Lords Sitting of 14 July 1999

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

Former Yugoslavia: Twinning
Lord Walpole Lord Walpole asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to build on the links between individuals which have already been forged by twinning with towns and cities in former Yugoslavia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, twinning links between towns and cities can be a useful means of promoting reconciliation. The Local Government International Bureau (LGIB) acts as a clearing house for all forms of twinning and technical co-operation with counterparts world-wide. The LGIB has sent an officer to Kosovo as part of a Council of Europe mission on behalf of the UN, to consider, among other things, ways to mobilise partnerships between European local and regional authorities.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Bearing in mind the Prime Minister's statement that the war was against the regime of Mr Milosevic and not the people of Serbia, what advice does the Minister give to the people of Norwich who are twinned with the people of Novi Sad? Can she indicate whether in future it may be possible for visas to be obtained so that members of Norwich City Council can visit Novi Sad and people from Novi Sad can come to this country?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the noble Lord indicates, the relationship with Norwich has persisted for some time, certainly since well before the recent hostilities. In general, the recent hostilities have been very much directed at the regime, not al the people of Serbia. Whether or not visas are granted to people to go to that country is a matter for the Serbian authorities. Where there is a real demonstration that local authorities do not support the Milosevic regime, it is for local authorities in this country to pursue those relationships. I stress that we want to know that the town concerned is not part of any Milosevic machine.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am glad that the Minister agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, that there is an important distinction to be drawn between our policy towards the regime of Milosevic and our attitude to the ordinary people of Serbia, with whom we have no quarrel. Further, does the Minister agree that there is much value to be gained from
328
exchanges between citizens and elected representatives of UK towns that are twinned with towns in the former Yugoslavia, given that these exchanges help to engender mutual understanding and advance our common effort to unite the whole of Europe into one family of democratic nations?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the wise words uttered by the noble Lord. We have no quarrel with the people of Serbia; the quarrel has always been with the Milosevic regime. We have debated this matter in the past, and I believe that the whole House is agreed on that point. Traditionally, twinning has been seen as a social activity that benefits those who take part and is of value to the community, but I believe that the noble Lord is right. There is a deeper potential here that involves educational and economic links, and technical assistance projects.
Lord Judd: My Lords, my noble friend refers to the educational dimension, which is obviously vital to the rehabilitation and reconstruction of post-war Yugoslavia. Are the Government looking with universities and higher education in Britain at what links can be forged there to strengthen a healthy approach to higher education and its values?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are looking across the whole spectrum of activities in the area of reconstruction. The EU is setting up an agency for reconstruction in which the United Kingdom will take an active part. As to reconstruction, the immediate tasks are the provision of emergency relief, rehabilitation, the provision of basic infrastructure, de-mining, the establishment of a proper police force, and so on. But the points that my noble friend makes about the longer term and the value of economic links, particularly educational ones, are very much ones that we take on board. I cannot give my noble friend any direct information about what is happening in the area of further and higher education, but I shall write to him if I am able to glean any further information on that particular aspect.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, we recognise the good response that we have received from the World University Service with regard to encouraging links between higher education institutions. However, perhaps I may ask the Minister to go one step further in particular with regard to Serbia. She rightly said that the quarrel is not with the citizens of Serbia, but with its government.
There are two other areas where close twinning could be encouraged. The first is the excellent work being done by the Churches in relation to their links with the Serbian Orthodox Church which, as the noble Baroness knows, rather surprisingly has strongly criticised Mr Milosevic's regime. The second relates to work with the media, in particular the struggling media attempting to be independent of the government

329
in Serbia, where our own media—the BBC apart, which has an excellent reputation—might go a little further to be of real assistance.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. Not only the Orthodox Church, but a number of others in Serbia are now seemingly more prepared to voice their opposition to the Milosevic regime. That is to be welcomed. The work that the Churches have done is well recognised and we wish them well in furthering those endeavours.
On the media issues, we all know that one of the great problems during the recent military action was that the truth was not getting through to the Serbian people about what was being done and the appalling atrocities that were committed on their behalf. We have endeavoured to do what we can to ensure that a truthful story gets to the people of Serbia. For example, we have increased BBC World Service broadcasts to that part of the world. I believe that I have given details in your Lordships' House previously about how that is being done. But a free media in Serbia must be a key in establishing a democratic process. That must be well understood.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, have normal postal services yet been restored to and from Serbia; and, if not, when will they be?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I regret that I am unable to give the noble Lord the information that he requires but I shall endeavour to do so in a letter and shall place a copy in the Library of your Lordships' House.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, following the suggestions already made, does the Minister agree that after the disappearance from the scene of President Milosevic there is much to be said for developing between Yugoslavia and this country something akin to the Königswinter conferences set up with the Germans soon after the Second World War which have had such tremendous success, originally in helping the Germans back to democracy and later in developing mutual understanding between our two countries?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making that extremely interesting suggestion. I stress that any such suggestion could be considered constructively only after the disappearance of Mr Milosevic and those in his regime who have supported what he has done. We must remember that it was not Mr Milosevic alone who supported the appalling atrocities and the ethnic cleansing that we have seen; there have been many who have been only too willing to help him in that endeavour. But once we have seen the back of that regime, I shall convey the noble Lord's interesting suggestion to my ministerial colleagues as one which I believe is well worth considering.

School Milk: EU Subsidy Scheme
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are proposing to take to ensure that both United Kingdom primary schoolchildren and United Kingdom dairy farmers continue to benefit from the European Union school milk subsidy scheme.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister raised the subject at the last Agriculture Council where he received considerable support for our view about the value of the current scheme. I have also been working to improve the take-up of the scheme by local authorities and schools.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Does he accept that there is much work to be done in encouraging schools to take up the scheme? At a time when one in three children go to school without breakfast—this Government are pressing the issue of poverty—and when dairy farmers are in crisis, does the noble Lord believe that bringing together MAFF, the Department of Health and the Department for Education to consider improvement of the diet of our schoolchildren would be desirable? Cheese and yoghurt are available under the scheme but the Government choose not to take it up. Apples and pears are available under another scheme but are being thrown away. That would link Britain's farming industry with the diet of our schoolchildren. How does the Minister propose to encourage those departments to make use of the scheme so that it can be demonstrated to the European Union to work well?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I agree with the thrust of the noble Baroness's argument. One of the first initiatives I launched was to bring together those departments to see how we could advance the school milk programme. We have had regular inter-departmental meetings. We have been in touch with the Intervention Board. The Intervention Board has now taken steps to simplify the procedures. It will issue this week a leaflet to all local authorities explaining the benefits of the scheme and the mechanics of it with a simplified claim form. It has also issued a questionnaire to local authorities and schools to discover how the matter can be improved. So we have done a good deal.
At the June Agriculture Council my honourable friend argued strongly against the Commission's proposals to abolish the scheme and was supported, for instance, by Germany, France, I think Spain, Sweden and Austria, so we have the makings of the support of a qualified majority. As a result of the steps we have already taken, the take-up of school milk has risen since we came to power by upwards of 10 per cent whereas in the last three years of the previous administration it declined by 20 per cent. So we have had considerable success. There

331
is now a 25 per cent take-up in schools. It is a good scheme and we are fighting strongly not only to preserve it in Europe but to increase the take-up here.
I agree with the noble Baroness about the fruit. The regime has been amended a little, so fruit such as apples and pears withdrawn from the market can be distributed to good causes—hospitals and so forth—and schools will be included. The distribution of apples to schools will soon begin.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords will be pleased to hear the Minister's response. However, a great deal of work is still to be done. I understand that the subsidy is to be cut by half in September and the whole scheme to be abandoned by July next year. With that in mind, will the Minister consider giving support to such groups as the women's food and farming union which can promote the use of milk within our schools?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, yes, such groups do an excellent job. Indeed, I have met them and they helped me to launch my defence of the scheme. Perhaps I may make it clear that as yet it is a Commission proposal built into the budget. It has not been formally proposed to the Agriculture Council, but when it is we shall strongly resist it and continue to attempt to build up the coalitions, which has been part of our European policy since we took over. We still hope that we shall be able to defeat the proposal.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that while milk is good for children it is now time to consider whether beef on the bone would be better for adults?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that today we are happy to announce that beef exports from Britain will resume. That is another success of the Government's policy. However, as the noble Lord knows, the issue of beef on the bone will shortly arise for consideration and an announcement will be made accordingly.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, what prospects are there for the United Kingdom dairy industry providing milk for schools when the ruling of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on Milk Marque will make it even less remunerative to farmers to keep dairy herds? My local farmer sold his herd simply because last year he produced more milk than he had ever produced and still managed to make a loss.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, it is true that our dairy industry has serious problems and we do whatever we can to support it. The report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into Milk Marque was an independent report and discovered serious abuses of the monopoly position. It made proposals to break up the industry and for interim measures which would diminish the monopoly of uses in selling practices. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry did
332
not accept the proposals to break up Milk Marque, but has accepted that there should be radical changes in selling practices.
I do not believe that a viable industry should be dependent upon bad monopoly practices. I believe that the industry is good enough to survive without that. It needs to have more and better marketing for more and better dairy products. That is the way of the future.

Electricity Trading Arrangements
2.54 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made in the review of electricity trading arrangements.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the review of the electricity trading arrangements is being led by the DTI and the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. We expect to publish a consultation document at the end of July which will contain details of the proposed new market. Final proposals will be published in the autumn. Legislation to implement the new trading arrangements will be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time permits.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will he accept that the changes proposed in the electricity market will surpass in their extent and complexity the changes which were introduced during the privatisation of electricity and could therefore affect everyone in this country? Will he further accept that many problems are as yet unresolved; for example, in the case of combined heat and power and renewable energy, in which I declare and interest, the present arrangements would definitely be prejudicial? I know that those matters are under consideration. Has the Minister anything to announce as regards their resolution?
Secondly, and more importantly, will he accept that the new arrangements will require major new computer networks at national system level and at the level of the generating and supply companies? I am sure that he hardly needs to be reminded that the combination of new computer systems at the same time as the introduction of massive new procedures can be a lethal combination. Will the Minister assure the House that, before the arrangements are introduced, the Government will conduct complete cost-benefit and risk analyses, publish them and have them fully debated?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it almost sounds as though the noble Lord is asking me to delay decisions rather than, as is more common, to speed them up. He is right that the issues are complex. We must look after the security of supply, price transparency, sufficiently liquid markets, the impact on combined heat and power and renewables, and the impact on the non-fossil fuel obligations. All those issues have been considered over recent months and will be considered during the consultation period.

333
As regards IT, the noble Lord is again right. It would be most unwise to implement other changes at the same time as devising a new IT system. On the other hand, the IT system that is necessary is basically a trading system, and plenty of examples are already available.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, will the Minister ensure that in the review in question, the whole subject of net metering is investigated in considerable depth, whereby those individuals who currently produce electricity—presently primarily through the use of photovoltaics—are paid the same sum per unit as they pay?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand that that is an additional complication. On the other hand, anyone who seeks to preserve any aspect of the pool operation which we have had for the past nine years, and which was an absurd and perverse result of the way in which privatisation was carried out, needs to think very carefully.

Foxhunting
2.58 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness asked Her Majesty's Government:
Which Ministers and officials have been in contact with the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) or the Political Animal Lobby to discuss policy on foxhunting and whether they will publish the memorandum of 21st May 1999 from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, Mr George Howarth, reporting a telephone conversation with the director of IFAW.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, as is appropriate and as part of their work. Ministers and officials have met—and will continue to meet—interested parties from all sides of the debate. As has already been made public, officials at 10 Downing Street held a meeting last Tuesday with representatives of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the League Against Cruel Sports and the International Fund for Animal Welfare. That followed previous meetings with the Countryside Alliance and other interested parties. Foxhunting was among a number of animal welfare issues which were discussed. As the noble Lord will recall, internal working papers on policy matters are not routinely published.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for going some way towards removing the veil of secrecy on what has been happening within government. Does he agree that the antagonistic policies of the Government towards those in the countryside would be more easily understood if they were rationally driven rather than financially driven?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, They are not financially driven at all. If we want to go into financially
334
driven policies of the previous government I am happy to spend a few hours doing that. One of the contributions given was by the Political Animal Lobby. That was published in our 1997 accounts. The recent donation has also been made public. That was £100,000. This morning I looked at a copy of the Daily Telegraph dated November 1997 and saw that the same lobby had given the Conservative Party almost £170,000.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, as regards foxhunting, can the Minister clear up a little confusion concerning the statement made by the Prime Minister last week on "Question Time"? He said that the Private Member's Bill had been blocked partly by the House of Lords. Surely we all recollect that that Bill never got to the House of Lords. Why did the Prime Minister mislead his audience? Was it ignorance?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is right in his recollection, which coincides with mine.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it has been commonplace for the animal lobby, in particular the IFAW, to donate moneys to all political parties; that the Labour Party has never been shy about publicising donations that have been made to it, unlike the party opposite; and that it is only by virtue of pressure that this information has become known about the Conservative Party? Does he also agree that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, seems to have a penchant for the sinister even when things are not sinister?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that has never been my experience of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. He and I are always on the best possible personal terms. I always regard his interventions as designed to be personally helpful to me.
Of course, pressure groups donate money. The important thing is that it is done openly. I remind your Lordships that over a period of 11 months the Home Secretary wrote six letters to various dignitaries in the Conservative Party asking about the donation from Mr Ma, otherwise known as Mr "white powder" Ma, presently residing in Taiwan.
Lord Renton: My Lords, would the Government hear in mind that foxes are very destructive of poultry and game and that therefore their numbers must be controlled? Killing foxes by trapping or poisoning is illegal and, incidentally, very cruel because they do not die at once. Shooting foxes and wounding them if they are missed causes gangrene, which is a horrible death. By contrast they are killed at once when hunted and hounds close in on them. Hunting is, therefore, the most certain and least cruel way of killing foxes.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have heard that view expressed in the past. I know that there are contrary views. Some, for instance, think that chasing an animal to exhaustion and tearing it to pieces is morally

335
unacceptable and, indeed, reprehensible. That is a quotation from a helpful article put in the Observer last Sunday by Miss Ann Widdecombe.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, moving away from the more gory and controversial elements of this issue, and given the obvious and very serious pressures on the Government's legislative programme, when and why did foxhunting become the major priority?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is not properly described as the major priority of the Government. The noble Lord will well recall that in our manifesto we stated that there would be a free vote on this issue, and we have fulfilled that. As the Prime Minister stated quite clearly, the present position is that the Government are actively considering how to take the issue forward and hope to make an announcement on specific proposals soon.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if this matter comes before this House, and for that matter, another place, there will be a free vote for all Members of our party, both Front Bench and Back Bench? Will it be the same for the Labour Party? Speaking for myself, I regard a ban on hunting as an unacceptable infringement of personal freedom. As my noble friend indicated, it will lead to greater suffering for foxes and other animals, plus a serious loss of jobs and amenities.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I would expect there to be a free vote in the Labour Party. Indeed, I hope that the shadow Home Secretary will have freedom of expression to express her views; but I understand that at the moment she has been banned.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, can the Minister advise the House of the extent to which the organisations which are campaigning against what they call cruel sports are now directing their attention towards the shooting of birds and the catching of fish? More importantly, what attention have the Government given to such activities?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this is part of a continuing dialogue and debate. In a free society people are entitled to have views even if I, personally, or indeed the rest of the Government, disagree with them.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Donner: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the cause of animal welfare would be better served by the Freedom of Information Act being able to give out information freely on what happens in animal laboratories?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is an extremely rigorous regime regarding animal experimentation. The Animal Procedures Committee, which is a statutory body, is an excellent committee. The statute forbids the disclosure of certain information.
336
I can tell your Lordships that the number of experiments carried out under licence in this country is lower than it has been since the early 1950s.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, further to the supplementary question by the noble Lord, Lord, Tebbit, is my noble friend aware that the Fireworks Bill, which is a Private Member's Bill with the aim of improving the safety of fireworks for the prevention of accidents to children, was amended in this House with the sole aim of preventing the anti-foxhunting Bill introduced by Mike Foster from making progress in the other place?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have heard that suggestion, but I do not think that it derogates from the underlying point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that I am pleased to hear that I can carry on fishing? Can he guarantee that Scottish Members of the other place, who will not be able to legislate on this matter in Scotland, will not be voting to ban, or indeed not to ban, foxhunting in England?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am pleased to hear that the noble Lord will be able to carry on fishing. Since the last election he has had more time, of course.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the apparent change in stated government policy, as given by the Prime Minister on "Question Time", was first cleared through the Cabinet?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it would riot need to be cleared because there has not been a change.

Business of the House: Northern Ireland Motions
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
This Motion follows the Business Motion that I moved yesterday and is similar to the one I moved on 1st July. The purpose is to ensure that if the process in Northern Ireland goes as hoped, the final necessary secondary legislation can be laid before the House arid taken on this coming Friday. Whenever the legislation is timed there will clearly not be time for the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments to report on it as it held its meeting for this week on Tuesday in the normal way.
The second limb of the Motion I move today, to suspend Standing Order 70, therefore allows a Motion to approve any secondary legislation laid before the House tomorrow or on Friday to be taken notwithstanding that the Joint Committee has not had the opportunity to report on it to the House.

337
The first part of my Motion today allows an order laid on Friday to be debated on Friday, as is anticipated. The Motion is purely an enabling Motion and if no order is laid, or if it is laid on Thursday, normal procedures will apply. I am sure it will be of interest to your Lordships to know that the Motion has the full consent of the usual channels and, as we have agreed, the Cross-Bench Peers have, once again, been consulted on this important issue.
Moved, That in the event that one or more statutory instruments relating to Northern Ireland are laid before the House tomorrow or on Friday next, a Motion or Motions to approve them may, notwithstanding the practice of the House, be moved that day without notice; and that Standing Order 70 (Affirmative Instruments) be dispensed with to enable the Motion or Motions to be taken, notwithstanding that no report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the instruments has been laid before the House.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Bill
3.10 p.m.
Brought from the Commons, and printed pursuant to Standing Order 48; read a first time.
Then Standing Order 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of yesterday):
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Northern Ireland Bill, has consented to place her prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Once again we are bringing Northern Ireland legislation before your Lordships with little respect for the usual timetables. Let me acknowledge at the start the inconvenience to your Lordships in this. It is justifiable only when we consider what is at stake. As the Prime Minister has said, we have here the best hope for peace in Northern Ireland in a generation, but that prospect cannot be expected to last indefinitely. If momentum is not maintained, the process risks falling apart. That is why such a demanding timescale was set by the Prime Minister and Taoiseach in their statement of 2nd July, which is scheduled to the Bill, and that is the timescale within which the Bill has had to be prepared and put to your Lordships.
What the statement and this Bill are about is giving effect to the Good Friday agreement. Whatever we do, we have to remain consistent with that agreement. We cannot dictate in this House or in another place that particular political arrangements will operate in
338
Northern Ireland. They will operate only by the consent of political representatives in each community there. The Good Friday agreement represented, after decades of negotiation, a basis for such consent. There is no alternative basis in view. That is why we have to work within the agreement.
What the Bill aims to do is give both communities confidence that they can move forward by providing that, if their fears come to pass and a key player defaults on commitments, they will end up, through suspension, in no worse position than they are in now and that the default and the defaulter will be clearly identified. A review, involving the two governments and the Northern Ireland parties, must then agree how to put the arrangements back together again.
We are fully aware, of course, of the reservations that the Bill has engendered. We have heard them in Northern Ireland and we heard them expressed, often with passion, in another place last night. We put forward the arrangements that appear in the Bill because they seemed to us to be the best formulation we could arrive at to meet the mistrust and reservations on both sides of the community—and I emphasise to your Lordships that there are concerns on both sides. However, we claim no monopoly on wisdom. We are reflecting carefully on what was said in another place and we will reflect on what your Lordships say. If it is possible to improve the Bill, consistent with the Good Friday agreement, we will of course do so.
We have come a very long way in Northern Ireland since Good Friday 1998; we should not let ourselves think that all has been deadlock. Parties are now engaging with each other far more closely than before. There are welcome signs of closer engagement elsewhere in the community, too. That has been reflected in the dialogue and restraint on marches, which has meant that the grave disturbances of recent years have, mercifully, not been repeated this year. I think we should pay tribute to the efforts that the Orange Order, with the residents' groups, has made to ensure that the marches have so far passed off relatively peacefully.
On the substance of the political dispute, we are narrowing the gap all the time. However, we have not bridged it. With the passage of time, mistrust in both communities grows—both over the formation of a genuinely inclusive executive and over decommissioning. That is why it is urgent to achieve progress now.
The latest discussions began in Belfast on 25th June when three key principles were agreed: that an inclusive executive should be formed exercising devolved powers; that all paramilitary arms should be decommissioned by May 2000; and that the decommissioning should be carried out in a manner determined by the Independent Commission on Decommissioning under General John de Chastelain.
On 2nd July, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach put forward new proposals based on those agreed principles. Under the proposals, the d'Hondt process to nominate Ministers in a new Northern Ireland executive should be run tomorrow. We should bring before your Lordships on Friday an order to bring about devolution. Devolution of powers would take effect from

339
18th July—that is, Sunday. General de Chastelain's commission would then set out the steps required and the modalities for achieving by May next year total decommissioning by all paramilitary groups. Within days of devolution, the process of decommissioning is to begin as specified by the commission. There should be a start to actual decommissioning within a few weeks. The commission is due to report progress in September, December and May, but it could make other reports if commitments were not being fulfilled. If there were a default at the beginning of the timetable, the commission could make a report without delay.
We have to underpin these arrangements with guarantees, and that is what the Bill does. It cannot give what some would see as ideal guarantees because they are not attainable. It does all that is practicably possible to ensure that no-one is worse off than they are now because of a failure by someone else to honour their commitments. Under the Bill, if commitments are breached, either on decommissioning or on devolution, the institutions set up by the agreement will be suspended.
Therefore. the Bill responds to the Unionist need for certainty that they will not have to sit in an executive with others if commitments on decommissioning and the sequence that I have set out are not met. However, it also responds to the need of nationalists and republicans for certainty that there really will be an inclusive administration. As a result of the way in which the Bill is structured, the failure to honour commitments is clearly identified—there will be no doubt who is responsible, which is fundamental to the overall approach. I will touch on the key points of the failsafe in the Bill.
Clause 1 of the Bill provides for the automatic and immediate suspension of the operation of the institutions established under the agreement if either decommissioning or devolution commitments are not met. In the case of decommissioning, the trigger is a report from the decommissioning commission that there has been a failure to meet a commitment or to take a step that it has laid down. The effect of suspension is that the Assembly will no longer be able to legislate or to meet, apart from specific circumstances for which the Bill provides. Northern Ireland Ministers will cease to hold office and all legislative and executive functions during, the suspension period will revert to Westminster, just as under direct rule.
The North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council will cease to function under the terms of a supplementary treaty between the two governments. The draft treaty is available in the Library of the House. The British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference will remain in place, but without the participation of Northern Ireland Ministers. A review, under the terms of the Belfast agreement, will begin as soon as practicable after the suspension, as set out in Clause 1(4).
Clause 2 deals with the period of the suspension and the procedure for bringing it to an end. Clause 3 requires two meetings of the Assembly to be called during the suspension period. The first would be within seven days
340
of suspension, without taking a vote. The second would be within seven days of the end of the review when the Assembly would debate the outcome of the review and vote on any proposed action. Clause 4 lays down what would happen when devolved government was restored once the suspension was lifted.
Clause 5 deals with the six north-south implementation bodies that will come into being at the point of devolution. Since these bodies will have continuing administrative functions, it would not be practicable to freeze them immediately. However, during the suspension, the governments will not confer any new functions or policy directions on the bodies, nor will they establish new bodies. The draft treaty makes clear that the two governments will agree new arrangements to transfer the bodies' functions to the relevant departments in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic within a maximum of four months unless the suspension is ended. The Bill reflects that in a statutory duty on the Secretary of State.
The Bill is not a perfect solution. But it seems to us the best approach available in the circumstances. There are a number of issues that worry many in Northern Ireland, in another place and no doubt among your Lordships, and I should like to turn to those.
First, there is the issue of exclusion from ministerial office. The Bill means that if anyone fails to meet their commitments on either decommissioning or devolution the executive will not continue. That is categorical, automatic and immediate. I acknowledge that this is hard on the parties which are not in default. But it is wrong to portray it as a punishment; they are no worse off than they are now.
What we cannot do is form a new executive ourselves. As I have said, the devolved arrangements in Northern Ireland are only possible with a sufficient measure of consent between the parties. That is why we cannot prescribe automatic exclusion, which is inconsistent with the agreement. There would be no basis under the Good Friday agreement for continuing unless an executive, with representatives of both communities, could be formed.
The Bill remits the question of what to do after a suspension to a review, as prescribed in the Good Friday agreement. And the assembly finally decides the exclusion question. The meeting which the Bill requires after the review would be able to take the necessary action. In the end, whichever approach we adopt, everything turns on the same question—whether the parties themselves, on both sides of the community, are willing to go ahead without a party that has failed to honour its commitments. Realistically, any arrangements for devolution in Northern Ireland need support from the major parties on both sides of the community.
On a timetable for decommissioning, which is another understandable concern of many people, the agreement is absolutely clear. The Independent Commission on

341
Decommissioning under General de Chastelain is given a key role. In its report of 2nd July, it said that it is,
"prepared to define a timetable for decommissioning of arms by the main paramilitary groups",
and that such groups,
"will be expected to adhere to it to ensure completion by 22 May 2000".
Thirdly, I know how difficult the issue of prisoners is for many people. The release scheme itself was for many the most unpalatable part of the agreement last April. Those who have suffered at the hands of terrorists, in Northern Ireland, in Great Britain, indeed among your Lordships, may feel this more than anyone. But again we must come back to the Good Friday agreement. Under the agreement, release of prisoners is linked to the maintenance of paramilitary ceasefires. This is reflected in the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. The Act provides that one of the factors the Secretary of State must take into account in judging whether ceasefires have been maintained is whether organisations benefiting are "co-operating fully" with the decommissioning commission.
The Secretary of State said yesterday—at col. 180 of the Official Report— that in the overall judgments she must make about whether the ceasefires are holding, she would pay increasingly close attention to the extent to which an organisation was co-operating with the commission. The test would become tougher as time went on.
It may be helpful to the House if I add a point which arose during Question Time in another place. It was raised by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Government have listened carefully to the debate in the other place yesterday, especially to the valuable contribution made to that debate by the right honourable Members for Upper Bann and for Huntingdon. The Government are considering making a series of amendments to the legislation in the light of what those two speeches contained. We shall be bringing forward those amendments in time for the debate tomorrow. I hope that is helpful to your Lordships.
We all recognise the difficulties the Northern Ireland parties face in moving forward from the present position. We have tried to give them as much comfort as we can in the Bill. We have not made it entirely easy for them, because we cannot. We cannot guarantee a smooth ride for everyone who fulfils their commitments if the process goes ahead now. But let us reflect on the advances decommissioning will bring. We will have all the Good Friday agreement institutions, and people in Northern Ireland will together take control of their affairs. We shall also have the constitutional changes, British and Irish; the principle of consent will be written into our law, and in the Irish Constitution, where it replaces the old Articles 2 and 3; and we shall have an expectation of decommissioning, which must very quickly be fulfilled.
There is a risk of failure. But we have provided what guarantees we could, and they are substantial ones. Suspension may seem harsh, but an innocent party is no worse off after a default on commitments by someone else
342
than now. And the consequences of not moving forward to devolution on this basis seem to us to be far worse. It would mean there is no prospect of decommissioning; direct rule continues; the constitutional changes are not made; and the coming together we have seen in Northern Ireland in the past two years, admittedly still imperfect, risks breaking apart.
That is not an inviting outlook. The Bill offers the chance of something far better. In the worst case, it risks no worse than we have now, but success means putting Northern Ireland on to a new and better path that so many people have sought for so long. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Dubs.)
3.26 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear and explicit description of the Bill and I welcome his statement, reflecting what the Prime Minister said in the other place, that the Government are seriously considering a series of amendments. In the light of that, I sincerely hope that some of what I am about to say will be redundant by tomorrow night.
In opening, I wish to make it clear that this party shares the Government's objectives and is still very much part of the bipartisan agreement, as was made clear by my right honourable friend Mr Mackay in another place several times last night. However, we have always reserved the right, as the Official Opposition, to criticise the Government when we thought that they were getting it wrong. There were some parts of the Good Friday agreement that we found unpalatable, as did many other noble Lords and people in the country; the early release of prisoners being one. But we supported and congratulated the Prime Minister on his commitment and achievement there.
Since the Good Friday agreement, the Government have followed a different route from that which we would have taken. Nevertheless we still support the Government, despite—the noble Lord also referred to an improvement in this—the Secretary of State's determination to continue using her "Nelsonian" eye when appraising continuing violence in relation to the cessation of prisoner releases. I am glad that she will toughen up on that.
Today might have been a day of rejoicing for all who have been involved in Northern Ireland affairs over the past 30 years, including 1.5 million of my fellow countrymen. But alas I fear that the Bill before us will fail the test of time unless it is very significantly changed. Why do I say that? The Bill had to address the most difficult problem of all to come out of the Good Friday agreement and the ongoing peace process: decommissioning and devolution of power. As I have said before in the House, Ulster people deserve a return to democracy. They want a devolved parliament, but not at any cost. The Bill is supposed to deliver that.
Democracy is about elected government without guns. Sinn Fein/IRA has been successful in the use of the bomb and the ballot box. That strategy must be stopped, and we cannot condone the Government's

343
insistence, which I hope is weakening, that David Trimble and the Unionist Party and other democratic parties must sit down with Sinn Fein before a single commitment to decommissioning has been made by any of the paramilitaries.
The Bill is the product of a less successful hot-housing set of negotiations at Stormont, led by the Prime Minister, with his colleague the Taoiseach to hand. The Prime Minister was weary after Kosovo and became more so as the negotiations dragged on. His determination, commitment and stamina were truly remarkable, and we thank him for them.
However, the truth about those sessions is that even the Prime Minister, with all his negotiating skills, was unable to move Sinn Fein on decommissioning. In order for devolution to work successfully, all parties concerned must be equal. The democrats must be safeguarded from the private armies. The Prime Minister has promised on several occasions—in the other place, at Stormont, on television and in newspaper articles—that he would not expect the Democrats in the Northern Ireland Assembly to share power with parties still backed by fully armed private armies. He has also promised that the Bill will provide a cast-iron fail-safe against that happening. I suggest that at this moment this Bill does no such thing.
We have repeatedly asked—and I take this opportunity again to thank the noble Lord and his colleagues for their courtesy in giving us the opportunity to comment on the Bill before it was printed and to discuss it with their officials—for only three points, with which my right honourable friend attempted to amend the Bill in another place last night. They are: a clear and transparent timetable during which period decommissioning has to take place, with automatic suspension if these obligations are not fulfilled; a clause which would automatically require the assembly to debate the exclusion of Sinn Fein in the event of the IRA refusing to decommission its arms and explosives; and a halt to the early release of terrorist prisoners if any of the paramilitaries—republican or loyalist—fail to decommission. I hope that some of that will be coming forward tomorrow in amendments hinted at by the noble Lord the Minister.
The fact that the Government were unable to accept any of those amendments last night makes me very suspicious and wonder why. If any of them had been accepted, I wonder who would have left the party.
The Bill, while legislating for decommissioning, delegates to General de Chastelain's independent commission the decision-making process. It does not even today provide a start date for the trigger mechanisms, let alone a programme that it can be judged against objectively; there are no benchmarks in the Bill or even attached to it in a schedule. What is more, that international commission is not open to judicial review.
The Bill provides no method whereby the Democratic parties, if they so decide, can, for example, continue the devolved process with the SDLP and without Sinn Fein. That seems very hard on the Democrats and the democratic process. Why should not Mr Hume and the SDLP feel a little of the pressure that Mr Trimble has been feeling for a year and a bit?
344
The Bill provides no sanctions or incentives for the loyalist paramilitaries to decommission, with the deterrent of prisoner releases. Again, why should the republicans be penalised in this, if there is absolutely no incentive or sanction in the Bill to persuade Loyalist paramilitaries to decommission?
Despite these criticisms, we still want to see inclusive, devolved government in Northern Ireland. We will continue to support the Government in their marathon efforts to bring about decommissioning. But? although we will not vote against the Bill tonight, we will continue to try to persuade the Government of their duty to support the democratic principle against terrorism; and remind the Prime Minister that he cannot off-load his Government's responsibilities onto an independent commission, as he appears to be doing here: he appears to be using General de Chastelain's independent commission as sole arbiter of the start, the progress and the finality of the decommissioning process. This is a highly political process and that is not the place where these decisions and this responsibility should ultimately lie. I believe that too much is being asked of this fine military gentleman, and that the Bill provides no safeguards. It is open to fudge and needs seriously amending. We on this side of the House will shortly be putting down amendments which we hope to debate tomorrow.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord the Minister, Lord Dubs, and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, have paid tribute to those in all the democratic parties who have laboured mightily over at least three years to produce a devolved structure of governance of great promise. widely supported and solidly based as we hoped it would be. The general aim was that such a permanent and enduring structure would provide a meaningful role for all the truly democratic parties, depending, of course, on the ballot box alone and not augmented, as other organisations are, by the Armalite.
But this wholly destructive Bill, a Bill of 10 pages, obliterates all that we thought we had achieved. The bulldozer is specified at the very beginning, in the Long Title, and in Schedule 2, which records that the two Governments have agreed to:
"suspend the operation of the institutions set up by the Agreement"—
the Good Friday agreement. The Long Title states that the Bill is to,
"Make provision for the suspension in certain circumstances of devolved government in Northern Ireland".
In the light of that sentence, perhaps the title of the Bill should have been "An Act of Vandalism".
The last occasion on which the Parliament: of the United Kingdom so indulged itself was in 1972, when it suspended and within a year obliterated the Stormont devolved government and parliament, all in one day. So there is a precedent for what we are doing now.
Twenty-seven years on, we are today invited to approve the mechanism to suspend Stormont's successor even before its first formal meeting. The

