is so simple that it is almost self-explanatory. The House has just agreed in Amendment No. 3 that in this Bill "Ministers" as defined does not include "junior Ministers". Therefore, one cannot have it both ways. If "Ministers" does not include "junior Ministers" there is no need to exclude junior Ministers from this particular clause. I beg to move.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I regret that I cannot welcome Amendment No. 6 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. This amendment seeks to enable junior Ministers to have statutory functions conferred upon them.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, that is not so at all. The House has just agreed that the definition of "Minister" does not include "junior Minister". Therefore, functions are not being conferred on a junior Minister but only on what may be called a senior Minister. All that the amendment seeks to do, if I have correctly understood my noble friend, is to improve the drafting considerably.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am advised that there may have been a misunderstanding about the purpose of the amendment, in that it does not include junior Ministers. I am still not sure that I have completely understood the purpose of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, moved his amendment very briefly. I am not sure what he seeks to achieve. However, I believe that the purpose of this amendment, in the circumstances, is unnecessary.
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, it is quite clear that the only purpose of the amendment is to remove from the Bill redundant words. I suggest that the Government are well advised to accept this helpful drafting amendment. From what the Minister said, he may perhaps have misunderstood the purpose of the amendment.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there has been some confusion in this matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, said, my intention is to tidy up the Bill and remove what I regard as extraneous words. I was reinforced in my belief by the response of the Minister when dealing with Amendment No. 3. However, given the way in which parliamentary proceedings work we do not have to make a decision on this matter tonight. The noble
  1208
  Lord and his advisers can reflect upon it and it can come back from another place. A great raft of amendments will come back. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Cope can give me the exact number, but I believe that about 450 amendments have to be agreed to and discussed in another place. The Government will have ample opportunity to return to this matter if I am right in my assertion that these words are superfluous.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may seek to clarify matters. I regret the misunderstanding that has arisen on this particular amendment. As I understand it, the noble Lord wants to delete a term that he believes to be redundant. That would be so if the clause referred to a Northern Ireland Minister. However, the particular wording refers to "a Minister". Therefore, the words in brackets are appropriate to clarify what is meant.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am becoming even more confused. Presumably, the Minister was listening to the words that he uttered in dealing with Amendment No. 3 which state:
  "In this Act 'Minister', unless the context otherwise requires"—
  in this particular case it does not—
  "means the First Minister, the deputy First Minister or a Northern Ireland Minister".
  A Minister is a Minister is a Minister as defined in Clause 7 as we have just amended it.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I am not sure that he was correct in suggesting that this matter could be resolved in the course of this Bill going to the other place and returning to this House. If this amendment is not made there will be no opportunity for the other place, or this House at a later stage, to make it. If the amendment is made now and it turns out that it should not have been made, the other place can correct it and this House can agree to that correction. Therefore, I believe that we should make the amendment now and if necessary the other place can correct it. It is a very simple drafting amendment that brings this particular part of Clause 22 into line with the amendment agreed a few moments ago.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not know whether the Minister wants to intervene before I finally sit down. I am very conscious of the fact that this is Third Reading.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I regret the misunderstanding that has occurred. The intention is that the Assembly should not be able to confer statutory functions on junior Ministers. If Clause 22 were silent on the matter—for example, as it is in relation to local authorities—the Assembly could confer functions. That is the point at issue. I still urge the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
  Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this places me in a rather difficult position. If, with the excision of the words,
  "but not a junior Minister",

  1209
  the clause allows legislative functions to be conferred on junior Ministers, we have made a glaring error in agreeing Amendment No. 3. However, I believe that there will be an opportunity for the other place to correct this matter despite what my noble friend Lord Cope said simply because the Bill has been amended so much. I am sure that if Ministers and their advisers decide that I am right they will find a way of squeezing it in somewhere. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 60 [Financial control, accounts and audit]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 7:
  Page 31, line 25, after ("made,") insert ("an Act of the Assembly or other").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are amendments of real substance and represent a further strengthening of the protection for proper audit in the Bill. They reflect a helpful dialogue which has been going on between my colleague, Paul Murphy, and the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in another place.
  Amendment No. 8 to Clause 60 ensures that anyone other than the Comptroller and Auditor General who exercises auditing functions has the same freedom as the comptroller from direction or control by the devolved authorities.
  Amendment No. 9 to Clause 65 is intended to underpin the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland by ensuring that he cannot be removed unless two-thirds of the total number of Members of the Assembly endorse that proposition.
  Amendment No. 7 to Clause 60 is a matter of drafting and there is a related repeal in Amendment No. 39 for incorporation into Schedule 15.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as the Minister said, Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are a useful strengthening of the Comptroller and Auditor General's position. I am not sure why Amendment No. 7 is necessary. It adds the words,
  "an Act of the Assembly or other"
  in front of the words, "Northern Ireland legislation". However, the words "Northern Ireland legislation" are specifically defined in Clause 98 as including acts of the Assembly. The amendment therefore seems to me redundant. The words to be inserted are simply unnecessary, given the definition in Clause 98 at page 55 of the Bill.
  While the Minister seeks to confirm what I say, perhaps I may say a word or two about the other two amendments. As the Minister said, these amendments reinforce the position of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I think that is desirable. In particular, the two-thirds rule, applied under Amendment No. 9, means not merely two-thirds of those voting but two-thirds of the whole membership of the Assembly. That is a slightly novel formulation in UK law; namely, that two-thirds of a legislative assembly should have to vote on an issue. However, I do not think that it is necessarily
  1210
  undesirable on those grounds alone and I support the reinforcement of the position of the Comptroller and Auditor General. My main reason for intervening, however, is to raise the point on Amendment No. 7.
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I reinforce the point made by the noble Lord. Page 55, line 26 makes quite clear that Acts of the Assembly are included in the Northern Ireland legislation. Therefore, this is an issue of redundancy that we are seeking to "clean up".
  I support Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 most warmly. It is helpful to obtain for the Comptroller and Auditor General maximum independence from the Assembly. In that context I do not mind the somewhat high test of two-thirds of the Members rather than two-thirds of those present. If anything, that establishes an even higher standard of non-interference.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the support for some of the amendments. Perhaps I may clarify the position as regards Amendment No. 7. The amendment is necessary because paragraph 22(e) of Schedule 2 would otherwise prevent the Assembly from legislating on the matter. This interacts with paragraph 22 of Schedule 2. I think that it is necessary and that it clarifies the position. I hope that that is acceptable to the House.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 8:
  Page 32, line 14, at end insert—
  ("( ) Persons (other than the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland) charged with the exercise of any function under subsection (2) or other like function conferred by Northern Ireland legislation shall not, in the exercise of that or any ancillary function, be subject to the direction or control of any Minister or Northern Ireland department or of the Assembly.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 65 [Audit]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 9:
  Page 33, line 29, at end insert—
  ("( ) A recommendation shall not be made to Her Majesty for the removal from office of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland unless—

  (a) the Assembly so resolves; and

  (b) the resolution is passed with the support of a number of members of the Assembly which equals or exceeds two thirds of the total number of seats in the Assembly.").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 69 [The Commission's functions]:
  [Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
  Clause 71 [Restrictions on application of rights]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 11:
  Page 36, line 20, after ("tribunal") insert ("on the ground that any legislation or act is incompatible with the Convention rights").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 in Clause 71 are technical amendments which ensure that the human rights commission can bring proceedings involving non-ECHR issues. The final amendment provides that the Advocate General for

  1211
  Scotland is exempt from the restrictions, as well as the other Law Officers listed. He will, of course, be the United Kingdom Law Officer for Scotland after devolution.
  8.15 p.m.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, these amendments all seem unobjectionable and welcome. However, perhaps the Minister can clarify one matter on Amendment No. 14 which adds the Advocate General for Scotland to the list of exempted persons. We wonder why the Government are not also adding the human rights commission and the equality commission to this list. It would seem to us perfectly right in principle to do so. I should be grateful if that could be clarified.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I think I have understood the noble Lord's point correctly. We shall shortly be bringing forward the Fair Employment and Treatment Order to give effect to further aspects of the White Paper Partnership for Change. Among other things, the order will extend the protections available under the fair employment legislation in Northern Ireland to cover the provision of goods, facilities and services. I think that that is the point the noble Lord makes.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am dealing with Amendment No. 14 which inserts the words:
  "the Advocate General for Scotland".
  The amendment concerns the exemption to the victim test in Clause 71 so as to enable the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland and the Lord Advocate to bring proceedings notwithstanding that they are not victims of breaches of convention rights. My point is that that has to be done, quite sensibly, because these are all Law Officers who are in a position, in the public interest, to seek to ensure compliance with convention rights and obligations. My question to the Minister is why one would not include the human rights commission as a law enforcement agency and, to the extent that it is relevant, the equality commission and give them standing to be able to bring strategic enforcement proceedings in the public interest, even though they are not individual victims of breaches of the convention.
  I hope that I have clarified my question. The reason it is important is that if we are to set up these new commissions, we need to use their skill and expertise to good advantage in the public interest. The matter should not be left only to Law Officers, it seems to me. The commissions themselves should have that strategic role and therefore should be exempt from the victim test in order to bring those proceedings.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I seem to remember that we discussed this in detail at earlier stages of the Bill. I am not sure that I am able to go into the same detail now as I did then. The point at issue is that the Law Officers need to be able to bring devolution proceedings, but in line with the policy to which Parliament has agreed in relation to the Human Rights Act, only victims should be able to bring ECHR cases. That is the point.
  1212
  As regards the noble Lord's further points, we exhausted them in earlier debates on the Bill.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 12:
  Page 36, line 22, leave out ("in respect of an act").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 13:
  Page 36, line 23, after second ("the") insert ("legislation or").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 14:
  Page 36, line 26, after ("Ireland") insert (", the Advocate General for Scotland").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 75 [Statutory duty on public authorities]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 15:
  Page 38, line 14, leave out ("in Northern Ireland shall in carrying out its functions") and insert ("shall in carrying out its functions relating to Northern Ireland").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 15 is a matter of drafting. It concerns Clause 75 which deals with statutory equality duties. It brings Clause 75(2) into line with Clause 75(1) in making clear that it bites on public authorities in carrying out their functions relating to Northern Ireland. We are not of course seeking to regulate in the Bill what an authority with a remit extending elsewhere in the United Kingdom does outside Northern Ireland.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 76 [Discrimination by public authorities]:
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 16:
  Page 38, line 38, after ("Ireland") insert (", including functions relating to the provision of goods, facilities or services to the public or a section of the public,").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to seek clarification on an issue which may be important or may turn out to be trivial. Clause 76(1) makes it unlawful,
  "for a public authority carrying out functions relating to Northern Ireland to discriminate … on the ground of religious belief or political opinion".
  The problem arises because of case law. Unless it is made clear in Clause 76, it may be construed not to include functions relating to the provision of goods, facilities or services to the public or a section of the public. In earlier debates, the Minister indicated, as he did a few moments ago, that it is the Government's intention by Order in Council to plug the gap by amending the fair employment legislation. Speaking for myself, I do not understand why that is the chosen method, or whether it will fill the gap. Clause 76 is a constitutional guarantee embodied in the Northern Ireland Bill. It applies to the functions of a public authority relating to Northern Ireland right across the board.
  I shall be grateful if the Minister can make clear whether the proposed amendment by Order in Council to the fair employment Act would have the same effect

  1213
  as my amendment. If it had absolutely the same effect, the fact that it is done by subordinate legislation under the fair employment legislation rather than by amending what will become this primary legislation of course will not matter. I am not moving the amendment to raise an issue of form; I am only moving it to raise an issue of substance. If one can have an assurance that the purpose of my amendment and its scope will be met by the introduction of subordinate legislation, I shall be entirely satisfied.
  On the other hand, if there is any gap between my amendment and what the Government intend, speaking again for myself, I should much prefer the Northern Ireland Bill to spell out on its face that it is unlawful for a public authority to discriminate on religious grounds where it is providing goods, facilities or services to the public or a section of the public in Northern Ireland. Otherwise there would be a serious gap in the protection given to the people of Northern Ireland against discrimination by public authorities. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in a legal reading of the Bill. However, the provision of goods, services and facilities to the public must be implied by the Bill. Some public authorities' sole function is to supply a service. If it did not include goods and services without the necessity of specific reference, the clause would be in some cases totally ineffective.
  If we were to insert the words "including goods or services", would we not also have to insert them in Clause 75(1)? Otherwise it might be held that by comparison Clause 76 applied to goods and services and Clause 75 did not. That would not be satisfactory. I hope that the amendment is unnecessary. I agree with the purpose underlying it, wishing to include public authorities supplying goods and services in the clause. I hope that it is unnecessary to achieve that purpose.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I agree with him that it seems extraordinary if such provision is not covered. However, the reason that it may be held not to be covered is the curious reasoning of a majority of the Law Lords in the case of Re Amin under the Race Relations Act, holding that marketplace functions only were within the scope of that legislation, and not provision of goods and services by a public authority. It is only for that rather boring reason that I wish to ensure that what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, is intended to be reflected in Clause 75, and will be reflected in any consequential amendment to the fair employment legislation.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the noble Lord has indicated why I was unwise to tread in these legal waters.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, Amendment No. 16 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, would add to the definition of "functions" in respect of which discrimination is banned,
  "functions relating to the provision of goods, facilities or services".
  1214
  We certainly want the kind of functions that the amendment describes to be covered by this provision. But it is our clear understanding that the clause as drafted covers all acts of relevant public authorities. The term "functions" in this clause is already wide enough to achieve the desired effect of the amendment.
  However, perhaps I may cover the point about the fair employment and treatment order which I mentioned earlier. That gives effect to further aspects of the White Paper, Partnership For Change. Among other things the order will extend the protections available under fair employment legislation in Northern Ireland to cover provision of goods, facilities and services. The difference between the forthcoming fair employment and treatment order and this clause is that the new order will cover indirect as well as direct discrimination.
  In this Bill we are simply re-enacting the relevant provisions of the 1973 Act. But the order to which I referred would clearly extend into indirect as well as direct discrimination.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the Minister sits down will he be so kind as to explain one matter? Will that protection against discrimination apply to public authorities as well as to private bodies? Will it apply to government and public authorities? It sounds as though it will. Perhaps I can have clarification on that.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, the answer is yes.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, that is a most welcome announcement by the Government. It seems to me to fill an important gap. I express great appreciation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  8.30 p.m.
  Clause 77 [Unlawful oaths etc.]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 17:
  Page 40, line 15, leave out ("department or authority") and insert ("authority (other than a Northern Ireland department)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is a matter of drafting. It omits a duplicated reference within the clause to a Northern Ireland department. Without the amendment Northern Ireland departments would be included both in subsection 4(d) and subsection (5) of the clause. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 80 [Legislative power to remedy ultra vires acts]:
  Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 18:
  Page 41, line 10, leave out ("or expedient").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to exclude the words "or expedient" from Clause 80(1) which states,
  "The Secretary of State may by order make such provision as he considers necessary or expedient".
  Besides being rather chilling, the word "expedient" in this context is also otiose. The word "necessary" is cast in subjective terms. The expression is, "he considers

  1215
  necessary". I believe that that is sufficient to encompass any acts of expediency that the Secretary of State may wish to commit. If the Minister does not agree with me perhaps he would like to speculate on what acts of expediency the Government might have in contemplation that go beyond a subjective analysis of necessity.
  Amendment No. 19 concerns the circumstances in which subordinate legislation might be issued to affect an ultra vires decision either by a Minister or by a Northern Ireland department. The reason for the amendment is to inquire—ultra vires what? Is the clause intended to affect decisions by a Minister that are ultra vires the reserved powers; or is it intended to affect decisions which are ultra vires other legislation such as European Community legislation, the Human Rights Act or certain categories of international obligation? Or is it intended to go even further than that and affect ultra vires in the general sense that it is used in administrative law? If it is the latter, then I express great concern; because it suggests that, for example, subordinate legislation could issue to change a court's decision that an act of a Minister was against the rules of natural justice.
  I have one final point to make in relation to Amendment No. 19. If subordinate legislation is going to issue in one or other of these circumstances, when will that act take place? I can quite understand that it might take place after a court has taken its decision. I put it to the Minister that it would be quite improper for it to issue during litigation. I say that because it is a well established principle in regard to the separation of powers, that the courts do not interfere in parliamentary proceedings and parliament does not interfere in judicial proceedings. I shall be most interested to hear from the Minister whether or not there is intended to be some constraint on the timing of the issue of any subordinate legislation that the Minister might consider necessary. I beg to move.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I agree entirely with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has said. He has raised several important points which need to be addressed at this late stage in the passage of the Bill. I entirely agree with him that the words "or expedient" are unnecessary in Clause 80(1).
  I would like to explain why I believe it important, not merely on the grounds of drafting, that we do not put in more words than we need in that clause. As I understand it, the scheme of the legislation is, wherever possible, to leave it to the courts to resolve issues of vires and to avoid Ministers becoming embroiled in political disputes and using override powers to remedy ultra vires acts except where necessary.
  The way in which Clause 80 is drafted at the moment gives ample scope for discretionary powers to be exercised by the Secretary of State because, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, it does not say,
  "make such provision as is necessary … in consequence of"
  but,
  "make such provision as he considers necessary".
  1216
  That is a subjective discretion which will only be reviewed by the courts if the Minister takes leave of his or her senses. The words "or expedient" are a rigmarole or boiler plate statutory language, which one finds again and again in modern Bills. They are simply put in for the administrative convenience of the government of the day who say to themselves, "Let us shove in the words 'or expedient' in case there is some other reason that we cannot think of at the moment which might arise in the future and make quite sure that we have very wide powers indeed". Since this provision is expressed in subjective form, it is not necessary or expedient to include the words "or expedient" in the Bill.
  As regards the other points raised by the noble Lord. Lord Kingsland, again I entirely agree with him. We must be very careful to ensure that the way in which a Minister's override powers are exercised does not conflict with the rule of law and the judgments of the independent judiciary whether retrospectively or otherwise.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, we have had a thorough debate of the clause on legislative power to remedy ultra vires acts, to which these amendments refer, in Committee and on Report. The clause is based on Clause 107 of the Scotland Bill, which your Lordships have approved. Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 would change aspects of the clause which correspond to the Scottish provisions.
  The first amendment would confine the Secretary of State's present power under the section to make provision she believes necessary or expedient, to solely that provision that she believes necessary. I believe this is a bad amendment because it creates uncertainty. There may be a range of steps that have to be taken in order to deal with the consequences of a finding of invalidity of legislation that has been widely relied on for years. It might be a point of endless argument among lawyers whether such steps were necessary, or merely expedient. The fact that the Scottish clause refers to expedient provision might lead to a particularly narrow view being taken of the scope of this provision, if it were amended. Such uncertainty might lead to us being unable to take steps in Northern Ireland that might be taken in Scotland, and provoke possible further litigation itself.
  An order under this clause is subject to affirmative resolution at Westminster, and we gave undertakings earlier of consultation with the devolved authorities if this clause was used when there had not been a court judgment. Those are substantial safeguards against any possibility of abuse. Neither do I believe it justifiable to confine the use of the clause to the cases set out in Amendment No. 19. Those are certainly the primary cases at which the clause is directed. But it is possible to envisage other kinds of cases, under other legislation, where a provision may be ultra vires, and hardship would occur unless the consequences could be ameliorated by an order under this clause.
  The clause may be something of a last resort, and other more conventional courses, like corrective legislation by the assembly, might well be more appropriate in many cases. But there may be cases

  1217
  where resort to this clause is the best solution. The affirmative resolution procedure is the safeguard for it. The Scotland Bill shows greater flexibility than the noble Lord proposes, and I believe we should have no less flexibility for Northern Ireland.
  Perhaps I may elaborate on the point made about subordinate legislation, which we discussed at Report stage. My noble friend Lord Williams said that the Secretary of State's power in that respect is judicially reviewable. That consideration would also weigh heavily on the mind of the Secretary of State if she sought to make legislation where action was pending in the courts. As I said before, we should recall that such orders are subject to affirmative resolution.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I asked in relation to Amendment No. 18 whether he would like to give your Lordships' House an example of a situation in which the Minister might consider that action was not necessary but was expedient. For reasons that I well understand, he did not proffer any such illustrations.
  As regards Amendment No. 19, I wish to press him on two matters. First, is he saying that Ministers can issue subordinate legislation to change the decisions of courts which have been based on ordinary administrative law, such as the principles of natural justice or the principles of reasonableness? If so, this legislation is going way beyond its terms of reference. Secondly, can he assure the House that if and when subordinate legislation is issued it is not issued while judicial proceedings are underway?
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, the answer to the first question is no. I shall turn to his second question in a moment. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, at the Report stage, there is a power judicially to review a decision by the Secretary of State. I would have thought that that would be a safeguard, particularly in view of the fact that it would weigh on the mind of the Secretary of State if she sought to make legislation while action was pending in the courts.
  The safeguard exists and I would have thought that if action were pending in the courts the Secretary of State would be unlikely to take such a step because of the possibility of judicial review. That goes a long way towards dealing with the noble Lord's point.
  As regards his request for an example of the difference between "expedient" and "necessary", I do not want to be tempted down that path and the noble Lord would not expect me to be. I am sure he will take the point that, given the difference between the Scottish and Northern Ireland legislation, if we were to go down the path of the amendment we would be left in an unsatisfactory position. For that reason alone, the noble Lord ought to accept the use of the word "expedient".
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Is he aware that by retaining the words "or expedient", as he tends to do for Scottish reasons, the effect is to make judicial review almost impossible. If the word "necessary" were inserted and if a subjective discretion were included it
  1218
  would be possible. However, the safeguard of judicial review is diluted if the words "or expedient" are included. In view of what the Minister has just said, that is one good reason for accepting the amendment; to ensure that the courts have the power judicially to review the subjective discretion of the Minister where there is no necessity for using his powers.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am not sure that I take the noble Lord's point. In view of the fact that the Scottish Bill refers to "expedient", the provision might lead to a particularly narrow view being taken of its scope if it were amended. Such uncertainty might lead to us being unable to take steps in Northern Ireland which might be taken in Scotland. I believe that in this respect it would be better to keep the two pieces of legislation in line, otherwise the wrong conclusions might be drawn as to the reasons for the differences between them. Given that the point was argued fully during debates on the Scottish Bill, I am reluctant to go further. I believe that the wording is proper. It coincides with what has been provided in the Scottish Bill and is therefore sensible.
  I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. He asked whether the Secretary of State could use the power unless something unlawful happened. That would ultimately be for the courts to decide. What the Secretary of State then does by way of subordinate legislation is rightly a matter for her judgment. I suggest that that distinction is the proper one.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he has been extremely generous in dealing with perhaps a record number of supplementary questions on Third Reading. On the other hand, the matter was unearthed in the Scotland Bill only on Third Reading. Therefore, there are good reasons for the fact that it has surfaced in this Bill only now. As regards separation of powers, the Minister almost met my question, but not quite. Can he assure the House that there will be no circumstances in which legislation will be issued to affect judicial proceedings before they are terminated?
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I believe that the answer to that is yes. I am reluctant to be 100 per cent. categoric, but I understand that the answer is yes.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  8.45 p.m.
  [Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
  Clause 81 [Powers of courts or tribunals to vary retrospective decisions]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 20:
  Page 42, line 1, after ("(4)") insert ("or, where such notice is given to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, those Ministers acting jointly").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 make certain drafting changes in Clause 81, which concerns the powers of courts or

  1219
  tribunals to vary retrospective decisions. Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 make similar changes in Schedule 10, which concerns devolution issues. They clarify the drafting of the way in which the First Minister and Deputy First Minister are to act in such proceedings. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 21:
  Page 42, line 8, leave out ("acting jointly").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 83 [Interpretation of Acts of the Assembly etc.]:
  Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 22:
  Page 43, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  ("( ) The provision shall be read as narrowly as is required for it to be within competence, if such reading is possible, and is to have effect accordingly.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am encouraged by what the Minister said during our brief discussion of Clause 80. He suggested that it was important to keep closely to the Scottish precedent. I say to the noble Lord that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We have an interpretation clause in the Scottish Bill which I believe seeks to achieve the same objective as the interpretation clause in this Bill.
  The matter was addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, at the Report stage. He claimed that there was great merit in the version in the Northern Ireland Bill. So which is it to be? Is it the case that the Scotland Bill ought to have taken its lead from the Northern Ireland Bill?
  At the beginning of this parliamentary Session we had only one rule of interpretation, laid down by the common law. Since then we have acquired three further rules of interpretation; one in the Human Rights Act, one in the Scotland Bill and another in the Northern Ireland Bill. Each one of those drafts seeks to achieve the same objective; that is to say, the objective of sympathetic interpretation. Where it is possible to interpret a clause or an expression so that it is intra vires it should be so interpreted. If that is so why is this simple and straightforward aspiration expressed in three different ways? It is likely to lead to much confusion when the judges get hold of it. I beg to move.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, again, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said. The problem is that one is playing curious games here. Sometimes it suits to follow the Scotland Bill and sometimes not; sometimes it suits to follow the Human Rights Act and sometimes not. However, the principles of interpretation which the courts must apply should be consistent as far as possible between the three devolution Acts and the Human Rights Act. This amendment has the virtue of seeking to make the legislation user-friendly and consistent. In my view, it is to be welcomed for those reasons.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I deal first with the point of whether in all respects we should replicate the Scotland
  1220
  Bill. Amendment No. 22 picks up a point the noble Lord, Lord Cope, raised at Report. I have written to him about it this morning, and placed a copy of my reply in the Library.
  The amendment would insert a provision borrowed from Clause 101 of the Scotland Bill in our Bill. As I have written to the noble Lord, I believe the transplantation is inappropriate. Though the Scottish clause and ours are drafted to achieve similar objectives, they reflect the different structures of the two Bills. The Scotland Bill has a general concept of devolved competence as respects subordinate legislation. Ours has a more restricted concept of invalidity under Clause 24 or 76. The drafting reflects that.
  But I assure the noble Lord that the two clauses closely resemble each other in effect. Both clauses are directed at possible readings of legislation; both require that where, of such possible readings, a broader one would lead to a finding that an Act would be outside legislative competence, or subordinate legislation invalid, and a narrower one would lead to a finding that it was within competence or valid, the narrower one is to be preferred.
  I hope that, in view of my letter and of what I have said, the noble Lord will not press his amendment. I hope too that I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that, although there are instances where it is appropriate to replicate the Scottish legislation in our legislation, there are other instances where that is not appropriate because the structure of our Bill is different and has a different starting point from the Scottish legislation. I hope the noble Lord is satisfied with my answer.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. If I say that I am not as satisfied with his answer as he would like me to be, I hope he will not be offended. I have read the letter, a copy of which he has placed in the Library. It is a challenging document. I have sought to understand it. After the third reading, I think I almost succeeded.
  The fact remains that, although the contexts of the two Bills, of course, are different, a common-sense reading of the different way that the rule of interpretation is expressed in the different drafts is the same. Therefore, the point which the Minister has made is not relevant to the point which I am advancing. However, I recognise that he will stick to the point that he makes. He was extremely generous to me on my previous two amendments and in those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 23:
  Page 43, line 7, leave out ("in relation") and insert ("relating").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 25 and 27. Amendments Nos. 23, 25 and 27 in Clauses 83 and 98 are purely a matter of drafting to clarify interpretation and to ensure consistency within the Bill. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 98 [Interpretation]:
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 24:
  Page 54, line 29, at end insert—
  (""the Commission" means—

  (a) the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, in section 40 and Schedule 5;

  (b) the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, in sections 68 to 71; and