345
Secretary of State said in another place that the Bill is therefore an insurance policy. I fail to see the logic of that. The suspension contained in the Bill is fragile, flawed and unfair. Those very serious defects spring from the fact that the Bill destroys the concept of a coalition as most of us understand it, which normally would permit any element to withdraw, or even disqualify itself, without endangering the coalition as a whole. The Bill clearly specifies that if any maverick party or group were to be automatically suspended or to withdraw then, in other words, the innocent and the guilty would be equally punished. I am afraid that the Government in certain times of irresponsibility have seemed to lean towards penalising the innocent.
This calls to mind that little jingle:
"The rain, it raineth on the just
And also on the unjust fella:
But chiefly on the just, because
The unjust steals the just's umbrella".
David Trimble might feel a bit like that.
There is ample evidence, too, that spin doctors are beavering away under that guideline. Already David Trimble, leader of my party, who has made 15 concessions in 15 months and who has endangered his leadership position within the party, is being cast in the role of the villain of the piece, while Mr Adams can apparently not even spell the little word "Yes".
Clause 1 of the Bill contains a truly breathtaking provision to initiate a review, not just of the procedures up to now but of the agreement itself. In effect, it seems to be providing for a post-mortem before the death of the new government. That can hardly be regarded as a "confidence-building measure"—a phrase so much beloved of the Northern Ireland Office in the past year or so.
We understand that the review body will consist of the two governments, the White House (when it has time) and the Northern Ireland parties. So I suppose we can only hope that, if all of those diverse bodies can be herded into a compound and starved of sleep for days and nights on end, somehow or other they will manage to invent at least a few promising new phrases.
Yesterday in another place the Secretary of State stated that the nationalists, republicans and Unionists require certainty, and then went on to add that this Bill provides that certainty. I agree that they deserve certainty and therefore it would be sensible and constructive not to make the suspension order today. I simply do not understand why senior Ministers keep quoting phrases like, "Give peace a chance" and "move to a secure future" on the very day when we have a self-destruct Bill before us. Another phrase is, "We will never know whether terrorists will disarm if we refuse to put them to the test"; that has been current this past week.
That latter sentence compels me to deal, regretfully, with a very sensitive subject. It may be defensible to tell the general public that they will never know whether or not terrorists will disarm unless we put them to the test. But senior Ministers are not in that category; they are not the general public. They know the answer to that
346
question already. For example, they know that the IRA brigade in the southern areas of Northern Ireland has already made its decision—though they have not announced it—to reject decommissioning now and at any time in the future. As most noble Lords know, members of that brigade of the provisional IRA are not defectors; they are not break-away mavericks; they are the most dominant element in the terrorist operations in relation to Northern Ireland and even England.
I said that senior Ministers are aware of that decision, but it is possible I was being unfair to them. It is just possible that crucial information is being withheld from senior Ministers. I know from long experience since 1972 that there are examples where former Ministers found that certain intelligence services had their own separate agendas, even in the political and constitutional fields. In times past I have known the same intelligence sources to ask their CIA counterparts' question: "Shall we tell the President?".
I cannot believe that senior Ministers in Her Majesty's Government would be taking such hideous risks for peace and stability if they had in their possession information to which others already had access. They may therefore feel it prudent to take a raincheck before incurring any further risks, and thus perhaps even at this late stage of this legislation, prevent terrorists from doing lasting damage to ' all the achievements to which the Minister paid tribute.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and I shall never forget, for my part, that it was he who, for the first time for several years, led his party's negotiating team down to Dublin in the talks in 1992. That was an act of imagination and courage with which I associate the noble Lord. I always felt it was a thousand pities that those talks came to an end at the time and for the reason that they did.
However, I respectfully differ from him in the suggestion he made that the security forces, any of them, would wilfully conceal material from the government of the day. My experience—for what it is worth—leads me to be confident that there is no risk of that.
It is easy to understand and to sympathise with the fact that the Government are feeling something near desperation in that this settlement, for which they have laboured for so long and with such commitment, now seems so tantalisingly close and yet remains at great risk. They laboured long and not without substantial success, the most recent of which is the Drumcree experience of which, in my time, I have vivid memories and experience.
This Bill is evidence of the Government's understandable desperation and merits close attention. In these circumstances there must be a great temptation to apply yet further pressure to the only quarter in which such pressure has yielded positive results since the Good Friday agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, referred to the concessions made by Mr. Trimble. It is a pity that the Bill as at present constructed seeks to apply yet further pressure on the Ulster Unionists led by

347
Mr. Trimble, who is self-evidently at risk as has already been suggested. The concessions he made and the courage and imagination he demonstrated are factors which in my time I would have laid long odds against and they are greatly to his credit. It is therefore dangerous to apply further pressure in that quarter.
The pressure seems to be to go one step further; that is, sit down in the Executive with the representatives of Sinn Fein, never mind that the IRA has not decommissioned or even said that it will decommission to any great extent. That is the pressure that is being exerted, even though the IRA—as Her Majesty's Government acknowledge—is the terrorist organisation to which Sinn Fein is inextricably linked.
Yet the IRA has fiercely—and it must be said successfully—defended its arsenals and kept them intact. The IRA has demanded its place in the democratic executive while remaining backed by every item of weaponry and its massive destructive force.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, before the noble Lord continues—like many of his noble friends—simply to address this issue as anti-IRA, may I ask him this? When did the UVF, the UDA, the ULA or any Unionist organisation give a promise of decommissioning?
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, one Unionist organisation of that character has already begun decommissioning. The important point is that that did not result in it being told: "You have egg on your face. You have surrendered. You have laid down on your back". It decommissioned through General de Chastelain's commission and in consequence its leaders have been treated as statesmen. We are asking that that admirable example be followed by the IRA and other so-called "loyalist" organisations. But this is part of the harm of the structure of this Bill. The noble Lord looks surprised, but I can assure him that it is true.
What seems to me to be part of the harmful character of the structure of this Bill is that the only sanction it proposes is the suspension of the institution set up for devolved government in Northern Ireland. Those institutions, as all noble Lords will be aware, were sought as a prize by Unionists in particular. If the Government suspend the Executive and the Assembly they deprive those who are not at fault of that for which they have worked and secured as a prize. For the loyalist paramilitary organisations and their political parties it is no skin off their nose if those organisations are suspended because they are not represented on them, so that will not induce them to decommission.
Some people will say that the IRA cannot be expected to decommission if the loyalists are not doing so. The IRA will say that it has to protect its people. I can imagine those comments only too readily. I respectfully suggest that one harmful feature of the Bill is that the only sanction is the suspension of the devolved organisations. That will not influence the remaining loyalist organisations that have yet to decommission.
Another reason why the proposals are harmful is that there is no failsafe factor. They are not safe and they are not just. They are not just because they penalise the
348
innocent as well as those who are in default and they are not safe for the same reason. Penalising the innocent will give rise to resentment among the Unionist community in Northern Ireland at a time when we need to minimise resentment rather than exacerbate it. It is important for the Government to look for other means to secure compliance by the IRA. I took great heart from what the Minister said towards the end of his speech. I trust that my comments will encourage the Government to move in the direction that he suggested and will not lead them to change their mind.
The theme of the Bill is justifiable in certain circumstances and for a brief period. However, there must be genuine failsafe mechanisms that operate automatically. The Bill needs the same clarity and starkness that characterised the Prime Minister's assurances to Unionists at the time of the Good Friday agreement and the referendum and more recently. They are too well known and too numerous to need reciting today.
There has to be a penalty for default that will bear on the guilty automatically—a penalty that will hurt. All that we have at the moment is the automatic availability of a mechanism. We do not have the automatic operation of that mechanism. Anyone who has even glanced at the Bill knows that the mechanism can be operated only if there is a 60 per cent majority for it in the Assembly. Of course we accept the assurances of Mr Hume and Mr Mallon that they will not sit down with those who rely on terrorists, but we have not heard whether the SDLP would continue to sit on the Executive if Sinn Fein was expelled.
There is no precise timetable for compliance. Given the independence of General de Chastelain, that cannot yet be achieved, so there is no failsafe. That leaves halting the early release of prisoners as the only option. That would be an effective deterrent. It is significant how promptly Martin McGuinness denounced the Government for even thinking of it, as apparently they were doing, and warned them off any such notion. Why should he do that if the IRA was planning to decommission?
Halting the early release of prisoners can be achieved consistently with the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. On the entitlement to early release and the maintenance of a ceasefire upon which that depends, the Act tells the Secretary of State to take into account whether an organisation is co-operating fully with the de Chastelain commission. Clause 1(1)(a)(ii) of the Bill makes failure to co-operate with the commission by not taking any step required by it a matter that would result in automatic suspension. Why could it not also result in the automatic halting of prisoner release if that failure to co-operate persists?
The Government ignore at their peril—and perhaps no less importantly at the peril of the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party—the public's resentment at the continuance in the present circumstances of early release. It is seen as inconsistent with anything other than a discreditable explanation. That can be readily overcome by an amendment of the sort that I hope and believe the Minister held out promise of a few minutes ago.

349
In conclusion, I have greatly admired most of what the Government have done in Northern Ireland and I greatly admire the personal qualities of my successor. I have not kept my admiration under a bushel. However, I have always differed with the Government on prisoners. It is only because of my firm adherence to the Good Friday agreement and to the objective that it is intended to serve that I find my disagreement on that score at its sharpest tonight.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, at the risk of repeating myself, let me say that the Bill is about one issue alone: the decommissioning of arms. That issue should have been settled before the agreement was signed. It is beyond my comprehension why it was not. If it had been dealt with there would be no need for the Bill because all the other issues in it would be settled by now. That has been an obstacle ever since the signing of the agreement.
I am not a unionist. I have opposed Unionist politicians all my political life, but I understand their fears, occasioned by the murder of 302 policemen and many members of the British Army, and incidents of indiscriminate murder carried out by the IRA and by loyalists. Many members of the Catholic community in Northern Ireland have been cruelly murdered by loyalist paramilitary forces. There is no difference between decommissioning of the IRA and of loyalist paramilitaries.
I have been looking back over my many years in politics. An attempt is now being made to bring about inclusive government in Northern Ireland—a government containing Catholics and Protestants, unionists and nationalists. I have been through that experience. Brian Faulkner, the last Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, engaged with me and the SDLP at Sunningdale. We brought about an inclusive Executive, representing all the nationalist and unionist opinions in Northern Ireland. That experience was brought cruelly crashing to the ground by the activities of the loyalist paramilitaries, ably aided and abetted by the IRA terrorists. During the five-month existence of that Executive, the IRA was bombing and murdering every day in collusion with loyalist paramilitary organisations. The paramilitaries on both sides brought the agreement to the ground.
It is interesting to look back because the man now under siege in attempting to bring about an inclusive, all-party government is none other than David Trimble. In 1973, David Trimble was a member of an extreme Unionist party called Vanguard. He was using all his political ability to prevent the Sunningdale Executive from coming into being. I am delighted that he is now using all his energies to try to create that which he helped to break down in 1973 and 1974. I believe that David Trimble is genuinely trying to create a system of government in Northern Ireland that will be inclusive of nationalists and unionists. I know that there will be great difficulties in doing so. Those difficulties cannot be ignored.
350
In the executive envisaged by this legislation, there will be four parties. There will be the DUP, who are anti-agreement, and the UUP, who are pro-agreement. Sinn Fein will be called in, and there will be the SDLP. Given all the history of Ireland, and all the bitterness, suspicion and distrust we have had for hundreds of years, can one imagine those 10 people sitting around a table? I believe that the answer is yes. I have sat down with Unionists, who were my former political opponents, in an executive, and we found a good deal in common. Perhaps we had something which present people do not have. I had been a Member of the Opposition at Stormont when there was a Unionist Government. When the Executive was created, we knew each other because we had been parliamentary adversaries. The same criteria do not apply this time, so they will find it even more difficult.
I have listened to Sinn Fein say that David Trimble does not want Catholics or Fenians in the executive. I do not believe that that is right. I believe that he wants to bring about a community government in Northern Ireland and that he has had very little help from this Government. David Trimble is in a very tricky position. His executive—the people who combine to form the Unionist party—may reject him as the leader of the party if he appears to be settling for what is proposed.
The question has been asked as to what would happen if there were to be exclusion. I have heard General de Chastelain lauded to the high heavens on the basis of what a good fellow he is, with a good record, including a good war record. What has he been doing for these past four or five years? Why has he not made some approaches to people in possession of illegal arms over that period? Why can he not tell the Government that he has ensured that there will be decommissioning? He does not live in an ivory tower in Northern Ireland. He does not sit there with his other two colleagues, not taking in the impressions of everyone else. He must surely meet government Ministers. He must surely meet civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office. They are bound to have had the odd drink at a golf club somewhere in Northern Ireland. They are bound to run into each other. Then the Government say, "We can't talk. We don't know him at all. He is independent". I believe that it is incumbent upon General de Chastelain to do something now to try to get us out of what is an awful political position.
It is all about trust in Northern Ireland. I listened to some speeches in the other place yesterday. The Unionists have their backs to the wall. I remember going into Stormont in the early 1960s. At that time, Northern Ireland was a one-party state. The Unionists never brooked any opposition. They ran the whole show themselves. They never found themselves in any great difficulty when having to negotiate with their political opponents. That is why they find themselves in such a weak position now. Unionism has totally and absolutely splintered. I think that they admit that themselves. PR has been an absolute disaster for the party and its beliefs. In those circumstances, it is up to those people who see the advent of an executive to do everything they can to ensure that David Trimble is not brought crashing to the ground.

351
As I said, I listened to the debate yesterday. The Unionists now see themselves as being lectured to by the SDLP and being threatened by Sinn Fein and the IRA. At the moment, it looks to the Unionists as if there is a pan-nationalist front against them. Their backs are to the wall. Sinn Fein, the SDLP, the Irish Government, led by the Taoiseach, and Irish-American opinion have a good many representatives running around Belfast at the moment, all putting pressure on the Unionist leader, David Trimble.
Before there can be any hope of peace in Northern Ireland, it must be accepted that there are two communities. There cannot be victory for one over the other. You cannot defeat one and have triumph for the other. It must be realised that there is a unionist community in Northern Ireland. Its members are of Protestant background. They are not of the majority religion in Northern Ireland, but they are there and there they will stay. If we are ever to have any hope, that fact must be taken into consideration.
Over the past months, I have heard it said, "If you do not accept the Government's proposals, do you want to go back to what has been happening over the past 30 years?" Let us analyse that for a moment. We are asking ourselves whether we want to go back to the murder, mayhem, the killing of policemen and soldiers, and the bombing of Belfast, Manchester and London. There is an implied threat there, is there not? That threat is coming from the IRA: "If you don't do what we want, we will go hack to killing soldiers and policemen." I believe that to make any further concessions to the IRA under that threat would be a denial of every democratic concept we have. We must not allow ourselves to be placed in that position.
What would happen if Sinn Fein were to be excluded because the IRA had not decommissioned? This decommissioning is so symbolic. If the IRA wants to see an inclusive executive and wants two Sinn Fein members sitting on that executive, it could make a gesture by giving up some semtex. I would like to see it give up everything. It has no need to give up its revolvers and rifles and other paramilitary equipment. But semtex is an offensive weapon. It has nothing at all to do with bringing about an agreement in Northern Ireland. The IRA could make that gesture—a gesture which, I believe, would meet with the approval of its own supporters.
If the IRA is excluded and does not make any moves to bring about decommissioning, what will the executive do? There will be an automatic exclusion. I agree with everything that has been said. If the IRA refuses to decommission, then the Secretary of State can wipe out the whole executive, and the guilty will be there with the innocent. That is an extremely unfair threat to hold over the democratic parties in Northern Ireland. What would the SDLP do? The noble and learned Lord, the previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, has asked that question, as have many others. I predict—and I am a former SDLP member—that John Hume, the leader of the SDLP, will in no circumstances desert Sinn Fein. John Hume drove Sinn Fein from the political
352
gutter and gave it credibility in Northern Ireland. I cannot foresee any circumstances in which the SDLP will desert Sinn Fein.
There are other people in the SDLP. The SDLP is not unanimous in its support of Sinn Fein. There could he a split in Sinn Fein. There could be a split in the SDLP over its attitude to Sinn Fein. I know many SDLP members who detest Sinn Fein. Some of them have actually spoken in this House. But having brought Sinn Fein from the political gutter to political credibility, I cannot see that John Hume will ever desert it.
So what do we do? The Minister says that he is contemplating bringing forward some amendments tomorrow. I hope that those amendments relate to the speech made in the Commons yesterday by the former Prime Minister, John Major. I thought his speech was one of the most constructive and compassionate I have heard. I hope that what he said has borne in on the Government and that they bring forward amendments based on his proposals.
I do not wish to speak for too long here today—in fact I have spoken for too long already. Tomorrow may be the day to make further contributions. When I arrived this morning, I received a little missive. It has absolutely nothing to do with the debate, or at least so I thought. It has to do with freedom of action. It is about the sacking of the hereditary Peers. There is a quotation, which I think has some relationship to this debate:
"Men have sometimes been led by degrees, sometimes hurried into things, of which, if they could have seen the whole together, they would never have permitted the most remote approach. The people never give up their liberties except under some delusion".
Those are the words of one of the great parliamentarians of history, Edmund Burke. I believe that those words bear some relationship to what we are saying. I hope that the Government will do whatever they can to meet the genuine concerns mentioned yesterday by John Major and others. Perhaps if they do we can resolve this matter tomorrow night.
4.10 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, it is a great pleasure, perhaps even a great honour, to follow the noble Lord who has just sat down. Quite apart from the fact that I agree with every word that he said, it gives me an opportunity yet again to pay tribute to his consistent courage in the face of terrorists who understand the danger that he has presented, at least over the past 30 years, to their methods of politics.
The Prime Minister and indeed the Secretary of State in another place have said repeatedly, particularly during the course of yesterday's debates in another place, that this question is a matter of trust. I believe that they are entirely right when they say that. I have just come back from a brief visit to Northern Ireland and I was not surprised to find that there persist there, as well as in a number of quarters on this side of the water, some perceptions which I think need to inform the attitude of those of us who are considering this legislation, because they certainly inform the attitude of many Unionists of all shades at this difficult time.

353
Those perceptions are three. First, those who hold them are convinced that whatever Sinn Fein may say to the Prime Minister or to those representatives of the Government with whom it is negotiating, to its own supporters its message remains clear—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, mentioned this during the course of his remarks—and can be encapsulated as follows: "Don't worry, we won't give up an ounce of Semtex or a single rifle. We will use our rhetoric to get into the Executive and then no one will dare to kick us out".
The second perception that I found widely shared was the following—it is one to which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, gave his usual eloquent expression a moment ago—namely, that the SDLP would never dare to continue in an executive, or in a new executive, after Sinn Fein had been expelled. I have to say that as I listened to the debate in another place yesterday it is a perception that the leader of the SDLP did nothing to dispel in his speech.
The third perception—which I think underpins the rest, and the attitude of those of us who have been concerned about Northern Ireland over many years from perhaps rather a Unionist point of view—is that we have a suspicion. I make no criticism of this because I think that governments of both colours have the whole of the United Kingdom to think about. We have a suspicion that when confronted with the threat of a general return to violence a British government will always in the end give way to terrorists, and that they will ask the Democrats to make the concessions, not the terrorists.
I believe that the combination of these three perceptions means that any mechanism designed to link terrorist participation to their membership of an executive must be—in the words, I think, of the Prime Minister—cast iron if Unionist and other fears are to be allayed. I have to confess that in its present form I do not think that this Bill fills that particular requirement. In that I certainly agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew with his infinitely greater experience than mine in these matters.
Under those circumstances the burden on General de Chastelain would be enormous. We have already seen the pressures to which he has been subjected in delaying his report in the crucial moments leading up to the proposals last week. As we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, the burden on the SDLP—which I think has to possess great courage to participate in a reconstituted executive if Sinn Fein were to be expelled from it—is also great. Further there is the burden on the Government who have to face the possibility of taking actions which might lead to a general return to violence. That perhaps is a pressure at least as great as the pressure on the others.
Therefore, it seems to me important that this legislation should both give greater reassurance to those who need it and, if possible, relieve those responsible, in so far as we are able, from having to take decisions under intolerable pressure. Therefore, the mechanisms should be as automatic as it is possible to make them if this legislation is to have any chance of inspiring
354
confidence on all sides of the divide. I hope, therefore, when the noble Lord brings forward the amendments to which he referred—I pay tribute to him and to the Government for the emphasis which they have placed on their view that this Bill is not perfect and therefore that they are open to seeing its provisions amended—they will in some respects address the concerns that have been expressed in this debate. In particular I hope that—as other noble Lords have suggested—it will be possible to incorporate on the face of the Bill a timetable for decommissioning, perhaps as part of another schedule.
It seems to me that the first element of decommissioning should take place—as the Prime Minister suggested—a small number of days after the Executive has been formed. I would find it difficult to understand why that should not take place any more than five days after that. I believe that that would be an enormous reassurance to all of us if it were possible to put that on the face of the Bill. Any party that failed to observe the timetable laid down in such an amendment at any stage would clearly automatically lose the right to sit on the Executive. It would be the responsibility of General de Chastelain to make that decision, not the Secretary of State. I have already mentioned the great pressures that the general is under; but if the general were able to explain the reasons for his decision, that in itself would make a great contribution to public confidence.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew made clear, there is really no excuse for continuing to release terrorist prisoners if a terrorist organisation, or one that represented terrorists, were to be expelled from the Executive. I shall not add anything to what my noble and learned friend said in that respect.
It is curious that if Sinn Fein is expelled from the Executive, the Executive would dissolve and then have to reform. There is another reason, apart from the ones that noble Lords have adduced so far, why I think that this is not a good idea. I come back to the whole question of the SDLP. I sympathise with the SDLP and the great dangers that it might run at the hands of Sinn Fein under those circumstances. Therefore, from that point of view alone, it would be sensible for the Executive to remain in being after expulsion; then the SDLP would have to make a conscious decision to leave as well.
We should consider a little the question of the Patten report. We know that it is causing a great deal of anxiety, not only in the ranks of the RUC but all over Northern Ireland. I, of course, have not the faintest idea of what is in the report—I do not think that many of your Lordships do either, with the greatest respect—but clearly the nature of the RUC, or whatever it is to be called as a result of the report, will change in the light of normality returning to the Province. However, if there are still armed terrorists about, it would seem rather odd to change the nature of that police force and risk its not being able to deal with armed terrorists in the magnificent way that the RUC has so far managed to do. I hope that the Government will be able to answer my question of whether they see a link between the

355
implementation of the Patten report and the behaviour of terrorist organisations on both sides of the divide in the light of decommissioning and what we require of it.
Such amendments would greatly help build the trust which the Government and all of your Lordships believe to be so essential. As your Lordships have said, it has now come down to the difficult and intractable matter of decommissioning. In other conflicts decommissioning has been a pre-condition for peace after years of guerrilla war. Indeed, academic studies show that we are right to suggest that decommissioning should be a pre-requisite. We certainly regarded it as such in Kosovo, for instance; why should it be different in Northern Ireland? If the terrorists have exchanged the Armalite in favour of the ballot box, they can prove it by throwing away the Armalite. If they do not, why should we believe them? Indeed, why should those who believe in government through representative institutions be cast as villains for refusing to surrender to the blackmail of the men with the Armalites?
It is a matter of trust. I hope that when the Bill is amended we will be able to approve of it as a genuine contribution to the building of that trust and a way forward to defusing the extremely difficult situation that obtains in the Province at the moment.
4.22 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it is always a special pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, if only in my case because of his grandfather's kindness to me when I first came here half a century ago. There were just a handful of Labour Peers then, but his grandfather was very constructive in his approach and was really the founder of the modern House that we know.
When it comes to Northern Ireland, the noble Viscount speaks from a considerable family tradition. In the corridor there is a picture of his great, great grandfather, the noble Marquess, bringing about the defeat of the Irish Home Rule Bill in 1893. Although I regard that as fairly disastrous, I must confess that my father and my mother's father were backing him up. So I do not pretend to be any better than he is in such a matter.
When it comes to his views on Northern Ireland, I am only sorry that instead of myself the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, is not replying. After all, when he went to Ireland in an official capacity in 1969, he came back and said "There are too many guns". Where were these guns? Whose guns were they? They were mostly Protestant guns. After all, it was the Protestants who brought the guns to Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, with general acceptance, sent the British Army to protect the Catholics from the maltreatment and terrorism of the Protestants. So we must look at this in a fairly broad minded way, as has been suggested by other noble Lords.
All of that apart, I come before the House in the rather rare capacity of a super loyalist; an almost obsequious member of the party. I am capable of disagreeing with my leaders on one or two matters—recently, for example, on the reduction of the age of consent for
356
homosexuals; I am much more sympathetic to the hereditary Peers than most of my colleagues; and on Tuesday, when we debated penal reform, I was criticising the Government quite sharply—but on this matter I am one hundred per cent loyal to them and the policy they are pursuing.
I am someone who has written on Irish history; who has been given a drink of Irish whiskey by Sir James Craig, the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland in the early 1930s; and who, after all, if I may be allowed to make the point, spent a night as a guest of one of the leaders of the Ulster Volunteer Force, one of the paramilitary organisations. Surveying the whole issue historically, this initiative of my right honourable friend, backed up by that wonderful person who I do not know—I wish I did—Mo Mowlam, will be one of the greatest of history, Irish or English. I am one hundred per cent loyal and I wish them everything that is good.
As to tactics, we must leave that to them. Occasionally we must leave the tactics to our leaders, and I am ready to do so on this occasion. Whatever they think is best, at the moment my mood is to follow them and to wish them everything that is good.
Of course, that does not mean that one should ignore the problems with which they are faced or the problems of Mr Trimble. I pray for success for all those concerned. Above all, every night and four times a day I pray for Mr Trimble. He needs prayers more than any of us.
4.26 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, my name is down for the next debate on the Northern Ireland 1974 Act Order. That was a mistake because that debate was listed prior to my realising that this one was to take place. The House definitely will not have to listen to me twice.
I, too, thank the Minister for the manner of his presentation of the Bill and for the news that the Government will look seriously at amendments and bring them forward tomorrow.
I will speak briefly about the Bill. I will not go into too much detail because, owing to circumstances beyond my control, I will not be here tomorrow to hear the good news that the Government will bring to us.
I am not going to go back over the details of release of prisoners or decommissioning—or the lack of it—up until this time. Suffice to say that there are so many instances of the law-abiding society in Northern Ireland and the Government giving an inch and then going that extra mile while the terrorist organisations, on both sides of the divide and their political wings, have conceded absolutely nothing—not even an earthly tremble, let alone the seismic shift that the Prime Minister said he has detected. Perhaps we are sleeping, but I think not. Those of us who know Sinn Fein and the terrorists would perhaps consider that it was wishful thinking.
It has been very difficult to accept the steps that the Government have taken in recent months to appease terrorists, as some of us would believe—almost anything in order to avoid the threatened action by

357
terrorists using the weapons and explosives which they still hold on to. We are told that this week and the next couple months is the last chance for the Unionists to secure peace. Why is it always the Unionists who are berated with their "last chance"? It may be a last chance to emerge into peace and democracy, but the perpetrators of 30 years of terrorism are not being told that this is their "last chance". Their violence, on both sides of the community, has continued throughout this so-called ceasefire, and yet anyone would believe from what the Government have said that it is up to the law-abiding society to declare peace for now and forever; "Roll over on your backs, give in and it will all be all right". Many of us do not believe that. However, I accept that the amendments to be brought forward tomorrow may change what we are talking about.
How twisted and one-sided can we get? Is it the last chance for the terrorists and their political apologists to declare by their words and actions that peace is for now and ever? I do not doubt, indeed I know full well, that the Government want peace—but please do not let us accept that their yearning is any greater than mine and that of other people who have lived with terrorism and violence in Northern Ireland for so many years.
So we have this Bill before the House, supposedly to overcome the last obstacle to peace, and the forming of a devolved administration in the Province. Let me make one point first. The Bill would be totally unnecessary had the terrorist organisations made any move at all to decommission, demobilise, or whatever we wish to call it. Frankly, the Bill was not on the cards and need not have occurred had people acted honestly, as the impression seems to be they will act in future. We even passed an Act to enable weapons to be handed in with immunity for those involved. Nothing happened—hence this Bill.
Should the present impasse over weapons continue, the Bill will, in practical terms, punish law-abiding citizens by denying them the democratic right of government. That is of course if, as I suspect, there will be no decommissioning and the SDLP does not live up to its responsibilities.
Perhaps I may quickly run through the three scenarios of events that could occur in the next 10 months as a result of the Bill as presently drafted. The first is easy. The IRA appoint a negotiator or intermediary this weekend; declare their intention to decommission and, in the following months actually begin to do so. In that instance, we are in the clear—provided the vast majority of weapons are handed in by May next year.
The second scenario is that negotiators are appointed and the Executive is formed, but, owing to the lack of any practical decommissioning, the Secretary of State suspends the Assembly under Clause 1 of the Bill. However, the SDLP seems to have implied that it would not necessarily support the restoration of the devolved government, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said, without the political wing of the IRA if weapons continue to be withheld; it would not go into the Executive without them. So, we are back where we are now.
358
That is where the Bill has a major flaw. It should be amended so that, instead of suspending the whole system, those who are not living up to their obligations—in this case, Sinn Fein—should be expelled on their own from the Executive only. At that stage, John Hume in particular, and the SDLP, can either stay in the Executive or show how sympathetic they are to Sinn Fein by resigning from it, actively removing their support from the democratic process that has been signed up to, from the Good Friday agreement to the protocol of a couple of days ago and now this Bill. After all, John Hume is a Nobel Peace Prize holder. He is a democrat, someone who frequently condemns violence, and is one of the catalysts in the whole process. He should be given his last chance to see it through. Can he really stand as a world figure, as he presently is, and deny the right of democratic progress as a result of a relatively small group of people withholding weapons?
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Viscount one question. What happens if the Protestant paramilitary organisations fail to give up any of their weapons. Will they be allowed to hang on to them?
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, the Bill is about the Executive and those who will be nominated to it. Therefore, it primarily refers directly to Sinn Fein/IRA because the other terrorist organisations have not obtained positions in the Executive. However, I entirely agree with the noble Earl and others, that all possible pressure should be put on the Protestant paramilitaries, and the Republican paramilitaries who are not truly on cease-fire. In turn, Sinn Fein would be faced with the fact that for once, perhaps for the first time, they cannot hold us to ransom and have a veto over this democratic process. That would seriously be the first time that any of us had seen that they did not have that power.
The third scenario is that the IRA do not appoint a negotiator and do not make a declaration in the next few days, and we can go no further. However, I believe that the second scenario is the one that will occur, and that a representative of the IRA will be appointee as an intermediary. It will probably not be an IRA person. I believe that we shall be back in the same situation as we had in regard to the victims' remains and the authorities will be talking through intermediaries. The representative will probably be a priest or a solicitor. In effect, it will be someone with whom General de Chastelain cannot really come to grips. And we shall be in for yet another fudge. That is where an amendment to the Bill could enable a timetable to be open and public. I suspect that it cannot be on the face of the Bill, but a proposal can be laid out openly and publicly when the matter is decided, after General de Chastelain has spoken to the groups concerned.
However, as the Bill stands I believe that we shall see fully armed terrorists in the Executive of part of the United Kingdom if David Trimble and the Unionists accept the Bill in its present form—and I suspect that they will not now be asked to do so.
By definition, the decommissioning timetable is flexible. There is no time-scale as yet, and it is up to the commission to set it after talking to the terrorists.

359
De Chastelain may have a date in mind for the first weapons to be decommissioned; it may he September, October, or whenever. Between now and then, I can see that Sinn Fein will halt the day-to-day violence of beatings, knee-cappings and intimidation. It is capable of doing so. It did so earlier in the process when they were suspended for a period of time. There was an election and it was in Sinn Fein's interests to do so, but then they started up again. So we should not suggest that Sinn Fein does not have the power. Over the past 30 years it has had short cease-fires with no violence whatsoever, especially at Christmas time, which it wishes to enjoy like anyone else.
However, when it is pressurised to produce weapons, it will say, "Look, everything is very quiet. Do you the Government and the decommissioning body really want to jeopardise that by suspending everything? It is up to you. We are still trying. Do you want to go back to all that violence tomorrow?". What shall we do then? Shall we introduce more hasty legislation to try to get round that point? I dread to think. I am not accusing the Government of laying themselves wide open to that, but I cannot see what else will happen. The Government and De Chastelain must have in mind what will happen in that case. But either way, the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland will be the losers, because the Government have allowed too many loopholes—and we hope that some of them will be filled in tomorrow—in the Bill as it presently stands.
I wish to make one more point on the wider constitutional picture. During the passage of the House of Lords Bill the Government have thrown scorn on the suggestion, which was not mine, that after the expelling of hereditary Peers this House might not be the ultimate defender of our constitution in a case where there is an overwhelming majority in another place. Here is a Bill that infringes our democratic rights and allows fully armed terrorists to take part in governing a part of the United Kingdom. I cannot imagine anything less constitutional. I say to life Peers, primarily to those on the Government Benches: this is the time to prove, when we are talking about fully armed terrorists in government, that you are prepared to make a stand on a vital constitutional issue; I hope that you will prove your independence by supporting the more important amendments that will come before the House tomorrow to make this a better deal and bring democracy to Northern Ireland.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I find myself in the position of agreeing with almost everything that has been said during the debate so far. Above all, I found myself agreeing with just about every word that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said—especially his remark about the prime defect of the Belfast agreement. He asked why there was nothing in that to resolve the issue of decommissioning at the very beginning. But of course the answer is clear, and the noble Lord knows it. Sinn Fein would never have accepted such a commitment—which causes us to wonder whether they will accept such a commitment now. How right he was to remind us of just what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, meant when he warned that the
360
penalty for this process failing would be violence. Why? If Sinn Fein/IRA is committed to peace, even if this process is put in the parking lot, as the expression is, for a period of three or four months, why should that provoke it to start killing again, unless killing is still on its agenda today? It does not say very much for what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, believes of the IRA's commitment to peace. I agree very much with the comments of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and others, and indeed the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that the Bill contains nothing that will put any pressure on loyalist terrorists or any terrorists who are not associated with Sinn Fein. There is a method of putting pressure on them: stopping the release of their prisoners. That is how to put pressure on them.
But here we are again, as ever, with Northern Ireland legislation: finding that it is being rammed through without adequate time for reflection, consideration and consultation outside this place. Again it is a rush. Every piece of legislation that has been brought forward has been in a great rush. Why the rush? Why cannot we have more time for consideration? After all, if the Government had given themselves more time for consideration, they would have persuaded themselves of the virtues of what my right honourable friend John Major said and what Mr Trimble said yesterday in the House of Commons. There was nothing dramatically new in it. Ministers could have thought of it had they given themselves a little more time for reflection.
Let us be clear what this Bill is about. It is about the breaking of the Prime Minister's word given to the people of Northern Ireland to persuade them to vote for the Belfast agreement. The Prime Minister promised that the spokesmen for the terrorists would not be admitted to government while the terrorists remained active. In his words,
"Those who use or threaten violence [would be] excluded from the government of Northern Ireland".
Only a week or so ago there was the attempted murder here on the mainland of a man who had been an IRA informer. Yet we now see the representatives of those who committed that crime being proposed as Ministers in the Executive. In his Question Time broadcast the Prime Minister confirmed that he regarded the IRA/Sinn Fein as one organisation. I shall come back to that point later. One question that we have to ask is whether his ally and partner in many respects as regards this legislation, Mr Ahern, the Taoiseach, considers it to be the same organisation. I understand that the other day he said that he had come to the conclusion that they were now separate. I shall return to that point later, too.
Clearly, the IRA is still using and threatening violence, but now it is proposed that it will take part in the Executive. The Prime Minister also promised,
"prisoners kept in unless violence is given up for good".
It has not been. The prison gates remain open and, even worse, as readers of the Sunday Mirror will know—it is not my normal reading, but it was last Sunday—at least some of those who were released were making telephone calls, which were tapped, indicating quite clearly that they were still committed to the path of violence. Yet the releases go on.

361
That is the background against which we are asked yet again to buy a pig in a poke. It is always the same pig and the same poke, and it has never been delivered yet. We are asked yet again to trust the Prime Minister, legislate in unseemly haste and concede more to Sinn Fein/IRA.
Yesterday in the other place the Secretary of State refused to make any concessions to allay the fears of the Ulster Unionists. It appears that the Prime Minister was a little more constructive today. I hope that we shall see the amendments very shortly. Indeed, when the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will be able to give us a clearer indication of exactly which of the propositions by Mr Major and Mr Trimble will be the subject of government amendments. No doubt the Secretary of State was supporting the view of Mr Martin McGuinness that any such concession would be,
"a very, very dangerous thing",
not that I would accuse the Secretary of State of appeasing IRA/Sinn Fein. Her policy smacks far more of the green flag than the white flag. Nonetheless, we have this Bill before us and before we decide whether it should pass—and I certainly would not support it in its present form—we shall have to try to improve it and seek better guarantees from the Government.
I put this point to the Minister. If General de Chastelain is confident that he will announce a breakthrough in the decommissioning process by the middle of next week, why not delay the formation of the Northern Ireland Executive until the middle of the week after? That does not seem to be outrageous, unless IRA/Sinn Fein is so impatient that it could not bear to wait another week. After all, if it is committed in a way which enables the General to say that he will make an announcement within the next few days, why not let it be made before the Executive is formed? Indeed, why not wait until the General publishes the timetable for decommissioning? Why cannot we have that timetable? The answer is in Schedule 2 to the Bill. The Government choose to bind themselves to meet the deadlines which they have themselves set out. But if Mr Trimble's Unionists do not accept the terms of this Bill, the deadlines cannot be met in any case. So the Government may find themselves between a rock and a hard place.
I also suggest to the Minister that this Bill would benefit from a clearer definition of the word "decommissioning". Therefore, will the Minister at least assure us that all the parties are agreed, including Sinn Fein/IRA, that decommissioning relates solely to terrorist arms and that there are no parallel commitments on the part of Her Majesty's Government to disarm the RUC or the Army in Northern Ireland in parallel with any disarmament by the IRA?
Perhaps it might be helpful to define decommissioning in the Bill in that way. It certainly could do no harm. If not, I can envisage Sinn Fein claiming that the IRA was unwilling to decommission until the Government did so too. I can find nothing in the Bill, in the Belfast agreement or in other legislation flowing from it which precludes Sinn Fein from
362
announcing that it had done its best to persuade the IRA to disarm, but had failed and so Sinn Fein had separated from the IRA.
What would the Government do then? Would they accept that and allow Sinn Fein to continue as a party of peace based on its democratic mandate at the Assembly elections while the IRA quietly went about its business and maintained its arsenal? What if the Provisional IRA finds that its weapons have been stolen by other republican terrorist organisations? Members of that organisation might say that, while they would love to decommission, their dastardly quartermasters had defected with the weapons which were now in the hands of the INLA or some other group. But the Provisional IRA could not be punished for that; after all, its weapons had been stolen from it, and it would be sinful to punish the innocent in that way.
No doubt the Minister will tell us that that is a matter for the General to decide, but that presents me with a difficulty. How does Parliament hold the General to account? I do not know him; I have never met him. How many noble Lords have? By what means can we be assured that he is not merely honourable but that he is robust in the ways of politics as well as war? What if the General declares that whatever agreement he may make, and with whoever he chooses to make it, has been broken? The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, put his finger on it. Would the Government then argue that things had been going so well in the Assembly and Executive—this event might not arise until the turn of the year—that it would be risking a renewal of violence if the Executive was suspended?
The Minister shakes his head. I hope that later he will do more than that and set out the position clearly, preferably in the legislation but certainly in reply to the debate. The argument would be that what really mattered was not where the arms were but whether they were being used. If all was quiet and peaceful, would it not be taking a terrible risk with peace to disturb things when they were going so well? Like the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, I suspect that that situation is one that we shall face some time before May of next year. Unfortunately, this Bill is shot full of holes which will allow such events to occur. It is a Bill which gives every encouragement, not to the Democrats, but to the bandits.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he consider the reputation and background of General Sir John de Chastelain who has served his government and the international community in a very good cause and whose reputation is above reproach?
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, of course I do that. But there are many men who have served their countries well, whose reputations are above reproach but who, when they have dealt with the IRA, have come singularly and badly unstuck.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, in agreeing with everything that has been said this afternoon. I was pleased that the

363
noble Lord began to ask questions about the details of decommissioning, what would happen if the weapons were stolen and so on. That is a minefield. It is almost certain that that will happen and make life difficult.
This Bill and the talks leading up to it relate to Unionist refusal to sit in government with any party with guns. Unfortunately, in no way does it help the Unionists or others; rather, it is a threat to them. It suggests that if they do not get in quickly the whole thing will come to an end and it will be their fault. That is not a very helpful way to sort out the problem. This problem goes right back to the time when the Good Friday agreement was first published. At that time Unionists realised that decommissioning was not a precondition for partnership in the devolved government of Northern Ireland.
Very soon feeling against the agreement became strong and the probability was that the referendum result would not be in favour of the agreement. The Prime Minister then made several statements, which have already been referred to, to assure Unionists that they would not be forced to sit in government with any party with guns and Semtex. As a result, the referendum was passed but, unfortunately, the Prime Minister did not keep to his undertaking. Again, he asks Unionists to take a risk for peace and to sit with Sinn Fein while the IRA thinks about destroying its arsenal. Failing that, the Assembly will he stood down and the Unionists will suffer as much as those who fail to decommission.
David Trimble has asked for some failsafe guarantees in this Bill to help him, but none has been included. Unionists and the people of Northern Ireland generally respect plain speaking and demand fair treatment. They detest ambiguous statements and the products of spin doctors. I cannot over-emphasise that they very much want devolution and the Assembly to work. There is a craving to make this work and to restore normal democratic government. Co-operation with the SDLP, or any democratic party, does not present a problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, emphasised, but to sit in government with Sinn Fein, as it is now, is too much to ask. Pressure has been placed on David Trimble and his team, which is much resented. Is it because the UUP is thought more likely to give way than the terrorists?
I believe that the present impasse has arisen because politicians on this side of the Irish Sea seem to look on Sinn Fein and the IRA as erring democrats who can be pulled back to see the light by kindness and favours. We who have had to live among them in Northern Ireland know quite a lot about them and know better. We know that Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked. We also know that members of the present: leadership of Sinn Fein have in the past held high positions in the IRA. The IRA has said repeatedly that it will not decommission. This is no surprise because the IRA regards itself as the only legitimate army in Ireland with the right and duty to unite the island of Ireland. It has thought that way for 80 years. The IRA believes that it has a duty to use force of whatever kind it thinks necessary.
Mr Adams has said that the objectives remain unchanged. Neither the IRA nor Sinn Fein has said that the war is over. Sinn Fein has not accepted that the
364
all-Ireland referendum on the Good Friday agreement is a valid act of national self-determination. This leaves the IRA with the continuing requirement to be ready for a resumption of armed struggle. It is very significant that Mr Bruton, leader of Fine Gael, believes that this is the core of the problem in both parts of Ireland. The immediate objective of Sinn Fein/IRA is to prove that Northern Ireland is ungovernable by peaceful means, and the situation on the Garvaghy and Ormeau Roads is not unrelated to that objective.
Memories can be short, but we are still very conscious that the IRA has bombed and murdered about 2,000 people and so-called loyalists have acted with similar bestiality. Is it not the ultimate denial of democracy to force people to sit in partnership in government with unrepentant terrorists?
The Ulster Unionist Party position on this is supported by democrats throughout the world. It should be remembered that Mr Ahern, the Taoiseach, was strongly in favour of this for a few months at the beginning of the year. But the success of Sinn Fein in the European elections has been noted by nationalists north and south and the Dublin Government are now looking at Sinn Fein as a future party of some significance. The British Government have given Sinn Fein almost all it has asked for without it giving anything in return: early release of prisoners, the setting up of the Patten Commission, and so on. Sinn Fein has taken votes from the SDLP in Northern Ireland and for fear of losing further votes Mr Hume will not want to agree to vote for the expulsion of Sinn Fein. I have to pinch myself. Am I really a citizen of the UK, brought up to believe in democracy, watching our British Government pressing hard on a peaceful and democratic party in part of the UK to make it agree to sit down with armed terrorists as partners, even temporarily, to govern part of the United Kingdom? Is it democracy when a Government with a large and disciplined majority can do something as undemocratic as this?
I am concerned about the Bill. I note that the Minister said that amendments would be tabled. However, I believe that even his hands are tied. As the noble Lord has explained to us on many occasions, he has to consider the Good Friday agreement. It is the international agreement; and there can be nothing in the Bill which goes against that agreement. That means that what the noble Lord can do to straighten out the many problems is very limited.
I believe that there is only one thing to do. It is to put the problem in abeyance for the time being while people sit down and do a little straight thinking.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I agree with Sinn Fein in one matter at least, in this present dangerous and difficult situation, when it says that we must not forget the lessons of the past. It is right about that. The past I have in mind is not the early 1990s, nor even the early 1980s, but the early 1970s and the time of the Sunningdale Agreement and the power-sharing executive which was set up. It was an experiment which

365
nearly succeeded, but in the end failed. We would be wrong to ignore the lessons of that failure in grappling with the present situation.
At that time the power-sharing executive programme was under the towering leadership of Lord Whitelaw, whom we all miss—I miss him very much indeed. He was supported by his juniors, my noble friends Lord Windlesham—he was here a moment ago—Lord Kelvedon and myself. He was supported from outside the British Government by many eminent figures, of whom one was the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. We heard him today giving yet another courageous speech. There were many other extremely brave people. They were physically brave as well as politically and intellectually brave. It was not just their job or their opinions on the line: their lives were on the line. They supported that power-sharing executive; and yet it failed, despite the heroic efforts of the then Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, who will speak later in the debate, no doubt with his usual great authority and experience.
What are the two lessons I draw today from that sad experience, with all its efforts, when we came so near to success? They are simple lessons. One was that you cannot push the Ulster people as a whole, but specifically the Unionists and their supporters, too far. You can expect many concessions from them—and there were many then and there have been many this time round—but you cannot go on pushing them again and again in face of more disappointments, more half-broken promises, without any sign of concessions from the other side or any sign that their concessions are bringing a better world for the Ulster people. The attempt to do so then led to the Unionist side of politics unravelling, and the entire Province being trapped and paralysed by strikes, with violence breaking out again on both sides and another plunge into the dark era for the people of Northern Ireland. I shall come to the application of that lesson in a moment.
The other was a more difficult lesson, and possibly less welcome to some speaking on the Unionist-inclined side. It is this. If the Executive is formed but has to exclude both the more extremist parties, and, beyond them, the men of violence and terror—the real slaughterers—the power-sharing Executive will not just sail ahead on its own. Democracy will not be allowed to proceed untrammelled. The violence will take over again. As the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, this is a society of two communities and at the wings are violent propensities which will always come in through splinter and breakaway groups and not only destroy peace in Northern Ireland but the democratic procedures as well.
That applies just as much to the situation if there is no decommissioning as it applied to the situation in 1974. If there is no decommissioning, it does not mean that the democratic institution can go ahead without Sinn Fein, or whatever. It means that outside the democratic institution, violence will resume. The culture of violence which is already there will go on. It will frighten people. That fright will nibble away at the democratic process, and those who have tried to support the democratic process will be forced away from it. Violence will
366
gradually close over the democratic process just as the sea closes over the sand-castles on the beach. That is what happened before and that is what will happen again unless we have a policy and a procedure which can deal with the situation. I argue that the Bill falls short of that.
What emerges so clearly from those days is this. Let us suppose, as I fear is all too likely, that the decommissioning process is fudged or does not satisfy General de Chastelain. Let us suppose that somehow difficulties are found of the kind which my noble friend Lord Tebbit described with great percipience and imagination—these things could easily happen. The understandable idea that some democratic core can still go about its business; that Northern Ireland can be ruled democratically again as it wants to be with devolved legislation; that nothing else will happen and that the situation will be stable, is foolhardy. That idea is not founded on experience, memories, lessons from the past, or any realistic appreciation of what will happen in the future.
That idea has to go hand in hand with the other part of the policy that is not in the Bill. We had a debate in your Lordships' House—how many months ago? I cannot remember—on the horrors and atrocities of Omagh. Some of us said then that there is a missing piece of the policy. Of course we want democracy. Of course we want agreements. Of course we want to work towards the ideas and principles of the Good Friday agreement. But none of that will work unless at the same time the operations against violence and terrorism are organised at a level of co-operation nationally and internationally with Belfast—and the American Government may now be involved—and with a degree of intelligence and intensity on the whereabouts of weapons which will never be handed in, and with a degree of determination all round which ensures that violence does not undermine the democratic process.
It seems self-evident that part of that policy has to be a halt of the early release of prisoners. The early release of prisoners is fuel for violence. We know that it is. It is reported as such. It is known to be such. If we are to have a policy which ensures that democracy in the form of devolved legislation continues, with or without Sinn Fein and the decommissioning, it must go hand in hand with a policy of security and an effort against terrorism which includes the halting of the early releases. I am amazed that the early release amendment, which I hope will he tabled tomorrow, was not included in the earlier process.
I am a guilty party because I participated in the legislation which was rushed through Parliament 24 years ago and once again we are rushing through legislation. At least then we consulted the other party leaders before they had to stand up in Parliament and make their points and be greeted with the cry, "Oh good, let's have an amendment". At least there was some kind of consultation process. However, it appears that the views of the former Prime Minister—a man of authority who began this peace process—were novel to the Government when he rose from the green Benches in the other place and uttered them. I find it incredible that

367
he had not been consulted. Yet that appears to be the pace and style with which the policy is being cobbled together.
I believe that this is a sad little piece of legislation. It is missing the vital element of policy which must go with it. I have no idea whether it will work, but, as noble Lords have rightly said, it is another additional pressure on Unionists who, heaven knows, have bravely yielded on every front, often risking their own lives and certainly their political positions. It may or may not hold the position.
I hope that the threat in it will never be needed. I hope that the decommissioning will take place. However, if it does not and the violence-inclined parties remain outside, this Bill will not hold together 'the Good Friday agreement. It will not hold together the devolved executive, however much the Unionists and those who want democracy and moderation in Ireland want it. Much more will be required, even with the amendments that we shall debate tomorrow. It saddens me that once again we are proceeding with a policy of which half is missing. The half that is missing is the real determination of London, Dublin and even, bless them, the American Government, if they can understand what is happening in Ulster, to defeat, head off, suppress and destroy the terrorist element which remains hanging over peace and democracy in Northern Ireland.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Carew: My Lords, it is a special pleasure for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. I have watched his political career with great interest. Almost exactly 50 years ago, as head boy of my prep school, he reported me to the headmaster for messing around for which I was soundly thrashed. I want to thank the noble Lord for assisting me to grow up.
Apart from my education in this country and 10 years in Her Majesty's Armed Forces, my home has always been in the Republic of Ireland. Therefore, I want to say a few words in regard to the Bill and the Good Friday agreement. My father made his maiden speech in 1947 and I made mine in 1995. Both were on the subject of improving relations between people in the United Kingdom and Ireland.
Over the years, whereas personal relations between the UK and the people of the island of Ireland have been good., the politics have been exceedingly difficult. The Good Friday agreement was a major political step forward. No praise is too high for the efforts of the two governments and the respective parties in Northern Ireland. The agreement presents the best chance of peace in years and the people of the island of Ireland, by a huge majority, voted for that peace. Therefore, the opportunity must not be lost.
Her Majesty's Government are now on the brink of devolving powers to the Assembly with an inclusive Executive in Belfast. It is vital for that Executive to be inclusive. Unionists and Nationalists will have to work together; one without the other will not work. Over the years, we have all become aware of the mistrust between the political parties in Northern Ireland. Therefore, to
368
ensure the working of the Executive and decommissioning, a fail-safe device has been built into the agreement. The Bill provides those safeguards.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that decommissioning should have taken place at the time of the Good Friday agreement. Under the agreement, Sinn Fein gave a commitment to hand in all weapons by May 2000. But will a start be made before then? Will the IRA verify the commitments given by Sinn Fein? I understand that the Taoiseach stated to the Unionists that his personal belief is that the IRA will begin to decommission its weapons shortly after the Executive is set up and will complete the process by May 2000. However, the IRA must make a statement at least to the effect that decommissioning was not just an aspiration but an obligation that will be honoured within the timeframe of the Good Friday agreement. I believe that it is most important that the SDLP remains in the power-sharing Executive, even if Sinn Fein were expelled.
The Bill and the Good Friday agreement have, after lengthy discussions, come about by compromise. Whether it be the Bill before us today or a further amended Bill, there should be a final Bill that is acceptable to the parties in Northern Ireland. That final Bill will surely be the best way forward for peace in Northern Ireland.
5.16 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there has been a remarkable degree of unanimity among the speakers in today's debate. However, surely it is unprecedented for a Bill of such contention to be allocated a mere eight hours for all its stages in another place. Like my noble friend Lord Tebbit, I sincerely ask: what is the reason for this unseemly haste? If ever there were a case for consensus, surely this must be it.
Why are we here? When I see the Bill, I have a feeling of déjà vu. In order to gain an understanding of today's debate, one has to revisit the Good Friday agreement. I was present for almost all of yesterday's debate in another place and much was made of the overwhelming majority in northern and southern Ireland in support of that agreement. However, we need to remember the reason for that. It was the letter that was written in the middle of the night and handed to Mr Trimble, and the personal assurances given by the Prime Minister during that night to secure the acquiescence of Mr Trimble and many of his Unionist colleagues. That was conveyed to the wider public in Northern Ireland, supported by my right honourable friends John Major and William Hague. Others spoke publicly on the basis of the Good Friday agreement plus the personal assurances of the Prime Minister in that note and verbally. The latter was the ingredient which secured the vote.
There are many people in Northern Ireland who believe we have been let down. I count myself as one of them. I make no criticism of the Prime Minister for that because I believe that he made those assurances in good faith at the time. But the truth is that we have been let down. I accept that we can be clever with hindsight,

369
but, with hindsight, in one more day Mr Trimble should have insisted that those assurances were put into the agreement. We should then have been in a much stronger position and perhaps today's debate would have been unnecessary.
That is the reason why we demand from the Government that the three points raised in another place yesterday, together with the fourth put forward in the excellent speech of my right honourable friend John Major, should be incorporated in the Bill. If they are not, we shall repeat the fudge of the Good Friday agreement.
The Prime Minister at that time said, "Trust me". As I have said, I believe he was genuine; and we did. Now he must understand that we need more than words or parliamentary reassurances; more than, "It will be all right on the night", and more than some interesting spinning from No. 10 to reassure the wider public who are not aware of the technicalities of the Bill.
I agree with the comments made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that the central issue of the Bill is decommissioning of arms, not whether or not Mr Trimble and his Unionist colleagues sign up to the Bill and whether they take one more leap of faith. My noble friend Lord Tebbit said that we really need a proper definition of the word "decommissioning". I believe also that we need a proper definition of the word "breach" in the Bill, for what constitutes a breach may be interesting.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, regaled us with some alternative scenarios. Perhaps I may add another. General de Chastelain genuinely will, at some point, produce a timetable. The first stage of that timetable is the "two or three days". I do not know how that will manifest itself when the timetable is produced, but whatever the first stage is, when that time is reached it may be possible for the General himself to say, "Yes, we have reached the limits of my timetable but I believe in good faith that there are so many encouraging signs coming from Sinn Fein/IRA that it would be too insensitive at this stage to trigger the measures in the Bill". It may even be that if the general decides to trigger it, it may be said at the next stage of the process that this is too sensitive a time to trigger the mechanisms in the Bill. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew said, it is only the mechanism that is released, not the automatic exclusion. So we do need more definition.
My right honourable friend John Major asked in another place whether we could confirm that the British and Irish Governments were in agreement about the Bill. In reply Mr Murphy, the Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office, stated:
"The right hon. Member for Huntingdon also asked whether we could confirm that the British and Irish governments are agreed on the Bill. Our relationship as Governments has never been closer and we agreed fully on the way forward".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/99; col. 228.]
That is not a "yes". Are they in agreement on the Bill? May I extend the question asked by my right honourable friend to this: are the two Governments agreed about the amendments that we believe are coming tomorrow? It is
370
important that we hear that. Perhaps I may reinforce the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that we would also like the Minister today—before tomorrow—to give us some indication of what the amendments we see tomorrow will cover.
My right honourable friend also asked if the de Chastelain schedule could be published. I believe that that is not only desirable but essential. Again, Mr Murphy in another place said:
"The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we would encourage General de Chastelain to publish the full schedule and timetable for disarmament".
He continued:
"General de Chastelain said in his report of 2 July that he was prepared to define a detailed timetable for decommissioning, following discussions with representatives of the organisations. Clearly there will be a detailed timetable. Under the Bill, if the general lays down a timetable, it must be kept to, or he will blow the whistle. I recognise that the publication of the full timetable would encourage confidence. Equally, it is a matter for the general and his colleagues to decide whether they should do that".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/99; col. 227.]
With respect, I believe that it is a matter for Parliament to say whether that should be published, and not the general.
On past record, we know that the IRA is a past master at prevarication. Therefore, can we have a guarantee that General de Chastelain's determination of the timetable will be made in a matter of days? I am not sure whether the two or three days count from the publication of the timetable or whether we could wait weeks and months for it. It would be important to have that.
In response to the question from my right honourable friend John Major about whether literally any breach of the disarmament schedule would lead to suspension, Mr Murphy answered "Yes". That is why we need a proper definition of what constitutes a breach.
The Bill must be amended. If it is not, Sinn Fein/IRA will have won yet another round. It must be amended to provide greater clarity, more certainty and a transparent process within which those who default are excluded from the power sharing Executive and those who genuinely seek to tread the path of democracy continue in office. It really is a strange notion of fairness and justice when the guilty have the power of veto over the innocent. It is time now to really test the intention of the paramilitaries, including Sinn Fein/IRA. It is they, not Mr Trimble and his Unionist colleagues, who are the key to real peace in Northern Ireland.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, at one time I used to speak quite often on Northern Ireland matters. I was critical of the Anglo-Irish agreement, of the Downing Street declaration, and of a number of initiatives taken by the previous government. I have often been uneasy about the bipartisan approach.
Despite considering some aspects of the Good Friday agreement deeply unsatisfactory, I thought that as the people of Northern Ireland approved the agreement in a referendum it was not for me to complain so I have since remained silent. I can only say that perhaps some of those in Northern Ireland who voted yes may now

371
regret it, misled as they were by the promises of the Prime Minister which appear, if this Bill goes through as it stands, to be worthless.
Now, on the eve of the emasculation of this House and its transformation into a House which is unlikely to make too many difficulties for the Government, I feel bound to say a brief word, particularly as this extremely important Bill is being rushed through in an extraordinary way to meet a quite arbitrary deadline decided by the Government.
I agree with the concept of power sharing but it must depend on a genuine will on both sides to operate democratically, peacefully and constructively. I think it most important that there should be devolution of government to Northern Ireland.
There are good precedents for enemies turning into valuable friends. One of the most notable was the change of heart by Botha and Smuts after the Boer War, but Adams and McGuinness are not Botha and Smuts, not by a long chalk. It is hard to believe that they will change into peace-loving, constructive politicians; rather they are likely to continue to pursue their own agenda—Brits out, a Marxist united Ireland and perhaps in due course the ethnic cleansing of the Protestants in Northern Ireland.
My objections to what is going on are, first, the involvement of the Government of the Republic, a foreign power which has still not repealed Articles 2 and 3 of its constitution laying claim to Northern Ireland, although it is pledged to do so under the Good Friday agreement, and, indeed, the involvement of President Clinton. Mr Blair and Mr Ahern seem to act as though Northern Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom but an Anglo-Irish condominium.
Secondly, I dislike the methods adopted by the Government and their predecessors to promote power sharing, notably their constant pressure on the Unionist majority and only on the Unionist majority. Thirdly, there is the continued outright appeasement of the IRA with no response or quid pro quo at all from that organisation; most of all, of course, the release of terrorist prisoners like the Brighton bomber, Magee, condemned of the most terrible crimes. This is not only highly objectionable in itself but drives a coach and horses through our own criminal justice system. Are we not al! supposed to be equal before the law? If so, why should Irish terrorists be released after serving only a fraction of their sentences when the Kray brothers and Myra Hindley remained behind bars?
On the issue of appeasement, I recall as a former High Commissioner in Canada, the case of Mr Trudeau. In Quebec, some years ago, there was a terrorist organisation which killed a Minister arid kidnapped a British trade commissioner. Mr Trudeau is a liberal—a man of the left—and it was generally expected that he would do nothing except say, "Tut, tut". However, he was not prepared to tolerate terrorism in Quebec. He took the firmest measures and told what he called the "bleeding hearts" to, "Go on and bleed." Terrorism in Quebec was killed stone dead. What a contrast this approach of a vigorous young country with the timid,
372
ineffective efforts of our Government! It shows that in dealing with the British Government violence and the threat of violence certainly do pay.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that decommissioning is fundamental to genuine, peaceful power sharing and cannot be fudged by the Government. The failsafe measures promised by the Prime Minister to the people of Northern Ireland are not—or not yet—included in the Bill.
We continue to go along with the fiction that Sinn Fein is separate from the IRA when everyone knows that the two organisations, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said earlier, are inextricably linked. Experience also shows that no reliance can be placed on IRA promises.
I have read the report of the debate in the other place yesterday. I was impressed by the moderate and statesmanlike speech made by Mr Trimble. He moved amendments that were inexplicably voted down by the government majority. I was encouraged to hear the Minister's comments earlier about the likelihood of government amendments being moved in this House. If they meet the points put forward by Mr Trimble and the Opposition, the Bill may become less objectionable. If not, I think it would be much better—as Mr Trimble said yesterday—to take more time over the legislation and give ourselves the opportunity to get it right. To pass the Bill as it stands must be wrong.
5.32 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I do not intend to detain your Lordships for long. I want to make a plea, not a speech, on behalf of three-quarters of Northern Ireland's people who voted yes and who want to keep the process going. They want to live with their children in a peaceful community where money can be spent on education and health facilities, not on security and peace trips. I am worried that people who live in Northern Ireland can talk to each other only in South Africa, but that is a personal point.
I make a plea on behalf of those who still want peace and those who behaved very responsibly at Drumcree and Ormeau Park last weekend. Both sides are to be congratulated because their actions really made a difference. None of us believed that it could happen. Furthermore, the Royal Ulster Constabulary did not have to be the filling in the sandwich—a role that it has often played before. I remember how, on one occasion when I was away from the Province, my protection driver spent the whole night taking fire extinguishers to the wives of RUC officers as a protection measure. That is no way to live.
This weekend we saw movement for which no one could have hoped. I think we must recognise that that movement came from the streets and from the parties, not as politicians but as people making decisions abort their future. We cannot run Northern Ireland from outside Northern Ireland; we cannot run it from Great Britain. British citizens who live in the Province can get a feel for the situation, but the only real feeling is that one does not understand it. It is important that we do not make decisions here about Northern Ireland.

373
We have got things wrong in the past. We talk about Sinn Fein as if every Sinn Fein member has horns. However, that party has a big vote and we cannot deny the people their democratic rights. We argued against Sinn Fein on democracy grounds, but the voters need a democratic party and they should be allowed to make up their minds. We should not have had a policy of not shaking hands with Sinn Fein party members. That was very wrong. If we treat people like that, how will they treat us back? There is a lot of give and take to come. The question is: will that happen or does the damage run too deep? That is an important issue and we should not add to the problem.
When I was in the Province, those who had lost family members would say, "I can live with this if this is the last one. If my son's death means that no one else will be killed, we will be brave about it". Of course, that was not the case. Other people have been killed, and the latest tragedy occurred at Omagh. We lose faith, but the people who did not were those at the heart of the tragedy. We must learn from them and move forward.
There are always too many fingers in the pie when it comes to Northern Ireland: they all want to be "boys for success". As the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, every American wants to be the one who came to save Northern Ireland. Most Irish immigrants to America left from the west coast of Ireland three generations ago, but Americans still have the view that horses and caravans travel up the west coast—and it is like that for those flying in to Shannon airport for a holiday. The Americans must learn that that is not what Ireland is about. They must not think that they can help by inviting Adams to sit at one table and Trimble to sit at another. At any dinner in America there is a Mr Plod the peacemaker. North America should realise the enormous investment opportunities and talent in Northern Ireland and, in that way, help constructively. However, I plead with America to stay out of Northern Ireland politics. I am sure that Northern Ireland policy will be viewed as a vote catcher in the New York state elections.
My noble friend Lord Howell drew attention to the fact that Northern Ireland cannot be run from Dublin. The situation is made more difficult by the two civil service departments: the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the Northern Ireland Office Civil Service. The communications between the two services are sometimes strictly limited and Ministers can be fed differing policies. The aim of Northern Ireland Office civil servants is often to ensure that they do not miss the seven o'clock flight back to London. The Minister shakes his head, but I have seen it happen.
It is a very difficult situation. Someone suggested that General de Chastelain should have a drink in the bar and listen to and share views. It does not happen like that. One gets locked away in Stormont or Hillsborough and, if one goes across the road to the pub, some people look at the protection officers while others put their drugs away. It is very difficult to relax in that sort of atmosphere. We must weld the different groups.
We have been held back by a lack of responsibility in Northern Ireland. If people are not responsible, they do not behave responsibly. That is the case at national
374
and local levels. If a school is burnt down in Northern Ireland and the British taxpayer pays for it to be rebuilt, there is no pain in that—unless one's child attends that school. I hope, therefore, that this process will bring forward a great movement so that people can take ownership of it. I hope that we can still get it through with that ownership there. People should be able to say, "This is mine. If you do that, and we lose it, then it will be your children, my children and the future that will suffer".
The process will not be easy. It is up to the people of Northern Ireland. I have found somewhere at last where I agree with the Prime Minister when he says, "It is now up to you. I have done as much as I can". I believe that he should stick to that. Again, one of the problems has been, "If you don't like the message you are getting, go to Downing Street". Time and time again we have seen the processions up Downing Street and the crews waiting to take the message. The great thing about Sinn Fein is that it has always been better at spinning; second only, I believe, to Alastair Campbell.
All congratulations should go to David Trimble, who was the first person to take the Unionist message to North America. They used to believe that there was not a Unionist message. I once sat at the same table for the first dinner the Unionists attended in Washington. It was appalling. They felt that the North Americans were anti-Unionist. They were not anti-Unionist, they just did not know about the Unionists. Progress has been made. Let us not be negative. Let us concentrate on hanging on to what we have.
If I were still in office—I would love to be still in office: that is not to say that I am trying to usurp the Minister and in any case that is unlikely to happen—I would ask the Unionists, Sinn Fein, the other players and the paramilitaries whether any of those groups would want to be known as the one which ruined this final effort for peace, or whether it would want to be known as the hero big enough to make the gesture to save it.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, the mere fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Denton of Wakefield, has risen to speak shows the great courage that she carries with her at all times. It was a privilege to hear what she had to say.
I apologise for arriving late. I had to present degrees this morning and I could not get back here in time. However, I have heard 95 per cent of the speeches.
Since 1967, Northern Ireland has been marked by a series of crises. It was in that year that the Provisional IRA came into existence, taking over from old IRA. Civil rights marches took place in West Belfast. On the walls was written, "I Ran Away", for the IRA. It played no part. A new organisation was set up and the republican movement fissured. The Official IRA went political and has representatives under different names in the Dail. However, it is the Provisional IRA that we are talking about. It is a new organisation based, of course, on the past. The Protestant paramilitaries are fissured groups, one of which is far larger than the