  (c) the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, in section 73 and Schedule 9;").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an extremely minor drafting point. The words "the Commission" occur in three separate parts of the Bill and refer to three separate commissions—the Assembly Commission, in some clauses, the Human Rights Commission in others and the Equality Commission in others. There is no single definition. The words are defined in all three ways but they do not seem to me to be defined in a way which carries clearly across all the clauses.
  There are various ways in which that might be dealt with. I have proposed one in Amendment No. 24. Amendment No. 33, which is grouped with it, goes to the same point in relation to Schedule 5. I beg to move.
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 24. I feel that there is an element of reproof or a slap on the wrist for the Government in relation to this, because there is some sloppiness in the Bill. There is a slightly ironic tone to this but I support the amendment. The words "the Commission" are used quite sloppily.
  However, I do not support Amendment No. 33 because the schedule itself is headed the "Northern Ireland Assembly Commission". Therefore, it is impossible to read it in any way other than that the commission in the schedule refers to the commission at the head of the schedule.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I support the amendment. Following on from the points made in our brief discussion on Amendment No. 16, I wonder whether it is possible to identify for the purposes of clarification the role which will be required of one of the two commissions in the campaign to find jobs for the elderly. It would seem to me that that is a fashionable initiative and it has blossomed since we began our discussions on the Bill many months ago. Of course, I have a vested interest but at the moment, I am not looking for any more jobs.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I sympathise with the noble Lord's desire, exemplified in his Amendments Nos. 24 and 33, to do anything to make the interpretation of this Bill clear. But I am not sure the noble Lord's amendments actually help us in achieving that aim.
  I think, in fact, it is reasonably plain which commission is being spoken of at all relevant points in the Bill. In Clause 40, it is clear from subsection (1) that it is the Assembly Commission that is referred to, and that is also apparent in Schedule 5, the subject of the
  1222
  noble Lord's second amendment, No. 33, since the schedule is headed in capital letters "NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY COMMISSION". This is a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Holme, referred, and I thank him for that. There is equally no ambiguity in Clauses 68 to 70: it is clear that the Human Rights Commission is referred to; nor in Clause 73 is it unclear that we are concerned with the Equality Commission. I believe that in Schedule 9, to which the noble Lord's amendment refers, it is also clear which commission is involved, since the schedule opens with a reference to the Equality Commission.
  But, even if we were disposed to accept that the noble Lord's first amendment made things even clearer, I fear we must hesitate, because it is not comprehensive, and may therefore sow doubt. For example, it does not refer to Clause 74, which sets out the Equality Commission's functions, nor to Schedule 8, which sets out that commission's constitution.
  I believe, therefore, that the noble Lord's first amendment is flawed, his second is unnecessary, and I ask him not to press them. As regards the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, I am sure that he can always make his case convincingly when that is necessary.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I shall not press this matter. The Minister has answered my question in part. As regards Clause 74, I did not include that because the words "the Commission" do not appear in it. The Equality Commission is referred to as the Equality Commission throughout the clause. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 25 to 27:
  Page 54, line 42, after ("includes") insert ("any provision of this Act and").
  Page 55, line 12, leave out ("9(3)") and insert (" 7(3)").
  Page 55, line 42, leave out ("or Bill") and insert (", Bill or subordinate legislation").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 101 [Short title and commencement]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 28:
  Page 57, line 2, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  ("(2) The following provisions shall come into force on the day on which this Act is passed—

  (a) sections 3, 55, 86, 93, 96 and 98;

  (b) paragraph 20 of Schedule 13 and section 99 so far as relating to that paragraph;

  (c) in Schedule 15, the repeal of section 31(4) to (6) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and section 100(2) so far as relating to that repeal; and

  (d) this section.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Amendment No. 28, we propose some slight adjustments to the commencement clause to bring into effect a number of provisions immediately on Royal Assent, rather than by a later commencement order.
  They include among the provisions to come into force immediately those for consequential legislation, and for the setting up of the north-south implementation bodies,

  1223
  orders under which will have to be made before the appointed day. They also include the provisions relating to the Stormont Estate. I beg to move.
  9 p.m.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, these amendments are wholly unobjectionable. However, can the Minister give some indication as to the timetable for bringing into force by commencement orders the provisions relating to human rights? I have in mind, for example, Clauses 6, 7 and 24. The reason that I ask the question is that, from the moment that the new Northern Ireland Government and Assembly are operating under the Bill when it becomes enacted, they will be bound to comply both in their legislative and executive capacities with the convention rights and freedoms. The judges will then have to ensure that they interpret the executive and legislative actions compatibly with convention rights. Therefore, without giving away any official secrets, can the Minister give some indication of the timetable so that judges, practitioners and the general public in Northern Ireland know when the convention rights are to be triggered under the devolution scheme?
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, Clauses 6 and 7, which are to be found in Part II of the Bill, come into effect under the devolution order. That is also the case with Clause 24. However, if the noble Lord requires further details, I shall be happy to write to him giving more information.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister; indeed, he has been most helpful. However, can he say when he anticipates the devolution order is likely to be made, as that would meet my point?
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I think that it would be more appropriate for me to write to the noble Lord. There may be a simple answer but he asked a number of complicated questions. I do not wish to mislead the noble Lord.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 2 [Excepted matters]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 29:
  Page 61, line 1, leave out ("60") and insert (" 67").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [Reserved matters]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 30:
  Page 61, line 37, after ("and") insert ("the Republic or).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords. Amendments Nos. 30, 37 and 38 are government drafting amendments to the schedules. The amendment to Schedule 3 is consequential on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that we accepted at an earlier stage, inserting a reference to "the Republic of Ireland" in Schedule 2 rather than "Ireland". The passage in Schedule 2 is one that takes out of the excepted category the surrender of fugitive offenders between the two parts of Ireland. Paragraph 9(f) of Schedule 3 makes the same matter reserved, and our amendment brings the drafting there into line.
  The amendments to Schedule 14 merely ensure that, for any determination by the First Minister and Deputy First Ministers-designate in relation to junior Minister to carry over from the shadow period, it must have been approved by the Assembly, just as it would have to be approved after the appointed day under Clause 19(4). I beg to move.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I gave the Minister very short notice that I wanted to raise the following points. My concern is that nothing in the amendment makes it harder rather than easier to achieve the extradition of fugitive offenders across the Border, both north and south. My concern arises because of the controversial decision of the Supreme Court of Ireland in 1989 in the case of Ellis v. O'Dea. The Supreme Court made it clear that any UK warrant for the arrest of a fugitive wanted in Ireland for extradition to the United Kingdom would be invalid if it referred to the name of the state as "the Republic of Ireland".
  The reason given by the highest court in Dublin was that the name used in the UK warrant was incorrect because it was contrary to Article 4 of the Irish Constitution, which states that the name of the state is either Eire or, in the English language, Ireland. That case is reported in [1989] Irish Reports at page 530 and it is the judgment of the late Justice Brian Walsh which is particularly relevant. Unless the authorities in the UK and in Northern Ireland use the politically correct nomenclature in seeking the extradition of fugitive offenders in what I shall refer to as Ireland, my concern is that it will become harder rather than easier to achieve the extradition of such offenders.
  It goes without saying that nothing that I have said expresses a view one way or the other as to whether the politically correct designation from a UK or other point of view should be the Republic of Ireland or Ireland. Indeed, I am only concerned with ensuring that fugitive offenders can in fact be extradited from what I shall now call the Republic of Ireland.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I wish to congratulate and commend my noble friend Lord Monson on his tenacity in fighting this battle. It is not just one of pride or prejudice or, indeed, of anything else. During an earlier stage of our proceedings some weeks ago I pointed out that when the name of what is a republic was changed in 1948 to Eire or Ireland, the then Prime Minister Clem Attlee said, on being asked to respond, "Call yourselves what you like; you remain as you are." That was not an insulting remark and I am not insulting our neighbours in the south. I am simply saying that I imagine in British constitutional law that the correct title would be the Republic of Ireland. It was for that reason that my noble friend Lord Monson sought to make such a change.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his kind words. However, although I spotted the offending phrase in both Clause 1 and Schedule 2, I can only express some embarrassment at

  1225
  having failed to spot it in Schedule 3. Nevertheless, I am most grateful to the Minister for having tidied up the provisions.
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. Indeed, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has been consistent and the Government have now tried to respond to that. However, there is a problem; namely, whether they have responded to it in this particular context of the fugitive offenders in terms which will make it impossible for us to extradite people from Ireland or the Republic of Ireland who ought to be charged in the United Kingdom. To judge from the precedent of Ellis v. O'Dea, it is now a potential problem.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I also took the view—I think I said it at the time—that I considered there would be legal problems in our not calling it the Republic of Ireland. I did not know then what we have now been told. Although I still feel strongly that it should be the Republic of Ireland, I would be the last to wish to see a situation in which we were not able to carry out extradition in important criminal cases. Therefore I am in a difficulty. I must apologise for having confused the issue. My intention was to make sure that the legal situation was in our favour in terms of extradition and also to establish the fact that we are not talking about Ireland as a united country, which is what the political implication must be, but that we are talking about the Republic.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am also grateful for the alertness of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in having drawn attention to these matters and in having been persuasive in his advocacy of the point at issue. I shall deal specifically with the extradition point, which I think is the only one about which there are some doubts. Paragraph 9(f) of Schedule 3, to which the amendment relates, simply defines the nature of a reserved matter and so regulates the Assembly's power to legislate. The amendment does not bear on the terminology used in extradition documents which I understand has at times caused difficulty in extradition cases. The provision simply concerns the Assembly's power to legislate.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I must say that I am most grateful for the clarification. In order that we all know what is happening, does that mean that we are preserving the correct position under the British constitution of referring to the Republic of Ireland, just as the Republic of Ireland uses its terminology and refers to itself as Ireland? However, where necessary, warrants for extradition will defer to Irish parlance in order to secure the extradition of fugitive offenders so that nothing that we are now doing will in any way impair our ability to obtain the extradition of fugitive offenders from south of the Border and west of the Irish Sea.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, the answer is yes.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 31:
  Page 61, line 39, after ("(c)") insert ("include matters relating to the prevention and detection of serious crime in the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and matters relating to any information. document or other article protected against disclosure by section 4(2) of the Official Secrets Act 1989, but").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment refers to a new matter which we have not yet debated. The question is whether the Interception of Communications Act and the Official Secrets Act are to be transferred matters; that is to say, transferred now to the responsibility of the Assembly, or whether they are to remain excepted matters, or whether they are to be reserved matters. Schedule 2 which concerns excepted matters states that the Interception of Communications Act is to be an excepted matter and will always remain under the jurisdiction of Westminster except in the case of serious crime.
  Schedule 3 states that the subject matter of paragraph 17 to Schedule 2, which I have just summarised, is not to be regarded as a reserved matter because it is an excepted matter. However, that leaves out serious crime which, by default as it were, then becomes a transferred matter according to my reading of the Bill. This is a slightly complicated matter but what concerns me is that in respect of serious crime the Official Secrets Act, the Interception of Communications Act and so on should not be transferred now, by mistake as it were, having fallen through the holes between Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 of this Bill. I beg to move.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I strongly support this amendment because of its relevance for the future. The present agenda of Sinn Fein/IRA appears to include the abolition of the RUC and its replacement by a people's police. The Patten Commission has already been told publicly by Sinn Fein/IRA activists that the RUC must be abolished and that not one single RUC officer would be eligible to join a new police force. The only decommissioning it will discuss with the decommissioning commission is the withdrawal of the British Army from Northern Ireland and the abolition of the RUC. Since Mr. McGuinness has already recently said bluntly that there will be no decommissioning by the IRA because "the IRA says so", and has pointed out that the IRA was never a party to the Belfast agreement, it seems clear that its emerging agenda will be to devote its energies to its own kind of decommissioning.
  In those circumstances it is essential in my view that the Government should not lose their absolute control of every aspect of intelligence. Without intelligence they would be blind to the IRA's training, recruiting and targeting programme, let alone its profitable criminal activities. If the RUC is, at the same time, being steadily undermined and weakened, the situation must become dangerous. The RUC needs to be seen to be valued and supported in the interests of law and order. That includes retaining an effective capacity in every aspect of intelligence.
  I hope that we can be assured that the community restorative justice units being set up by the paramilitaries in nationalist areas and indeed loyalist

  1227
  equivalents—the Shankill Alternative, for instance—will not be allowed to set themselves up as a people's police and will not be allowed to usurp the functions of the RUC by dealing with petty criminals themselves and meting out their own punishments in a quasi-legal way. That could be the first move to the people's police and could create a situation which would be extraordinarily difficult for Her Majesty's Government. How could the Government share intelligence obtained from all kinds of sources with an organisation having that kind of background? I believe that it is very important that we retain full control of every aspect of intelligence.
  9.15 p.m.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Lord seeks to address in Amendments Nos. 31 and 32. I do not think that there is any difference between us in the intention of the provisions. However, I am advised that the amendments are unnecessary; indeed, they are harmful to the coherence of the drafting.
  Perhaps I may explain. Under paragraph 17 of Schedule 2, the subject matter of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and of the Official Secrets Act 1989 are essentially excepted, with certain matters carved out from those exceptions relating to the prevention and detection of serious crime. The reason behind that is that the criminal law and the prevention and detection of crime are reserved matters under paragraph 9 of Schedule 3. Therefore, to the extent that the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and the Official Secrets Act 1989 relate to criminal matters, they too should be reserved matters.
  However, the noble Lord is concerned that those matters will effectively become transferred matters because of the provision in paragraph 9 which excludes from the reservation of criminal matters those matters within paragraph 17 of Schedule 2. If that were the case, I too would be concerned. But I am advised that the carving out of certain matters from paragraph 17 means that they are not therefore "included within paragraph 17." Since they are not, they are caught by the general terms of paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 and become reserved. To make the suggested amendments would cast doubt on the same drafting elsewhere.
  With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord is reassured, and will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, to the extent I needed it, I have the reassurance that the Minister and I want to achieve the same purpose. I am not thoroughly convinced by the argument about the drafting, but I shall not argue at this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
  Schedule 5 [Northern Ireland Assembly Commission]:
  [Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
  Schedule 10 [Devolution issues]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 34 to 36:
  Page 75, line 36, after ("5") insert ("or. where such notice is given to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, those Ministers acting jointly").
  Page 76, line 27, after ("13") insert ("or, where such notice is given to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, those Ministers acting jointly").
  Page 77, line 29, after ("23") insert ("or, where such intimation is given to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, those Ministers acting jointly").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 14 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 37 and 38:
  Page 89, line 24, after ("made") insert ("and approved").
  Page 89, line 31, after ("made") insert ("and approved").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 15 [Repeals]:
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 39:
  Page 92, line 23, column 3, at end insert—

  ("Section 28(1).")

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  9.18 p.m.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to speak for long on the merits of the Bill which we have considered at great length, albeit in a short span of time. It is, as we have made clear throughout, a Bill to give effect to the Good Friday agreement in the most effective way possible, with consensus where possible on any additions. I believe that it fulfils that purpose faithfully, more faithfully, indeed, as a result of the amendments your Lordships have accepted, deriving from points made in this House or another place or in consultations with the parties in Northern Ireland.
  I am well aware that we have asked your Lordships to consider a great deal of material—much of it very complex—in a short period of time throughout the passage of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Williams and I are deeply indebted to your Lordships for the courtesy, understanding and good humour displayed in facing those demands. I pay particular tribute to noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite who have had the particularly onerous and, in some ways, thankless task of probing and challenging all the proposals we have brought forward. Noble Lords concerned have been assiduous in discharging their responsibilities and on many occasions have given us rather more to think about than we could respond to on the spur of the moment. I am grateful for their understanding when some detailed points appeared particularly elusive.
  There have also been many distinguished and persuasive contributions from the Back Benches in all parts of the House, informed by the highest degree of expertise and always made with the moderation and thoughtfulness that characterises debates in your Lordships' House.

  1229
  We shall have to return to your Lordships from time to time with further subordinate legislation, much of it provided for by this Bill, to complete the arrangements for implementing the agreement under it.
  For the present, perhaps I may say that we are profoundly indebted to your Lordships for the commitment made to the consideration of the Bill and for the quality of the deliberations on it. I hope it will be acknowledged that we have responded to a substantial proportion of the points that your Lordships have raised during the various stages of the Bill.
  I am grateful for all the effort that has been put into the Bill. I pay tribute to my officials who worked very hard throughout the summer and during the Bill's passage to ensure that we were kept up to date in all respects. This has been a very full Session, and this Bill has been a key element. I hope and believe that it will appear in a few years' time to be another great milestone in the transformation of Northern Ireland and its prospects. Your Lordships have played a vital part in enhancing its capacity to achieve that. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Dubs.)
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships long; however, it is right to say that with the passage of this Bill we have participated in the most extraordinary parliamentary event. It is barely recognisable as the measure that passed through the other place before the summer. It has been totally transformed. I dare say that we have dealt with more amendments than on any comparable Bill, including a number of amendments today which were far beyond the normal parliamentary experience at this stage. I cannot say that it has been an orderly procedure. However, I believe that all of us accept that it has been in a great cause and we have been prepared to bend our patience considerably in order to deal with it.
  In the context of patience, it is right for me, in turn, to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for his courtesy, his tenacity and his incredible stamina during the Bill's passage. We thank him very much.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I, too, am grateful for the Minister's kind words to those on these Benches. I reciprocate in thanking him for the way in which he has conducted affairs with his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
  As he said, the Bill has been based on the Belfast Agreement and has therefore had our support. We have co-operated with the Government as much as possible—though I have to say with a considerable amount of unease on two grounds: first, that it has sometimes seemed a very ramshackle way in which to reform the United Kingdom constitution; and secondly, at times there has been a feeling that the whole of the agreement has been in grave danger.
  On the first point, this Bill will leave the House in a very different form from that in which it came. Nearly 500 government amendments were tabled. Not all have actually reached the face of the Bill, because some were withdrawn before we even debated them. However, the
  1230
  vast proportion have passed into the legislation. That process has continued even this afternoon. Frankly, that makes us doubt whether the Bill is watertight even now. Obviously we hope that it is. But it has also become clear again this afternoon that devolution is proceeding on a most inconsistent basis across the United Kingdom. This Bill is on a very different basis from either the Scotland Bill or the Welsh Bill, which themselves differ, and no one has even attempted to answer "the English question".
  The second cause for our unease is the more serious. The Belfast Agreement was settled on Good Friday. It is now past Michaelmas and progress on implementing the agreement has been, to say the least, very patchy. The constitutional changes incorporated in the Bill and other legislation, and all that go with them, as well as the prisoner releases, have gone full steam ahead. But decommissioning has not started at all. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to give any further information about that.
  Without decommissioning, this Bill ought to moulder on the shelf and never be put into operation; and for that matter, I believe that the prisoner releases should also come to an end. We all hope that that will not happen and that all parts of the agreement will proceed so that the Bill can come into force properly. Otherwise, the bitterness and mistrust on all sides will be heavily reinforced.
  I honestly hope and pray that the agreement is implemented in all its parts, massively to the benefit of all the people of Northern Ireland and of the United Kingdom as a whole. It is for that reason that we have supported the Bill throughout and done our best to improve it with the co-operation of the Minister, for which I am grateful.
  Lord Molyneaux: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly but sincerely say a word of appreciation on behalf of the Northern Ireland contingent in your Lordships' House for the patience and the courtesy shown by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I also thank his colleagues on the Front Bench for their supporting role, and others elsewhere. It has been a difficult operation. I noticed that during the final stages of the Scotland Bill earlier this evening the Scottish team said, almost as a boast, that they had dealt with some 300 amendments. We are coming to nearly double that number in our case.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for his unfailing patience, courtesy and good humour in coping with the prolonged passage of this major and ever-evolving Bill. I would also like to thank him for the meticulous way in which he has answered in writing virtually every question asked of him in the course of our debates, and for the way in which he and the Northern Ireland Office have kept us so well briefed. I also pay tribute to those of his Front Bench colleagues who have been involved with this Bill and the Front Bench spokesmen of the two other main parties.
  In doing so I must enter one caveat—and I hope that noble Lords will not mind me doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn—and I am sorry not to see him in his place; I had somehow expected that he would

  1231
  be—and the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, are the most intelligent and best-intentioned of men. However, on 26th October in Committee they both, in quick succession, appeared to fall into a Republican trap. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said:
  "the problems described in"
  —the clauses dealing with discrimination—
  "occur in England and Wales but not to anywhere near the same extent and have not … brought about more than 3,000 deaths in a relatively short period of time".—[Official Report, 26/10/98; col. 1746.]
  Very shortly afterwards the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said,
  "the nub of what we are trying to do is to tackle the religious and political discrimination which has led to 3,000 deaths and untold other agony".—[Official Report, 26/10/98; col. 1747.]
  I hope that the words used there were slips of the tongue and do not represent the considered convictions of the Labour and Conservative leaderships respectively. As a small "u" unionist, I have never claimed myself to be wholly impartial, but I do not think that any impartial historian would agree that individuals place bombs in a bus station, blowing a dozen strangers to pieces, or drill through the knee-caps of their co-religionists, merely because they suspect that someone slightly less qualified than themselves has unfairly been promoted over their heads.
  We should remember the refusal of the nationalist leadership in the north to accept the authority of the state, the sustained bellicosity of De Valera and the Republicans in the 1920s and much of the 1930s; the subsequent irredentist claims in the 1937 Constitution; and the massive ethnic cleansing that took place in the south between 1920–25, leading to the expulsion of at least 105,000 people, most of them unionist civilians but many of them Catholics who had served in the Royal Irish Constabulary, the British Army or the Royal Navy. No impartial historian would deny that these factors have contributed to a very substantial extent to fear and tension in the north, paving the way for the subsequent violence later on.
  More than 29 years ago, on the 12th September 1969, in the wake of the Cameron Report, the Times commented:
  "The grievances—though real—are towards the bottom of the scale of human injustices—and are not getting worse."
  Indeed, some of those injustices, such as the restrictive local government franchise—which was no different from that pertaining in England and Wales up until 1945—had already been rectified by the Stormont Government, and other reforms followed on swiftly afterwards. So not for a quarter of a century has the small degree of discrimination remaining objectively justified as much as a broken finger. But cultural and national antipathies and suspicions, once aroused, have their own momentum.
  I hope, on reflection, noble Lords will agree that it is inadvertently playing into Sinn Fein's hands to suggest that almost 3,500 people have been killed, and thousands more have been knee-capped and otherwise maimed for life, because of some wholly unprovoked
  1232
  minor discrimination like jumping a council house queue that took place more than 25 years ago. I hope they will agree that green fascism, as it is called, and other less extreme forms of national sentiment on both sides of the divide are at least as responsible for the violence and probably much more so.
  9.30 p.m.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I should make it clear that my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn is very busy at the moment dealing with the consequences of an earlier vote in this House. Perhaps I may also say that I am absolutely certain that he and I—and I am sure I can speak for the noble Lord, Lord Cope—would utterly condemn without reservation every single death, shooting and other injury that has been caused by terrorists in Northern Ireland. I say that without reservation and without equivocation.
  Perhaps I may deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, about decommissioning. The Government's view is that decommissioning is an integral part of the agreement. It is an obligation that must happen; and the question is not whether it is to happen but simply when. The only way to achieve decommissioning is by the full implementation of all aspects of the agreement by all the parties, including the Government. In taking this Bill forward, the Government have moved substantially in fulfilling their part of the agreement. We ask all other parties to the agreement to fulfil their parts.
  On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

  Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (Specified Organisations) (No. 2) Order 1998
  9.31 p.m.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th November be approved.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, before we commence our consideration of this draft order, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I inform the House that it was considered earlier today by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It was passed without comment and is detailed in Report No. 48, which is available from the Printed Paper Office.
  The effect of the draft order is that the Loyalist Volunteer Force will no longer be specified as an organisation individuals affiliated to which are ineligible for the benefit of the Northern Ireland Sentences Act 1998. That benefit is the early release of prisoners convicted of terrorist-type offences. If an organisation is specified, members of that organisation do not qualify for early release.
  The draft order shows that the organisations which remain specified are the Continuity IRA, the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) and the Real IRA. The draft order has come about as the result of my right

  1233
  honourable friend the Secretary of State keeping such organisations under continuous review. That review of our earlier judgment of the organisations to be specified has taken account of the ceasefires called by the LVF, the INLA and, more recently, the Real IRA.
  While we have concluded that no additional organisations should be specified, that conclusion remains under that continuous review. For example, we are seriously concerned by the continuing levels of violent paramilitary assaults and intimidation. Such cruel, arbitrary and brutal attacks—such putting of people in fear—has no place in any peaceful society.
  Once again, I call upon all political parties and all persons of influence to use that influence on the paramilitary organisations to bring to an end these unjustifiable activities once and for all. If we obtain evidence that such activities are being conducted by a paramilitary organisation which is currently not specified, then we will review that organisation's status. Obviously, if an organisation becomes specified, then prisoners who are affiliated to it become ineligible for the early release arrangements. Those already released on licence would be recalled if they became reinvolved in terrorist activity or remained supporters of the specified organisation.
  As to the organisations which are now specified in this order, the Continuity IRA has not declared a ceasefire and so must, of course, remain specified; the Real IRA called a complete ceasefire on 7th September—a welcome development but the worth of that ceasefire will have to be proved in word and deed over a longer period of time. It is obviously too early to remove from the list the organisation responsible for the Omagh atrocity. There were 29 dead, and hundreds injured. I can assure the House that, even if the Real IRA were to be despecified, anyone convicted of offences committed after 10th April will not be eligible for early release under the sentences Act, which applies only to offences committed before that date.
  The INLA, too, remains specified since we are not yet persuaded that its ceasefire is complete and unequivocal. The ceasefire was called on 22nd August and, like the Real IRA, the INLA needs to demonstrate by word and deed its commitment now and in the future to exclusively peaceful and democratic means to pursue its objectives.
  That brings me to the LVF. We are now satisfied that it has established a complete and unequivocal ceasefire and over a significant period of time—since May of this year—has demonstrated that that ceasefire is being maintained. Our decision that it should no longer be specified also recognises the significant contacts which the LVF has made, via an intermediary, with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning.
  As I have said, these issues are kept under continuous review, taking into account all the evidence available and all the factors prescribed in the sentences Act. We are working to ensure that, as the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland have indicated, there is no future for violence; it must be consigned to the past. The future
  1234
  must lie in peace; in following the democratic path; and in acknowledging other people's rights. Arguments can and should be settled through discussion and consensus, through the rule of law, not through perpetual distrust and recourse to arbitrary and brutal violence. I commend the draft order to the House.
  Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th November be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister will recall that during the passage of the sentences Bill I was keen that the connection in the agreement between all its various parts should be spelt out more clearly in the Bill and carried out in practice. That did not happen in the Bill. It is not now happening in practice either, with the result that the prisoners have had no incentive to argue for decommissioning which seemed to me to be one of the main things that might cause it to happen.
  The order appears to allow LVF prisoners to be released without the LVF decommissioning, although I heard what the Minister said about its talking to the decommissioning commission. If the Minister can tell us anything about actual decommissioning by the LVF, how likely that is and on what kind of timescale, that would encourage me to support the order.
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, we support the order. I think it is right to offer the prospect to paramilitary organisations that, if they desist from violence and change their ways, they will be despecified. I am glad that, in taking this action with regard to the LVF, the Government have concluded that it will not be possible to apply the same reasoning for a long time to the Continuity IRA. I am sure the Government are right.
  Perhaps I may raise a point which was implicit in what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said some minutes ago. The situation in Northern Ireland is now becoming very acute. Unless we see the first step on decommissioning being taken very soon by the IRA, the whole process in which we in this House and, far more importantly, the people of Northern Ireland have invested so much hope will come seriously adrift.
  Under the Belfast agreement, decommissioning must be complete within 18 months from now. If republicanism in Northern Ireland is serious about a peaceful future, it must be in its interests that the first step on that 18-month journey is taken very soon. We in this House must make it absolutely clear to Sinn Fein and the IRA that, if the process is to survive, it is now time to demonstrate the good faith implicit in the agreement and to take the vital first steps which are so necessary to reassure public opinion in Northern Ireland.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holme, who has got the matter exactly right. A united message must be sent to all terrorists, of whatever brand, that they must cease their activities and dismantle their capacity to continue terrorist acts.
  It is not clear as yet whether the LVF, with which we are concerned this evening, intends to dismantle its command and control structure in addition to giving up