375
Provisional IRA. The crises which have marked the period have necessitated action by the government of the day.
In 90 per cent of what it says the Bill is very similar to other Bills introduced in the past 20 or 30 years. Technically, it is no different. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, but it is a place apart. The noble Lord, Lord Deedes, is no longer in his place. In 1971 I took a Labour Party delegation from the other place to Northern Ireland. The noble Lord led the whole delegation. We visited Long Kesh, as it was called at the time. One should not have a place such as Long Kesh in the United Kingdom. It was like a prisoner-of-war camp, with barbed wire, compounds and so forth. Northern Ireland is different, and we must not forget that. That does not mean that it is not a part of the United Kingdom, but to treat it as it were Sussex, Hampshire, Wales or even Scotland is a grave mistake. It is different in many ways.
Another point I have not mentioned for some time, although it is always on my mind, is that we underestimate the problems that Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland have to face. They are far closer to their electorate, and they are constantly in danger. I shall never forget the police guard I had, which was not much greater than that provided to Members of Parliament in Northern Ireland. It is a place apart.
Northern Ireland Members of Parliament form a powerful group. They are a small group which acts almost as a devolved group. The Government are asking for the Bill to go on the statute book because of the crisis that has arisen right now. The first crisis I came across—the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, mentioned it—was in 1974 when a power-sharing executive was set up. The late Lord Whitelaw had left the Province in December, before Sunningdale was signed. He played a most powerful part in the Province. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, says that he misses him. I do, too, as indeed do many noble Lords on this side of the House.
On my first day there I attended a meeting of the power-sharing executive. Brian Faulkner asked if he could come to see me. The noble Lord, Lord Orme, was the Minister of State at the time. We had decided to keep away from the power-sharing executive. It was running Northern Ireland, apart from security and constitutional matters. Brian Faulkner said to me, "I have come to tell you that the Sunningdale agreement is finished. We were pushed too far." Then he said, "I have been disowned by my own party." The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, will agree that that is what happened. I sent a fax—it was not called a fax in those days—to Downing Street saying, "I propose to go on saying that we support Sunningdale but the Prime Minister must realise that it is in grave danger." Eventually, it ended with a veto from the Loyalist side of the community, with the Ulster workers' strike. The noble Lords, Lord Fitt, and Lord Blease, will remember that. The strike was not a trade union strike, but rather one by trade Unionists, which was perhaps more powerful.
Four weeks later we had to have the same kind of legislation as we have now. I notice much the same wording. The legislation is being brought forward in
376
order that the government of the Province can be suspended by a suspension order. The whole purpose of the Bill is to make provision for the government of Northern Ireland should there be a breakdown. Clause 2 provides for what would happen should there be a restoration. It is exactly the same as happened before.
I wish that technical legislation well. However, there are questions I wish to ask about what else is involved. The key to it all is decommissioning. I wish to ask this question. I am operating from the Explanatory Notes to the Bill. I am not suggesting that they should take the place of the Bill itself, but the matter is set down clearly. The Explanatory Notes state:
"In relation to decommissioning, the condition is that the Decommissioning Commission … reports to the Secretary of State that there has been a failure to honour commitments relating to decommissioning".
Decommissioning is then defined. The Explanatory Notes continue:
"The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning was established in 1997 … The Belfast Agreement itself envisages the Commission monitoring, reviewing and verifying progress on the decommissioning of illegal arms".
Has it done that? Has it supervised and verified that decommissioning has taken place?
I wish to make a statement as well. There are two sides to the equation of violence in Northern Ireland. There are two vetoes: a loyalist veto and a republican veto. There is a veto by the SDLP, which never has been involved in violence. It has a veto as well, because it represents the Nationalist tradition in the Province. The Republican and Loyalist sides are the two sides of the equation. Sinn Fein is split; the IRA is split So are the paramilitary groups, of which there are many. This has always been the case.
We forget at our peril on this side of the water that in 1920, when southern Ireland, the 26 counties, became independent, there was a civil war in Ireland between the various wings of the IRA. There is a danger of that happening again. History should not be forgotten in that respect. What we are doing in this House and in another place must take that into account.
It is easy enough here, with the normal problems that may or may not arise, but Northern Ireland is a place apart and has to be dealt with as a place apart—a part of the United Kingdom, but a place apart. The Nationalist, the Unionist and the Republican Political parties have to be taken into account.
As regards decommissioning, of course something must be done, but I am sceptical. A certain amount of arms could be handed in, as well as semtex and agricultural nitrates. Large amounts of weaponry, much of it from the Middle East, from Libya and so on, will still exist. I am sceptical of the importance given to decommissioning, except in one respect. It is a totem pole. It is important, but we must not run away with the idea that it is so important that it will solve the problem, because it will not.
I remember how often this sort of situation has arisen, as may the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. I invited the heads of the Churches in Northern Ireland

377
to come and see me at Stormont. My noble friend Lord Orme was with me. It was the first time that they had been in my room and the first time they talked together in this respect, or so I thought. I talked about a cease-fire, and one of them said, "Never forget that in Ireland over the centuries the pike has gone back into the thatch", ready to be pulled out at another time.
It is important that there be a totem but it will not be the answer. Unless all the arms are handed in, violence will continue. In my view, there is only one way through, and that is for the three sides to work together. We may not like it. There are many things that stick in my throat when I read about them, but in other countries steps have had to be taken to bring men of violence onto the political scene.
Mr John Hume has done a remarkable job with the SDLP, a new party that came into existence around 1968. New parties emerge. Attitudes change. I never thought I would praise Mr Adams. He has accepted that the division of Ireland into two remains. That is a very important step, accepted by virtue of the Belfast agreement and all that goes with it. I ask noble Lords to look carefully at it.
Then, of course, there is Mr Trimble. To show that he has come a long way—and I praise him for it—I would tell your Lordships that I first knew him as someone on a motorbike, wearing a black suit and riding as an outrider for Bill Craig of the Vanguard Unionist Party, another breakaway group.
People in Northern Ireland have had to come a long way; they will have to go further before there is peace in Northern Ireland, because it has not come yet.
This is a technical Bill. We have seen it before. We need to examine carefully the amendments that come tomorrow. They are what really matter. The rest, of course, matters, but to make a song and dance about the Bill is a mistake. I ask noble Lords to look at the other Bills. We have gone through these technical matters about commencement orders and non-commencement orders previously. They can be found in the files.
I wish the Government well. I shall listen carefully to what is said about decommissioning. While I am sceptical, it is important for the people of Northern Ireland, particularly on the Unionist side. In this respect, I do not forget Brian Faulkner, who was driven too far. The politicians of Northern Ireland cannot be driven for ever, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said.
I look forward to hearing what the Government come up with. I ask these questions about decommissioning. What has been done about it since the Belfast agreement? Has anything at all been done about monitoring and reporting? It is very important, because unless something is done the whole edifice will fall to the ground.
5.56 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, my grandfather was adjutant of the Munster Fusiliers in Tralee in 1909. It may seem a long way back, but it is not nearly as far back as most Irish memories go. There was a foul
378
murder, and his sergeant-major said to him, "Captain Dillon, there has always been murder in Ireland".
We underestimate what drives the Unionist population. They have been a minority in Ireland and have been subject to, and are continually subject to, persecution and, if I may say so, ethnic cleansing, to which I will refer in a minute.
I had luncheon today with an old friend of mine who comes from Ulster. His mother remembered as a child his farmhouse on the borders of Donegal being defended by her father and two elder brothers with rifles against the IRA coming across the border.
It is also to be remembered that if the Unionists had not been frightened of the Southern Irish Catholics home rule would have happened in 1886 in peace and quiet. The problem has always been the fear of two minorities: the Southern Irish Catholics' fear of being beaten up by England and the English being frightened of Ireland in the old days, because the population of Ireland was very nearly as high as that of the rest of Great Britain—certainly two-thirds in the early 19th century.
In 1641 hundreds of Unionists and Protestant people were murdered. That is why they fought so strongly at Enniskillen, Aughrim and Derry. Even in 1922 there were 100,000 small Protestant farmers in Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal. Those people were bombed and burnt out.
The reason I drag up these historical instances is not to show off, to show that I know these obscure facts, but to try to help explain why the Unionists feel so frightened. They have felt frightened for a long time. They have made concessions to Mr McGuinness, who I know was wanted for murder when the Grenadiers were in Ulster 20 years ago, and Adams, who was quartermaster of the West Belfast Brigade. They have sat down with some pretty unpleasant people. They have conceded what we in this country have never conceded; they have conceded that they cannot kick out their government. If there is a general election for the assembly in Northern Ireland, it will not result in a change of government. They do not have that democratic right to change the assembly. They have been landed with it. We say that it is democratic, but it is not what we call democratic. We can sack Mr Blair, as we sacked Mr Major, and long may that last. They cannot do that. They have conceded all of these things.
The reason why decommissioning, to paraphrase Churchill, like the dreary steeples of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, re-emerged after the ebb tide of war was that in the beginning decommissioning was too difficult. It could not be got through, so an attempt was made to finesse it. Ultimately, something as important as that cannot be finessed. As the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, said, the pikes go back into the thatch. I do not think it matters if there is a Thompson machine gun from the civil war of 1922, or even a rusting Lee-Enfield from the pitiful attempt by the IRA in 1949. What matters is large quantities of Semtex; that is nasty and dangerous stuff which can do a lot of damage.

379
Why is there suddenly this rush? The whole of the process of Ireland, at least since I carne to this House, has been one rushed Bill after another. When I first came here there was the suspension of Stormont—I believe it took place on a Saturday. Suddenly, Bills were rushed through. I repeat, as a sergeant major long-since dead said to my grandfather, there has always been murder in Ireland. There seems to be no point in rushing things. Why do we rush a Bill which says that if the bad guys behave badly, the good guys suffer?
I only wanted to make those two points. First, to put some plug and hope that somebody will know a little about why the Unionists behave as they do. Secondly, to ask that simple question: why do the good guys suffer if the bad guys misbehave?
6 p.m.
Lord Rathcavan: My Lords, I shall declare my interest as having spent much of my adult life in Northern Ireland and during the past 30 years or so there have been many moments of despair. No one who lives in Northern Ireland can avoid the edges of violence and not have friends or relatives who have suffered terribly.
When I visit the Western Isles of Scotland which, on a fair day, I can see from the top of the hills behind where I live, I envy the normality of life and the thriving tourist industry which supports so many in that beautiful part of the world. Our part is just as beautiful, but the tourists no longer make Northern Ireland a first choice destination for a holiday break in what should be the peak season of July and August.
The huge majority in Northern Ireland greet the opportunity for a new dawn with passion. I had hoped that this Bill, hastily drafted though it was and after so many positive achievements by government in the past year, would seize that opportunity. In its present form it has clearly failed to do that and is flawed. I agree with much of what has been said by many noble Lords today, particularly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, who did so much to lay the foundations on which this Bill has become feasible; and the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, who has such huge and first-hand experience of political life in Northern Ireland. His comments in these debates are always invaluable.
I welcome the Minister's commitment to bring forward amendments tomorrow at Committee stage. I hope he will capture some of the creative thinking that has been expressed here today and not repeat the negative mantras—that it is not in the letter of the Good Friday agreement—and that the Government cannot touch the independence of the Independent Commission on Decommissioning. The plausible reassurances spoken by the Prime Minister at various moments of pressure during the past year are just not contained in the drafting of this Bill.
I believe that the majority consensus of noble Lords who have spoken want the Government to indicate a more specific timetable for decommissioning. Expressions like, "a matter of days", "a few weeks" or "as soon as practicable" are not good enough. Everyone admires the commitment and the independent skills of General de Chastelain. In fact, I understand he is an
380
accomplished player of the pipes—I am not sure whether they are the Ilian pipes or the Scottish pipes; perhaps both—but he has put aside his favourite hobby for the duration of his task in case his music is perceived as partisan to one side or the other.
However, I am sure his commission would not object to having further directions from government for the next vital stages of decommissioning. After all, only last month the Government asked the commission to delay and possibly amend its recent report.
I believe that the consensus today is that the procedures in this Bill for the suspension and review of the executive are too cumbersome, too uncertain and contain too many cul-de-sacs. It is a dangerous maze. As the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, put it, if this part of the Bill is to inspire confidence it must be in cast iron and automatic.
The Bill must contain some reassurances, also in cast iron and not in candle wax, on the suspension of prisoner releases. It can be done, as many noble Lords much more experienced in drafting legislation than I have said. Unless some concessions along those lines are brought forward in amendments tomorrow, the Unionist Party, and its leader in particular, will be put in an impossible position. Comments and spin from Sinn Fein today and in recent days are ominous and threatening for much of what this Bill is trying to achieve.
I hope that the Minister and his colleagues in government will reflect deeply on what has been said here today and that he will not repeat the fudges, but will amend this Bill in a form that can be embraced by all parties in Northern Ireland.
6.5 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I wrote to the Minister with apologies to say that I would be five minutes late. Unfortunately, there was a two-hour delay from Brussels. I apologise deeply to him and to the House and ask whether I may be allowed to speak.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, despite judicious leaks to suggest that Sinn Fein/IRA is ready to try to persuade the IRA (as one Siamese twin to another) to decommission something sometime, the IRA remains loudly silent when it could so easily have spoken. That loud silence does nothing to reassure Unionists who are being urged from every side to take the leap of faith when all they have heard for the past three years is the repeated statement that the IRA will never decommission, though it demands the. demilitarisation of both Army and RUC.
What is the relative score in the game of Sinn Fein/IRA versus the civilised world as a result of the Belfast agreement? The political goal they share with the SDLP is greater power in Northern Ireland for the Catholic minority and the creation of cross-border institutions which could lead to a united Ireland. Though those last have created some disquiet for the majority, they are perfectly respectable aims, and less alarming

381
than they might once have been because of the Dublin Government's commitment after a referendum north and south to accept that so long as the majority in Northern Ireland so wish, Northern Ireland will remain a part of the UK. But the legislation to abolish Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution will only be, as I understand the Belfast Agreement, put through the Dail on the day the d'Hondt procedure triggers the creation of the new Northern Ireland Executive, where Sinn Fein/IRA expects two ministerial seats because of the 16 per cent vote it secured in the North.
So the Unionists have no guarantee yet of that vital quid pro quo. Sinn Fein/IRA meanwhile achieved three other vital objectives; the release of prisoners largely complete, many of them highly skilled terrorists with no other skills; a review of the RUC with the object at best of replacement with the people's police of paramilitaries, allegedly more closely attuned to the community, and at least of reducing and disarming it, in the name of the organisation. They also secured an inquiry into Bloody Sunday and a significant withdrawal of British forces from British soil. What quid pro quo has there been?
Martin McGuinness was named last year as Sinn Fein's link to the de Chastelain commission. We might have thought he would be talking about decommissioning. In fact it is said that he has never talked to the IRA about decommissioning. What then has he been discussing all these months with the general? I hope we shall now see the de Chastelain report. The Prime Minister said after the Belfast agreement, reassuring the Unionists who found nothing but vague and pious hopes about the end of violence and decommissioning in the Belfast agreement, that there would be no fudge with terror. But there has been. He said that the factors to be considered when deciding whether the terms of the agreement were being met on the release of prisoners should include an end to bombings, killings and beatings, the progressive abandonment and dismantling of paramilitary structures actively directing and promoting violence and full co-operation with the Independent Commission on Decommissioning to implement the provisions of the agreement.
The beatings, the killings and the exiles have continued, even though the IRA could have stopped them completely in the run-up to the election. Can anyone wonder that the Unionists cannot believe that anything will change just because the Prime Minister now believes in a seismic change and Mr Ahern tells us that there has been a deeply important change in the Sinn Fein position and a hugely positive contribution to the search for compromise? Could we not be told by the IRA now that it is thinking again? Why does that have to be a secret? Why do we have to legislate when we do not know? What are we to make of the fact that over this critical weekend Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness were not in Northern Ireland, but were talking to the National Security Council in Washington?
The leaders of Sinn Fein/IRA have an agenda that they have put through with great success. It does not include decommissioning and they have said so. They
382
have recently demonstrated to their people and to the world that they have been able to force two sovereign governments to abandon their duty to law and order and to give an amnesty to murderers. While claiming to be caring terrorists, they have not delivered the bodies of innocent members of their own community—not opponents killed on the field of battle.
I do not know whether the Unionists will take yet another of the steps that they have been urged to take by three governments and by many in Northern Ireland of all persuasions. I deeply admire and respect what my noble friend Lady Denton of Wakefield said. She knows far more than I do about the feeling of the Province. I am looking at the issue from the outside, but we and the Government have a responsibility.
It is essential that the two governments put as much pressure on the SDLP as they have put on the Unionists to stay in government if Sinn Fein/IRA fails, as it surely will, to deliver on decommissioning. I understand that Mr Hume has so far said neither yea nor nay. He needs to be persuaded to say that he is going to stay. The Sinn Fein/IRA leaders must not be allowed to get away with murder yet again or with destroying the agreement now that they have got all that they want and their pay-off time has come.
The Irish Government should give a formal public commitment that if the Executive is stalled because of Sinn Fein/IRA's failure, they will still legislate on Articles 2 and 3 at once. Why should the Catholic Republicans who do not support the IRA and the ordinary Unionist population of Northern Ireland lose their guarantee of stability?
In the speeches that I have been able to hear, many noble Lords have said that a fixed timetable must be set—not referring to two or three days or two or three weeks—for Sinn Fein to deliver the IRA's commitment. It is undesirable to shelter behind an independent commission. Sinn Fein/IRA should not be allowed to hold out hopes that it has no intention of fulfilling. Sinn Fein's inclusion in government was important to the agreement not because it was a small party with 16 per cent of the vote, but because it spoke for the IRA. It has never mentioned the IRA's subsequent comment that, as the IRA was not part of the agreement qua IRA, it has no obligations to meet the conditions of the agreement. Surely the SDLP can speak and act for all Catholics.
Our Government must stop appeasing the IRA for fear of a bomb in mainland Britain. The Irish Government must stop appeasing it for fear of Sinn Fein members being elected to the Dail. They should also recognise that many in the South are now fearful of the IRA and would love to see something done about it. The American Government should start wondering what the average American would think about the Oklahoma bombers being asked to stand for Congress.
Gerry Adams—that statesman—is the same Gerry Adams who ordered the murder of people such as Jean McConville and who recently told the families of the disappeared that, although they would get some bodies back, they must bury them quietly and without fuss. Does that sound like a civilised statesman?

383
The Unionists have every right—and indeed duty—to stand for promises being kept and for law and order to be guaranteed for the ordinary citizen. That includes the families who have been forbidden for so many years to speak of the disappeared. That is a shame and a disgrace. They should not be the scapegoats for the failure of governments, North and South, to face down cowardly murderers who have learnt to manipulate democracy for their own ends.
Democracy has to be worked and fought for. If the Executive has to continue without Sinn Fein/IRA, I fear that we can expect a return to violence. We shall certainly be threatened with it. We shall have to be prepared to act against the IRA in any way that is necessary. I hope that our defence forces policy will be amended to recognise the possible need for a return to a major military commitment to protect the population and keep the peace. I do not want that to happen, but it could.
The situation cannot be resolved by spin, particularly as in Sinn Fein/IRA we have the master spinners. I find it hard to understand the point of assuring the Unionists that they can put forward amendments and that they will be listened to and consulted and then voting them down. I was happy to hear that the Minister has given assurances that that grave error may be partly redressed by accepting appropriate amendments in this House. I hope that we can rely on the Government to do that.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, on her safe, if not speedy, return from Brussels. I thank the Minister for his introduction. Over the past 18 months or so we have debated many Bills relating to Northern Ireland. In the complexity stakes this must be one of the most difficult.
Like many others, I am grateful for all the effort that the Prime Minister has devoted to the Province over the past two or three weeks. I was sorry that he was unable to attend the opening of the Scottish Parliament, the establishment of which was one of the main planks of his party's manifesto. He should have been there. He has since postponed an official visit to Poland. However, in spite of all his efforts, their culmination in the Bill is far from satisfactory.
If the Bill is successful, the Prime Minister will rightly be given the credit. However, if it is unsuccessful, the blame will inevitably fall on Northern Ireland's locally elected politicians. I am not a member of the Ulster Unionist Party and I have criticised its policies in the past. However, over the past year or so I have had nothing but admiration for the courage, imagination and flexibility of its position. I pay particular tribute to David Trimble, Ken Maginnis and Sir Reg Empey. In the short debate that followed the Northern Ireland Statement in your Lordships' House on 5th July, it was said that they had to stop the nit-picking. That is a little wide of the mark and palpably unfair. They are merely seeking to get it right.
Since the Good Friday agreement, the referendum and the Northern Ireland elections, we have had prisoner releases, the dismantling of security installations, the
384
Patten inquiry into the RUC and, more recently, a form of immunity for the murderers of the disappeared. In return, as I have said before, Sinn Fein/IRA has given nothing—not one rifle, not one bullet, not an ounce of Semtex.
The Bill would mean that the Ulster Unionists and others had to form an Executive with Sinn Fein without any guarantee from that party or the IRA that decommissioning would happen. Sinn Fein now claims that it is a separate entity from the IRA and that it cannot force the IRA to disarm. That view appears to find some favour with the Irish Taoiseach and the SDLP. An Executive could soon be formed and power devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is easy to be seduced by the vision that in two, three or four months the Assembly and the Executive will be up and running, the guns will be silent and the war will be over. Let us not upset the applecart, in that decommissioning has yet to begin. It is surely just around the corner.
The time to fudge must stop. The line in the sand must be drawn at this late hour. There must be cast-iron guarantees in place if decommissioning does not take place. At the moment, the effect of the Bill will be that if decommissioning does not take place, the whole Assembly and the Executive will be suspended. After the review, the Assembly may vote to reconvene and to exclude one or more parties from the Executive. However, it would appear unlikely that the SDLP will support an Executive without Sinn Fein's presence. We heard some trenchant remarks on that issue from the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, earlier this afternoon.
As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, so perspicaciously put it in the debate last week,
"that would act as an impediment to the process".—[Official Report, 5/7/99; col. 614.]
I agree with him wholeheartedly on that. Thus, we should have the Alice in Wonderland situation of a democratically elected government being toppled not by the use of the gun, but by the possession of the gun.
We must have safeguards in place to strengthen the Bill and to render it more watertight. The refusal of Sinn Fein and the IRA to decommission must not be a reason to bring down the Assembly and the Executive. The Bill should, as an alternative, introduce measures whereby Sinn Fein is locked out of the Executive if the IRA does not decommission, but at the same time, the Assembly and the Executive should continue.
It should also be remembered that, apart from a token gesture last Christmas, the Loyalist paramilitaries have not decommissioned either. The exclusion measures currently in the Bill are no incentive for them to do so, as they do not have any representation on the Executive. For that reason, the Bill should include specific linkage between decommissioning and prisoner releases. In other words, if decommissioning does not commence in a very short and specified time, the release of prisoners from any non-complying organisation will be halted. The short specified time should be incorporated into the Bill, possibly in the form of a timetable drawn up by General de Chastelain and the decommissioning body.
Those measures and others in a similar, probably far better, vein, will make the Bill more secure. I hope that they will end, once and for all, the machinations of all

385
those who do not wish Northern Ireland well. If such amendments are put forward tomorrow—and I sincerely hope that they will come from the Government, although I share some of the views of my noble friend Lord Cooke of Islandreagh about the difficulties therein—I shall support them.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have been more or less silent on the subject of Northern Ireland for about 17 years since I spent a spell there as a Minister. I had almost decided to remain silent tonight, to your Lordships' great relief, no doubt, until I heard my noble friend Lady Denton speak. It seemed to me that she made points of such fundamental importance that they ought to be endorsed.
She said that Northern Ireland cannot be run from Westminster. That is perfectly true. Peace will not be made in Westminster; nor will it be made in Dublin. It will be made in the Province, and in the adjacent parts of the Republic of Ireland. It will not be made by Westminster and Dublin politicians. It will be made by the politicians who actually live in the Province and the parts adjacent to it, and by the shadowy figures who lurk behind them and threaten them. All we can do is to try to facilitate that process. We have been asked to do so by taking a leap of faith—a fairly considerable leap of faith in view of the state of the Bill as it comes before the House.
The Bill is intended to produce machinery whereby the process of peacemaking can be conducted in the Province. Those who have not lived there do not realise the huge task that that is. It is a great deal more difficult than it appears to those who read the newspapers in this part of the United Kingdom. We do not wonder whose footstep is passing us at midnight, and what is the sound of rattling metal at the end of the cul-de-sac where a body may be found the following morning. That is not part of our daily life. It happens in parts of Northern Ireland. People who have suffered bereavement—we mostly have not, but some here have—at the hands of terrorists, cannot imagine the difficulty of reconciling themselves to it. Let us not forget:
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God".
Indeed, those individual people are being asked to do something astonishingly difficult. It is not up to us to blame them if they find it difficult or want assurance.
The assurance is in the Bill in the form of two processes. The first is the decommissioning process; the other is what happens if it fails. If it is to give reassurance, it must be simple, so that it can be understood; it must be dependable, so that it can be trusted; it must be transparent, so that people can see that it is happening. That means that there must be timetables and also definitions, as my noble friend Lady Blatch said, so that people will know when the process has failed. It must be believable, which is where the "totem" referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, comes in. It is not we who must have confidence in the process—I must say that I myself have
386
very little—but the people whose lives and livelihoods depend on the result. It is up to us to provide the criteria in which they can have confidence.
If the decommissioning process is stalled, it must be known to be stalled. The necessary next action must be automatically and immediately taken, not debated. That means that we must know when, and that must be on the face of the Bill. I said that we were asked to give the Bill a Second Reading as an "act of faith". Indeed we have, because we have been told that there will be amendments, but we know not what those amendments will be. They must be substantial because we must try to stand impartially between those engaged in the struggle in Northern Ireland. We have seen many concessions given by one side and I, for one, find it very difficult to know what concessions have been made by the other. I hope that the noble Lord, in his reply, will answer that question which has been asked by many of my noble friends and others during this debate. I hope that the reason for not revealing the amendments is that they are still being discussed with Dublin. What we do must be on all fours with what is done in the Republic and what will be accepted in the Province.
I shall not go on longer. I should like to put on record my admiration for the huge amount of energy which has been put into the search for peace. I should like to endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lady Denton. There is a great mass of people in Northern Ireland who desperately want peace, but often, demonstrating that fact in conversation or in public can put members of their families at risk. I therefore ask the noble Lord to give us every possible assurance that the process will be transparent; that the amendments will be effective in the way that I have described; and, moreover, that if the Bill fails, the remedy will be not to punish one side only, and that one group of terrorists shall not have the power to stall the whole process. I believe that if IRA and Sinn Fein are indeed a single organisation, and if the SDLP is said to be unable to separate itself from Sinn Fein, it should demonstrate that fact itself. There should be no provision in the Bill that devolved power is withdrawn if the IRA does not decommission on its own. There must be another party to that.
I have spoken for too long. I repeat that we should give this Bill a Second Reading. But what we do at the end of the day depends on what is in the amendments that the noble Lord will bring to the House tomorrow.
6.29 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we on these Benches support this Bill, but I warn the Minister that we plan to table a number of amendments. However, I am in somewhat of a quandary because I believe that our amendments have merit but, as the Minister said, some amendments will be brought forward by the Government. However, I believe that ours will be taken on board by the Government.
The purpose of the Bill is quite obvious; namely, it is a confidence-building measure as the process has reached an impasse. It seeks to give the Ulster Unionists the confidence to take the next step; that is, for Mr Trimble to set up the Executive. I believe that the

387
impasse has existed ever since the Good Friday agreement was signed. The nature of the wording of the Good Friday agreement has led to the difficult scenario that we face at the moment; namely, no inclusion without decommissioning. However, on the other hand, the Good Friday agreement does not include the proviso of decommissioning for the Executive to be set up.
The Bill is an amendment to the Good Friday agreement. We should not forget the purpose of the Good Friday agreement. It is easy to look too closely at its detail and forget the purpose. I believe that the Good Friday agreement is the only path to a devolved and inclusive government in Northern Ireland, and that inclusive government is the only way to attain a sustainable peace in Northern Ireland. The noble Baroness., Lady Denton, in a particularly fine speech expressed her confidence in the views of the majority of the people who live in Northern Ireland and their wish for peace. It is perhaps time that the politicians of Northern Ireland started to listen to the views of the majority rather than sticking to the particular wording of agreements.
The Bill has been brought about, and would only be enacted, in a worse case scenario. It will allow the process to continue and it allows other parties to enact the process. However, I do not think that anyone in this House or anyone in Northern Ireland believes that if the Bill is enacted the peace process will not have been dealt a heavy blow. The issue which has attracted the most attention this afternoon is that of decommissioning. A deadline has been set for May 2000.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but he has just said that this Bill would not be enacted except in the worse case scenario. My understanding is that it is likely that this Bill will be enacted the day after tomorrow. That is not the worst-case scenario; or, rather, it would be the worst-case scenario if it was enacted without our amendments.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness has put forward her opposition to the Good Friday agreement. If her viewpoint is that decommissioning, or a form of decommissioning, will never take place, she obviously has no faith in the signing of the Good Friday agreement in the first place.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, that is such a parody of what my noble friend has said. She just corrected what the noble Lord said in a matter of fact. Then the noble Lord waffles on about the Good Friday agreement and gets it horrendously wrong.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, there is obviously a difference of view between our two Benches on the purpose of the Good Friday agreement.
Lord Brookman: My Lords—
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I do not believe it is the—
Lord Brookman: My Lords, I share the view—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sorry. I can only allow someone to intervene in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, if he consents to give way, which he did not.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I very much hope and expect that the process of decommissioning will start
388
soon after the devolution order is enacted. I very much hope that some time next week we shall see the first moves towards the process of decommissioning taking place. It will be up to General de Chastelain to say whether or not decommissioning is taking place. There are of course many problems with decommissioning. I believe that many noble Lords have mentioned the problems of assessing whether full decommissioning has taken place. Indeed the IRA has a slogan which will cause it much difficulty if decommissioning is to take place; namely, "not one ounce and one bullet". If one ounce or one bullet is to be decommissioned, will that in a philosophical sense signify the decommissioning of the entire arsenal?
Another issue that has been raised concerns the release of prisoners. We on these Benches believe that the release of prisoners cannot be included in this Bill. In another place the prison sentences legislation was mentioned as a reason to halt prisoner releases. However, it is our view that the release of prisoners is bound to the cease-fire and that prisoner releases should be halted only on the breaking of the cease-fire.
I echo the sentiments expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, on the restraint shown by those taking part in the Drumcree march. The newspapers reported how few instances of violence occurred this year as opposed to the same occasion last year.
This Bill does not just contain provisions as regards a failure of Sinn Fein to decommission. It will assure all parties not just that decommissioning will take place but that all the political commitments in the Good Friday agreement will be met.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, especially those who supported the intentions of the Bill. Before I deal with some of the specific points that have been made I shall answer the question that has been put by a number of speakers concerning government amendments.
This afternoon the Prime Minister gave an indication of the amendments that the Government are thinking of introducing tomorrow. He said that the Government would table amendments today in line with the Good Friday agreement that will reflect many of the comments that were made on all sides of the House in the debate yesterday. Those amendments will focus upon making sure that decommissioning takes place in accordance with the timetable to be laid down by de Chastelain; will make it clear that any breaches of that timetable will lead to the automatic suspension of the institutions; and will ensure that we can clearly and formally identify the parties that default either in decommissioning or in devolution.
I appreciate that I was asked for more specific information. But I think that the House will understand that the Government are still discussing and considering the precise wording of the amendments. It is a little too early at this point for me to be able to indicate with absolute clarity what those amendments will be. I do not

389
wish to raise the hopes of your Lordships that the Government will reflect in specific amendments all the points made in the speeches. I do not want to leave the House with such high hopes. We are committed to bringing some amendments forward.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. What he has described as "the amendments" are surely what the Bill is already, as he described it to us in his opening speech.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I think we will go further than that. I was quoting what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said today. The noble Lord is enough of an old hand at this business to know that I cannot at this stage go any further. Of course he realises that. It is a good try but I am not going to fall for that one.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has, as usual, tried to be as helpful to the House as he possibly can. But perhaps he could help us a little further, if not now then a little later on. Can he give the House some indication of when the wording of the amendments might be available? If it is to be later tonight, that would be helpful to those of us who wish to take part in the remaining stages tomorrow. We need to consider not only whether we can go along with the amendments—which I hope will be possible—but, if we cannot, what our reactions will be.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I will certainly do my best to find out and try to give an answer—if an answer is available—before I sit down. The noble Lord will appreciate the difficulties. Discussions are still going on and, indeed, in fairness to this House, it is only right that the Government should also consider what has been said here today. That may influence any amendments the Government may feel able to bring forward tomorrow. If I can be helpful to the House before I sit down I shall certainly endeavour to be so.
Noble Lords, of course, have understood the enormous efforts which the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have made in order to give effect to the Good Friday agreement and to take it further. No one can say that the Prime Minister has not put all possible effort into trying to bring the matter forward.
A question was asked about the position of the SDLP. It is not for the Government to comment on the views of the SDLP. I shall simply refer your Lordships to the speeches made by both John Hume and Seamus Mallon in the other place yesterday for an indication of how the SDLP will take this forward.
The Government do not appease the IRA; we do not appease any paramilitary organisation. We are seeking to bring forward a permanent peace for Northern Ireland on the basis of an agreement that was supported by the vast majority of the political parties in Northern Ireland. That is what we are seeking to do. I believe firmly that the Good Friday agreement and what we have done since represents an attempt to achieve a balance in Northern Ireland—not simply to put pressure on one party, but a balance—and all sides had to make
390
concessions and compromises in order to reach the Good Friday agreement. That is still the case. I do not know whether it would be particularly helpful for me to go through a list of concessions made by one side or the other; they are certainly in the Good Friday agreement and will be known to your Lordships. I do not believe that the pressure has been all one way; the pressure to move forward is on all sides in Northern Ireland, not only on the Ulster Unionists. I agree that Mr Trimble is in difficulties and that a lot of pressure has been exerted on him for the last little while.
Before I deal with specific points, perhaps I may give the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, an answer. We will try to get out the amendments by this evening. However, they are still under discussion. If I have any further information before I sit down, I shall certainly give it to the House.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene on that one point. Can the Minister say whether or not an indication of the nature of the amendments at the very least will have been relayed to Mr Trimble so that it could possibly be of help to him during the course of his meeting?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am being asked all kinds of specific questions. I cannot give an absolute undertaking that that is the case. If I can give the noble Lord any undertaking to that effect before I sit down, I shall certainly do so. The House will appreciate the difficulties we are in with trying to move forward on the basis of the debate yesterday in the other place. We are trying to move forward in terms of the specific amendments which will be forwarded here today. That involves a great deal of discussion and consideration of the issues. I do not want to build up enormously high hopes that all the wishes of this House can be met; I am sure they will not be. A few of them may be; I cannot go any further than that.
Before dealing with the specific points, perhaps I may welcome the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I think this is the first occasion on which he has spoken for the Opposition on Northern Ireland issues since he was appointed to his post. Certainly it is the first time he has taken part in a formal debate. I welcome that. We have already had some informal discussions—I am sure they will continue—and I congratulate him.
I also thank the noble Lord for what he said about wanting to continue a bipartisan policy. It was slightly frayed at the edges on occasion, I would say, but—
Lord Glentoran: No, my Lords.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, he is saying no; he is shaking his head. I welcome the fact that the noble Lord wishes to continue the bipartisan policy. We certainly wish to do so. It was a policy to which we adhered when we were in opposition and we would wish it to continue. We need a bipartisan policy not for the benefit of any party here but for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. The point is sufficiently important to