  1235
  arms and explosives. Were it to do so, it would set a very compelling example to other terrorist bodies. However, the IRA has excluded itself, most notably through the mouth of Mr. Martin McGuinness, who only last week stated with all the authority of his unique position that the IRA would not do it. The chilling finality of that decision cannot be ignored. Despite all the concessions and rewards of the past seven months, the IRA has no intention of complying even in the remaining 17 months with the specific undertaking given by it and all the terrorist organisations under the Good Friday agreement. Yet it seems to many that Her Majesty's Government persist in building unsound structures that will end up as mere memorials to the folly of believing that the IRA will ever relinquish its capacity to threaten, force or blackmail democratic governments into maintaining that precious conveyor belt of concessions on the scale to which it has been accustomed.
  Surely, there must have been great disillusionment over the decision of Sinn Fein/IRA to force a nationalist Catholic football team to withdraw from a fixture to play a team from the Royal Ulster Constabulary. To their credit many young members of that Catholic team have bravely described how they were threatened by IRA gunmen. They were told that if they played in that league they would become victims of the knee-cap treatment which would mean that they would never play football again. What a signal to send to young sportsmen who are merely trying to improve the climate thought to be implicit in the Good Friday agreement.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I should like to put two questions to the Minister. First, what is Noraid's current position in relation to the Continuity IRA? It was reported that the week after Omagh Mr. Galvin visited the Continuity IRA in Dundalk in order to discuss further funding. One wonders whether the Americans have taken that on board and done anything about it. The Americans have influence.
  Secondly, has the conspiracy legislation passed in September enabled us to act with the Garda to seize arms dumps that are known to exist in the Irish Republic now that the Republic has a part to play under the agreement in very many of the decisions of Northern Ireland? Is the counterpart of that that action of that kind will be taken? If we cannot persuade the IRA to give up its arms, surely we can take away the arms.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments that have been made in this short debate. I deal first with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and other noble Lords about decommissioning. Noble Lords will be aware that there is no direct linkage between decommissioning and the release of prisoners. However, we have made it clear that decommissioning is an integral part of the agreement. We look forward to the LVF making a start on decommissioning in the very near future. This applies to all terrorist organisations.
  The Government see no reason why decommissioning should not start now. We have made it very clear that there must be decommissioning of paramilitary
  1236
  weapons. We are not in the business of setting new preconditions or barriers, as the Prime Minister said at Balmoral. The Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act, together with the Northern Ireland Bill, with which we have just dealt, provides for the implementation of the agreement as an overall package of which decommissioning is an essential part. We cannot rewrite the agreement by introducing new pre-conditions. What would stop the other parties to the agreement from making new linkages and setting new pre-conditions? The best way to achieve decommissioning—the only way to achieve it—is by the full implementation of the agreement by all parties concerned. As I stated a few moments ago in the debate on the Northern Ireland Bill, the Government have played their full part in implementing the agreement. We call on all other parties to the agreement to do likewise.
  I was asked a question about Noraid. I am afraid that I am not able to give an answer as to whether Noraid is providing money for the purchase of arms by terrorist organisations.
  As regards the question asked on the emergency legislation passed in September, I do not believe that that is directly related to arms dumps or finding arms. Indeed, I am satisfied that we have long had the necessary powers to find arms, as have the Garda in the Republic. In the past few months the Garda has made many significant arms finds in the Republic and in the border areas. Indeed, it was not that long ago that they intercepted a car carrying explosives about to be brought over to England. So I think that the Garda has had successes. I am sure that they will continue to be assiduous in trying to identify arms. I believe that that is not directly related to the legislation we passed in September, which had a different purpose.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1998
  9.46 p.m.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th October be approved [45th Report from the Joint Committee].
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the two draft instruments before the House today are fairly modest in content but we see them as making a good start on the work ahead of us to further improve electoral procedures in Northern Ireland.
  Perhaps I may give your Lordships a little background information. In July last year my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced the establishment of an internal electoral review to look into allegations of widespread electoral abuse and to consider electoral procedures. That review reported last month and has made a number of far-reaching and radical recommendations. The Government have given Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland public, the political parties and anyone else with an interest in these matters until Christmas to comment on the review's

  1237
  proposals. Elections are an excepted matter and it will be for the Government to decide on the way forward. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to encourage response to the review.
  I should also say at this point that the elections review concluded overall that elections in Northern Ireland are efficiently and fairly administered in very difficult circumstances, and that much of the credit should go to the Chief Electoral Officer. In the meantime, however, we believe that there are two issues on which we can make some progress. The order and regulations before your Lordships today tighten up arrangements for absent voting for local government, parliamentary and European elections. A subsequent order following the Northern Ireland Bill will do the same for Northern Ireland Assembly elections. Absent voters are those members of the electorate who vote by post or by appointing a proxy.
  The legislation before your Lordships will amend two areas. First, it will increase the scrutiny time available to the electoral office to consider all the absent vote applications. Secondly, it will tighten up the medical attestation statement that is required on the absent vote application form for a particular election when the reason for needing an absent vote is on health grounds.
  The elections review commissioned by my right honourable friend found cause for concern in the current absent vote application procedure. Insufficient personal information is requested; the application form can be photocopied and altered and there is a far lower standard of identification from that required of the voter at a polling station.
  Northern Ireland's Chief Electoral Officer has been concerned for some time that there is considerable potential for fraudulent absent vote applications. During the course of the Government's election review, the team commissioned an investigation into absent voting by comparing the applications for the May 1996 elections and the May 1997 parliamentary and local government elections. The application forms were sorted into wards and then put into alphabetical order by name. In the case of people applying for an absent vote in more than one of these elections, the signatures and reasons given on the form were compared. Where there was a contradiction, the applications were clearly suspect.
  Forty to 60 per cent. of those applications gave cause for concern. A further exercise has been carried out comparing the absent vote application forms for this year's referendum and Assembly elections. The results are not yet available but, when they are, a third and final exercise is planned comparing the results of the first two exercises.
  The concern about the potential for absent voting fraud in Northern Ireland is shared. All the political parties contributing to the review, some members of the public, the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee report and the Forum Committee report expressed that concern. We have decided, therefore, that, rather than wait to move on the review recommendations as a whole, we can secure a couple of safeguards, one of which was employed in both the referendum and the
  1238
  Northern Ireland Assembly elections, and the other of which is already in use for applications for an indefinite absent vote.
  I turn in detail to the first of our changes. Today's legislation proposes to increase the time available for the electoral office to scrutinise the absent vote application forms. In 1996 the electoral office had about five working days for scrutiny. In 1997 that was changed across the UK, giving only three working days. That was particularly inadequate for Northern Ireland's somewhat unique needs. For the referendum and Assembly elections this year, the legislation allowed six working days. We propose to retain that timeframe with today's order and regulations.
  The effect of that increase is to shorten slightly the time allowed to make applications. I do not wish to give the impression that we are making life difficult for potential absent voters; quite the contrary. Let me emphasise that we are talking about one-off applications. That has nothing to do with those voters who are on the permanent absent voter list because of physical disability, nature of occupation, being a service voter or a difficult journey by air and sea to the polling station. It concerns those voters who, realising that there is an impending election, become aware that on this occasion they will not be able to vote in person. We endeavour to help as much as possible in such circumstances. For example, specifically to help the absent voting applicant, the chief electoral officer now sets up around 20 advice centres around Northern Ireland, which are announced in the local press before an impending election.
  Furthermore, when an election is impending, my department sends to every one of the 642,000 Northern Ireland households a clearly printed coloured leaflet advising voters among other things of their need to apply for an absent vote. Additionally, when the electoral office's canvassers are delivering and collecting the electoral registration forms to Northern Ireland households, the canvassers remind all households of the facility of an indefinite absent voters list.
  Moreover, the recommendations in my right honourable friend's electoral review provide for a computerised processing of absent vote applications to speed up the process and to make the procedure more straightforward and responsive for applicants.
  I now turn to the other aspect of today's legislation: the tightening up of the medical attestation required by a doctor, registered nurse or Christian Science practitioner. What today's legislation is dealing with is only the attestation by a health worker in the case of a physical illness. Current regulations for an application for an indefinite absent vote on health grounds require the health worker's statement to attest that the applicant has been seen by him or her in relation to the application. However, a one-off application for a particular election currently only requires the health worker to attest the applicant's reason to the best of the health worker's knowledge and belief. The review found that in some cases doctors have each attested dozens of

  1239
  individual applications at a level out of proportion with the overall patterns of application or ill health across the Province.
  The reasons why health workers may make false statements centre around intimidation where the doctor or nurse is forced into signing blank forms, or where the health worker is a party activist or sympathiser and gives a large number of blank, signed forms to party workers. In any event, the Government propose to make the medical attestation on the absent vote application form for a particular election the same as that for an indefinite absent vote application on health grounds. We believe that this change will discourage possible fraud and, where that fails, make subsequent prosecution easier.
  In conclusion, these are two relatively minor changes. But we believe that they will help to improve Northern Ireland electoral procedures and will give the Northern Ireland electorate a system in which they can have more confidence. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th October be approved [45th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Dubs.)
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I support both the regulations and the order.
  Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, we support both orders. It is worth while saying that we are grateful for the Bradley Review. We shall respond to it. I believe that there are some useful recommendations on which this matter is based. It is good that the Government have tackled electoral malpractice both in terms of medical forms and absentee voter registration. The noble Lord implied in what he said that there is remaining the problem of voter intimidation. When the Minister responds I shall be grateful to hear from him what the Government intend to do about what is the most blatant threat to the emergence of civil society and the kind of democratic institutions that we have been debating over the past few hours in your Lordships' House. Intimidation is the greatest single threat.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I have no doubt that the extension from 11 to 14 days, giving three extra days in which to scrutinise applications, will be a great help. It may ease the pressure on the chief electoral officer and his hard-worked staff. An even greater easement would be the decentralisation of the process, making full use of the regional or constituency returning officers who remain in place, not to mention no fewer than 26 district council officers who are similarly qualified.
  I simply cannot understand why the chief electoral officer refuses to consider this sensible course, but then complains of the burden imposed on him. I know that he feels very strongly because, in company with the then Northern Ireland Minister, one Nicholas Scott, he fought
  1240
  to deny the people of Northern Ireland the right to holiday votes many years ago. So obviously at that time he did not want to be greatly troubled.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments that have been made. Clearly, intimidation is a criminal offence. Where there is evidence of it then the RUC will act accordingly. Whether we can find more evidence that intimidation is taking place is rather more difficult. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that the Bradley Review on administering elections in Northern Ireland is fairly comprehensive. I believe that, in the context of the review, we can take fully into account the points made by the noble Lord.
  As regards the decentralisation of procedures suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, we are consulting on the administration of elections in Northern Ireland. It would be appropriate for his points to be taken into account as part of that consultation process.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, tightening up on absent votes is one of the best ways to restrict intimidation. It is only through an absent vote that the intimidator can see the ballot paper and make sure that what he wishes to be done is carried out or that the threat can be carried out. However, in the secrecy of the polling booth it is much more difficult to practise intimidation.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. As I have said, intimidation is an offence and if we can gather evidence of it the RUC will act accordingly. But there may be other aspects of intimidation which it would still be worthwhile considering as part of the review. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for his comments.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Local Elections (Northern Ireland)(Amendment) Order 1998
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th October be approved [45th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Dubs.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Marketing
  9.58 p.m.
  Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to encourage marketing and its contribution to business success.
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I begin by thanking the usual channels for giving us valuable parliamentary time at the end of a long and arduous Session to permit us to have this important debate this evening. I am sorry that as it is so late certain Members

  1241
  of the House are unable to fulfil their commitment to us. I thank all noble Lords who have given up their valuable time to take part in the debate. Last, but by no means least, I thank those who will be making their maiden speeches tonight. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that we are very much looking forward to their speeches. I do not believe that any of us will forget the anxiety that we felt at the time of our maiden speech, but I can say that the ordeal is not as frightening as it might appear. The whole House will be wishing the maiden speakers well.
  I turn to the matter in hand. I have framed this Unstarred Question deliberately wide in order to enable us to have a truly wide-ranging debate on this most important subject: marketing and its fundamental importance to business success. I believe that it is the first time that there has been such a debate in this House. There certainly has not been one during the seven years I have been a Member. That is both sad and fairly predictable. It is sad because it indicates that the subject is not as highly regarded as, say, animal welfare or salmon fishing in Scotland. It is predictable because I believe that governments, of whatever persuasion, have never been persuaded of the value of marketing. I hope that things are changing.
  This Government have shown themselves to be brilliantly successful marketers in the utterly professional way they planned their marketing campaign to the electors in the spring of 1997. They developed a new product; they listened to their customers; they organised excellent research programmes; and executed—I use the word advisedly—a campaign which really worked. If they applied the same strategy and tactics to the re-energising of manufacturing industry there would be no deep-seated concern about current exchange rate levels or interest rates. Perhaps it is not too cheeky for my first question to the Minister to be phrased thus: do the Government intend to lay as much emphasis on marketing while in government as they did while preparing for government?
  The Government should be convinced of the benefits that accrue from good marketing. The Minister's right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister himself were marketers of considerable ability in their previous existence. That gives me reason to hope that marketing will play a pivotal role in all their discussions both here and in the EC forum. Making the best use of talents is so important; the DTI now has at least two Ministers with strong and proven marketing talents. When are they going to use them to endorse the importance of marketing in the business life of this country?
  Noble Lords speaking in the debate tonight have wide and varied experience in marketing. The wording of the Question accepts that marketing contributes to business success. I am sure that each one of our speakers tonight subscribes to that. However, many businesses still do not realise its importance. Is there any way that the Government, using their powers of communication and persuasion, can get the message across?
  Immediately I realise that I am laying myself open to the charge: "if marketers are so clever why can they not market the concept of the fundamental importance of
  1242
  marketing so that every business has it front of mind?" That charge is valid, but not universally so. Here I must declare an interest. As President of the Chartered Institute of Marketing I know that the institute is unswerving in its dedication to preaching the importance of marketing.
  The Privy Council has recently approved the granting by the institute of individual chartered marketer status, which entails the continual uprating of skills; in other words, continual education and lifetime learning. Those chartered marketers operate throughout the country and will certainly provide a collective impetus for improving marketing standards in business. Recent research indicated that some 44 per cent. of company directors would be very keen to employ chartered marketers as their marketing directors, reinforcing the view that it is essential to condition ourselves to lifetime learning and the continual uprating of skills.
  Possibly one reason marketing is not given as high a profile as it should is that there is a basic misunderstanding of what it really is. I know that there is no such misunderstanding in the minds of the contributors to tonight's debate, but, for the record, perhaps it will not come amiss to state what I believe to be a good definition of marketing. Marketing is the management process responsible for identifying, anticipating and satisfying customer requirements profitably; in other words, getting the right goods, at the right quality, to the right customer at the right time and at the right price. What marketing is not is finding ways of getting rid of products produced without due regard either to markets or to consumer research.
  Marketing is the cerebral research and analytical function which anticipates consumer and customer needs and puts in train the process to supply those needs. Input into design, engineering, production, distribution, pricing and selling should all be within the ambit of the marketing remit in business. I am not saying that marketers must be engineers or production managers but they must be there when the original decisions about the products are actually taken. Good marketing can help in those functions and, indeed, should so help.
  A recent study by the Wharton Business School in the United States showed that the top 1,000 most successful US companies laid serious and heavy emphasis on marketing. We honestly need such emphasis here. It grieves me that so few of our companies have marketing on the agenda at their board meetings. It should certainly have equal pegging with finance and personnel because, not to put too fine a point on it, without marketing, there will be no finance and personnel because there will not be a business.
  The message of the importance of marketing is slowly getting through to British companies but there is still a long way to go. For example, 49 per cent. of the top 200 companies in this country have a marketing director on the board whereas 88 per cent. of the top 200 companies have a finance director on the board.
  This country has an incredibly successful record in design and innovation. Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that I read somewhere

  1243
  recently that some 40 per cent. of the current most successful products in the world have been designed in this country. That is not bad for a country with 1 per cent. of the total world population. But who has benefited from that incredible performance? No, it is not us, at least not for the whole of the 40 per cent. Our designs have been taken up and exploited by other switched-on, marketing-alert countries and their manufacturing and distribution companies. I hope that the Minister can give us some comfort that his department will do all in its power to ensure that a greater proportion of that undoubted talent is exploited here.
  We lead by example in so many international fields. There are thousands of examples of excellent, state-of-the-art marketing achievements in the UK. But business in that context does not necessarily mean commerce or manufacturing industry. It embraces all manner of services—the arts, education and sport, just to mention a few. We have speakers on those subjects this evening.
  The Government are committed to highlighting excellence as a means of encouraging by example. Will the Minister give a commitment that he will do all he can to ensure that marketing is highlighted? I make three suggestions. I should be grateful for a response from the Government because I have indicated already to the Minister that I shall make those suggestions.
  First, a White Paper on competitiveness is expected some time in the near future. As recently as 2nd November, the Secretary of State said:
  "Competition drives innovation, customer service, competitiveness. It underpins British business success".
  When he launches the White Paper, it would be great if he mentioned the fact that marketing underpins British business success, and it would be even better if he gave a massive push for marketing in the White Paper. I do so hope that that will happen. If it does, this debate will have been worthwhile.
  One of the Government's initiatives has been the establishment of Business Links. The Business Link movement recognises that it has insufficient marketing experience and is probably scratching around looking for such expertise. The Chartered Institute of Marketing proposes that a series of regional centres of marketing excellence, using the expertise of both the marketing faculties of regional universities such as Warwick, Cranfield, Strathclyde, Manchester and the London Business School, and the excellent facilities provided by the institute itself in Maidenhead could be the pivot around which Business Links could operate. I have not gone into that suggestion in any great detail but it would seem to be logical and probably efficient and effective. Thirdly, I should like to see that benchmarking of companies by the DTI is continued. It started in 1996, and I would make a very strong point about benchmarking those 1,000 companies from a marketing point of view.
  I am very conscious that we have but a short time for tonight's debate and that I am already running over my time. I am not complaining about that; indeed, it is
  1244
  marvellous to have the opportunity to debate the issue. I know that there are many interesting speeches to come, so I am sure that we shall have a constructive and memorable debate. I greatly look forward to hearing every contribution.
  10.9 p.m.
  Baroness Scotland: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for instigating this debate and also the Members from all sides of your Lordships' House for the warmth of the welcome and the help that I have received since my Introduction last November. The noble Baroness has by no means been least among those who have given me help, succour and a great deal of encouragement.
  I should also like to take this opportunity to trespass upon your Lordships' time to say a particular thank-you to the Attendants and to the Doorkeepers. They have been my constant companions in the last year. One of my finer qualities is not, I am afraid, powers of direction. They have benignly and indulgently watched me go round and round in circles before shepherding me safely in the right direction.
  That warmth is something upon which I now seek to draw for comfort in making my maiden speech. Some may question why it has taken me so long to rise to my feet to speak. I am one of 12 children and my family would, if asked—in fact, they would probably volunteer to do so—assure your Lordships that I seem to have an innate inability to do anything at what is usually considered by others to be the proper time. I finished my degree at the age of 20. I was called to the Bar at the age of 21; became the youngest woman to take Silk at the age of 35 and last year became the first Afro-Caribbean and youngest person to be elected as a Bencher of Middle Temple. My family had come to fear that such undue haste and lack of appreciation for what is due to age had become a fixed and well-established feature of my character. But I can assure your Lordships that I rise now halt of limb and burdened with my ever-increasing years safe in the knowledge that, on this occasion, I am neither the youngest nor the first but in all probability one of the last of my vintage to do so.
  I welcome this opportunity to address the issue of marketing in the United Kingdom as we approach the new millennium. During the time I have been privileged to be a Millennium Commissioner, I have had the advantage and the joy of seeing at first hand the extraordinary skill and wealth of talent which is evident throughout our country. I have been struck by the quality and diversity of the contributions made by all sectors of our community.
  Britain is now a truly multi-cultural society benefiting from peoples who hail from every corner of the globe. That diversity has enriched and changed the nature of who and what can truly be described as British. We have an internal multifaceted customer base with whom to explore new ideas. Creating products which address the needs and tastes of our disparate peoples enables our industry to develop the skills and sensitivity with which to assist our entrepreneurs to meet the challenges

  1245
  presented by the global market. We already export approximately £1 billion-worth of goods to the Caribbean region alone and the market share is increasing. It has grown by 5.5 per cent. since last year and there is no reason to suppose that this should decrease. A similar picture of growth should be true of both Africa and Asia.
  As in all marketing, getting the image right is vital to positioning Britain itself in our rapidly changing world markets. Therefore, exploiting our internal markets, taking advantage of our diversity and the richness of our people and marketing that globally can do nothing other than enhance the value of our markets, the market share and indeed the good opinion in which this country is held. I note that my four minutes are up. I shall not trespass further upon your Lordships' time, notwithstanding the several sheaves with which I had intended to delight you!
  10.14 p.m.
  Lord Saatchi: My Lords, it is a pleasure and privilege to follow the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. If I may say so, it is easy to discern from that speech why she has risen so brilliantly in her profession. The crisp insights that we heard in her brief four minutes are, I hope, only a taste of what your Lordships' House can look forward to on many occasions in the future.
  When my noble friend suggested that I might speak in this debate as a practitioner in marketing, of course I said yes, but I knew at the time that I would approach this subject with some trepidation because I stand before your Lordships as one whose profession perches perilously somewhere along the continuum between perception and reality.
  At first glance there seems to be no answer to the question of whether what we do in marketing is rooted in perception or reality. All of us know that the sensations produced by the same object can vary with the circumstances. Lukewarm water will appear hot to a cold hand, and cold to a hot hand. Colours look different under a microscope. Even the sun in the heavens we see only as it was eight minutes before.
  What is real? After 2000 years of human progress it seems that the real nature of things remains as inaccessible as it was to Aristotle.
  "Fire burns both here and in Persia"
  he wrote,
  "But what is thought just changes before our very eyes".
  The decision he said, "rests with perception".
  Even the perception of physical objects cannot be relied on. The great philosopher Descartes said he could not be sure that the table at which he was sitting was really there because the only thing about which he could be certain was that while he was thinking that the table might not be there after all, it was definite he was there looking at it, because he thought he was.
  It was in the third dream of René Descartes on 10th November 1619, in the small Bavarian village of Ulm, that he foresaw a universal method by which all human problems whether of science, law or politics,
  1246
  could be solved by the same method: the method of reason. The dream pointed to the illumination of the whole of knowledge by systematic logical computation.
  As your Lordships know, scholars in the humanities have long sought a set of general, testable, explanatory propositions applicable to the whole area of collective human behaviour. Men of business have been quick to see the commercial merit in adopting as a "science" what is now known as marketing. Yet today people are suspicious of marketing and its handmaiden advertising, and it is easy to see why. When Descartes himself doubted the existence of the table at which he was sitting, or his own existence for that matter, he knew who to blame—the "demon" which deceived his reason so that he took false statements to be self-evidently true. Nothing, he said, escapes the demon's reach.
  Some people see advertising and marketing as these arch-deceivers—mind-altering substances on which more money is spent than on all the drugs produced by the pharmaceutical industry put together. Yet today most people perceive themselves to be better off to buy advertised goods. Is that belief an illusion? Take detergents, for example. At first sight Ariel and Persil are similar products in different boxes. Therefore the levels of loyalty they command from their adherents must be irrational. The owners of these two brands, Unilever and Procter & Gamble, dominate the global detergent market with their images for these brands. That is proof, the critics would say, of the power of advertising to control the public mind.
  I cannot deny that the object of the exercise with these brands is to build their reputations so that their customers are loyal and will refuse all substitutes. However, it is precisely from the competition to create those image monopolies that better products and services emerge. Competition through advertising for the favour of consumers helps to create the pressure for innovation. That is why advertising, which is usually seen as a weapon that helps only the advertiser, makes one of its least recognised contributions to society. It is a two-edged weapon. It acts on the told, but reacts on the teller because it focuses such attention on his product claims that every effort has to be made to make them true.
  It is important to say that the thinking process—the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, referred to the cerebral process—involved in developing marketing programmes has an excellent effect on the idea or thing being advanced. Its action is that of a threshing machine; it sorts the intellectual wheat from the chaff. I assure noble Lords that those thoughts arise from a process that is at least similar to the Darwinian method of scientific discovery: tests and refutations, selection by elimination, so that only the fittest theories survive. The result flows from a developed carefulness and attention to detail, a habit of being clear, a sceptical perusal of alleged facts—
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords. I think that the noble Lord has overrun his time.
  Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I am describing the admirable qualities of scholarship which I see as

  1247
  typifying marketing. That is how marketing came to be the conspicuous feature of our age and why it deserves every support from our Government.
  10.21 p.m.
  Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge: My Lords, it is with a sense of awe and trepidation that I rise to address your Lordships for the first time. Although I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for her pertinent comments, they have done nothing to alleviate that feeling. That is not to say I have been without due preparation. I am for ever grateful for the warm welcome, kind advice and sage guidance your Lordships have extended. I must also recognise the immense courtesy and assistance received from the officers and staff of your Lordships' House.
  One noble Lord explained how transition to this House should be made by relating the story of the Zen Buddhist who came to London and set himself up as a hot dog seller. After the first transaction, his customer turned back and said, "Hey, that was a £20 note. Where's the change?" "Sir", said the Buddhist, serenely, "change must come from within." I shall try to follow that advice.
  The opportunity to make my maiden speech by contributing to this important debate is much appreciated. The deregulated and liberalised markets we now work in at home and overseas place the customer, quite rightly, as the sole arbiter of business success or failure, with all the implications that has for competitiveness in terms of producing efficiency and value for money. It means that companies have to get to grips with their customers—both actual and potential—like never before. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, described what this means in practical boardroom and workplace terms. I am grateful to her for the articulate way she defined marketing. I would further observe that marketing is the process of achieving that ultimate business goal of marrying the willing seller to the willing buyer in the most efficient, cost-effective way possible. Every employee of a company should consider himself or herself a part of the total marketing effort.
  Marketing is different from other strategic methods because it is linked to long-term growth and development through the customer. By their very nature, marketing-based business strategies call for thoughtful investment for sustained (and sustainable) development and they have clear implications for employment, job security and broad wealth creation.
  Britain has a good number of world-class businesses, but there are also many—too many—under-performing companies. We must recognise, as other countries have already, the importance of marketing to future success. The agenda set by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has marketing, in the form of innovation, enterprise and investments, at its core. I am greatly encouraged by his policy initiative.
  My belief is that to translate policy intent into tangible success in every sector and at every level of business we need to install best-practice marketing as a
  1248
  vital characteristic—a hallmark—of British commerce and industry and especially to benefit the small and medium enterprise sector. The proposals put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, would contribute significantly to that objective, and I commend them to the Minister.
  I also support the suggestion of underpinning new enterprise policies with a government-backed programme for the promotion and recognition of world-class marketing in our commerce and industry. Much good work is being carried out to encourage greater competitiveness through marketing excellence by the Chartered Institute of Marketing and also by its fellow bodies, the Marketing Council and the Marketing Society.
  A partnership linking the powerful business momentum that those organisations are creating with equally powerful enterprise policies from government can, and, one hopes, will, bring about significant acceleration to Britain's drive for global competitive success.
  10.26 p.m.
  Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, it is an enormous pleasure for me to congratulate my noble friend Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge on his outstanding maiden speech. My only regret is that my noble friend was not given more time to elaborate on this topical subject.
  My noble friend's distinguished business career, particularly his chairmanship of British Airways and board membership of several of the top public companies in Britain, as well as his chairmanship of the London Development Partnership and his having previously been a board member of the Chartered Institute of Marketing, makes him extremely well qualified to speak in this debate. We hope to hear a lot more from him in the future.
  I am grateful also to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for having given us this opportunity to have, as she described it in her letter to us, a constructive debate. As a consultant to Merrill Lynch, and having been an equities analyst and later an equities broker, I am always acutely mindful of the marketing mix of the "4 P's"—product, price, promotion and place. However, on such a broad subject, I wish to focus my few remarks on the value of British designs and brands.
  There is no doubt that the age of the global village is totally upon us, accentuated by the Internet, electronic commerce, the onset of the euro and global trading. As our goods and services become more accessible worldwide, Britain must obviously do everything it can to maintain its competitiveness.
  Being competitive on price is not enough. We need to look for new ways to compete. Never has there been such a need to focus on the ownership of intellectual trade marks and brands. These are important to the prosperity not merely of companies but of the British economy as a whole.
  While Britain has traditionally prided itself on the quality of its goods and services, there is unfortunately now evidence to suggest that this frequently equates with being expensive rather than providing value for