391
restate. My right honourable friend Mr Mackay was criticised by the government party last night for edging towards a break in the bipartisan relationship. I state firmly on behalf of my party that we are right behind the Government in what they are doing. The bipartisan agreement stands firm.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am most grateful for that. I appreciate what the noble Lord said.
He commented that the Prime Minister has been unable to move Sinn Fein on decommissioning. Although I very much reject that conclusion, the issue is at the heart of what we are seeking to do with the legislation. The test will come very quickly once the legislation is in place.
Perhaps I may take as one of my themes something that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said in her speech. She said "We have to test the intentions of the paramilitaries". That is precisely what this legislation is about; we are testing the intentions of the paramilitaries. By moving forward in this way—hopefully with the agreement of the Ulster Unionist Party and other parties—the intentions of the paramilitaries will very quickly be put to the test. That is the justification for this legislation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what he said. However, the point I was making is that the paramilitaries will be tested clearly and in a transparent way only if the amendments are included in the Bill. If they are not, it will not be possible for us to make clear judgments about whether or not there has been a breach and whether or not the paramilitaries are serious about decommissioning.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness is saying. If I were to respond to her in detail we would be having the debate that we are bound to have tomorrow. I think she will appreciate that we shall have to keep tomorrow's debate for tomorrow and to confine ourselves more to the general principles, albeit I shall have to answer some of the points of detail because of the questions that were put to me in the course of the debate.
Another key point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and by many other speakers today. That is the allegation that we are penalising the innocent; not so; emphatically not so. The Good Friday agreement has a procedure within it whereby these matters can be resolved by the review process. The Bill triggers an automatic move towards the review process if there is a breach of the modalities of decommissioning by any of the organisations with which the decommissioning body has been dealing. If there is such a breach, the procedure will be automatic.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, if the IRA does not decommission, under the terms of the Bill the Assembly will be suspended. That seems to be a case of the good
392
guys being clobbered because the bad guys misbehave. Surely it should be the bad guys who are suspended, not the good guys; or am I being incredibly stupid?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, of course I shall not say yes. We do not have an Assembly at present. What we have said is that the legislation will take everyone back to where we are now. So there is no loss in that. Secondly, the review process will enable the Northern Ireland parties to decide whether they wish to exclude from ministerial office any members of any particular party in the Assembly. That is a process which will then lead to the possible exclusion—it may not—of members of a party from an assembly. If it were not done that way, how could there be an assembly based on consent and on both communities in Northern Ireland being represented? How can that be done unless the majority on each side agree that that is a decision that they want to take. We cannot impose it upon them. They must do it for themselves. We are setting up the context in which they can do that. It is up to the local parties and politicians; if they wish to penalise only those who; are in breach, they will have every opportunity of doing so. We are providing the context that will enable that to happen.
As I said earlier, we are putting pressure on all (he parties, and have done, both in the period up to the Good Friday agreement and since. That is my response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, who said that the temptation is to put pressure on only one party. Yes, at any given point more pressure may be applied one way or another. But taking the totality of what has gone on since the Government took office, we have put pressure on all the participants in an even-handed manner.
My noble friend Lord Fitt asked about General de Chastelain and the commission. The general's report is in the Library and is available to any Member of this House who wants to see it. The commission has been very active in Northern Ireland in dealing with the complex circumstances surrounding the issue of decommissioning. The annexe to the commission's report on 2nd July sets out some of the activities. If the noble and learned Lord would care to refer to that annexe, he will see what the details are. As the report makes clear, the commission is ready and willing to play a central part, as envisaged in the agreement and the joint proposal published by the two Governments on 2nd July, The Way Forward. The commission is prepared to move forward in the way that I have indicated.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, asked a series of specific questions. I shall attempt to deal with the main ones. He suggested that somehow I did not have confidence that those who are on cease-fire would stay on cease-fire. He referred particularly to the IRA. I should regret it if my opening remarks were taken as implying a lack of faith in the intentions of others. If we do not move forward with an Assembly and do not give effect to the Good Friday agreement, there will be a local political vacuum in Northern Ireland. There is a danger that the paramilitary organisations, some of which are not presently on cease-fire, will fill that

393
vacuum. The sooner we have a functioning Assembly, with local Ministers responsible for local matters in Northern Ireland, the sooner we can weaken further the position of the paramilitaries in their local communities. That is the philosophical basis for saying that, if we do not move forward, there is a danger that violence might increase again in Northern Ireland. It is that very outcome that we intend to avoid.
The noble Lord also asked about timing. He asked why we do not delay the formation of an Executive until after the first progress made by General de Chastelain in terms of decommissioning. I think the noble Lord understands that we are seeking to sequence the appointment of the Executive and the start of decommissioning. That has dogged the process for many months. We believe that, by the process of sequencing, we can help those involved to achieve a breakthrough, which has so far eluded us on the decommissioning process.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the Minister says that this is a matter of sequencing. He gives as his reason for putting the formation of the Executive before the start of decommissioning the possibility that something nasty might happen if it were the other way round. But surely, if Sinn Fein is committed to peace, it would not mind a scrap if the sequence were reversed.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, for 15 months since the Good Friday agreement we have been waiting for it to happen the other way round. Because that has not happened, we are now seeking to make progress in the way indicated. What we are talking about, and what the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach made clear is, that we are talking about progress within days of the Executive being set up—I repeat, within days. There is enough at stake to say that it is worth waiting a few days, because we shall then know exactly whether people are as good as their word and whether the process of decommissioning will start across the board for all the organisations in Northern Ireland which have illegal bombs and weapons. That seems a very reasonable proposition. Given how much is at stake, it is worth waiting just a few days to see whether people will deliver. That is the point.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said that those who threatened violence should be excluded from government. I have already dealt with that point, but the noble Lord referred specifically to the position as regards prisoners. The noble Lord quoted the Prime Minister. I do not believe that the Prime Minister has broken his word at all. It is precisely because the Prime Minister is endeavouring to achieve exactly what he said that we are dealing with this piece of legislation—in order to have the start of decommissioning for all parties in the Executive and others. It is not fair and proper of the noble Lord to suggest that the Prime Minister has not been true to his word or has not lived by his undertakings.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, also referred to an article that appeared in last week's Sunday Mirror about a prisoner who was released and about a threat made by
394
that person. Of all the prisoners who have been released in Northern Ireland under the scheme in the sentencing legislation, not one, so far as I am aware, has returned to terrorist violence. Two have committed non-terrorist offences. Beyond that, we have no evidence that any have done so. I believe that the article in the Sunday Mirror referred to someone whose surname was Magee, but it was not the Patrick Magee of whom the noble Lord made mention. I am trying to clarify the position.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I did not mention anyone's name. I said that, clearly, the transcripts of the tapes as they were reproduced in the Sunday Mirror indicated that a particular prisoner was absolutely committed to continuing the armed struggle, and he was released. It was not appropriate to take the matter forward; however, at some time it would be appropriate to inquire whether the Secretary of State was aware of the views expressed by that prisoner at the time of his release.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am not sure that it is helpful for me to proceed with this matter. I shall ensure that the noble Lord is given more information. However, I repeat, it is my understanding that the Sunday Mirror got hold of the wrong individual. If people are released under the Government's scheme for the early release of prisoners, the independent body that is supervising the process has to be satisfied that the prisoner will not resume paramilitary violence. It is on the understanding that they will not resume violence that these people are being released. So if there were an indication that a prisoner in that category had made that comment, I would be very surprised if the independent body would have designated him for release.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and other noble Lords asked for a definition of "decommissioning". It applies to paramilitary organisations. It has nothing to do with arms legally held by the police or the Army. It is to do with guns and bombs held illegally by paramilitary organisations. The wording in the Good Friday agreement refers to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. The joint statement of 2nd July refers to the decommissioning of paramilitary arms. There is no question but that it does not refer to any weapons held by the police or the Army in Northern Ireland.
A number of noble Lords asked how General de Chastelain can be "held to account"—I believe that that was the expression. As a noble Lord intervened to say earlier, he is held in the highest possible regard by all parties in Northern Ireland. I am not aware that anybody has cast doubts on the general's integrity or the thoroughness of his approach. I am not aware of anybody who lacks faith in his ability to do what is being asked of him.
But it is an independent body appointed by the British and Irish Governments. Under the agreement establishing that body, General de Chastelain is required to report periodically to both Governments and through whatever mechanisms they may establish for that purpose, the other participants in political negotiations in Northern Ireland. Therefore, it is clear that proper

395
arrangements are in place. The general has the total confidence of the Government and, I believe, until the debate today, of everybody else who has been concerned in the affairs of Northern Ireland.
As regards co-operation between the British and Irish Governments and the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, they have been working very closely together. We are entirely at one on the policy and process that we are discussing. We are continuing to maintain close contact at all levels. The Irish Government share entirely our commitment to implementing the Good Friday agreement as soon as possible. We have kept them in touch with developments on this Bill and we continue to do so. We have not formally sought their agreement to it: we seek that only from Parliament.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, in a very interesting speech, referred to the position of the SDLP. I believe that I dealt with that in saying that it is not for the Government to deal with what that party believes. I refer the noble Viscount to the comments made in the debate in the other place. He said that he was suspicious that we were giving way to terrorists. That is emphatically not so. We are not giving way or conceding to them; we are trying to maintain total integrity in the process that we are putting forward.
I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, that General de Chastelain is dealing with the disarmament of all paramilitary organisations, loyalist and republican, and not just with the decommissioning of IRA weapons. He is dealing with the problem across the board.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked why there was a hurry. I believe that the answer is clear. Fifteen months have elapsed since the Good Friday agreement. It is simply not proper that we should wait and do nothing. We have made repeated efforts. We made them at Hillsborough some weeks ago. As a Government we have made repeated efforts, in concert with the Irish Government, to bring the Good Friday agreement forward to enable an assembly to be set up. The experience of that agreement is that by setting a deadline it concentrated minds and we achieved that agreement. I do not believe that that would have been achieved had not Senator George Mitchell set a deadline for the local politicians. I believe very much that by setting a deadline now we are increasing the chances of moving forward. To say that we are in a hurry after 15 months is misjudging the time-scale.
I am very pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, spoke this evening. I am delighted that she is here and at what she said. I smiled at one point when she spoke about if she were doing my job in Northern Ireland. People there remember her with enormous respect and affection. I am frequently asked about her and how she is. I pass that on in public. She was held in very high regard. Hers was a difficult act for me to follow in taking over at least some her responsibilities when I had the privilege of being appointed to my job.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that. I shall be grateful if he will convey to those people the affection in which I hold them and to wish them every success in this final manoeuvre.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I shall certainly make sure that that message is passed on to the many friends of
396
the noble Baroness in Northern Ireland. I very much agreed with her speech. She said that what we were doing was for those who want peace. She was quite right. The overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland want peace. They want it desperately because peace represents a proper way forward for them and their children. They have suffered too long. I share very much the sentiments that she put forward. I agree with her—I referred to it in my speech—that we had two weekends which could have been difficult because of the marches. People on both sides showed restraint and they are to be congratulated on that. It has made the way forward much easier than if there had been the tension that surrounded Drumcree and other places in previous years.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, asked about Articles 2 and 3, as did other noble Lords. The position is that the international agreement attached to the Good Friday agreement makes clear that those articles will be repealed when the agreement comes into force at the same time as the transfer of powers in Northern Ireland which, under the timetable referred to in the Prime Minister's statement, will be next Sunday. Our own constitutional changes in Sections 1 and 2 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 come into effect at the same time. There is no slippage on that.
I believe that I have dealt with the point made by my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees about the decommissioning commission. There is full information about that in the report that was published recently.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, said that the Sinn Fein/IRA agenda does not include decommissioning. As The Way Forward makes clear, all the parties have reaffirmed three principles, one of which was the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms by May 2000. If that document is put into effect, which this Bill is designed to support, we shall all know once and for all whether the IRA will decommission. We shall put it to the test. That is what many people want to see happen. It seems to me—and it commands pretty widespread support—that by putting the paramilitary organisations to the test we shall know very quickly whether or not they are prepared to decommission. That is the clearest way forward and that is why we are bringing forward this legislation. That is what the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to expect after all the waiting. They want to know whether or not the paramilitaries will decommission. If we can move to setting up an Executive we shall know very quickly afterwards, as I said a few moments ago, whether there will be decommissioning. I believe that there will be: but let us not take my belief. Let us put the organisations to the test as they have not been tested before. That is the basis for the Bill and why the Government want to move forward with it. That is why I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1999
7.10 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in short, approval of this order is required to enable direct rule in Northern Ireland to continue until the Assembly and Executive come fully into being. At the moment direct rule is due to end on 16th July, but the proposal put to the Northern Ireland parties by the British and Irish Governments on 2nd July set 18th July as the date for devolution. Therefore, if we did not approve this draft order there would be a hiatus in the governance of Northern Ireland, albeit for two days.
While we fully intend devolution to take place on 18th July, we believe it to be prudent to extend direct rule for a full year against the possibility—a small one, we hope—that devolution does not take place according to the time-scale proposed by the two Governments. Therefore, while approval of this order in theory results in direct rule being renewed for a whole year, in practice the Government hope and expect that it will be suspended by devolution on 18th July.
The people of Northern Ireland need and deserve political structures which are more accountable to them and more responsive to their needs. Against this background, we fervently hope and trust that this will be the last time that it is necessary for a government to come before your Lordships' House for approval of the statutory provisions that underpin direct rule. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Dubs.)
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, while supporting the Motion, we echo the words of the Minister. We on these Benches also hope that this is the last time that the order will come before the House.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the support. I say with a good deal of confidence that this will be the last time that I move approval of an order of this kind. I made such an optimistic comment a year ago. However, this time I have greater confidence in it. In view of the Bill to which we have just given a Second Reading and other developments, I believe that we are talking about a delay of only two days. However, we must ensure that direct rule continues in the interests of good and proper governance.
I do not believe that this is the occasion on which to go into the history of direct rule in great detail. I am not sure that I am fully qualified to do that. However, in the political life of Northern Ireland direct rule has given rise to criticism. The Order in Council procedure for legislation is not one that most people agree, happily, fully reflects the views of the people of Northern Ireland. Therefore, I am grateful for the support of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
The Bill was brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.

Access to Justice Bill [H.L.]
7.3 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Access to Justice Bill [H.L.]
  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [The page and line refer to Bill 67 as first printed for the Commons.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  1 Clause 1, leave out Clause 1.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. With the leave of your Lordships, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 5 and 6. Amendment No. 5 elaborates particular objectives within the overall purpose of the community legal service. Amendment No. 3 is a consequential change to the statement of purpose in Clause 5(1), and Amendment No. 6 is simply a drafting improvement.
  Amendment No. 1 removes the "principles" clause which your Lordships added to the Bill on the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I approach the desirability of a "principles" clause on its merits. It may be desirable to define in statute the purpose and objectives of Part I of the Bill.
  My fundamental difficulty with the existing clause is one of structure. We have set out in this Bill to make a very clear distinction between the community legal service and the criminal defence service. This reflects the different policy objectives and imperatives behind the public funding of legal services in civil and criminal cases; the different mix of services required; and the very different factors that drive demand and cost. Clause 1 is at odds with this approach, because it seeks to cover two separate schemes with a single set of objectives.
  The Government's alternative approach is to include separate statements of the respective purposes of the community legal service and the criminal defence service. These are to be found in Clauses 5(1) and 13(1). They are no less effective for not appearing at the start of the Bill. The purpose of the criminal defence service is to provide advice, assistance and representation for people suspected of having committed criminal offences and for defendants in criminal proceedings. It is to provide that level of advice, assistance and representation required in the interests of justice. It is a service which must be provided to all who need it. That

  399
  is the position at present and will remain the position in the future. I do not see any need to expand or gloss the statement of purpose in Clause 13(1).
  The purpose of the community legal service is wholly different. It is to provide legal services that effectively meet the needs of people who have civil law problems, subject to the constraint that the available resources for the community legal service should be used in the most appropriate and justifiable manner.
  The important word "effectively" was added by Commons Amendment No. 2. The community legal service fund is designed to be a rational and transparent system, based on local assessments of need and a framework of priorities for allocating the finite resources available. This contrasts with the current legal aid scheme where the only effective way to limit spending is to reduce financial eligibility or increase contributions across the board—options which this Government, in contrast to the previous government, were not prepared to take.
  I said in our previous debates that I was sympathetic to much in the noble and learned Lord's "principles" clause. That sympathy is given effect by Commons Amendment No. 5, which adds specific objectives for the community legal service. The objectives are: to improve the range, quality and accessibility of services; to ensure that the services provided are proportionate to the matter in hand; and to promote the swift and fair resolution of disputes without excessive resort to the courts. The objectives about quality, access, speed and fairness all reflect concepts in the noble and learned Lord's. Clause 1.
  The exact formulation about access is, however, rather different. Clause 1 says that access should not be impaired by the place where services are sought. I regret that to the extent that this implies that people who live in rural areas can enjoy the same proximity to services as those in large towns, this is unrealistic. Further, the use of the word "place" restricts the concept of access to one of geography.
  Amendment No. 5, on the other hand, sets the objective of improving the accessibility of services. This shows our commitment to providing effective access through the community legal service, without tying the concept solely to the number and location of offices; in other words, it allows for new technology, outreach services, telephone advice lines and other non-traditional ways of delivering services. This Bill creates the community legal service, and we are asking it to perform in the most efficient and effective manner. I therefore submit that the hands of those delivering the services should not be tied to one model of delivery or one way of working.
  I now turn to those aspects of Clause 1 which are not reflected by Commons Amendment No. 5. Most importantly, there is no specific reference to discrimination against the disabled (as in subsection (2)(b) of Clause 1). I share entirely the objective of ensuring that access to legal services is not impaired by discrimination on the grounds of disability, or indeed of race or gender. We have considered very carefully whether the Bill should include an objective about avoiding undesirable forms of discrimination. On balance, the Government have concluded chat nothing can usefully be added to the existing law. The Legal Services
  400
  Commission and those it engages to provide services are already subject, as employers and service providers, to the provisions of the sex, race and disability discrimination Acts. As a public body, the commission will also be covered by the Human Rights Act which outlaws discrimination on a wide range of grounds in relation to people's access to their convention rights.
  Legislation about discrimination is complex because it necessarily includes very careful definitions. It must cover both direct and indirect sex discrimination and must define the way in which complaints about discrimination are to be considered by the courts and tribunals.
  An objective in the Bill about avoiding discrimination on the grounds of sex, race and disability would have to adopt the definitions of the existing legislation. Indeed, Clause 1 recognises this by referring to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. But this would, at best, add nothing to the existing law, and I fear that it could create some ambiguity. On the other hand, anything that extended the scope of existing discrimination law—as set out in detail in the individual statutes—would require wider and more detailed consideration than is possible in the context of this Bill; it would merit separate legislation in its own right.
  That said, I fully recognise the importance of providing a system that will deliver help to those who need it, irrespective of their race, sex or disability. That is why we need flexible machinery that can respond to the changing needs and priorities of the community.
  Under this Bill, for the first time in legal aid history, we shall be able to address the particular needs of any part of the community, whether it be the disabled or those from an ethnic minority background. Clause 7(5) refers to "areas or communities" specifically so that the commission may target non-geographical communities. The Legal Aid Board has already directed its regional legal services committees that their strategies for assessing the needs and priorities of their communities should include a section which discusses the needs of specific client groups (for example, ethnic minorities, disabled, elderly, carers, remote communities) and advises on how best to address those needs through contracts.
  The Legal Aid Board's legal aid franchise quality assurance standard also makes it mandatory that firms wishing to obtain a franchise have a written equal opportunities policy which is in effective operation. The policy must make it clear that the firm will not,
  "discriminate on grounds of race, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation in deciding whether to accept instructions from clients, instructing counsel and other experts, in the provision of services or in the selection, recruitment and treatment of staff".
  I recently instructed the board to report to me by September with proposals for monitoring the ethnic origin and gender of both the clients receiving services under its contracts and the providers supplying them. I also asked the board for a report on the options for monitoring access for the disabled.

  401
  Amendment No. 5 does not replicate subsection (2)(a) of Clause 1, which refers to services that people would,
  "be unable to obtain on account of their means".
  This formulation has been used to define legal aid since 1949 and is currently found in Section 1 of the Legal Aid Act 1988. We are reluctant to apply the terminology of legal aid to the new schemes, which are intended to mark a radical change. In particular, the reference to "means" tends to give the sense that legal services can only be funded from a person's existing resources or by the taxpayer. This does not chime with the measures in Part II intended to enhance conditional fees and promote other new ways of funding litigation. Furthermore, the words in question seem to me too general to add anything of substance when presented as a specific objective. I read them more as a description of legal aid, and as such I think that their sense is adequately covered by the purpose statements in Clauses 5 (1) and 13(1).
  The new paragraph (c) added by Amendment No. 5 draws on Clause 1 by referring to the swift and fair resolution of disputes; but it does not adopt the additional words,
  "with the parties placed on an equal footing".
  The difficulty I see with these words is that they could be taken to imply that the Legal Services Commission should match the spending of a wealthy private party, regardless of the importance or complexity of the case. That is simply unrealistic and would lead to the limited resources of the community legal service being exhausted on a relatively small number of cases. The community legal service will have a substantial budget and I wish to ensure that as many people as possible benefit from its services. An objective in this form could severely limit the number of people who could be assisted, which I am sure was not the intention of those who proposed it.
  On the basis of those explanations, I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Government have done all they can to reflect the spirit of Clause 1 in a way that is consistent with the new structures we are seeking to create in the Bill.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, first, I welcome the Government's acceptance that a purpose clause is desirable in connection with the community legal service. I also accept the argument of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that it should be a different purpose clause from that which applies to the criminal defence service.
  I understand from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, that he regards this group of amendments as acceptable, even if not preferable to his own. There are certain respects in which I prefer the wording of the old Clause 1 to that of the new amendment, but I do not believe that any useful purpose would be served by my going through a legal analysis
  402
  of the two different purpose clauses. Therefore, I simply say that from these Benches we are content to accept this group of amendments.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I, too, wish to say that we agree with the judgment of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the purpose clause should be divided into two: civil matters and criminal matters. I recognise that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has decided to accept the solution provided by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I have been greatly influenced by the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, in that matter.
  The purpose clause in question, the clause which relates to civil matters, now has two weaknesses. First, it does not provide for equality of arms. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explained why that is so. Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, it seems to me that it will now not be possible to review judicially a situation in which, on the one hand, a litigant meriting legal aid has a good case but, on the other, cannot obtain a CFA at a reasonable cost. I suppose that was the fundamental reason why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, tabled the amendment in the first place. Nevertheless, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the situation is such that we have decided not to press the amendment.
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, I had the advantage of reading a copy of a letter which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor wrote to my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd setting out in considerable detail his views, which he has fleshed out today. I found the letter adequately convincing and therefore I have no resistance to offer in relation to the proposals.
  Lord Hacking: My Lords, since we debated this matter in detail both in Committee and on Report, I am delighted to hear from a number of noble Lords that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, is happy with the proposals of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
  As has been recognised in our short discussion, the community legal service and the criminal defence service have different objectives and modus operandi and therefore it is fitting that different principles should guide their operations. I believe that the noble and learned Lord deals better in his amendments with geographical access to justice generally. I refer to Amendment No. 5 and to Clause 7(5).
  Finally, I want to raise a point which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, on Report. The drafting of Clause 1 places a statutory duty in that,
  "Every person exercising functions … must act".
  When the purpose of the exercise was to establish principles, it was not a befitting way to place it under a form of statutory duty. Again, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has dealt with that in the amendments before us. For all those reasons, perhaps

  403
  I may say from the noble and learned Lord's Back Benches that the amendment has the support from this quarter of the House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  2 Clause 4, page 3, line 11, leave out from ("grants") to end of line 12 and insert ("(with or without conditions),")
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. It is a minor drafting change. Clause 4(2) sets out specific powers of the legal services commission. It is in almost identical terms to Section 4(2) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 about the powers of the Legal Aid Board. Clause 4(2)(b) gives the commission the power to make conditional grants. The amendment removes some unnecessary words specifying conditions as to repayment. The clause as amended will continue to permit grants which have to be repaid in certain circumstances.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. —(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  3 Clause 5, page 3, line 41, leave out ("of a type and quality appropriate to") and insert ("that effectively")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, amendment agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  4 Clause 5, page 4, line 9, leave out ("can") and insert ("is required to")
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 26.
  These amendments are intended to clarify which services will be funded under the new criminal defence service scheme, which will replace the existing criminal legal aid scheme.
  The new criminal defence service scheme will cover all the main services currently provided by criminal legal aid, including representation in court when this is in the interests of justice, and advice and assistance for suspects being questioned by the police and others involved in criminal investigations.
  These services are covered by Clauses 14 and 15, which define the services which the criminal defence service will be under a duty to fund and the ways in which it may fund them. Clause 13(4) looks forward to
  404
  Clauses 14 and 15 and describes them as specifying the services which the commission must fund. However, it would be possible to conclude from the drafting that a distinction could be drawn between services which must be funded under Clauses 14 and 15 and other criminal defence services which might be funded. This is not the Government's intention. Amendment No. 23 clarifies the position, recasting Clause 13(4) to provide that,
  "The Commission shall fund services as part of the Criminal Defence Service in accordance with sections 14 and 15".
  Amendment No. 4 is a consequential drafting change to the reference to the criminal defence service in Clause 5. Amendments Nos. 22 and 26 are drafting amendments relating to the definition of "criminal investigations".
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  5 Clause 5, page 4, line 10, at end insert—
  ("() Every person who exercises any function relating to the Community Legal Service shall have regard to the desirability of exercising it, so far as is reasonably practicable, so as to—

  (a) promote improvements in the range and quality of services provided as part of the Community Legal Service and in the ways in which they are made accessible to those who need them,

  (b) secure that the services provided in relation to any matter are appropriate having regard to its nature and importance, and

  (c) achieve the swift and fair resolution of disputes without unnecessary or unduly protracted proceedings in court.")

  6 Page 4, line 14, leave out from ("for") to ("quality") in line 16 and insert (", and the provision of, services of the descriptions specified in subsection (2) and about the")
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. I spoke to them with Amendment No. 1.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  [Motion No. 7A not moved.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  7 Clause 5, page 4, line 32, at end insert—
  ("(7A) The Commission may charge—

  (a) for accreditation,

  (b) for monitoring the services provided by accredited persons and bodies, and

  (c) for authorising accreditation by others;

  and persons or bodies authorised to accredit may charge for accreditation, and for such monitoring, in accordance with the terms of their authorisation.")
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. I shall speak also to Amendments

  405
  Nos. 8, 24 and 25 and state the position I should have adopted had the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, moved his Amendment No. 7A.
  The purpose of Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 24 and 25 is to confer on the legal services commission a power to charge both for the accreditation and monitoring of providers of legal services and for the authorisation of others to accredit and monitor providers of legal services.
  The amendments will also allow others who are authorised to accredit and monitor providers of legal services to charge for accreditation and monitoring in accordance with terms set by the commission. They give the Lord Chancellor the power to require the commission to discharge its powers to charge for accreditation, monitoring and authorisation and to authorise others to charge in a prescribed manner.
  The government amendments are enabling provisions, which give the commission a power to charge for accreditation services. Accreditation lies at the heart of the Government's drive to create a network of quality assured suppliers of legal services. Accreditation will show to funders and clients that a particular body meets certain standards in its work. Not all will pay for accreditation.
  I come now to what I believe will be of most interest to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I deal first with services provided as part of the criminal defence service. These will be provided by solicitors' firms, typically under a contract, barristers and possibly by some not-for-profit law centres. All services provided as part of the criminal defence service will be funded by the commission and providers will not have to pay for accreditation.
  I turn separately to services funded by the commission as part of the community legal service. These services will be provided by solicitors and barristers who will be in business for profit and by not-for-profit agencies such as law centres and citizens advice bureaux, which will not. Suppliers of services funded by the commission as part of the community legal service will not have to pay for accreditation. Therefore, the high street solicitor, or indeed any solicitor, providing services as part of the criminal defence service or the community legal service which are funded by the legal services commission will not have to pay for accreditation. I believe that is what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, anticipated that he would hear from me.
  I turn to those who will provide the other help and advice not funded by the commission but which will be available through the wider community legal service. Many of these providers will be operating on a not-for-profit basis and they will not have to pay for accreditation. But there are many organisations that make a profit from the provision of legal services. These include firms of solicitors operating on a purely private basis in either civil or criminal matters. We hope that many of these firms will take part in their local community legal service networks as part of the referral network, even if they are not receiving funding under a
  406
  contract with the commission. Solicitors firms and others providing legal services for a profit may choose to take advantage of the opportunity to obtain accreditation to demonstrate the quality of the services that they provide and thereby attract more business; or they may be required by regulators or client groups to meet quality standards. That may be particularly appropriate in the field of immigration advice where there is concern about the quality of services provided.
  The commission will be well placed to accredit, or authorise others to accredit, profit-making providers of legal services—I repeat, which it does not fund—and to ensure that appropriate and consistent quality standards are applied across the field of legal services.
  We believe that it would be wrong to expect the taxpayer to meet the costs of accrediting and monitoring those individuals and bodies who seek accreditation as a means of increasing their profits arising out of non-publicly funded work.
  7.45 p.m.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor for giving way. He referred to cases which the legal services commission does not fund. There are, of course, two ways in which it can fund: either it funds the individual who then obtains legal aid services from a firm of solicitors or it can fund the firm direct. That is borne out in Clauses 14 and 15 of the Bill. I understand the noble and learned Lord to be saying—indeed, it would be logical—that whichever form of legal aid funding is obtained, whether to the individual or to the solicitors' firm which provides services to the client, either way there will not be a charge for accreditation and monitoring.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is certainly my understanding. The power for the commission to charge for accreditation services where the firm in question seeks accreditation for the purposes of promoting its business outside funded work is in a different category. But it is right to charge for such accreditation services and it will be for the public benefit because the consumer will have the advantage of an assurance of the quality of the service without the taxpayer having to foot the bill for accreditation.
  However, wherever the commission seeks to exercise this power within the limits that I have described, it will simply be seeking to recover its costs in providing the service and not to make a profit. I hope that that is a sufficient explanation of the Government's intentions from these provisions.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  8 Clause 5, page 4, line 34, leave out ("(7)") and insert("(7A)")
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  9 Clause 6, page 5, line 3, at end insert—
  ("() The Lord Chancellor shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of every determination under subsection (2)(a).")
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. This amendment inserts a new subsection in Clause 6. Clause 6 deals with the community legal service fund that will replace civil legal aid. The new subsection places a duty on me to inform Parliament whenever I make a determination about the net budget for the community legal service fund.
  Clause 6(2)(a) requires me to pay to the legal services commission such sums for funding services as I determine are appropriate. In practice I will determine an annual net budget for the fund each financial year. This figure will be published as part of the Government's spending plans and in supply estimates, and laid before Parliament in that context.
  It would also apply should it ever be necessary for me to change my mind during the course of the financial year and make a fresh determination increasing or decreasing the budget. There has been a great deal of debate, both in and outside Parliament, about the danger that an unexpected overspend on the criminal defence service could eat into the community legal service budget.
  The Government have explained how, on the one hand, contracting will help achieve better value for the money spent on criminal defence services and make that spending more predictable, while on the other hand precluding large and sudden cuts in CLS spending. However, we have equally made clear that no responsible government could guarantee to ringfence a particular spending programme against any unforeseen contingency. In the interests of transparency, however, I undertook in this House to inform Parliament if I ever made a significant in-year change to the budget for the community legal service fund.
  Following a suggestion made by the National Consumer Council, Amendment No. 9 places this undertaking on a statutory footing. It is yet another example of this Government listening and responding to those who, while they are genuinely supportive, and generally supportive, of our reforms, have particular concerns and come forward with sensible suggestions to meet them which we feel able to accept.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor well knows, our great concern—probably our greatest concern in the whole of the Bill—was the fact that increases in the spending on the criminal defence service which are not cost-limited might eat severely into the budget for the community
  408
  legal service which is cost-limited, and the total budget from the Lord Chancellor's Department which is also cost-limited.
  That remains a severe worry and this amendment does not do anything of significance to prevent it from happening. Nevertheless, I accept that transparency is desirable in cases of this kind and I welcome the amendment so far as it goes. We are not in a position to press the matter further on the subject of our main worry.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  10 Clause 9, page 7, line 14, leave out ("requiring the furnishing of information or imposing other") and insert ("imposing")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendment No. 10. This is a minor drafting amendment to Clause 9 which deals with the code for determining applications for funding from the community legal service fund.
  Clause 9(5)(b) currently states that the code may include provision requiring applicants for funding to furnish information or impose other conditions. The amendment changes the clause to refer simply to conditions without the specific reference to "information." It is, of course, still the intention that the code will include conditions about furnishing information. However, that is so clearly a requirement for any form of application that it goes without saying.
  The main reason for Amendment No. 10 is to remove some superfluous words. The change may also serve to avoid any implication that the clause permits only conditions of a similar nature to conditions about furnishing information—that is to say, conditions relating to the application process. However, the intention is that the code should be able to set prior conditions of a more substantive nature; for example, conditions requiring the applicant to take some other step to resolve his or her problem before seeking funding under the scheme.
  In particular, we intend to replicate in the code the requirement currently set out in Section 15(3F) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 to attend a meeting with a mediator before seeking legal representation in private law family proceedings. It may become appropriate in future to establish analogous conditions about other types of case or other forms of alternative dispute resolution.
  On the basis of that explanation, I commend Amendment No. 10 to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  11 Clause 11, page 8, line 37, leave out from ("both,") to end of line 38
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 12.
  Amendment No. 11 makes a minor drafting change to shorten Clause 11. It removes some unnecessary words carried over from the Legal Aid Act 1988 about paying contributions from capital by instalments. The existing legal aid regulations about contributions do not make such provision. Under the amended Bill, it would still be possible to provide for instalments, relying on the words in Clause 11(3)(a) about "periodical payments" or "one or more capital sums."
  Amendment No. 12 makes another minor drafting change to Clause 11. It clarifies Clause 11(4)(b) which allows interest to be charged on contributions that fall due after the costs to which they relate are incurred. It is not intended that interest should run from the moment any costs are incurred—whether that means costs incurred by the service provider or costs incurred by the commission in making payments on account to the provider under a contract. This provision is intended to allow for the possibility of regulations postponing payment of a capital contribution until after the end of the case, or—although the Government have no plans to do this—requiring contributions from income to continue after the end of the case. The amendment makes this clearer. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  12 Clause 11, page 8, line 43, leave out from ("payment") to ("or") in line 45 and insert ("in respect of the cost of services required by the regulations to be made by him later than the time when the services are provided,")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  13 Clause 12, page 9, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 25 and insert ("Except in prescribed circumstances, costs ordered against an individual in relation to any proceedings or part of proceedings funded for him")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 to 21, 47 and 48.
  410
  This group of amendments concerns the protection that a person assisted by the community legal service is given from having to meet the costs of the other side should the action that he or she brings with the help of public funds be unsuccessful.
  Amendment No. 13 allows the general protection afforded by Clause 12(1) to be disapplied in prescribed circumstances. This power is necessary because, unlike the present legal aid scheme, the new commission will fund cases in a range of different ways. For example, Clause 7(3)(e) empowers the commission to provide help by making a grant or a loan to an individual to enable that person to purchase legal services for himself as a private litigant. Another option proposed by the Legal Aid Board in its draft funding code is to provide limited "litigation support" funding for a case that is principally funded privately—probably under a conditional fee agreement. We believe that it would be wrong if people helped in these ways were entitled to special protection from having to meet their opponents' costs.
  Amendment No. 47 makes any regulations disapplying the protection available under Clause 12(1) subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
  Amendments Nos. 13 to 16 also effect drafting changes to make clear that protection against costs applies only while the commission is funding a case. There are circumstances when support from the commission may not be provided until after litigation has commenced when, for example, a person's means change so that he or she becomes financially eligible for assistance. Similarly, support may be withdrawn because the individual is no longer eligible financially or the case no longer passes the requirements of the funding code but the assisted person proceeds with the case nevertheless through some other means of funding. The amendments make clear that costs protection is limited to that part of the proceedings when an individual was receiving help from the scheme.
  Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 rephrase and reposition Clause 12(3)(c) which deals with the payment of costs by the legal services commission to the opponent of an assisted person. At present, a court can order the Legal Aid Board to pay an opposing defendant's costs if he or she would otherwise suffer severe financial hardship. Regulations under this Bill will broadly replicate that position, although the Government hope to relax the test to plain financial hardship.
  It is necessary to rephrase the paragraph to refer to the "costs incurred" by the opponent rather than those "ordered against" the assisted person. Otherwise the costs that the commission could be ordered to pay would be limited by the protection enjoyed by the assisted person. That anomaly did not arise with the previous drafting of Clause 12(1).
  Amendments Nos. 21 and 48 are consequential on the repositioning of Clause 12(3)(c). The latter ensures that regulations under that paragraph remain subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 ensure the consistent use of tenses throughout the clause. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  14 Clause 12, page 9, line 28, at end insert ("to which the proceedings relate")
  15 Page 9, line 29, leave out from beginning to ("his") in line 30 and insert ("and for this purpose proceedings, or a part of proceedings, are funded for an individual if services relating to the proceedings or part are funded for him by the Commission as part of the Community Legal Service.
  (1A) In assessing for the purposes of subsection (1) the financial resources of an individual for whom services are funded by the Commission as part of the Community Legal Service,")
  16 Page 9, line 33, leave out ("that") and insert ("subsections (1) and (1A)")
  17 Page 9, line 33, leave out ("cases in which services have been") and insert ("relation to proceedings in which services are")
  18 Page 9, line 38, leave out ("the services were funded,") and insert ("services are funded by the Commission as part of the Community Legal Service,")
  19 Page 9, leave out lines 42 and 43
  20 Page 9, line 46, at end insert—
  ("(da) requiring the payment by the Commission of the whole or part of any costs incurred by a party for whom services are not funded by the Commission as part of the Community Legal Service,")
  21 Page 10, line 2, leave out ("such a party") and insert ("a party for whom services are so funded")
  22 Clause 13, page 10, line 15, leave out subsection (2)
  23 Page 10, line 36, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
  ("() The Commission shall fund services as part of the Criminal Defence Service in accordance with sections 14 and 15.")
  24 Page 10, line 44, at end insert—
  ("(5A) The Commission may charge—