  1249
  money. I do not say that all British goods are expensive; obviously many goods and services in this country provide excellent value. But our negative reputation often precedes us. To counterbalance that, more needs to be done through effective marketing to enhance and promote the appeal of British goods and services.
  Although the Government have promoted incentives, quality standards, ISO 9000 quality management systems, and research and development in the fields of science and technology, they may possibly have failed to understand the value of true ownership of the revenue streams controlled by brands and reputations.
  Sadly, over the past few years the British economy has seen an unprecedented change in ownership of several of its well-known brand heritage, which includes the loss of such names as Rover and Range Rover to BMW, Holland and Holland to the French, and many other notable brand names. In a sense, the international community has seen Britain as a pantry of unexploited brand opportunities, ripe for the picking, to be exploited for the traditional English or British value that has such unique appeal. If British companies do not learn how the art of branding can add value to their products and services, they will fail, first, to capture the imagination and, secondly, to capture sales in competitive world markets.
  Good engineering and good functional design alone are no longer sufficient to bring a product to market successfully. Products have to be attractive, appealing, relevant, compelling and, most importantly, effectively marketed. With the Internet becoming the world's most accessible market place, the need for more effective marketing is increasing. I hope the Minister can give us some encouragement and say what measures the Government can employ to enhance and promote the appeal of British goods and services worldwide.
  10.31 p.m.
  Lord King of Wartnaby: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord on his maiden speech. I commend to you his remarks and those of the noble Baroness. Although too modest ever to admit anything of the kind, the noble Lord, to misquote Sir William S. Gilbert, is the very model of a modern marketeer.
  I have cause to know. I remember walking into an office in British Airways. On the wall was a large sign which read, "The Customer is King". Underneath a wag had inscribed, "He is also the Chairman". The point is that it was with the noble Lord as Chief Executive that British Airways was transformed from an ailing state-owned organisation into one of the most successful and profitable airlines in the world.
  The transformation was achieved by emphasising again and again and again the primacy of the market: the need—to quote the noble Baroness—to identify, anticipate and satisfy the requirements of the customer. It is as simple as that.
  The noble Lord's contribution, more than anything else, was to transform the quality of service we were delivering to a high standard our staff were proud of, our customers enjoyed and our shareholders—first
  1250
  government and then, after privatisation, the public—and the City reaped the benefit. Successful marketing is knowing what the customer wants and delivering it.
  In a slight aside, if I may, some of the marketing and spin doctoring in cool Britannia worries me. Our nation is going through the most major constitutional change since the Edwardian era. Many of the changes proposed at Westminster and around the UK look badly thought out but appear popular and seem to reflect the feeling of the times. I just wonder if all these changes are going to lead to a more stable and united Kingdom, or will they lead to division in a few years' time? The customer and the voter seem happy now, but will they be happy in the future?
  However, I had better drift back to the main thrust of my remarks, some of which I have deleted. In my lifetime I have seen introduced into general use the motor car, the aeroplane, the telephone. Each has widened the horizon of our lives. Today we stand on the threshold of a marketing revolution more far-reaching than those brought about by any of these inventions. We are in a new world of electronic communication and interactive digital television every bit as breathtaking as that beheld by Cortez when he first sighted the Pacific Ocean, silent upon a peak in Darien.
  It is vital for our future prosperity that we in this country understand and exploit the market opportunities which the new technologies are creating at a dizzying speed. This will not just happen. Government must give a lead. Our educational institutions, including the universities, both old and new, must play their part and ensure that our young people are prepared and equipped for this brave new world.
  I welcome the emphasis given by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the importance of the quest for greater competitiveness across British industry. It is imperative that we begin to close the gap in productivity growth between us and our neighbours and competitors.
  For these reasons I look forward to reading the forthcoming White Paper and I entirely endorse the remarks of the noble Baroness. We are indebted to her for introducing so timely a debate upon a subject of such importance to our economic well-being.
  10.36 p.m.
  Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for introducing the debate and agree with her that marketing cannot be considered in isolation. The products and services being marketed have to live up to the promise of the marketing. Too often good marketing over-sells itself by promoting a product or service in an attractive and beguiling way, and the customers then feel duped when they find there is no substance. Then marketing becomes hype, and hype only does damage. The success of New Labour's marketing campaign, to which the noble Baroness referred, is due to the fact that we have a very good product.
  The main point I should like to make is the way information technology is changing marketing. The noble Lords, Lord King and Lord Marshall, touched on

  1251
  this point. Information technology is dramatically cutting the cost of access to and communication with customers. The most quoted example of this kind of marketing is Amazon Books, which is the most popular shopping site measured by volume of traffic. But what is the second most popular shopping site? The answer is Blue Mountain Arts. In researching this debate I found to my amazement that Blue Mountain Arts attracts some 6 per cent. of all Internet traffic in the USA. It provides greetings, thank-yous and invitations for every conceivable occasion. They are animated, pictorial or just words in enormous variety. But the creativity and innovation do not end there.
  The extraordinary thing is that they are all free. You just download from the website. Its income comes from advertising and providing information about the huge number of people who use the site. I do not know whether this is a marketing dream or a marketing nightmare, but the marketing implications are enormous.
  Understanding the new technology and media is probably the biggest challenge facing marketing today. Perhaps this is how business can start to cut its huge marketing cost base and so become more competitive. So I hope that the Government will continue with their IT For All scheme and nurture electronic commerce and marketing. I hope also that regulators will see that the price of high capacity land lines will be brought down. In the USA they are half the price of British lines.
  The Management and Best Practice Directorate at the DTI has an important role to play, not only in diffusing best practice but also in trying to close the huge disparities which exist in marketing skills from company to company. A report last week forecast that by 2003 5 per cent. of all global sales would be via the Internet. We want UK industry to have a large part of it.
  10.39 p.m.
  Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge: My Lords, I too am most grateful to my noble friend, Lady O'Cathain, for initiating this debate because it gives me the opportunity to highlight the revolution that has taken place in the business of sport.
  When I first played for England in Australia in the 1950s, black and white television was in its infancy. There was no coverage, no advertising, no sponsorship—just a crackling radio commentary for an hour at the end of the day. Who could possibly have envisaged that sport would become the major commercial activity throughout the world that it is today?
  Astonishingly, the sports media generate such substantial economic activity that sport has become one of the largest industries in the world, the eleventh largest industry in the US. In Britain, sport accounts for over 1.7 per cent. of GNP and employs half a million people—probably more.
  A real concern is that the United Kingdom is at a serious disadvantage compared to its international competitors for events such as the various world cup events we stage, the world swimming championships and, we hope, the Olympic Games. Other countries tax
  1252
  international sporting events more favourably, putting the UK at a serious disadvantage. Yet it is these events which provide the resources for sport and the international sports federations to reinvest in the development of their activity, much of which takes place at the grass-roots level.
  I appeal to the Minister to give fresh consideration to tax exemption on the profits of all international sports events; to apply VAT zero-rating on admissions to international sports events; and to provide exemption from "foreign entertainers withholding tax" for international sports events held in the United Kingdom. I am told that the cost to the Exchequer would, in relative terms, be minimal.
  I am sorry to have to say it, but sport continues to be the Cinderella of UK policy, playing second fiddle to the arts. The full potential of this remarkable marketing tool remains unfulfilled in the United Kingdom. Its power to promote Britain is enormous and will increase year by year. It should, I suggest, be a central plank in government marketing of the UK internationally.
  Happily, people still love coming to compete in, and watch, top-quality sport in the UK—provided the facilities for competitor and spectator are up to date. We have so much to gain if we give it our full attention and get it right. For example, the extremely successful Euro 1996 brought 280,000 visiting spectators and media, spending over £120 million in eight cities and surrounding regions and generating an extra 4,000 full-time equivalent employment years. The total economic impact of this event was calculated to be £195 million.
  Internationally, sport is a key part of the process of globalisation and the creation of a global culture. Britain has a unique place in all this and we must seize every opportunity. In conclusion, I say to the Minister that I can think of no better way of marketing this country than through our sport.
  10.43 p.m.
  Lord Borrie: My Lords, I have no doubt that, if one has a worthwhile product, or, in modern management-speak, a worthwhile customer proposition, marketing can make all the difference between modest progress and lasting success. I thank the noble Baroness who initiated the debate. I very much agree with her definition of "marketing". In the interests of time, I shall not repeat it, but I should like to add to it something that has not so far been mentioned. I believe that marketing includes every conceivable way in which the producer or marketer is in touch or communication with the customer. It is a matter of getting to grips with the customer, as the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, said in his maiden speech. Therefore, it includes not just the obvious forms of marketing such as paid-for advertising, promotional methods of all kinds and shop front displays but ensuring that there are well trained, helpful and pleasant staff on duty front-of-house and on the telephone who take a positive attitude to customer complaints from which they are willing to learn.
  Good customer service in every conceivable way is one of the most powerful competitive weapons that exists. No amount of fine words in expensively

  1253
  produced brochures will make up for delayed delivery, failure to answer inquiries or a defensive attitude to justifiable complaints.
  The Question of the noble Baroness asks what the Government can do to encourage marketing and its contribution to business success. She has listed a number of matters. I liked her comment about re-energising manufacturing industry and her suggestion that the White Paper on competitiveness to emerge in a week or two should place emphasis on marketing.
  If I mention just a few negative matters it is because of the shortness of time and not because I am in disagreement with the noble Baroness. It is the job of government to provide a framework so that marketing at home and abroad is honest, informative and does not amount to unfair competition and distort the marketplace to the disadvantage of the customer. The Government and agencies such as the Office of Fair Trading need to monitor whatever legal or self-regulatory rules are in place about misleading advertisements, the misuse of others' brand names and how price reductions and so-called bargains are offered.
  We have a system of mixed governmental and self-regulatory control of various forms of marketing. I do not suppose that anyone who has taken part in the debate, even if he has not spoken about this aspect of marketing, will disagree that the Government must provide some kind of framework. When in the next Session this House receives the Financial Services and Markets Bill no doubt it will debate where the line should be drawn between government regulation and self-regulation. It is most important that we get it right. Where that line should be drawn is a matter for debate. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister can say this evening on where in general the line should be drawn.
  10.47 p.m.
  Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, my noble friend Lady O'Cathain said that this was the first time this subject had been raised in the time that she has been here. I believe that I am the longest serving Member of this House to speak in this debate. In the 22 years that I have been here this very important subject has not arisen and it is long overdue.
  I spent 48 years of my working life in marketing. I am still going strong. I began as a salesman and continued up the greasy pole until I decided to become independent. Since then I have been involved in marketing but always overseas.
  This is a vital subject. My noble friend Lady O'Cathain cited the success of the Labour Party campaign. I entirely agree. However, I believe that an even more remarkable success was that of the Liberal Democrats who managed by very cunning targeting to achieve a huge increase in the number of seats with a lesser number of votes. That revealed great skill in marketing for which they are to be commended, even though some of us did not necessarily want that to happen. Certainly the party to which I belong has a lot to learn from both those exercises, and I hope that they will do so.
  1254
  I turn to my own personal experience. I should like to cite two examples from a very different world. I spent some years of my life in the perfumery and cosmetic business. That is a business entirely concerned with marketing, almost exclusively. We did not have any "bean counters" on the board; they were confined to keeping the figures. We started from the top down.
  We worked out what product we wanted to sell and to whom. We then worked out, eventually, whether we could produce, package, merchandise and advertise it. If the cost price meant that it was not possible to produce the product, we forgot all about it and tried something else. The whole process depended entirely on marketing.
  We used advertising a great deal. I can recall having been a client of a number of companies which have subsequently been absorbed into the great Saatchi empire. However, I left that business some time ago. That is an example of how such matters develop.
  At the other end of the scale, when I was subsequently an adviser to a number of different companies, I found myself advising companies in the heavy engineering and manufacturing field. I found that they worked entirely the other way around. To a certain extent that point was reflected by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. They had been somewhat conditioned by selling to nationalised state domestic enterprises—mostly monopolies—and tended to work from the bottom up, on a cost-plus basis. Therefore, when one tried to direct their attention to selling overseas, it was hardly surprising that their products were grossly overpriced and never sold.
  That is a good example of how one must work entirely from a customer oriented base. That point was brought out most cogently by the speeches of both noble Lords involved in their different capacities with British Airways. As my noble friend Lord King said about his friend and colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, British Airways has applied that concept intensively.
  To go back to the beginning, my noble friend Baroness O'Cathain stated that marketing is the key to business success. That is absolutely right. It is a subject in which the Government become involved at their peril. It is best left to the people at the sharp end who know what they are doing. Governments usually become involved in bureaucracy, which does not work in marketing, whereas political parties need it.
  Lord Garel-Jones: My Lords, noble Lords who have spoken have been absolutely right to both congratulate and thank my noble friend Baroness O'Cathain for introducing this groundbreaking debate. Perhaps I may say also that we have listened to two most distinguished maiden speeches from speakers who both spoke of their awe and trepidation. I believe that the House is entitled to say that they are also—although too modest to do so—both entitled to speak with a certain pride. The House will look forward to distinguished contributions from both of today's maiden speakers.
  The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, made some criticisms in his speech with which I agree about our failures in the past. I intend to do likewise. However, it is worth reminding ourselves here in Britain that we

  1255
  have not always failed. Indeed, my noble friend Lord King of Wartnaby and the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, have each in their turn presided over one of the great marketing successes in the United Kingdom. I think that we should remind ourselves, too, that if one were to list the 50 major transnational corporations inside the European Union, the United Kingdom would have more names on that list than any other country in the Union. Let us not get into the usual business of knocking Britain. However, at the same time it is worth recalling that too often our failure to understand the importance of marketing has meant that we have let down British inventors, British innovation and British engineering skills.
  I give one example, of which the whole House will be aware. It was a British firm, Rover, which moved the old Land Rover, with which we were all so familiar, to being the Range Rover—a real breakthrough in the concept of motoring. Yet today that company does not enjoy the share of the market in those types of vehicles that that incredible concept which it pioneered rightly deserved. I believe that that was a failure of marketing.
  How can we improve our performance? Like many noble Lords on this side of your Lordships' House I am reluctant to extend the writ of the Government into any field. I say that not just of this Government, but of any government. However, my noble friend Lady O'Cathain was right to draw our attention to the Chartered Institute of Marketing. If the DTI is able to work in partnership with the institute to help small and medium-sized businesses in the way my noble friend suggests, and to set bench-mark standards, that is the sensible way to proceed.
  Perhaps I may refer to the final secret of marketing, if there is such a thing. My noble friend Lord Saatchi gave us a lesson in that. I had the privilege of being in the room when my noble friend was appointed to market the Conservative Party in the mid-1970s. He will agree with me, as I think will noble Lords opposite, that the starting point in marketing is a good product and a good service. But then one has to tell the truth about that product and that service. Quite often those who have invented the product or made the service, as was the case with my party in the mid-1970s, are not the right people to convey that message to their fellow citizens. In that regard we have to be grateful to my noble friend. No doubt noble Lords opposite have others similarly skilled to whom they owe thanks for marketing their product.
  Finally, my noble friend Lord King of Wartnaby is right to tell the House that we stand on the brink of the information technology revolution. The whole House will be eager to hear from the Minister as to how the White Paper will reflect the importance of marketing to British industry; and the way in which we shall use that in the new information technology revolution which lies ahead.
  10.56 p.m.
  Viscount Thurso: My Lords, from these Benches I congratulate the two maidens. The brevity of my
  1256
  welcome is only matched by the sincerity, but with a time limit of four minutes one cannot pay too long a tribute. The noble Baroness is welcome and I am sure she will make a tremendous contribution to your Lordships' House. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge, for his kind breakfast this morning, which I very much enjoyed with 250 other people. I am sure he too will make a great contribution.
  I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness and congratulate her on bringing forward this Question in your Lordships' House. When I first saw the Motion for debate I asked myself what there was to debate. It is such a statement of the obvious that I wondered where the questions would come from. However, as I reflected I realised how sagacious and perceptive the noble Baroness had been. The debate has proved how much the subject needs to be aired. I am slightly shocked to find from the noble Viscount that in 22 years it has never been aired in your Lordships' House.
  Marketing is the key to business success and productivity. In this country we have the culture of the finance director. Perhaps alone among the many developed industrial countries, we look for our chief executives among our finance directors. I am constantly looking over my shoulder at my finance director wondering when he will take my job. But in America, for example, the chief financial officer does not necessarily become the chief executive officer. It is very much a route chosen in this country. It has a rather black and white balance sheet approach. We do not always see the longer term investment that is required by marketeers.
  When I first began in business as an apprentice commis in the Berkeley kitchens a long time ago, the Savoy Group had no marketing department. About three or four years later a gentleman was employed who was known as the business promotions manager, but no one knew what he did—except that he had a lot of free lunches. There was the press office, but its job was entirely to make sure that the press did not have too much access to customers of the Savoy. I am happy to say that the Savoy has moved a long way and, as I moved up in the company and on out of the company, I came more and more by sheer simple practical experience to understand the vital role of marketing. First came sales, but later I grew to understand the all-encompassing role that marketing needs to play in a business. Like any convert, I now display religious zeal.
  One or two of your Lordships may be aware of my current business. Marketing is right at the centre of it. It has pre-eminence over the finance department, much to the annoyance of my finance director. It is involved in our human resources department. I believe that the vision we have for serving our customers is so important that it is part of what we do in our recruitment campaign and it is an integral part of our training. Therefore, marketing and human resources work closely together. We research precisely what it is that our customers want and we continue researching to see whether or not we have satisfied their aspirations. The noble Lord, Lord King of Wartnaby, has already said that the customer is king. I have that very same motto in my office. That is the one rule that exists in my business. I believe that