  (a) for accreditation,

  (b) for monitoring the services provided by accredited persons and bodies, and

  (c) for authorising accreditation by others;

  and persons or bodies authorised to accredit may charge for accreditation, and for such monitoring, in accordance with the terms of their authorisation.")
  25 Page 10, line 46, leave out ("subsection (5)") and insert ("subsections (5) and (5A)")
  26 Clause 14, page 11, line 5, leave out ("in such other circumstances as the Lord Chancellor may prescribe") and insert ("involved in criminal investigations in such other circumstances as may be prescribed;
  and for this purpose "criminal investigations" means investigations relating to offences or to individuals convicted of an offence.")
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 to 26, which have already been spoken to under Amendments Nos. 4, 7 and 13.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 to 26.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  27 Clause 14, page 11, line 18, after ("assistance,") insert—
  ("() itself providing advice or assistance,")

  MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 27
  27A That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27. I shall speak also to Motions Nos. 28A and 30A.
  All of the arguments about the criminal defence service have been canvassed exhaustively. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not go over the territory explored so widely at Second Reading, Committee and Report stages. I shall summarise my argument.
  First, in an adversarial system, it is absolutely fundamental that a defendant should have full confidence that his legal representatives are genuinely independent. Secondly, in high-profile cases in particular the employed public defender lawyer may be unwilling to take a stand—as is frequently necessary—and criticise the Government, the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and so on. It is essential to the administration of justice that there be fearless advocacy on the part of an accused person.
  Thirdly, if only limited resources are available to the public defender system, fewer and lower-paid lawyers will provide a poorer quality of service. The necessary work of tracing witnesses and instructing experts will not be carried out if budget limits are exceeded. By contrast, the resources of the prosecution in investigations through the police are unlimited in respect of individual cases. Consequently, the proposals will fundamentally shift the balance between the prosecution and the defence that exists under our system.
  I have no doubt that the word "indignation" is written in large letters on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor's brief as he leaps to the defence of a class of persons—namely, public defenders—who have not yet been recruited. How dare I suggest that they will not employ professional standards and so on? But if the Government think that people employed for a fixed salary for fixed hours will put the same effort into a case that independent counsel and solicitors do at present, then they do not understand the realities of the criminal Bar.
  I shall give a small instance. Tomorrow I shall go to a remand centre. It will take me two hours to get there. When I arrive I will be searched, my shoes will be taken from me and my coat will be taken from me. They will be put through a machine and any papers I may have on me will be removed if they do not appertain to the case. Recently, for example, I had a bill from the House of Lords Refreshment Department confiscated in case it gave the inmates of the prison I was in some notion or inkling of the bill of fare in your Lordships.' House.

  413
  These are the indignities that independent counsel are prepared to go through, and to spend the time. I should add that, under the graduated scheme, I will not be paid for a whole day's work, because it will take me two hours to get home. For that reason, I do not see that this level of service will ever be provided by a salaried defender service such as is proposed.
  I do not believe either that the proposal will achieve the purposes for which it has been put forward; namely, the saving of money. I do not believe it has ever been pretended that it will improve the quality of justice to have a public defender system. Increases in the costs of defending criminal cases are, at least by implication, frequently put down to the activities of greedy lawyers trying to up their fees. What is never put into the reckoning is the cost of the measures which have been developed to improve the speeding-up of justice, a very necessary aim. In the old days of the assizes one walked into court and one did the case. Today we have systems of primary discovery, defence statements, secondary discovery, plea and directions hearings, public interest immunity applications, preliminary hearings on points of law, and frequently consultation with the client at various stages is essential. That is all commendable, but it is not quick and it certainly is not cheap. It costs time and money.
  A further fundamental objection to the criminal defence service, to which I have referred on previous occasions, is the concept that a nationwide service will be set up with offices all over the country and that a defendant will have the right to choose whether he accepts the state service or whether he goes on legal aid to an independent legal representative. The idea that the choice will be made in favour of the state defence service is in my view ludicrous, and I do not see such a choice remaining very long for a defendant. We will be in a kind of "signs of the Zodiac" situation described by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, at Second Reading.
  We would have no objection if there were parts of the country where there were no independent solicitors. I know of none, but if that should be so, let there be a public office, but only in that very limited kind of circumstance. I do not believe that a public defender system can ever match the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the competitive, independent Bar where ability and hard work are the ultimate criteria.
  No nationalised industry has ever proved itself as efficient as the private sector. Hence, in all fields other than this one, New Labour has accepted and acquiesced in privatisations carried out by the previous government. Indeed, even in the Bill the purpose of having contracts is to increase competitive tendering between solicitors. But here, a state nationalised service of defending is being set up. I do not believe that that is right in principle. I do not believe that it is practical, and I believe that it will fail. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27.—(Lord Thomas of Gresford.)
  Lord Borrie: My Lords, I did not intervene on this part of the Bill during its earlier stages in this House. However, I listened to many speeches, including at least two excellent speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas.
  A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, attacked the provision which would enable lawyers employed by the criminal defence service to provide not only representation but advice or assistance of any kind in the criminal courts. They attacked the provision—it has emerged once more in the speech we have just heard from the noble Lord—on the basis that the proposal might lead to the extreme of removing the choice of an accused person to have a private practitioner as his lawyer and advocate, if that is what he wants. It is thought, and it was repeated by the noble Lord, that the proposal might lead to the extreme of a comprehensive public defender system. The noble Lord used the word "nationalisation", no doubt because it has an emotive effect. There is the suggestion that it would replace the independent Bar, as it exists not just as we know it in London, but in Manchester, Birmingham and Newcastle.
  During the course of previous debates, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor denied any such extreme intention. There is no basis or evidence for the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that the extremes he envisages are likely to come about. Furthermore, there is no evidence, certainly in this country, of any lack of dedication or lack of fearlessness—qualities which the noble Lord of course regards very highly—on the part of an employed lawyer of a criminal defence service because we do not have one. However, this links up with debates we have had as regards civil courts, to which we may well return tonight.
  There is a kind of distrust on the part of eminent practitioners like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that the employed lawyer, the in-house lawyer, is incapable of giving independent advice and independent representation and is incapable of being fearless because he is scared of losing his job or his present post. We shall come to that in due course. However, it seems to me—and of course the proposals are of a modest nature—that there is no basis for saying that an employed lawyer would not be capable of doing the very best he could for the accused person.
  Let us not forget the importance of Clause 15. Rather rashly perhaps, I draw in aid my recollection that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was very keen that employed lawyers should be subjected to a code—a code now set out in the Bill—which would involve consultation with the Law Society, the Bar and so forth, ensuring dedication, fearlessness, and above all duty to the court, which are so important, whether he or she is independent or an employed lawyer.
  In conclusion, it is not the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who is being extremist in the proposal that he is bringing forward. I am afraid it is the majority

  415
  of this House who were extremist when they tried, by the successful anti-Government amendment, to make it completely impossible for the courts to allow any lawyer employed by the criminal defence service to act in any way, by advice or assistance or representation, in any court. That seems to be extreme, and there is no warrant for it.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Borrie, as I think I did—my memory does not go hack that far—in previous debates. If I merely made the speech to my wife, I apologise.
  This is an extreme amendment, in that it casts doubt upon the ability of lawyers who operate in any salaried service, because the same criteria would apply, and that is wholly unjustified. Why should we have a Crown Prosecution Service? There is a very strong case for it. Anyway, it is establishing itself over the years. It has had difficulties, as one recognises, but they do not constitute a reason for saying that the Crown Prosecution Service has failed and should be abolished, or anything of that kind.
  Therefore, I do not think that this form of extreme amendment puts the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in a good light. It is somewhat protectionist. In fact, if lawyers were to adopt that attitude they would be seen as being protectionist, and that is unhelpful. The job of a defending lawyer is to do his or her work to the best of his or her ability. In the United States it is seen as a valuable way of gaining useful experience, and subsequently many people in that position go on to offer their professional abilities to the private sector. I see nothing wrong with that. Therefore, the noble Lord should reflect further on an amendment which I think is wholly without cause.
  Lord Hacking: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is clearly a great, persuasive advocate, because he has persuaded my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis to describe his amendment as extreme. In fact, it is not at all extreme, because all that he seeks to do is to remove Commons Amendment No. 27, which adds another sub-paragraph to Clause 14(2). The subsection, with the Commons amendment, would read:
  "The Commission may comply with the duty imposed by subsection (1) by … itself providing advice or assistance".
  The reason that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is being so persuasive is that he is not addressing at all the individual amendments that he is seeking to have removed. His speech did not address them either. It was directed towards the principle of the criminal defence service. As he argued strongly in Committee and on Report—and he may well have done so again on Third Reading—he has very strong views on the subject: he is opposed to it. But that is not the Commons amendment with which we are dealing. The principle of setting up the criminal defence service is in Clause 13(1). That is not what we are debating now.
  Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, the amendment raises a profoundly important debate. The fact that it arises now, at this late hour, much to the Government's convenience, does not make it any less
  416
  profoundly important. Of course, we all now have to tear up the speeches that we would have made if the matter had come on at the proper time; we all have to curtail our arguments.
  The case against the amendment can be put very shortly. No doubt I shall be accused yet again of smugness, of superiority, of special pleading and, as we have just heard yet again, of protectionism. The case can be put very simply. Let me spell it out.
  Our democracy and our fundamental freedoms depend on the rule of law. The law is upheld first by an independent and uncorrupt judiciary. Secondly, it is upheld by the advocates—barristers and solicitors—without whom the judges could not operate and from among whom the judges are drawn. The essential characteristics of the judge are those which are instilled into him and observed by him as an advocate: above all, independence and integrity. Thirdly, when the chips are down and the citizen is in danger of losing his liberty, his livelihood or his reputation, he can appeal to a jury of 12 ordinary people like himself, unbiased and, once again, independent—independent in each case of government, of police, of all the agents of power and privilege which bind together the structure of the whole criminal process, fought for over the years and correctly described as the bulwark of our liberties. That is the structure, and attacks on the structure are fierce and continuing.
  Lord Hacking: My Lords, on a point of order. We should be addressing Commons Amendment No. 27. We should not be addressing Clause 13(1).
  8.15 p.m.
  Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I am at the moment addressing the submission that this House should not agree with this Commons amendment. The amendment has been introduced by my noble friend Lord Thomas, and I think everybody agrees that what we are discussing now, with all the other amendments that go with it, is the question of the public defender. It is to the question of the public defender that I am addressing myself. If I am out of order, no doubt someone will tell me, and I will sit down; otherwise, I intend to continue as I have begun.
  The attacks on the structure that I have set out come mainly from politicians. The judges are criticised for being too powerful and too political. The right to jury trial, I understand, is now to be cut down. Attacks on the advocates have been sustained throughout the passage of the Bill in almost a violent form. But it must be blindingly obvious that to introduce under this clause a salaried defender, a staff lawyer from the bureaucracy of the criminal defence service, working in the office under the control of the legal services commission, watched over by the legal services consultation panel, in touch with his colleagues in the CPS, is to undermine the whole structure which I have described. This ominous figure is there to assess, we are told, value for money, not because he is more honest, more assiduous, more learned or more cheap. He is apparently to report back to his employer on the extent to which his colleagues in court are wasting public money—a kind

  417
  of Treasury spy. His name perfectly describes his bureaucratic origins: "A quality assured public supplier of legal services", what we happen to call at the moment "counsel".
  No codes, no guidelines telling such persons that they must behave as though they were independent, will clear the mischief. Once the public defender is introduced to complement the public prosecutor, the stage is set for a nationalised legal criminal service—the CPS against the CDS.
  Although the Bill has some radical provisions, I suggest that this clause is an aberration, if not an abomination. It is difficult to see why the Lord Chancellor persists in a course which is so widely condemned. He deserves praise for introducing the Human Rights Bill, for which he will be remembered. But I ask him to listen to those who have fought the human rights battle for years where it really mattered to the citizen; that is, in the magistrates' and Crown Courts of this country. It may be more prestigious and remunerative to argue abstruse legal points at Strasbourg or in the Judicial Committee of this House, but I suggest that there is more to be learnt about human rights in the cells of the Old Bailey or in the squalor of Wormwood Scrubs. I sincerely hope that this House will not agree to the amendment.
  Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I agree with my noble friends Lord Borne and Lord Clinton-Davis. I would not dream of calling the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, any name at all. However, I disagree with him and feel that he has a rather romantic view of the standing in which the legal profession is held in this country today.
  We have had considerable discussions about the issues surrounding salaried defenders and the role that they might play in the new legal scheme being proposed. An ordinary person requiring legal services needs, most of all, a guaranteed standard—I am sure we all agree on that. Secondly, they need some choice. I believe that this proposal to establish salaried defenders gives them that choice.
  People do not understand why members of the legal profession feel the need so fiercely to protect their interests and guarantee their incomes. It does not happen elsewhere; why should it happen to them? I also do not understand why noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches feel the need so fiercely to defend those interests.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that we are not here to defend the legal profession? We are here because we know something about it. We know something about criminal procedures and the way in which the criminal system works in this country. We are concerned about the quality of justice if the standard of advocacy in defence criminal work is reduced.
  Baroness Thornton: My Lords, we are all concerned about the quality of justice, and the voice of the consumer who receives that quality of justice is
  418
  extremely important. The consumers in this country have long felt that the legal profession needed reform, and have said so loudly on many occasions. That is what these proposals seek to do.
  I urge the Liberal Democrat Benches to think carefully about the path they follow throughout this legislation. It is not in keeping with other things they do and policies that they pursue.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, we on these Benches support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for four reasons. First, we see no evidence for the need for this. Secondly, we do not understand how injecting a degree of nationalisation into criminal defence can enhance competition. Thirdly, we do not understand how the quality of criminal defence in this country will be improved by a system of state defenders. Fourthly, we fear that the introduction of state defenders will certainly undermine the perception, and also perhaps the reality, of criminal justice. That is particularly true when we consider that in future we are likely to be faced in many trials with not only the prosecution being represented by government officials in the form of the Crown Prosecution Service but also the defence being represented by a government official.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in contributing to this debate I speak also, with your Lordships' leave, to Amendments Nos. 28 to 30 and 34 to 36. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, observed, this is a course we have been round before.
  I did not find as the noble Lord's most persuasive argument that it is only sturdy members of the Bar such as himself who are capable of enduring the indignities of the forfeiture of their restaurant bills as a condition of admission to prison, which he would have us accept would be completely beyond the resoluteness or sense of economy of salaried lawyers. I remind him that many salaried solicitors are employees with rights of audience who act for defendants in criminal cases and do so to a high standard.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, complained about our addressing this subject at around eight in the evening. But when the noble Lord was the industrious and much admired leading defence counsel that I recall, 10 minutes after eight would not have been regarded as late by him. He would probably just be getting round to considering his brief for the next day. If I may say so, he was in vintage form a few minutes ago and in fine voice.
  Amendments Nos. 27 to 30 reintroduce powers for the Legal Services Commission to employ staff directly to provide some criminal defence services. Salaried defenders will give the public a wider choice of representative. They will provide the Legal Services Commission with the means to assess value for money provided by criminal defence services generally. They will increase the commission's flexibility in the provision of criminal defence services and they will provide a competitive stimulus to lawyers in private practice.

  419
  The state is under no obligation to guarantee to the legal profession that it and it alone may provide publicly-funded legal defence services. And provided high standards are maintained, the public could gain from the introduction of salaried defenders as part of a mixed system of provision of legal services. I tend to wonder—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will forgive me for wondering—whether he is one of the last of the timorous souls who believe that the Bar cannot survive on its own merits but needs to be cocooned with restrictive practices and guarantees of state provided work.
  As I said in Committee, I stress that it is not our intention that salaried defenders should supplant the independent Bar, or indeed the solicitors' profession. That will never happen. We see value in the commission having power to introduce into the system a salaried element, subject to appropriate ethical safeguards, but it will always be a mixed system. We are not—repeat "not"—establishing a comprehensive public defender system of the type found in many parts of the United States of America. Further, there will be consultation with the professions and others about the detailed arrangements for the introduction of salaried defenders. Following that consultation, the Legal Services Commission will establish pilot projects to test and evaluate different models for providing services through salaried defenders. We would start with small pilots and monitor them to see how effective the arrangements were. The pilot projects would be extended across the country only after we had experience of salaried defenders in practice. We will learn from the example of successful overseas schemes and the current pilot in Scotland to meet the particular needs of England and Wales. Only against that background would decisions be taken, based on evidence.
  It is clear from international research that mixed systems with salaried service defenders operating alongside private lawyers can be the most effective way of providing criminal defence services. That is the view of Bar associations, including those in Canada and America. It is advocated by official bodies such as the Legal Services Corporation and the National Legal Aid Advisory Committee in Australia.
  There are many methods of providing mixed systems, with some particularly good examples in Canada, which has more than 20 years' experience of mixed systems. In Scotland, a Public Defence Solicitors Office was established as a pilot project from 1st October last year. It is based at a single office in Edinburgh and employs a maximum of six solicitors. Initial reports about the Scottish pilot have been favourable. It allocates defendants to the PDSO, but a significant proportion—22 per cent—of clients already use it by choice. We shall take account of the results of the Scottish pilot evaluation when developing pilot arrangements under the Bill.
  There are some very good public defender schemes abroad, but I acknowledge that others are less satisfactory. Adequate funding is the key to success. However, that is also true of schemes that purchase services from the private sector. Most of the schemes that have been criticised are not underpinned by a
  420
  statutory framework such as that proposed in the Bill. That underpinning, which includes an obligation on me to fund the criminal defence service in its private and directly employed elements, will ensure the quality of services that suspects and defendants require.
  However, unlike the Scottish pilot, which was based on assigning clients to the PDSO, Clause 15 builds choice into the system from the outset. Regulations cannot be used to require a person to use a salaried defender. We are confident that salaried defenders will develop to play a valuable role in the criminal defence service without compulsion. I challenge the private profession to demonstrate the same confidence in the service that it provides. I have that confidence and believe that the private professions have nothing to fear from competing alongside salaried defenders in a system based on an informed choice of representation.
  Those who disagree with the amendment put forward in another place are effectively seeking to protect the vested interests of an established legal profession and to prevent the public from having the choice. I am surprised and disappointed by the Liberal Democrats' position. They are not prepared to accept that there might be lessons that we can learn from other countries and that there may be a case for considering arranging our legal services differently. I regret that restricted vision that is not prepared to accept that there can be merit in change and diversity.
  Subject to the safeguards set out in the Bill, there is great merit in allowing criminal defence services to be provided by private practitioners—whether in independent practice or employed by law firms—and those employed by the criminal defence service. For those reasons, I commend Commons Amendments Nos. 27 to 30 to the House and invite the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, to withdraw his Motions to reject them.
  Commons Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 relate to Clause 16, which provides for a code of conduct for salaried defenders employed by the Legal Services Commission. However, it is likely that we shall wish to pilot the provision of salaried services, not only by lawyers employed directly by the commission but by those employed by separate not-for-profit bodies established and maintained specifically for that purpose. As originally drafted, the clause would not apply to salaried defenders in the latter situation. Amendment No. 34 ensures that the code of conduct will apply in both situations.
  Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 reflect suggestions made by the now shadow Attorney-General, who led for the Opposition on the Bill in another place. Amendment No. 35 requires the code to include duties on employees providing criminal defence services who are members of a professional body—be they barristers, solicitors or legal executives—to comply with the rules of that body. Amendment No. 36 requires the commission to consult the Law Society and the General Council of the Bar

  421
  before preparing or revising the code. In due course I shall commend Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 to the House.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I have been described as a romantic yet timorous extremist. I think that that is rather good and I shall have to tell my wife about it.
  I have no fear that the independent Bar would beat any public defender service if the accused person was given any choice. I have never been afraid of competition and neither has the Bar. It is one of the most competitive professions in the country. This is not the dangerous step; it is when that choice is removed, as inexorably it will be. I cannot imagine any government sustaining on public funds two separate and competing services, as the Bill proposes.
  I shall not weary your Lordships further. I seek the agreement of the House to the Motion.
  8.37 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 141; Not-Contents, 85.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Ackner, L.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Addison, V.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Anelay of St. Johns, B.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Annaly, L.

  Elton, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Ezra, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Gage, V.

  Belstead, L.

  Gainford, L.

  Berners, B.

  Gisborough, L.

  Biddulph, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Birdwood, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Blackwell, L.

  Gray, L.

  Blaker, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Blatch, B.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Harmsworth, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller.]

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Hanowby, E.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Burnham, L.

  Henley, L. [Teller.]

  Byford, B.

  Higgins, L.

  Cadman, L.

  Hogg, B.

  Carlisle, E.

  HolmPatrick, L.

  Camegy of Lour, B.

  Hooper, B.

  Chalker of Wallasey, B.

  Howe, E.

  Chesham, L.

  Howe of Aberavon, L.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Hunt of Wirral, L.

  Coleraine, L.

  Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Jacobs, L.

  Courtown, E.

  Kingsland, L.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Cross, V.

  Lane of Horsell, L.

  Dahrendorf, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Dholakia, L.

  Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

  Downshire, M.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Dundee, E.

  Lucas, L.

  Eccles, V.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  422

  Luke, L.

  Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Razzall, L.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

  Romney, E.

  McNair, L.

  Rotherwick, L.

  McNally, L.

  Rowallan, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Russell, E.

  Marlesford, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Seccombe, B.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Selkirk of Douglas, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Miller of Chilthome Domer, B.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Steel of Aikwood, L.

  Munster, E.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Murton of Lindisfame, L.

  Tebbit, L.

  Naseby, L.

  Thomas of Gresford, L.

  Newby L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Northbrook L.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Thurso, V.

  Tope, L.

  Norton, L.

  Trefgame, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Onslow, E.

  Vivian, L.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Waddington, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Parkinson, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Wilcox, B.

  Pender, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Peny of Southwark, B.

  Wise, L.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Wynford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Hacking, L.

  Amos, B.

  Hanworth, V.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Bach, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Berkeley, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Blackstone, B.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Borrie, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Bragg, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller.]

  Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

  Castle of Blackburn, B.

  Chandos, V.

  Islwyn, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Crawley, B.

  [Teller.]

  David, B.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Mishcon, L.

  Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

  Monkswell, L.

  Desai, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Dubs, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Evans of Watford, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Rea, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Sewel, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Shepherd, L.

  Gould of Pottemewton, B.

  Simon, V.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Grantchester, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  423

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Uddin, B.

  Thomton, B.

  Warner, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  28 Clause 14, page 11 line 20, leave out (", except itself providing advice or assistance")

  MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 28
  28A That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28.
  8.45 p.m.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28.
  Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28.—(Lord Thomas of Gresford.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  29 Clause 15, page 11, line 40, at end insert—
  ("() itself providing representation,")

  MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 29
  29A That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29.
  Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29.—(Lord Thomas of Gresford.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  30 Clause 15, page 11, line 43, leave out (", except itself providing representation")

  MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 30
  30A That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30.
  Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30.—(Lord Thomas of Gresford.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  31 Clause 15, page 12, line 25, at end insert—
  ("() an individual who has been provided with advice or assistance funded by the Commission under section 14 is to be taken to have selected as his representative pursuant to that right the person who provided the advice or assistance,")

  MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 31
  31A That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 31.
  Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 31.
  Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 31.—(Lord Thomas of Gresford.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 31B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 31, not moved.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  32 Clause 15, page 12, line 35, at end insert—
  ("(10) Regulations may provide that in prescribed circumstances the Commission is not required to fund, or to continue to fund, representation for an individual by a particular representative (but such provision shall not prejudice any right of the individal to select another representative).
  (11) The circumstances which may he prescribed by regulations under subsection (8) or (10) include that a determination has been made by a prescribed body or person.")
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 32. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 33 to 36 and 49. This group of amendments amends Clause 15 which establishes the duty of the commission to fund representation, sets out the means by which it may do so and provides powers to limit the extent to which the defendant may choose his or her representative. Amendment No. 33 splits this now lengthy clause in two: the first clause to deal with the provision of representation, the second choice of representative. The other amendments all concern choice.
  It is desirable that defendants should be able to choose their representative, not least to promote their confidence in the criminal justice system. Clause 15(7) enshrines this principle. However, a completely unrestricted choice would undermine our ability to achieve value for money. Therefore subsection (8) contains powers to limit that choice.
  Clause 15(8)(c) is the key provision. It will allow the defendant's choice to be limited to any lawyer with a current contract with the Legal Services Commission (or, had that provision prevailed, a salaried defender). Our intention is to ensure that suspects and defendants generally have a choice between several contracted firms and, were salaried defenders to be permitted, with them too.

  425
  One of the major weaknesses of the system of legal aid in its present form is its fragmentation. This can lead to help being given under several different parts of the scheme in a single case: for green form advice, advice and assistance at the police station, assistance from the duty solicitor at the magistrates' court, and a full legal aid order. We would have been concerned to ensure the elimination of duplication, delay and unnecessary cost. We would have been concerned to ensure that individuals would stay with the same lawyer throughout the case unless there was good reason to change.
  I shall explain how we envisage the system working in practice. A person being questioned by the police will be able to select his or her adviser from any firm holding a contract with the Legal Services Commission. Suspects would be shown a list of all firms based in the area and be informed of the implication of their choice. If the chosen adviser were not available, the individual would use the duty solicitor for the time being. But the duty solicitor would not be considered to have been selected, as a preference had been expressed for someone else.
  In dealing with the element of the client's choice we intend to create a criminal legal service which would avoid imbalance. We have already argued that the purpose of the provision which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, was concerned to maintain was to eliminate choice. However as regards Amendment No. 32 there are some categories of very complex case, for example fraud trials, where specialist panels of lawyers may be set up to promote value for money. Regulations under Clause 15(8)(c) will limit choice in these cases to firms on the panel; that is, firms which had demonstrated both the necessary competence and administrative systems to deal with these specialised and weighty cases. However, it may not be self-evident from the outset that a particular case was of such complexity that it required the services of a panel member. Amendment No. 32 deals with this situation by providing in effect for the individual to choose again from among those lawyers competent to handle a case of this complexity. Amendment No. 49 makes regulations under this subsection subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 32.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  33 Clause 15, divide Clause 15 into two clauses, the first (Representation) consisting of subsections (1) to (6) and the second (Selection of representative etc.) of subsections (7) to (11)
  34 Clause 16, page 12, line 37, after ("Commission") insert (", and employees of any body established and maintained by the Commission,")
  35 Page 13, line 1, at end insert—
  ("and duties on employees who are members of a professional body to comply with the rules of the body.")
  36 Page 13, line 4, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 5 and insert ("consult the Law Society and the General Council of the Bar and such other bodies or persons as it considers appropriate")
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 33 to 36.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 33 to 36.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  37 Clause 17, page 13, line 19, leave out ("the Crown Court") and insert ("any court other than a magistrates' court")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 38 to 41.
  Amendments Nos. 37 to 39 make technical changes to Clause 17 to ensure that it delivers the Government's intended policy. Clause 17 provides that a judge may order a defendant to pay some or all of the cost of any representation funded for him as part of the criminal defence service. This will replace the existing complex and wasteful system of means testing every applicant for criminal legal aid at the start of a case. The new system will eliminate the delay caused by means testing and target wealthy criminals more effectively.
  Orders under Clause 17 will be made where the cost of the representation to be recovered is high enough to justify the cost of the scrutiny of a defendant's assets by a special investigation unit; that is why these orders are not available for cases which do not proceed beyond the magistrates' courts.
  This Government's intention is that in all courts other than the magistrates' court, the court at the end of a case will have a duty to consider whether a defendant should pay for his defence costs. It may be apparent to the judge that the defendant has substantial assets as a result of the nature of the evidence given during the trial. In these circumstances, after hearing representations from the defence, the court could make an order. In other cases it may be appropriate for an investigation to be conducted into a defendant's means by a special investigation unit.
  As drafted, the power to make a recovery of defence costs order is restricted to the Crown Court, and the scope of an order to representation in the Crown Court. Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 ensure that the Court of Appeal can also make orders under Clause 17. Amendment No. 39 allows the order to cover the cost of all representation, including representation in the magistrates' court. Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 concern the information necessary to allow the court to make a recovery of defence costs order.
  As I have said, in some cases it will be appropriate for an investigation to be conducted into a defendant's means by a special investigation unit. During this investigation it might, in exceptional circumstances, be appropriate to prevent the defendant from disposing of

  427
  substantial assets, perhaps with a view to him avoiding an order. Amendment No. 41 would give this power. I commend these amendments to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  38 Clause 17, page 13, line 20, leave out ("trial judge") and insert ("court")
  39 Page 13, leave out line 22 and insert ("any representation so funded for him (in proceedings in that or any other court).")
  40 Page 13, line 31, leave out from ("furnishing") to second ("to") in line 32 and insert ("of information and evidence to the court or the Commission for the purpose of enabling the court")
  41 Page 13, line 34, at end insert?—
  ("() prohibiting individuals who are required to furnish information or evidence from dealing with property until they have furnished the information or evidence or until a decision whether to make an order, or the amount to be paid, has been made,")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 38 to 41.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 38 to 41.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  9 p.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  42 Clause 22, page 16, line 6, at end insert ("and any authorised by the Commission to be taken.").
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 42. I shall also speak to Commons Amendment No. 44.
  Amendment No. 42 corrects an omission in the Bill as drafted. Clause 22(2) provides that people providing services funded by the commission cannot take any payment other than that made by the commission. This carries over from Section 31(3) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 the prohibition on "topping-up"; that is, seeking to supplement legal aid rates by charging the client an additional sum. The Legal Aid Act allows exceptions to be made by regulations. Amendment No. 42 will enable the Commission to authorise exceptions to the general prohibition. It would do this as a term in any relevant contract.
  Commons Amendment No. 44 is a drafting amendment intended simply to shorten the Bill by some eight lines. Clause 22(5) mirrors Section 31(2) of the Legal Aid Act 1988. Section 31(2) puts beyond doubt that a successful legally-aided litigant can recover his or her costs from the opposing party. This is to prevent any argument that the assisted person is not entitled to costs under the indemnity principle.
  428
  A provision along these lines has been part of the legal aid legislation since 1949. Since then, legal aid has become a firmly established part of the legal system, and several other forms of funding which override the strict indemnity principle have developed. Commons Amendment No. 69, which we will discuss later, is a general provision to allow rules of court to override the indemnity principle. So it is now inconceivable that any court would seriously entertain the argument that a legally-assisted litigant was not entitled to costs.
  But even if that were in doubt, Clause 22(5) is unnecessary. Clause 12 contains a broad power to make regulations about costs in cases involving people funded by the Community Legal Service, and subsection (3)(e) specifies that these may include regulations about the principles for determining the amount to be awarded to such a person. As for criminal cases, Clause 22(5) does not apply in any event. Costs in these cases are governed by the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. I commend the amendment to the House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  43 Clause 22, page 16, line 7, leave out second ("of") and insert ("to")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 43. With the leave of the House I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 45, 46, 50, 143 to 158 inclusive and 199.
  This group of amendments clarifies the powers to prescribe the procedures for courts carrying out functions under Part I of the Bill, particularly in relation to granting rights to representation in criminal cases. It also includes a number of minor drafting amendments.
  Amendment No. 45 provides a general power to prescribe in regulations what member or officer of a court is able to exercise the functions of any court or tribunal under this part. This would, in particular, enable regulations to prescribe the procedure for consideration of an application for a right to representation. In addition, for the magistrates' courts, Amendment No. 151 gives power to prescribe in rules when a justices' clerk can make decisions about the right to representation.
  Amendment No. 46 provides the flexibility to prescribe different provisions for different areas to accommodate, for example, pilot arrangements.
  A right to representation includes a right to advice and assistance as to an appeal. As presently drafted, this is an open-ended entitlement. Amendment No. 50 would allow regulations to prescribe time limits for the provision of advice on appeal, after which the right would lapse. Regulations on the scope of advice and assistance could be made under Clause 14 to allow for cases where advice was needed at a later date.
  Amendment No. 150 places the court under a duty to consider withdrawing a right to representation in prescribed circumstances. The Bill as presently drafted gives the court a general power to withdraw a right to representation. Regulations will require the court to

  429
  consider withdrawing a right to representation in certain circumstances. For example, it is intended to place the court under a duty to review the need to continue representation where a reduction in the charge means that representation is no longer necessary in the interests of justice.
  It is also intended to prescribe circumstances where the individual fails to co-operate with a means enquiry under Clause 17. Where there is reason to believe that an individual could afford to pay for his own defence, it may be appropriate to conduct a means enquiry during the case so that the judge could consider making a recovery of defence costs order immediately after the trial. If the individual fails to co-operate with a request to provide financial details, the court would have to consider withdrawing the right to representation.
  Amendment No. 199 adds two new sub-paragraphs to paragraph 9 of Schedule 11, which contains transitional provisions about the funding of representation in criminal cases. At present, criminal cases in the Crown Court and appeal courts are funded directly by the Lord Chancellor. In future most, if not all, criminal representation will be provided under a contract with the Legal Services Commission or by salaried defenders. But initially, before contracting is fully developed, it will be simpler to retain the current administrative arrangements by which the higher courts assess and pay remuneration on a case-by-case basis, and the Lord Chancellor funds it directly. The existing paragraph 9 of Schedule 11 provides the power to achieve this. The first new sub-paragraph added by Amendment No. 199 provides a link with the power to make case-by-case payments in Clause 15 and deals with the consequential implications for other Acts. The second new sub-paragraph provides for the provisions in Clause 25 about remuneration orders to apply when the Lord Chancellor is funding representation as well as when the Commission is.
  Finally, Amendments Nos. 43, 143, 144, 146, 148, 149 and 152 to 158 inclusive achieve drafting consistency by referring to the right as a "right to representation". I commend the amendments to the House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  44 Clause 22, page 16, line 18, leave out subsection (5)
  45 Page 16, line 28, at end insert—
  ("(7) Regulations made under subsection (6) may in particular authorise the exercise of the functions of any court or tribunal by any member or officer of that or any other court or tribunal.")
  46 Clause 25, page 17, line 24, at end insert ("(including different areas)")
  47 Page 17, line 26, leave out (" I2(3)(b)") and insert (" 12(1) or (3)(b)")
  48 Page 17, line 27, leave out ("(c)") and insert ("(da)")
  49 Page 17, line 27, after (" 15(8)(a)") insert ("or (10)")
  50 Clause 26, page 17, line 44, after first ("and") insert (", subject to any time limits which may be prescribed,")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 44 to 50 en bloc.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 44 to 50.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  51 Clause 28, page 18, line 16, leave out ('"'disability working allowance"") and insert (""disabled person's tax credit"")
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 51. With your Lordships' leave I will speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 52, 129, 132 and 200.
  Amendments Nos. 51 and 200 are technical amendments arising from the inter-relationship between this Bill and the Tax Credits Bill. As currently drafted, Clause 28 of this Bill amends the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 to allow advice and assistance to be provided without a means test or contributions to recipients of disability working allowance. That is already the case for recipients of family credit. It is also already the case for recipients of both benefits in England and Wales. The Tax Credits Bill provides for the replacement of family credit and disability working allowance by, respectively, working families' tax credit and disabled person's tax credit. That Bill also makes consequential amendments, including to the 1986 Act, in relation to family credit.
  Amendment No. 51 replaces the term "disability working allowance" with disabled person's tax credit in Clause 28. Amendment No. 200 is a transitional provision to allow for the possibility that this Bill comes into force before the Tax Credits Bill.
  Amendment No. 52 corrects an oversight regarding the availability of legal aid for references from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to the High Court in Scotland.
  Amendments Nos. 129 and 132 are consequential on this new clause. I commend the amendments to the House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  52 After Clause 28, insert the following new clause—

  REFERENCES BY SCOTTISH CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION
  (". In section 25(7) of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 (legal aid in appeals), for "Secretary of State under section 124" substitute "Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission under section 194B".").
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 52. I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 51.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 52.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  9.15 p.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  53 Clause 29, page 18, line 25, after ("but") insert ("(subject to subsection (5))")
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 53. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 54 to 63 and 66.
  This is a large group of amendments that seek to change Clause 29 of the Bill, which amends the existing provisions of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 relating to conditional fees.
  Amendments Nos. 54, 55, 57, 61 and 63 are simple drafting amendments to replace the expression "enhanced fees" with the more familiar term "success fee".
  Amendment No. 58 seeks to ensure that the decision in the case of Bevan Ashford v. Yeandle is accurately brought into statute. That held that where a person uses an alternative dispute resolution forum in a type of proceedings in which conditional fees are lawful, and provided the form and content of the agreement between the lawyer and the client follow the prescribed requirements for cases brought in the courts, that agreement is lawful notwithstanding that it is not technically a conditional fee agreement. The Bill seeks to reflect that within the new statutory scheme for conditional fees.
  Amendment No. 58 responds to concerns raised by the Bar Council and the Law Society. They have pointed out that, as presently drafted, the new Section 58A(4) of the Courts and Legal Services Act, inserted by Clause 29, does not accurately and fully bring the Bevan Ashford decision into statute law. The problem arises from the complex structure of Section 58 and Section 58A of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 as introduced by Clause 29 of the Bill.
  Section 58(1) to (3) applies to conditional fee agreements whether of the Thai Trading type without an uplift, or with an uplift—that is, a success fee.
  Section 58(4) applies only to agreements with a success fee and permits those to be regulated by the Lord Chancellor. The problem with Section 58A(4) as it stands is that it refers only to Section 58(4) and therefore only to agreements providing for a success fee. It does not, therefore, permit Thai Trading type agreements to apply in "any sort of proceedings for resolving disputes" other than court proceedings. If that extension away from court proceedings to any sort of proceedings for resolving disputes is right for no win no fee cases with an uplift, it should obviously also apply to cases where an uplift is not agreed; that is to say, a Thai Trading type agreement. Amendment No. 58 remedies that and brings Thai Trading agreements within the benefit of Section 58A(4).
  432
  Amendment No. 59 responds to an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, who sought to ensure that a client could not raise a question of whether an agreement was lawful if proceedings had not commenced. The amendment puts beyond doubt that the agreement is lawful and enforceable whether proceedings have commenced or are only contemplated.
  Amendments Nos. 60 and 66 make clear that success fees and insurance premiums are recoverable where the forum in which the dispute is resolved is not subject to rules of court: for example, arbitrations under the Arbitration Act.
  Amendments Nos. 53 and 56 concern non-contentious business agreements sanctioned under the Solicitors Act 1974. As drafted, Clause 29 might have the unintended effect of making these agreements unlawful. I know that some of your Lordships have expressed an interest in this area. My primary purpose, in amending the Bill to protect the position of solicitors working under a non-contentious business agreement, was not to maintain the situation where solicitors offer their services in employment tribunals on a contingency basis, but to protect areas of genuine non-contentious business where they work under such an agreement. I am thinking in particular of property sales and business acquisitions where working on a contingency basis can provide a satisfactory basis for remuneration agreements between two informed parties.
  I accept, of course, that one effect will be to appear to give continuing legitimacy to these agreements in the employment tribunals. In seeking your agreement to these amendments, I recognise that there is great disquiet that non-contentious business agreements may be used to allow solicitors to offer to undertake cases before the employment tribunals on the basis of a contingency fee. I suspect that this is the concern that underlies the amendment standing in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
  Contingency fees are payable only if the client is successful and are calculated solely by reference to the amount of the award made by the tribunal. They allow the lawyer to share in the proceeds of the action. That kind of fee would be unlawful and unenforceable if it were used to fund a case before the courts. I regard it as a quirk of the law that the work of these tribunals falls within the definition of non-contentious business. I believe that we must all be at one on that. The business of employment tribunals is plainly contentious. The Government will be considering further whether such fees should be lawful in the employment tribunal, as part of our review of the practices, rules and procedures of all tribunals to ensure that they meet the requirements of EU law and comply with the European Convention.
  The problem, however, is deeper than that. I acknowledge that it would be possible for me to use a non-contentious business order as a route to preventing the use of these agreements in the employment tribunals. I want to explain to your Lordships why I am unwilling to go down that route until I have better information about the effect of outlawing these agreements in those tribunals. The fact that costs do not generally follow the

  433
  event in employment tribunal proceedings may make conditional fee agreements relatively unattractive to the litigant.
  I confess that my own instinct is that conditional fee agreements will typically be less costly for applicants than contingency fee agreements, because the diminution in compensation to pay for basic fees and uplifts where claims succeed will be less, I would have thought, than the percentage of compensation claimants would lose under contingency fee agreements. However, the Law Society, whose views on this I have sought after your Lordships last discussed this issue, disagrees. It tells me that in employment tribunal cases it is possible to calculate the likely award more accurately than in other areas of work. That makes it easier for the client to calculate the likely cost of the contingency fee arrangements and to compare it with information about the cost if charged on a time basis. The Law Society believes, in its present state of information, that in cases of low to medium value a contingency fee may be cheaper than a conditional fees agreement.
  With that state of information, my priority must be to ensure that those who are taking cases to employment tribunals do not suffer a reduction in the help available to them. I am willing to look carefully at the system of remuneration in employment tribunals, certainly with a view to banning the use of contingency fees, if I am satisfied that conditional fees or other remuneration methods can provide a suitable alternative. But a major problem, as I have said, is that costs do not follow the event in employment tribunals. The argument for maintaining this position which was supported in our previous discussions by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, and which presently prevails in Government too, is that applicants would be deterred from bringing claims if they were liable for the employers' costs if they lost.
  Conditional fee agreements in employment tribunals could not be facilitated, as elsewhere, by an entitlement to recover the success fee and insurance premium from the loser. Therefore, before outlawing contingency fees in employment tribunals I need in prudence to satisfy myself whether conditional fee agreements could work effectively in the "costs lie where they fall" regime of employment tribunals, and to gain information (which I do not have) about how contingency fee agreements actually work in these tribunals. I must satisfy myself that any change that I would be minded to make on principled grounds does not have the effect in practice of reducing access to justice. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships understand why I have decided that it would be premature to move on this subject.
  Amendment No. 60 is simply a drafting amendment. Amendment No. 62 is a technical amendment to bring the language of these two clauses into line with the changes in terminology brought about by the introduction of the Civil Procedural Rules on 26th April 1999.
  I hope the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, agrees that it is convenient if I state the position that I am minded to adopt in relation to Amendment No. 56B. This is a matter which is not free of complexity. The noble Lord's
  434
  amendment would broaden the effect of Amendment No. 56 so that it would exclude from the scope of this legislation not only non-contentious business agreements but any form of fee agreement enforceable at common law; that is to say, so as to put their legal enforceability beyond question.
  I know that the noble Lord has in mind no win, no fee agreements without an uplift; that is to say, Thai Trading agreements (after the name of the relevant case). In particular, I suspect that he has in his sights Thai Trading agreements in cases brought under Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act. Perhaps I may explain to the noble Lord why I cannot accept his amendment as it stands and the course that I suggest should be followed. It is the specific intention of Clause 29 to bring Thai Trading agreements into the scope of the conditional fee legislation both to secure the greater certainty that statute law provides and so that they can be properly regulated, for example by requiring solicitors to give relevant information to potential clients. It is obviously right that consumers who enter Thai Trading agreements should have the protection that the Lord Chancellor may confer for uplift cases under Section 58(3) of the 1990 Act. If by contrast non-contentious business agreements are excluded by Amendment No. 56, they can be regulated instead under the Solicitors Act 1974.
  The problem with Amendment No. 56A is that it would have the effect that the regulatory controls provided by Section 58(3) of the 1990 Act could not apply to Thai Trading agreements but only to agreements with uplifts. That is undesirable, and I have no doubt that that is not something which the noble Lord seeks to achieve.
  I believe—I see that the noble Lord indicates his confirmation—that his specific concern is with Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act. Here, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, I think that he has a very good point. Section 82 allows people aggrieved by a statutory nuisance, for example inadequate housing, to seek an order for that nuisance to be put right. These cases are heard in a magistrates' court and are technically criminal cases. Conditional fee agreements are not permitted in criminal cases under the existing legislation, and that position is maintained by the Bill. But as a result, the effect of bringing Thai Trading agreements into the scope of the legislation so as to be able to regulate them in the consumer interest is to outlaw them in these Section 82 proceedings which, I think the noble Lord would say, although in point of form these are criminal proceedings, can or should in substance be regarded as civil since they are the means of enforcing a civil law right.
  The Government have considered the options for resolving this problem with great care. In particular, we have been reluctant to make an isolated exception to the principle that conditional fees are inappropriate in criminal cases. However, on balance, I can tell the noble Lord that I am now persuaded that no win, no fee agreements, where there is no uplift—that is, Thai Trading type cases—should remain available to individuals seeking to enforce their rights in this type of case.

  435
  However. I cannot agree to achieve this in the manner proposed by the noble Lord in Amendment No. 56B. But, as we lawyers sometimes say, I am now driven to propose a most unusual course. The only way now open to the Government to achieve the result they are now persuaded is the right result, is to allow Amendment No. 568 to pass tonight with all its imperfections, and then to seek to perfect it in the Commons. Let me explain that. The view of parliamentary counsel is that this issue can be effectively dealt with only by amendment to Section 58A(1)(a). That provision was not amended in the Commons and therefore there is no relevant Commons amendment for your Lordships to seek to amend tonight. If, however, your Lordships pass Amendment No. 56B tonight, with all the government health warnings that I have issued, the matter can be corrected in the Commons by amendment when the Bill returns there. That is the end of a rather long story. That is what I propose to do.
  When the Commons come to consider this amendment the Government will propose an alternative which deals squarely with the problem that the noble Lord has identified: that is, the position in Environmental Protection Act cases. That amendment will itself have to be considered by your Lordships upon the return of the Bill to this House, and I trust that it will meet with your Lordships' speedy approval. On that basis. I am prepared to accept Amendment No. 56B for the time being.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 53.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Baroness Goudie: My Lords, I welcome the Government's agreement to protect those tenants who would like to be able to take legal action under that section of the Act.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, has the noble and learned Lord set a precedent in this House so far as he knows for recommending the acceptance of an amendment which in fact he does not accept?
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I rather think that it is a record, yes.
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, reference has been made to Amendment No. 56. I think that it is al: that stage that I come in with Amendment No. 56A. I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for the careful and detailed way in which he dealt with the problem he has identified; namely, that employment tribunal litigation is clearly non-contentious business in the ordinary, everyday sense of the word, and for it to he treated otherwise is clearly absurd.
  I raised my amendment in order to discover why it was necessary to include subsection (5) while one thought about the problem. Why not leave it out and get on with analysing and identifying that which should be dealt with? Surely the matter is made worse by including something which the noble and learned Lord does not accept is appropriate while he looks at the wider field. For that reason I have raised my amendment.
  9.30 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as regards my Amendment No. 56B, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for accepting the idea behind it; that is, the problem created by Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act. Secondly, I thank him for the ingenious way in which he proposes to deal with it. I am almost entirely happy with that. I say "almost" because I should have preferred to deal with the problem by the method proposed in my Amendment No. 142C; that legal aid should be available. However, it would be churlish to press the point and I shall not move Amendment No. 142C. I shall accept the proposal of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and support the amendment when it is brought back in a new and perfected form.
  As regards the problem presented by Amendment No. 56, it is, as the noble and learned Lord. Lord Ackner, pointed out, very odd that appearances in the employment tribunal are treated as being non-contentious litigation on the part of solicitors. I have two strong objections to the situation winch w ill exist when Amendment No. 56B is accepted. One might be regarded as a trade union point, but it is none the worse for that. It is that there will not then be a level playing field between the Bar and the solicitors. Solicitors will be entitled to charge contingent or conditional fees for work in employment tribunals, whereas members of the Bar will be permitted to charge only conditional fees. If it turns out that contingent fees are more popular than conditional fees, that might put the Bar at a serious disadvantage. This is a matter of considerable importance owing to the substantially increased jurisdiction of the employment tribunals to award compensation. It is far greater than it was a year ago.
  The second point is that we strongly object to the principle of contingent fees. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will find it appropriate to prohibit solicitors from using contingent fees, as opposed to conditional fees, in employment tribunal cases. Having said that, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, presented Motion No. 56A in a way which indicated that he was not seriously intending to press it to a Division. If he did so, we would he unable to support it because I believe that it throws the baby out with the bath water.
  When it comes to non-contentious fees, such as fees for advising during the course of a take-over bid, I certainly would see no objection to contingent fees being charged. They are charged by merchant banks, for example, in that sort of situation. It does not seem to add any serious problem if solicitors are entitled to do the same. It does not present anything like the conflicts of interest that are presented if contingent fees are allowed in contentious business. Therefore, I would be unable to support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, even though I agree with the spirit behind it.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, we support both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We are therefore extremely

  437
  grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the sympathetic way in which he has reacted to both. I would only add that when the noble and learned Lord has completed his analysis of the relative merits of contingency fees and conditional fees in the context of employment tribunals, I hope that whatever solution he decides upon will have consequential effects for fairness of competition between the two professions.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  54 Clause 29, page 18, line 33, leave out ("enhanced fees") and insert ("a success fee")
  55 Page 19, line 4, leave out ("enhanced fees") and insert ("a success fee")
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 54 and 55. They have been spoken to with Amendment No. 53.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 54 and 55.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  56 Clause 29, Page 19, line 14, at end insert—
  ("(5) If a conditional fee agreement is an agreement to which section 57 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (non-contentious business agreements between solicitor and client) applies, subsection (1) shall not make it unenforceable.")
  [Motion No. 56A not moved.]

  AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 56
  56B Line 4, after ("applies") insert ("or is an agreement which is enforceable at common law").
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 56B as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 56. This has been spoken to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Chancellor.
  Moved, That Amendment No. 56B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 56, be agreed to.—(Lord Goodhart.)
  On Question, Amendment No. 56B agreed to.
  Commons Amendment No. 56, as amended, agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  57 Clause 29, page 19, line 39, leave out ("enhanced fees') and insert ("a success fee")
  58 Page 19, line 41, leave out ("58(4)") and insert ("58 and this section (and in the definitions of "advocacy services" and "litigation services" as they apply for their purposes)")
  59 Page 19, line 43, at end insert (", whether commenced or contemplated.")
  60 Page 20, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("any") in line 7 and insert ("A costs order made in any proceedings may, subject in the case of court proceedings to rules of court, include provision requiring the payment of")
  61 Page 20, line 8, leave out ("the payment of enhanced fees") and insert ("a success fee")
  62 Page 20, line 11, leave out ("taxing") and insert ("assessment")
  63 Page 20, line 13, leave out ("the payment of enhanced fees") and insert ("a success fee")
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 57 to 63.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 57 to 63.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  65 After Clause 29, insert the following new clause—

  LITIGATION FUNDING AGREEMENTS
  (". In the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, after section 58A (inserted by section 29 above) insert—
  "Litigation funding agreements.
  58B.—(1) A litigation funding agreement which satisfies all of the conditions applicable to it by virtue of this section shall not be unenforceable by reason only of its being a litigation funding agreement.
  (2) For the purposes of this section a litigation funding agreement is an agreement under which—

  (a) a person ("the funder") agrees to fund (in whole or in part) the provision of advocacy or litigation services (by someone other than the funder) to another person ("the litigant"); and

  (b) the litigant agrees to pay a sum to the funder in specified circumstances.

  (3) The following conditions are applicable to a litigation funding agreement—

  (a) the funder must be a person, or person of a description. prescribed by the Lord Chancellor;

  (b) the agreement must he in writing;

  (c) the agreement must not relate to proceedings which by virtue of section 58A(1) and (2) cannot be the subject of an enforceable conditional fee agreement or to proceedings of any such description as may be prescribed by the Lord Chancellor;

  (d) the agreement must comply with such requirements (if any) as may be so prescribed;

  (e) the sum to be paid by the litigant must consist of any costs payable to him in respect of the proceedings to which the agreement relates together with an amount calculated by reference to the funder's anticipated expenditure in funding the provision of the services; and

  (f) that amount must not exceed such percentage of that anticipated expenditure as may be prescribed by the Lord Chancellor in relation to proceedings of the description to which the agreement relates.

  (4) Regulations under subsection (3)(a) may require a person to be approved by the Lord Chancellor or by a prescribed person.
  (5) The requirements which the Lord Chancellor may prescribe under subsection (3)(d)—

  (a) include requirements for the funder to have provided prescribed information to the litigant before the agreement is made; and

  (b) may be different for different descriptions of litigation funding agreements.

  (6) In this section (and in the definitions of "advocacy services" and "litigation services" as they apply for its purposes) "proceedings" includes any sort of proceedings for resolving disputes (and not just proceedings in a court), whether commenced or contemplated.
  (7) Before making regulations under this section, the Lord Chancellor shall consult—

  (a) the designated judges;

  (b) the General Council of the Bar;

  (c) the Law Society; and

  (d) such other bodies as he considers appropriate.

  (8) A costs order made in any proceedings may, subject in the case of court proceedings to rules of court, include provision requiring the payment of any amount payable under a litigation funding agreement.
  (9) Rules of court may make provision with respect to the assessment of any costs which include fees payable under a litigation funding agreement."").
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 65. With the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 68 to 69A. These amendments seek to facilitate different ways of funding legal services. Amendment No. 65 gives effect to an undertaking given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, during the passage of the Bill through this House to provide a statutory basis for a third person to fund litigation from a fund financed by additional fees payable in successful cases supported by the fund. The new clause is needed to ensure that such arrangements are properly regulated and that they do not fall foul of the common law doctrine of champerty, which was intended to prevent third parties encouraging legal actions for a share of the proceeds.
  Amendment No. 68 seeks to allow organisations that provide legal services to their members to recover what is effectively a self-insurance premium. There are many membership organisations, trade unions and motoring organisations, for example, which provide legal services to their members as a benefit of membership. Members who have a sufficiently strong case may use lawyers retained by the membership organisation at no cost. The organisation also undertakes to indemnify the member against any liability they may incur to meet his or her opponents' costs should the claim be unsuccessful. Membership organisations are nearly always sufficiently large that rather than incurring the cost of commercial insurance premiums (which includes the administrative costs of the insurer and an element of profit) they meet the costs directly in the cases that their members lose. While a membership organisation could take advantage
  440
  of Clause 29 by taking out an insurance policy for each member assisted—and, if successful, recover the premium in costs from the other side—in practice, this is not a sensible arrangement. As I have already said, most membership organisations can meet the liabilities from their own funds without incurring additional unnecessary costs securing commercial insurance.
  Therefore, the new clause inserted by Amendment No. 68 puts in place a scheme by which prescribed bodies who meet prescribed requirements can recover, as part of the costs awarded to a member with a successful case, a sum towards the provision made to protect members against the risk of having to meet opponents' costs. The clause also allows for regulations prescribing the maximum amount that cart be recovered in this way. We intend not to put membership organisations in a preferential position but to allow them to continue to offer their services as effectively as possible. Amendment No. 69 inserts a new clause to allow rules of court regulating costs between the parties to limit the operation of the indemnity principle.
  The new clause reflects proposals made by the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Phillips of Sudbury. In response, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said that the indemnity was so central to the existing system of costs that detailed consideration would be necessary. He undertook to carry out a consultation exercise before deciding whether rules of court would be required to retain the beneficial aspects of the indemnity principle.
  My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor published a consultation paper on this subject in May. It proposes that successful litigants should be able to recover from their opponents all costs actually and reasonably incurred, without imposing the further test of whether they would be legally liable to their lawyers for those costs if they were not recovered from the other side.
  Finally, Amendment No. 69A provides a better structure for the Bill. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 65.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Government for having fulfilled their undertaking to produce a paving amendment for a conditional legal aid fund in the event that it proves practicable to establish one. That issue was discussed fully during earlier consideration of the Bill and I need say no more about it. I am happy to accept the other amendments in the group as they now stand.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  66 Clause 30, page 20, line 19, after ("subject") insert ("in the case of court proceedings")
  68 After Clause 30, insert the following new clause—

  RECOVERY WHERE BODY UNDERTAKES TO MEET COSTS LIABILITIES
  (".—(1) This section applies where a body of a prescribed description undertakes to meet (in accordance with arrangements satisfying prescribed conditions) liabilities which members of the body or other persons who are parties to proceedings may incur to pay the costs of other parties to the proceedings.
  (2) If in any of the proceedings a costs order is made in favour of any of the members or other persons, the costs payable to him may, subject to subsection (3) and (in the case of court proceedings) to rules of court, include an additional amount in respect of any provision made by or on behalf of the body in connection with the proceedings against the risk of having to meet such liabilities.
  (3) But the additional amount shall not exceed a sum determined in a prescribed manner; and there may, in particular, be prescribed as a manner of determination one which takes into account the likely cost to the member or other person of the premium of an insurance policy against the risk of incurring a liability to pay the costs of other parties to the proceedings.
  (4) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Lord Chancellor by statutory instrument; and a statutory instrument containing such regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (5) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, prescribe as a description of body one which is for the time being approved by the Lord Chancellor or by a prescribed person.")
  69 After Clause 30, insert the following new clause—

  RULES AS TO COSTS
  (". In section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (costs), in subsection (2) (rules regulating matters relating to costs), insert at the end "or for securing that the amount awarded to a party in respect of the costs to be paid by him to such representatives is not limited to what would have been payable by him to them if he had not been awarded costs."")
  69A Transpose Clauses 29 to Clause (Rules as to costs) to after Clause 26
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 66, 68, 69 and 69A.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 66, 68, 69 and 69A.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  70 After Clause 32, insert the following new clause—

  RIGHTS OF AUDIENCE: EMPLOYED ADVOCATES
  (". In the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, after section 31 (as substituted by section 32 above) insert—
  "Employed advocates.
  31A.—(1) Where a person who has a right of audience granted by an authorised body is employed as a Crown Prosecutor or in any other description of employment, any qualification regulations or rules of conduct of the body relating to that right which fall within subsection (2) shall not have effect in relation to him.
  (2) Qualification regulations or rules of conduct relating to a right granted by a body fall within this subsection if—

  (a) they limit the courts before which, or proceedings in which, that right may be exercised by members of the body who are employed or limit the circumstances in which that right may be exercised by them by requiring them to be accompanied by some other person when exercising it; and

  (b) they do not impose the same limitation on members of the body who have the right but are not employed.").

  MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 70
  70A That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 70.
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 70.
  So much in life is conditioned by sheer chance. At tea time on 28th January, I had the good fortune to move the Motion that Clause 31 should not stand part of the Bill. The earlier amendments, which were somewhat similar, had come on shortly before midnight and enthusiasm to take any definite step was clearly not in evidence.
  Clause 31, which I successfully moved should not stand part of the Bill, has been reinstated by an amendment in the Commons. Therefore, I am seeking to repeat the success that I achieved in this regard on 28th January.
  I was going to suggest that it is right that the Commons be asked to think again. But that is not an accurate way to put it. I really want the Commons to think for the first time because they have not been given the material upon which to exercise their judgment.
  The first matter to consider in respect of the rights of employed advocates is what the present position would be if my original amendment had stood. What is the status quo? One would have thought that that was something that the Government might have pointed out in the process of attacking the amendment, which was successful on 28th January. I shall start by doing that now.
  We all know that the solicitor in private practice has managed to achieve unfettered rights of audience provided that he passes the necessary requirements laid down by the Law Society and which have been approved. What has caused considerable concern is the position of the employed solicitor. That was dealt with in February 1997. The position is not that the employed solicitor has no rights of audience. He has different rights of audience from his colleague in private practice.
  I refer to a letter which the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, wrote to my noble and learned friend Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, who was then the chairman of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct. The material parts read as follows:
  "The designated judges and I have now reached our decision on the remaining part of the Law Society's application for rights of audience for solicitors, that is that part which relates to employed solicitors".
  He went on to say that,
  "we have decided to approve the application as amended, subject to further restrictions and a proviso. As you know, the Law Society submitted a supplementary application in July 1995 which limited the cases in which employed solicitors could appear in the higher courts as the sole or senior advocate. We have concluded that it would be right to extend those categories. The effect of our decision will be that an employed solicitor appearing as an advocate with a leader will be able to appear in all cases in which a solicitor advocate can now appear. However, an employed solicitor may not appear as the sole or senior advocate in the following proceedings: criminal

  443
  proceedings which have been committed for trial to the Crown Court. or any subsequent appeal. (Plea and Directions Hearings and other preliminary proceedings are not included in this restriction)".
  And in regard to the civil situation:
  "in the higher courts in any hearing which is intended to dispose in whole or in part of the merits of the case, and on behalf of a local authority in a hearing of an application in care proceedings, or any subsequent appeal".
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, concluded with the comment:
  "We consider that our decision will further the statutory objective of widening the choice of persons providing legal services while maintaining the proper and efficient administration of justice".
  When the press notice was issued on 26th February this was to be found:
  "The Lord Chancellor commented: 'I am very pleased with this decision, which marks a further widening of legal representatives who can appear before the courts. The senior judges and I are satisfied that employed solicitors have in place sufficient qualification and training regulations, and codes of conduct, to ensure that the proper and efficient administration of justice will be maintained. While the decision will take time to make an impact, it marks a continuation of the sensible policies of reform which were initiated in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990'".
  So it looks on the face of it as if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was content with the compromise that had been reached, in which in substance the employed solicitor in the type of case to which I have drawn attention had to have a leader; he could not do it on his own. It was no doubt contemplated that in due course, with sufficient experience of being led, he would, like any other junior, develop into a leader himself.
  That is to be compared with the observation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, some years later, on 26th January 1999, when, referring to the restrictions, he said:
  "Those restrictions on employed banisters and solicitors are unjustified. They are the worst kind of restrictive practice—designed simply to protect the work and incomes of privately practising barristers, with no shred of benefit to the public".—[Official Report, 26/1/99; col. 997.]
  I hate criticising any colleague who is not present in the House, but the noble and learned Lord has sought to go, when I assumed that he would be present. No doubt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can seek to justify what was, in my respectful submission, a quite monstrous attack on the profession, a profession which has not sought to support what I am putting forward, which kept right out of the arena on this subject, because it knew from past experience that the matter would be treated as a trade union dispute between the two branches of the profession, which it is not. I say it is not, based upon the following further observations.
  My noble and learned friend Lord Steyn, a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, wrote an article based on the 1998 Kalisher memorial lecture, delivered on 13th October 1998. It was published on 8th July 1999. The material parts read as follows:
  "But in my view the proposed granting of full rights of audience to lawyers working for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) would be a mistake. I make no criticism of the CPS or of the dedicated lawyers who work for the CPS. The point is an institutional one. On grounds of constitutionalism it would he a mistake to grant such rights to State employees; prosecution in the Crown Court by members of an independent bar places a brake on the executive. It
  444
  is no answer to say that CPS lawyers already prosecute in the magistrates courts. The important cases where tensions between the liberty of the citizen and the interest of the executive arise are heard in the Crown Court. It is an illusion to believe that CPS lawyers work in the same culture of independence as banisters in private practice. Inevitably, CPS lawyers have to display a loyalty to the organisation which employs them and that imposes direct and indirect pressures on them. Failure to fit into the corporate culture of the CPS may result in dismissal or denial of promotion. That is one of the reasons why after careful investigation ACLEC [the advisory committee] by a majority advised against the conferment of full rights of audience on lawyers working for the state.
  The advice given by ACLEC in June 1995 was not based on protecting any interests of the Bar. The majority was, amongst other things, concerned about 'the reality of the likely pressures on CPS employers' and about 'the extent to which, without the requirement of an independent advocate, those pressures might make it more difficult for the individual advocate to adopt a position contrary to the possible wishes and assumptions of the CPS as his or her employer'. While there has been much criticism in the press directed at the advice of ACLEC, not a single journalist has ever even in passing reported the true ground of our advice. On constitutional grounds I regard it as undesirable for State employees to he given rights of audience in the higher courts".
  By contrast, I refer to a part of a letter written by Professor Zander to The Times on 18th December last year. He wrote:
  "In the Crown Court study I conducted for the Runcirnan Royal Commission on Criminal Justice during 1993, we asked respondents to bring to the attention of the Commission any matter of concern. The main general concern identified by prosecuting banisters was disagreements and undue pressure from the CPS on individual cases. At present, such disagreements and pressure are deals with by discussion between the banister and the CPS representative. If the CPS has and exercises full rights of audience, that created tension between differing views would be lost. The decision as to how to handle the case, whether to accept a plea in itself on what charges, etc. would be handled by the CPS alone. In my view that will result in a regrettable deterioration of decision making in serious criminal cases. The loss will be in the quality of that elusive concept, justice".
  Professor Zander is not known for his support to the Bar nor for any affection for the status quo.
  There have been many supporting views of that approach. I shall not take up the time of the House in referring to more than one; that by Lord Benson in his commission's report at paragraph 18.43 to 18.45. It says:
  "In one significant aspect the arrangements serve what many of us regard as an important public purpose by ensuring that in the Crown Court the case for the prosecution is put by an advocate who is independent both of the police and the prosecuting authority … we think that the effect of the present arrangements on prosecuting work should not be disturbed. It provides in every case an advocate from the available range of private practising banisters who is seen by the court, the accused and the public at large, to be independent of the police and the prosecuting authorities; one who, by the nature of his training and daily practice, is more likely to be able to bring the essential quality of detachment and balance to bear on the problem in the individual case. These are considerations that we regard as crucial, not only to the actual conduct of a jury trial, but also the proper administration of justice in general, including the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings, the acceptance of proposed pleas of guilty and the proper handling of evidential problems".
  Is that an example of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who has again left the Chamber, meant by the worst kind of restrictive practice? Is it a restrictive practice designed simply to protect the work and income of private practitioners? Can it be said that that practice contains no sired of benefit to the public? Of course it cannot.