  1257
  much of the success it now enjoys is due to the fact that we developed a vision for the business that was conceived out of our customers' wishes, which we have prosecuted irrespective of all other considerations.
  One of the anxieties that I have about British business is that on many boards—I am on a number of plc boards—we all talk the talk but when one gets down to a business one does not necessarily find that the talk is walked. I am not going to say anything about that, but I am employed by British Airways to lecture to its middle management on leadership skills. Sometimes what they say to me at those meetings does not always accord with what the boardroom might think they say. However, I shall leave it at that.
  In her opening remarks, the noble Baroness made one crack about the fact that salmon fishing appears to get more debating time in your Lordships' House than many other subjects. As one of the repertory company that appears in the House to debate salmon fishing with monotonous regularity, may I say to her that there is a link between salmon fishing and marketing: both share the same aspiration, which is to fish where the fish are and use the right fly.
  11.2 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I join with others of your Lordships who have thanked my noble friend Lady O'Cathain for initiating this debate on what is a very important and clearly a most neglected topic. I was told recently that the convention of this House is that only the speaker following the maiden speakers is meant to thank them. I am absolutely delighted that so many of your Lordships have done so and I am taking the liberty of doing likewise.
  I speak as a longtime member of what was called the Institute of Marketing. I am just one very small example of the wide and diverse range of qualifications and experience of the real world outside the Palace of Westminster that especially abounds in your Lordships' House, and has abounded in greater amounts this evening.
  I began by teaching marketing techniques such as how to discover what the customers want and how to create empathy with a potential customer. The noble Lords, Lord Marshall and Lord Borrie, said how important that is. I taught how you managed to help the customer buy from you something that they want and not to go out and sell something that they do not want, as my noble friend Lady O'Cathain said. There is the need for the people producing a product to know how to promote it and the need to advertise it. There is also the need to help people to feel that it is something that they require. There are also the various methods of closing a sale; post-selling and helping the customer to believe that they made the absolutely right decision in buying your product. There is also the setting of personal goals and objectives and self-motivation. I believe that self-motivation is an important part of it and all good salesmen need a lot of motivation and re-motivation, especially after a bad day has lowered their confidence. I recall one very successful insurance agent who used to drive to work every day listening to
  1258
  tapes such as "How to influence people". When I asked him why he continued to do so, he said, "I need to pump myself up every single morning".
  Then disproving the aphorism that "those who can, do, and those who can't, teach", I set up my own very successful marketing business which operated in the United Kingdom, Germany and Australia. I have taken a few minutes of your Lordships' time to explain my qualifications because I would like to make one special point.
  Although it is absolutely true that good salesmen and marketeers are born, not made, just like accomplished musicians, carpenters, sportsmen or indeed members of many trades and professions, all those instinctive skills must have proper training and, equally, experience. Simply taking a young person, giving him a job in whatever area and telling him about the products on offer does not turn him into a salesman. Businesses which take the trouble to train their sales staff and supervise them can enjoy the dividends of the extra business that they will generate.
  However, small firms have neither the time nor the resources to take on the whole burden of training sales people, especially as no sooner have they done so any salesman worth his salt will take his expertise off to more lucrative opportunities. Therefore, there is a strong case for including marketing and salesmanship in the many commercial courses that are taught in our schools, colleges and universities. I very much hope that the Government will encourage all educational establishments to do so.
  Your Lordships will see that I am turning my pages quickly. I am afraid that the one thing I have not done in marketing is to tell people to keep to time. I have just noticed that I have taken four minutes and am only about half way through my speech.
  I conclude by saying that marketing is not simply the work of a sales person behind a counter. It includes the people who need the knowledge and skill to sell everything. Marketing includes making a product or providing a service, listening to customers, and carrying out research. It must not be forgotten that no matter how good the product is it needs to be sold. Perhaps the days are gone when you could say, in the words of Emerson, that if you build a better mousetrap the world will beat a path to your door. Someone may copy it and try to sell it cheaper than you unless you happen to be the better salesman.
  I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government are in favour of good marketing skills; that as part of their programme of education they will ensure that money is invested. That is what it will be; an investment in training people in all the skills of marketing, which are no less important than any other commercial skill, as noble Lords have said tonight.
  I hope that in due course we will hear about tax incentives for all manner of training and research and development. Investment is paid for out of profits and profits come from being competitive in the marketplace. The Government can ensure that British industry is

  1259
  competitive and has the money to invest by removing the impediments which take money out of investment budgets and simply add it to social engineering costs.
  11.8 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I gladly join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, on choosing the topic for today's debate and on the way she introduced it. I also congratulate her on her appointment as president of the Chartered Institute of Marketing, to which she referred. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, I was a member of the institute for many years. Indeed, I was a member of the Institute of Marketing and Sales Management before it became the Institute of Marketing and then the Chartered Institute of Marketing. The noble Baroness did well not only in the way she introduced the subject but also in the range of expert speakers whom she encouraged to take part. In particular, she encouraged two excellent maiden speeches from my noble friend Lady Scotland and the noble Lord, Lord Marshall.
  My noble friend Lady Scotland was right to draw attention to the marketing assets of diversity and, in particular, diversity in a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society. There are lessons for all of us to be learned from what she said.
  The noble Lord, Lord Marshall, played a key role in setting up the Marketing Council. He deserves our congratulations on that; his expertise was evident in his speech. I am only sorry that other noble Lords took away my chance to refer to the customer as king.
  Like the noble Baroness, I have been involved in marketing all my life. I was a professional market researcher and social researcher for nearly 40 years. In addition to being a member of the Institute of Marketing, I was also, many years ago, chairman of my own market research society and I am retiring as president of that society next week. Therefore, it cannot be said that I am speaking in any way for the market research business. But it is recognised as being one of the core disciplines in marketing more generally.
  I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for her complimentary remarks about new Labour's use of marketing. The noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, referred to our key seats strategy, and that of the Liberal Democrats who, I think, copied it from us. We successfully targeted key seats and we used our effort, as he said, to fish where the fish are. It will be seen at the next election that the Labour Party will successfully build up customer loyalty which we intend to result in repeat purchasing.
  The answer to the noble Baroness's question is that the Labour Party itself, I understand, will continue to use those marketing skills which she praised so highly. But also—and this is a quite separate answer—the Government are keenly appreciative of the need for marketing this country in the most general, as well as in particular, senses. We understand what marketing is about and we shall apply it to government policies, making the correct and proper distinction between party and government.
  1260
  The Government want to develop a partnership with business. We need to do that because after all the Government are the biggest single business in the whole country. In his recent speech to the CBI conference, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said:
  "The partnership I want to build is one where business and government are clear about their respective responsibility. both to each other and the wider community".
  That does not mean that the Government are going to impose a nanny state on the marketing community in this country. There are contributions which government can make and I shall deal with those later. But we respect the professionalism of marketing and all the skills which exist in the marketing sector. As the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, said, we recognise that there are different jobs for marketing and government.
  However, my noble friend Lord Borrie was right also to draw attention to what is the key element of all of that. It is communication—taking notice of the customer and listening to the customer. Customer service, as he rightly put it. That is what we intend to promote in our own activities and what we intend to encourage business to promote in its activities.
  We recognise that marketing covers a wide range of specialist skills and disciplines. Successful businesses are closely integrated. The marketing function is no longer isolated or remote but it is the key driver. I do not know—and I do not think I very much care—what are the professional origins of those in boardrooms as long as they are good at their jobs. It may well be, as some have suggested, that we have too many people with financial backgrounds but I do not know many people with financial backgrounds nowadays who have not been steeped in marketing and respect for customers. Fundamentally, what makes a good manager—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, had it right here—is the respect for reason, for rational thinking and for rational analysis. That is what I believe marketing can contribute.
  It is certainly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, said, that we do have companies in Britain which are champions for marketing and whose marketing is both memorable and effective. If he will allow me to say "British Airways and Virgin" without drawing breath, I think he will understand the need that I have to be impartial in these matters. I am not convinced that we have underestimated the importance of product design and development. Indeed, that starts right from the very beginning.
  The noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, referred to some of the failures of marketing. It is quite true that many UK businesses do lag behind the average performance of our strongest competitors in other countries. It is that difference between the best and the poorest which we must devote our attention to. One of the ways of doing so is the encouragement of professionalism in marketing. We have a strong private sector infrastructure supporting the development, status and professionalism of marketing; for example, the Marketing Council, the Chartered Institute of Marketing and the various specialist bodies, including the Market Research Society, representing the advertising and direct-sales sectors.

  1261
  Without those professionals, we recognise that we will not have the core skills to present our products effectively. That is why it is so important that we have the initiative of the chartered marketer with its emphasis on life-long learning and on quality control to which my noble friend Lord Borrie referred. After all, it is in the context and under the discipline of professionalism that we can do what the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, rightly said; namely, to tell the truth.
  I move on now to say something about the Government's support for marketing. This is not in any way a partisan analysis. I recognise the support given by the previous government—for example, the consultancy project initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, in 1988 which had a marketing consultancy strand which worked very well. There was also the "Managing in the 90s" campaign which ran from 1990 to 1997 which developed marketing workshops and disseminated best practice guidance and case studies. Therefore, I deny the contention made by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that governments are not persuaded of the value of marketing. I believe that both this Government and the previous government have been.
  The noble Baroness referred to Business Links. Advice is now available to small and medium enterprises on marketing issues through this scheme. There are 85 Business Links now open with 240 outlets. They do not all have specialist marketing advice in-house, but they do have the ability and the responsibility to refer to local quality assured consultants such as the Chartered Institute of Marketing members. Of course, they also have access to training and development on marketing issues. We are supporting the Marketing Council's project "Grow with Marketing" in which a group of Business Links are working with the council to create marketing champions and thereby raise marketing expertise. We are working with project partners to see that this is taken up across the whole Business Links network.
  In answer to the second question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain—in fact, she asked me three questions but I cannot deal with them in the right order—we are indeed very interested in her suggestion about developing links with local colleges and universities. The noble Lord, Lord King, also made a similar point in that respect. I shall be asking the Department of Trade and Industry to consider that suggestion.
  Reference was made to the DTI's UK Benchmarking Service. Companies using it are able to benchmark their marketing expenditure against the service's database. The answer to the noble Baroness's third question is that a specialist marketing module has been devised within the benchmarking index. It has been built up by the British Marine Equipment Council for use by its members using the service and is starting to be used more widely by some Business Links.
  Other government support for marketing is quite widespread. Under the DTI's sector challenge initiative, 186 projects have been given grants totalling £35 million for raising competitiveness. Some 64 per
  1262
  cent. of those specify the need for better marketing opportunities and marketing skills. There is a whole range of projects for marketing for exporters to which I do not have time to refer. I refer to the development of the DTI web site. My noble friend Lord Haskel was right to refer to the need to master electronic marketing. I refer to export promotion services more generally which include marketing scholarships to the best business schools in the USA and Canada.
  The noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, referred to the need for tax exemptions, in particular for sport. As noble Lords who listened to the debate on hotel accommodation last week will know, we are not very sympathetic to demands for tax exemptions in particular sectors. But, of course, where business support for sport is a business decision—in other words, it is designed to increase profits and market share—then it is a proper business expense and is recognised as such in our taxation system.
  For the future we are building on the Fit for the Future Best Practice Campaign. We are collaborating with the CBI on taking forward its ideas on that. That was welcomed in the pre-Budget report two weeks ago. The benefits to business of adopting best practice in marketing should be an important part of that campaign and therefore we welcome the discussions that have taken place between the Marketing Council and the CBI and hope this will lead to a strong, best practice in marketing message.
  As regards the competitiveness White Paper—here I come to the first question of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain—of course I cannot anticipate what will be in the White Paper but I would be astonished if the Secretary of State did not stress the importance of our need to compete in today's competitive markets when he publishes the White Paper in due course.
  I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that we can no longer rely on the motto that if you make a better mousetrap the world will beat a path to your door. We recognise the importance of marketing as a driver for competitiveness. We have some excellent exemplar countries and some world-class players in this field. We look forward to continuing to work in partnership with the Marketing Council, the Chartered Institute of Marketing and other professional bodies to encourage more companies to use marketing within their business strategy to achieve business success.

  City of Westminster Bill [H.L.]
  A message was brought from the Commons that they have made the following orders:
  That the promoters of the City of Westminster Bill [H.L.] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the Present Session;
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid up the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  That the Petition relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stands referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

  Regional Development Agencies Bill
  Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

  European Parliamentary Elections Bill
  Returned from the Commons earlier this day with their disagreement to the Lords amendments insisted on, with their amendment in lieu not insisted on but with a further amendment proposed in lieu thereof.
  House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past eleven o'clock.