  445
  What I have brought before the House has been suppressed by the Government in this Chamber and in the Commons. That is why I have respectfully submitted that the other place be asked to think—and think for the first time.
  Moved, That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 70—(Lord Ackner.)
  10 p.m.
  Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I hope that the House agrees with the Commons in their Amendment No. 70. I reiterate the conviction that I expressed back in the long dark nights of January when we last rehearsed the arguments on what was then Clause 31, that employed lawyers should not be stopped because of their employed status from exercising their rights of audience. The obstacles restricting the rights of employed lawyers represent an injustice that cannot be allowed to continue in a modern, reformed legal service. Despite what we have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, those obstacles also represent more than a hint of protectionism.
  It is always instructive to hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, but he treads a somewhat lonely path in his continued insistence that any extension of employees' rights of audience should be opposed, particularly in the light of the fact that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has insisted on many occasions that the highest standards of qualification and training will prevail under the reforms.
  Earlier this evening the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, was insistent in his view that the legal profession is very competitive. If that is so and if the proper standards are put in place and safeguarded, there is nothing of substance to fear from the amendment. I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, not to pursue his objection.
  Lord Borrie: My Lords, in the early part of his speech the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred to the 1997 extension of the rights of employed lawyers to appear in certain cases in certain circumstances. Of course, everything that the noble and learned Lord said was accurate, as one might expect. He did not say, although one might infer it because he referred to the legislation from which this emanated as being that of 1990, that there had been many years in between in which there had been a to-ing and fro-ing between the different organisations involved—the Law Society and ACLEC and so on. It took all those years to get what the noble and learned Lord seemed to think was a "fair compromise". I should perhaps describe it somewhat differently as a fudge. It reduced the real possibilities of choice of the litigant with which we ought to be concerned.
  The litigants in the cases of which I am thinking in civil matters are companies, firms which may have lawyers in their employ in their legal department. Under the 1997 dispensation—the situation was even worse before that—irrespective of his wishes, the employer could not use one of his employed lawyers to represent
  446
  the company in court. I sought to put forward my view at the earlier stages of the Bill. To my mind, companies which employ lawyers should have a complete choice. They should determine, on the best advice available, whether to use an independent barrister, or, let us say, an independent QC to lead one of his own in-house lawyers as a junior; whether to use employed staff to appear only in interlocutory proceedings and perhaps use an independent practitioner at trial proceedings, and so on.
  I keep emphasising the word "choice". The noble and learned Lord was keen to have a code—a list of insistent provisions that all employed lawyers appearing in court must, above all, be concerned with their duty to the court. I have worked with employed lawyers in both the public and private sectors. I took the view that to assert without evidence that an employed lawyer was incapable of giving independent advice or of representing his client with all due integrity to the court, and of giving advice that his employer may not wish to hear, was nonsensical. An employed lawyer knows, as does his employer, that he is being paid to give of his best. That includes giving advice that the employer may not particularly wish to hear.
  I must not speak for too long but I should like to comment in relation to the Crown Prosecution Service. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, dealt with that in the latter part of his speech. I find it difficult to draw a complete dividing line between those trials—and for good or ill, there may be more in future than in the past—which are settled and determined in the magistrates' court and those which are settled in the Crown Court. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, seemed to imply that there is some rigid division whereby Crown Prosecution Service employees are assumed to be perfectly ethical and to have complete integrity and all the rest of it to ensure a proper trial in those courts. But should the trial happen to be in the Crown Court, those selfsame employees are "incapable" of having the integrity and the ethical standards that we all want to see.
  It seems to me again that it should be a matter of choice. In this case, the Crown Prosecution Service is surely sufficiently well managed to know when it wishes to engage its own lawyers and to give them experience in the different kinds of courts, whereas at the moment it can never give them experience in the Crown Court. In other cases it may decide that it needs someone from the independent Bar, either as a leader, or perhaps as the sole prosecutor. Let us have a little more choice and let employed lawyers give of their full quality and qualifications—assuming, of course, they do have the correct qualifications; without them they could not appear—and let us accept the Commons view on this matter.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we are unable to agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. In saying that, I have to say that some of my noble friends strongly agree with him. Indeed one of them is sitting immediately behind me and I think that your Lordships will shortly have the benefit of his views. All of my

  447
  noble friends who agree with the noble and learned Lord are lawyers with long experience of criminal cases whose views must be listened to with great respect.
  But the view of my party, as was made clear in the other place, and indeed my own view, is that the Crown Prosecution Service—it is the Crown Prosecution Service that this amendment is really about—should have rights of audience. We have to remember the background to the CPS. It was introduced because the old police solicitor was seen—and I think rightly seen—as too closely connected with the investigation of crime. The CPS was introduced to be a body independent of the police and the investigation process. That is what it should be and what I believe it is.
  We all know that the CPS has been through difficult times, but I do not believe that the standards of integrity of employees of the CPS are less high than those of lawyers in independent practice. Of course there are pressures on members of the CPS, but equally there are pressures on barristers in private practice who are instructed by the CPS. Those pressures may in some ways be even greater. If an independent barrister does not do what the CPS wants, he can be cut off by the CPS without any remedy—that can be extremely damaging to his practice—whereas a CPS employee has full rights under the employment legislation to protect his position. Therefore I do not think that it is right to talk of pressures being on one side only.
  I believe that the right to appear as an advocate in the Crown Court will attract more candidates of high quality to the CPS, particularly from those who are already advocates in independent practice. They will simply not transfer to the CPS if they are to be condemned to silence in the Crown Court. I believe that interchange between the CPS and the independent profession is particularly valuable. But it will not happen if those in independent practice lose their rights of audience when they join the CPS and those in the CPS have no experience of advocacy in the Crown Court.
  The arguments in favour of allowing the CPS to have rights of audience are, I believe, quite different from the arguments that we on these Benches raised earlier against the setting up of a public defender system with rights of audience. Indeed, giving the CPS greater rights of audience I believe strengthens the view that defence should remain independent of the state. We do not think that adverse consequences will follow from giving the CPS rights of audience. That must, of course, be phased in over time. It is not appropriate that the present CPS staff with limited experience of advocacy in the Crown Court should immediately take over the prosecution of difficult cases. I certainly hope that there will always be a role for independent prosecutors in cases brought by the CPS. But that, I believe, is something that should be left to the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
  Lord Hacking: My Lords, your Lordships have heard quite a lot of argument relating to employed lawyers with the CPS and I certainly do not intend to repeat that here. I regret, when the noble and learned Lord moved his Amendment No. 70A, that he made no
  448
  reference to Clause 37 of the Bill which sets out a clear duty on all advocates providing advocacy services. Clause 37 states that they have,
  "a duty to the court to act with independence in the interests of justice".
  I had subsequent correspondence with the noble and learned Lord after some amendments that I moved which were designed to give comfort to those who might be concerned about employed lawyers appearing in court. My noble and learned friend, in my view quite rightly, said it was unnecessary to use the protective mechanisms that I was proposing because the duty was so clearly set out as a statutory duty in Clause 37.
  I listened with great care to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. He made some omissions—not only the omissions pointed out by my noble friend Lord Borrie but also he did not refer to the position of employed barristers. There was some compromise after the Courts and Legal Services Act reached the statute book concerning my side of the profession but the position of employed barristers—and there are many who are employed as barristers and not as solicitors—was not addressed at all. It has not been addressed; it is only now being addressed in the Bill.
  After your Lordships had passed the Bill and sent it to another place, I had the opportunity of talking to an employed barrister. He gave an account of how he had been in private practice in chambers in Manchester for 10 years or more. He subsequently accepted an in-house legal position with a publishing company. As with all publishing companies, emergencies arise—injunctive relief and so forth is needed—and he had to go very quickly to an open court in the High Court in order to represent his client. Although the employed barrister had been dealing with the problem for only a few hours in his office, he pointed out the sheer inefficiency of the necessity to brief an outside barrister to appear in the High Court. Instructions had to be given orally, first of all over the telephone and then as he and the barrister walked to court together. In those circumstances, there was no way in which the barrister could be properly briefed to appear efficiently and well for the client.
  That is an example of how we should be looking at the problem. We should be looking at the interests of justice and at the interests of the efficient conduct of justice. In the circumstances I have outlined to you, a barrister with 10 years' experience in the High Court and with a detailed knowledge of the particular case was, under the present rules, prevented from presenting his client's case to the judge. I dare say that the judge would have much preferred to have had someone with a knowledge of the case in front of him, rather than the badly-briefed barrister. The barrister did not have the knowledge because there was no time for it to be imparted to him.
  This is a very important amendment—it is certainly considered important outside the House—because it affects all employed lawyers, whether they be solicitors or barristers. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not press his Motion.
  Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate. I have been persuaded to do so

  449
  by an observation of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. If I may paraphrase his remarks, he said that there was no reason why a prosecuting lawyer who was employed by the CPS would not exercise precisely the same high standards as a prosecutor who was member of the independent Bar. I entirely agree with what he said.
  My problem is that there may occasionally be those who fall short of those high standards, whether they be members of the independent legal profession or those employed by the CPS. If they are members of the Bar, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will know the many informal pieces of machinery that exist by which those standards can be enforced. His colleagues at the independent Bar will recognise what has happened. The matter will inevitably come to the head of his Chambers. If it goes any further, it will come to the leader of his circuit. If it goes further than that, it may well come to the presiding judge, to his Inn, or to the Bar Council. There are innumerable informal ways in which it can be made clear that an independent barrister who falls short of the proper standards is dealt with speedily and efficiently.
  I should very much welcome some indication from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that, where similar behaviour takes place—as it is bound to do occasionally—on the part of someone who is an employed barrister, there will be adequate machinery to ensure that it is recognised and is dealt with the same efficiency.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, so far as concerns the Crown Prosecution Service, I wholly endorse everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has said about the appropriateness of its employees taking cases in the Crown Court.
  However, I recognise that at this stage of the passage of the Bill through Parliament I am faced with a situation where the Liberal Front Bench is opposed to the Motion. I have to confess that some members of the Opposition are also opposed to it. I refer, for example, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, who is a supporter of the Government's line on the Crown Prosecution Service. Although I hope that I do not do him any injustice, I think that would also be true, were he present, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. In those circumstances, it is therefore the Opposition's position that they will not support this Motion if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, presses it to a vote.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 70 to 78 at the same time as responding to the noble and learned Lord's Motion numbered 70A.
  Clause 32 of the Bill will leave intact the principle that lawyers' rights of audience are governed by the rules and regulations imposed by the authorised bodies which grant those rights. But there are some rules and regulations which simply have to be recognised for what they are—restrictive practices, such as those which
  450
  prevent employed barristers and solicitors from appearing in the higher courts simply because of their status as employees.
  Amendment No. 70 reinstates the principle enshrined in what was originally introduced as Clause 31 of the Bill. I am disappointed to say that that clause was rejected by those who clearly believe that discrimination against employed lawyers can be justified.
  This is an increasingly anachronistic and isolated attitude. In the other place, the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the honourable Member for Surrey Heath, welcomed the long-awaited removal of the bar on employed lawyers appearing in court on behalf of their employers. So, in the light of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I must congratulate him on a consistency of approach in this House.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, just to make it absolutely clear to the noble and learned Lord, my remarks referred solely to the Crown Prosecution Service. So far as other employed lawyers are concerned, the Opposition accepts the Government's position.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Law Society actively supports Amendment No. 70 and, significantly, the Bar Council does not oppose it. The Bar Council's view is that any extension of employees' rights of audience should be in the context of a competitive market in advocacy services, subject to safeguards in the public interest.
  That raises an important point. It is in the public interest to have a competitive market for advocacy services only if we are able to maintain standards. I have no desire to see badly trained or incompetent advocates let loose in the higher courts, and I will work with professional bodies to ensure that that does not happen. Any changes in the qualification requirements will be subject to my approval. I will not tolerate anything that jeopardises the current high standards of advocacy.
  Concerns have been expressed about the Law Society's new higher court qualifications. The relevant rules of the Law Society were amended in November last year with the unanimous approval of the designated judges and myself acting on the advice of ACLEC and the Director-General of Fair Trading. The amended rules, which came into effect in April this year, are simpler and establish a new route to qualification, but they are no less exacting.
  If an employed lawyer, whether barrister or solicitor, has met the high qualification standards required by his professional body, then I do not see how it can be regarded as against the public interest for him to be able to exercise full rights of audience. At present we have the absurd position where an employed barrister, however senior, can exercise absolutely no rights of audience whatever in the higher courts. Even the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr David Calvert-Smith QC, a barrister of 30 years standing, lost his rights of audience on the day he was appointed as the Director of Public Prosecutions, as did his predecessor, Dame Barbara Mills.

  451
  Employed solicitors are scarcely in a better position. An employed solicitor advocate can only appear in substantive proceedings in the higher courts led by a barrister or, theoretically, by a solicitor-advocate, in private practice.
  The Government simply do not believe that the professional bodies should be free to apply discriminatory rules of this kind, and reinserting this clause will prevent them from doing so. It provides that rules which limit the rights of audience of employed advocates are not binding on them if they do not also apply to their colleagues in private practice.
  The clause will enable Crown prosecutors to prosecute in the Crown Court, and all other employed lawyers to appear as advocates in the higher courts provided that they have met the qualification criteria which apply to them.
  Once qualified, employed lawyers will, of course, continue to be regulated by their professional bodies. But we need to ensure that this regulation is in the public interest. It should not be designed to promote the interests of the lawyers in private practice over those of all other lawyers.
  The Government do not intend that the professional bodies should have to apply the same regulations in every respect to employed advocates as those which they apply to advocates in private practice. Clearly, they should be allowed to provide for the differences between them. It would not be appropriate, for example, for employed barristers to have to work from Chambers, as barristers in private practice have to do. But employed advocates should not be prevented by their employed status from exercising their rights of audience. Amendment No. 70 is designed to stop this abuse.
  I appreciate that some noble Lords are concerned that the independence of employed lawyers cannot be guaranteed. But, like all other advocates, they will be subject to the duties in Clause 37 of this Bill, which are put on a statutory basis for the first time. These are the duty to the court to act with independence in the interests of justice and the duty to obey rules of conduct. These duties override any other obligations that the employed lawyer may have, including those to his employer.
  I do not accept that an experienced advocate loses his independence of mind just because he receives a salary rather than a brief fee any more, I might add, than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, lost his independence of mind—we see that he has not—on relinquishing, I am sure, abundant brief fees for a judicial salary.
  As your Lordships will have noticed, there are some drafting differences between Amendment No. 70 and the original Clause 31. They are designed to clarify the clause in two ways: first, to make clear that Amendment No. 70 applies to all employed lawyers and not solely to those employed principally as advocates; and, secondly, to ensure that the clause is not interpreted as enabling an employed advocate to offer his or her services direct to the public or to clients of his or her employers, as distinct from the employers themselves. It is not my intention to authorise that development by means of Amendment No. 70.
  452
  Failure to re-insert this clause in the Bill would strike at the heart of the Government's proposals on rights of audience. It would leave in place the restrictions which have been put, quite unjustifiably, on employed lawyers. The time for restrictive practices of this kind has long gone. Amendments Nos. 71, 72, 76 and 77 are consequential upon the insertion of this new clause.
  I turn to Amendments Nos. 73 to 75 which concern employees of the Legal Services Commission. Clause 33 invalidates any rule of conduct that would prevent advocates or litigators employed by the commission from providing their services to members of the public purely on account of their employed status. Amendment No. 73 extends Clause 33 to cover, in addition to employees of the commission, employees of,
  "any body established and maintained by the Legal Services Commission"
  under its powers in Clauses 7(3)(d), 14(20) and 15(3)(d). Amendment No. 75 enables barristers employed by the commission, or bodies established and maintained by it, to provide services directly to the public without the need to receive instructions through a solicitor. Amendment No. 74 is a minor drafting change to clarify the clause.
  The purpose of the final amendment in this group, Amendment No. 78, is to enable a barrister employed in a solicitor's firm to provide legal services, including advocacy, direct to his or her employer's clients in the same way as an employed solicitor may. I said at Committee stage in this House that the Government would table an amendment to this effect. At present, barristers employed by firms of solicitors are deemed to be "non-practising". This means that they may offer limited legal services to members of the public but they have no rights of audience in any court under the Bar's rules, no matter how well qualified they are or how many years they may have spent previously as barristers in private practice.
  The Government regard that as a restriction that cannot be tolerated. A barrister who would have full rights of audience if he were in private practice should have full rights of audience if he works for a solicitor. He should be able to offer his services as an advocate in the same way as a solicitor advocate employed in the same firm. Barristers employed by solicitors will continue to be regulated by the Bar Council. It will be the responsibility of the Bar Council and the Law Society to ensure that the rules concerning these barristers, such as the disciplinary jurisdiction, do not conflict. I do not believe that this will cause any difficulties in practice.
  This is an important group of amendments which is at the very core of the Government's policy on rights of audience. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, who has not gained support for his Amendment No. 70A around the Chamber, will agree to withdraw it.
  10.30 p.m.
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, it is no surprise to me that the Bar and Bar Council have not supported the amendment. To have done so would have given

  453
  immediate hostage to fortune, because it would have been said, as did the noble and learned Lord, that these restrictions
  "are the worst kind of restrictive practice—designed simply to protect the work and incomes of privately practising barristers, with no shred of benefit to the public".— [Official Report, 26/1/99; col. 997.]
  For that reason, I drew the attention of the House to the views of the noble and learned Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, Lord Steyn. I drew the House's attention to the view of Professor Zander and the views of the Benson Commission. None of those fall within the trade union attack and accordingly show the independent source of the report.
  I do not propose to take up more time of the House. I am grateful for having been listened to with such tolerance. But I submit that the strength of the views I have quoted fully justify the amendment I have proposed, although taking a realistic view I see no purpose in moving the amendment to a Division of the House. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  70 After Clause 32, insert the following new clause—

  RIGHTS OF AUDIENCE: EMPLOYED ADVOCATES
  (". In the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, after section 31 (as substituted by section 32 above) insert—
  "Employed advocates.
  31 A.—(1) Where a person who has a right of audience granted by an authorised body is employed as a Crown Prosecutor or in any other description of employment, any qualification regulations or rules of conduct of the body relating to that right which fall within subsection (2) shall not have effect in relation to him.
  (2) Qualification regulations or rules of conduct relating to a right granted by a body fall within this subsection if—

  (a) they limit the courts before which, or proceedings in which, that right may be exercised by members of the body who are employed or limit the circumstances in which that right may be exercised by them by requiring them to be accompanied by some other person when exercising it; and

  (b) they do not impose the same limitation on members of the body who have the right but are not employed.").

  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 70.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 70.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  71 Clause 33, page 22, line 36, leave out ("31 (as substituted by section 32") and insert ("31A (inserted by section (Rights of audience: employed advocates)").
  72 Page 22, line 38, leave out ("31 A") and insert ("31B").
  73 Page 22, line 40, after ("Commission,") insert ("or by any body established and maintained by the Legal Services Commission,'").
  74 Page 22, line 41, after ("the") insert ("authorised").
  75 Page 23, line 4, leave out ("they") and insert ("either of the conditions specified in subsection (3) is satisfied.
  (3) Those conditions are—

  (a) that the prohibition or limitation is on the exercise of the right, or the provision of the services, otherwise than on the instructions of solicitors (or other persons acting for the members of the public), and

  (b) that the rules").

  76 Clause 34, page 23, line 7, leave out ("31 A") and insert ("31B").
  77 Page 23, line 9, leave out ("31B") and insert ("31C").
  78 After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—

  BARRISTERS EMPLOYED BY SOLICITORS ETC
  (".—(1) Where a barrister is employed by—

  (a) a solicitor or other authorised litigator (within the meaning of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990), or

  (b) a body recognised under section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (incorporated solicitors' practices),

  any rules of the General Council of the Bar which impose a prohibition or limitation on the provision of legal services shall not operate to prevent him from providing legal services to clients of his employer if either of the conditions specified in subsection (2) is satisfied.
  (2) Those conditions are—

  (a) that the prohibition or limitation is on the provision of the services otherwise than on the instructions of a solicitor (or other person acting for the client), and

  (b) that the prohibition or limitation does not apply to barristers who provide legal services but are not employees.").

  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 70. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 71 to 78.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 71 to 78.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  79 After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—

  FEES ON APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT AS QUEEN'S COUNSEL
  (".—(1) A person who applies to the Lord Chancellor to be recommended for appointment as Queen's Counsel in England and Wales shall pay a fee to the Lord Chancellor.
  (2) The amount of the fee shall be specified by order made by the Lord Chancellor; and in determining that amount the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to the expenses incurred by him in considering such applications.
  (3) An order under subsection (2) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (4) This section does not affect section 9 of the Great Seal (Offices) Act 1874 (under which fees are charged in respect of the grant of Letters Patent under the Great Seal for appointment as Queen's Counsel).").
  The Lord Chancellor; My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 79. With your Lordships' leave I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 126 and 128.

  455
  These amendments will enable me to charge fees to recoup the cost of administering the annual competition for the rank of Queen's Counsel. Currently the only power to charge a fee in relation to Queen's Counsel relates to the Crown Office and its costs. These costs, which in 1999 were about £10,000 are limited to the actual grant of Letters Patent to successful applicants.
  However, the majority of the work and costs of this competition relates to the processing of applications prior to the grant of the rank of Queen's Counsel to successful candidates. Most of those applications are unsuccessful. During the competition for 1998–99 out of 553 applications only 69 were successful.
  The majority of the work and costs of this competition relate to the work involved in considering applications in advance of the award of practising Queen's Counsel to successful candidates and of subsequently providing feedback to those unsuccessful candidates who request it. Indeed, most of these applications are unsuccessful.
  Handling all these applications, many of which are from applicants who have applied on previous occasions, and will apply again, perhaps successfully, perhaps not, and giving feedback to those unsuccessful applicants who ask for feedback is a time consuming and costly process. The cost to my department last year was around £185,000.
  This constitutes a public subsidy for a system of promotion in a profession which perhaps is not distinguished for its need for subsidy from the public purse. We therefore consider the introduction of an application fee for the rank of Queen's Counsel highly desirable.
  Amendments Nos. 126 and 128 amend Clause 86 of the Bill to allow the new clause to take effect on Royal Assent. The annual competition for Queen's Counsel starts in September. We are now in July and the new clause could not apply to this year's competition unless it comes into effect immediately.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 79.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I speak entirely for myself and in no way for my party. I have long taken the view that the whole process of appointment of Queen's Counsel should be abandoned. But that is not what we are discussing. So long as the process exists it seems to me entirely reasonable that those who apply should be made to pay the costs of application. After all, those who apply may not all be fat cats but at least they are likely to be pretty plump kittens. It seems to me, therefore, entirely justifiable to ask them to pay.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, speaking entirely for myself, I do not consider that the procedure should be abandoned, but I believe that it needs to be reformed. However, I have no objection to charges being made, but I hope that we get good value for money.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  80 After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—

  BAR PRACTISING CERTIFICATES
  (".—(1) If the General Council of the Bar makes rules prohibiting barristers from practising as specified in the rules unless authorised by a certificate issued by the Council (a "practising certificate"), the rules may include provision requiring the payment of fees to the Council by applicants for practising certificates.
  (2) Rules made by virtue of subsection (1)—

  (a) may provide for the payment of different fees by different descriptions of applicants, but

  (b) may not set fees with a view to raising a total amount in excess of that applied by the Council for the purposes of the regulation, education and training of banisters and those wishing to become barristers.

  (3) The Lord Chancellor may by order made by statutory instrument—

  (a) amend subsection (2)(b) by adding to the purposes referred to in it such other purposes as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate, or

  (b) vary or revoke an order under paragraph (a).

  (4) No order shall be made under subsection (3) unless—

  (a) the Lord Chancellor has consulted the Council, and

  (b) a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

  (5) No provision included in rules by virtue of subsection (1), and no other provision of rules made by the Council about practicing certificates, shall have effect unless approved by the Lord Chancellor.
  (6) The Council shall provide the Lord Chancellor with such information as he may reasonably require for deciding whether to approve any provision of rules made by the Council about practising certificates.")
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 80. With your Lordships' leave, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 81.
  These amendments relate to practising certificates for barristers and solicitors. Solicitors are already required to hold practising certificates under the Solicitors Act 1974. The certificates, which are renewed annually, show that the solicitor is properly qualified, has abided by the various requirements imposed on solicitors—such as having satisfactory insurance arrangements—and has paid his or her dues to the Law Society.
  Amendment No. 80 enables the General Council of the Bar, for the first time ever, to require banisters to hold and pay for practising certificates on a similar basis. It also defines the purposes for which the Bar Council may apply the income that it receives from practising certificates, income from what will effectively be compulsory subscriptions. The Law Society already has a statutory power under the Solicitors Act 1974 to levy fees for practising certificates, but there is currently no statutory restriction on the society's use of its compulsory fee income. Amendment No. 81 enables me to limit the purposes for which the Law Society may apply fee income from practising certificates.
  The Government believe that it is right for a regulatory body to be able to charge compulsory fees to those it regulates. The Bar Council carries out a regulatory function in relation to barristers which is comparable to that exercised by the Law Society in

  457
  relation to solicitors. The Government believe that it is unfair that some barristers should not contribute to the costs of the regulation from which all barristers benefit.
  Amendment No. 80 will also enable the Bar Council to require barristers to pay what amounts to a training levy to support pupil barristers or to provide other training. At present, many new barristers, after attending the Bar vocational course and being called to the Bar, find that they are unable to obtain pupillages and their careers therefore fall at the first fence.
  The Government hope that the Bar Council will choose to exercise its new power. It should be a potent means of ensuring more meritocratic entry to the Bar, which is rightly perceived as a profession dominated by the middle class. This clause should help to ensure for the future that more people not from privileged backgrounds are able to rise to success at the Bar.
  Amendment No. 80 provides that the total amount of money generated from the payment of these fees should not exceed the Bar Council's total expenditure on the regulation, education and training of barristers and would-be barristers. The Government's firm view is that this compulsory fee income should not be available for what might be described as the Bar Council's trade union activities. The Government have no intention of creating a "closed shop", requiring individual barristers to fund activities which they may not support and may in fact be contrary to their interests. Of course, it will be open to the Bar Council to raise money from barristers on a voluntary basis for these purposes. But the days of pre-entry closed shops are ended for trade unions and should not apply to other bodies either.
  Still, the Government accept that there may be other purposes for which it would be appropriate for the Bar Council to use money generated from subscriptions. The clause therefore contains a power to enable me to add to the purposes of regulation, training and education. The order would be subject to prior consultation with the council and to affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament. In considering the possibility of using this power, the Government would be guided in particular by the wider public interest.
  The Chairman of the Bar Council, Mr Dan Brennan, QC, has welcomed the proposed introduction of Amendment No. 80. I should like to place on record the thanks of the Government to Mr Brennan and the Bar Council for all the work they have done to facilitate the formulation of this change. With your Lordships' leave, I shall deal with Amendment No. 80A in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in a few moments. It raises issues similar to Amendment No. 81A tabled by my noble friend Lord Mishcon and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
  I turn to Amendment No. 81. At present, under Section 11(3) of the Solicitors Act 1974, practising certificate fee income may be applied in any manner the Law Society may think fit. At Committee stage in the other place, an amendment was laid which sought to apply the same restrictions to the Law Society as the Government intend to apply to the Bar. This would have had the effect that practising certificate fees could be used only for the regulation, education and training of solicitors.
  458
  The Government's initial view, which they conveyed to the Law Society, was that the same restrictions should be imposed as for the Bar Council. As I have explained, our belief is that it is right in principle that a professional body should be able to spend money generated from compulsory subscriptions only on certain activities. I am aware that many solicitors welcome this proposal and feel that it would help to ensure that the society remained answerable to the profession.
  Also, there is a strong argument that the Law Society should be placed on an equal basis to the Bar Council. I subsequently met the President of the Law Society, Mr Michael Mathews, to discuss the Government's position. I should like to place on record my appreciation for Mr Mathews' service as President of the Law Society on what I believe to be this, his last full day in office.
  The Government have not always seen eye to eye with the Law Society over the past year, especially on aspects of this Bill. That is completely unsurprising. However, throughout his term of office Mr Mathews has served the solicitors' profession with courtesy, energy and great integrity. At our meeting he made some extremely important and useful points. I listened to the points and they have been reflected in Amendment No. 81. The Government have accepted that immediate change could be disruptive for the established procedures and structures within the Law Society which have existed for a long time in reliance on its right to exact compulsory fees being unrestricted in the sense of its being free to expend the income from the fees exacted in this way as it chooses.
  This amendment, therefore, makes no immediate change to the position of the Law Society but enables Parliament to decide what restriction might be appropriate when the Government and the Law Society have had time to consider the issues fully. The Law Society will also no doubt want to consult its members. We have asked the Law Society to set out, within 18 months of Royal Assent, any further activities that in its view should be financed by compulsory fee income and which of its activities should be funded only on a voluntary basis.
  Subject to the qualifications I make, I intend to resist Amendment No. 81 tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Mishcon and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. However, perhaps I may say that I am grateful to them for tabling it. It helps me to illustrate the types of activities which the Law Society and the Bar might properly fund from compulsory fees. I make it clear to the House that "practice support" or practice management and the,
  "raising and maintenance of standards"
  will be covered by compulsory fees for both the Bar and the Law Society. These activities are entirely compatible with the role of a regulatory body and should be included in any order made under any of these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will therefore appreciate that I accept and support much of the thinking behind his helpful amendment.
  However, my concern lies with the words
  "work in the public interest".

  459
  The same expression is used in Amendment No. 80A tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in relation to Bar practising certificates. I do not think that it is satisfactory to include those words on the face of the Bill. They are not readily justiciable, although they will be capable of giving rise to litigation. I prefer certainty, and I do not think that we should have any difficulty agreeing with the Law Society in the course of 18 months a list of specific activities that are in the wider public interest. I much prefer agreeing activities that justify compulsory fees on a case-by-case basis to creating a rather vague and problematic category. However, I assure both the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord that those functions of the Law Society and the Bar Council that we can agree are in the public interest will qualify for funding from compulsory subscriptions. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord to withdraw their Amendments Nos. 81A and 80A.
  The Government cannot support a state of affairs where solicitors and barristers are compelled to join a closed shop in order to practise. However, at the same time, we have no wish whatsoever to stifle the many useful functions in the public interest that both bodies currently perform and from which both the public and the Government benefit. I commend the new clauses as successfully balancing these concerns.
  The Bill in its present form empowers the Lord Chancellor to limit the purposes for which the Law Society may accept compulsory fees for regulation, education and training and other appropriate purposes in the public interest about which I have given details in response to the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Hunt. The Lord Chancellor is to consult the Master of the Rolls and the Law Society before exercising these powers, and I intend to do so very thoroughly indeed. Thereafter Parliament will decide by affirmative resolution.
  The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, would give the Master of the Rolls the power of veto so that no change could be put to Parliament without his concurrence. I do not think that that is acceptable: it is ultimately and properly for Parliament to determine these matters. The Master of the Rolls has never sought a power of veto and, when informed that there would be a statutory duty to consult him, he expressed his support for that provision. I have, of course, informed the Master of the Rolls of the Government's intentions and I will have full regard to any advice that he provides to me on practising certificates. He will also be able, should he wish, to make this advice public. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, to withdraw his amendment. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 80.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

  AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 80
  80A Line 13, at the end of subsection (2), insert ("and work in the public interest").
  Lord Ackner Lord Ackner had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 80, Amendment No. 80A.
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, may I begin by saying how delighted I am at the new powers that the Lord Chancellor has provided for the Bar Council with regard to making fees compulsory? That is something that I fought for, but failed to achieve, many years ago when I was Chairman of the Bar Council.
  In view of the courteous way in which the Lord Chancellor has agreed to consider the width and breadth of the phrase "public interest" and how that matter can best be dealt with, I am happy to give up the amendment I had suggested and rely upon the Lord Chancellor to carry out the research that he has indicated and to await the results, which I am sure will be satisfactory.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, after I had put down my Amendment No. 81 A, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, with his usual courtesy, wrote to me with the assurances which, again with his usual courtesy, he has repeated this evening. The Law Society is most grateful to him for his attitude in this matter and for those assurances; and, if I may say so, so humbly am I. In those circumstances, I shall not move Amendment No. 81 A.
  Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I welcome very much indeed the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Perhaps I may also add that all members of the Law Society will very much appreciate his words about Michael Mathews which will find a supportive echo right across the profession and across the country. I greatly applaud the way in which the noble and learned Lord has approached the whole issue. I hope that it will be possible to find a list of those activities which are clearly in the public interest. That was the purpose of the amendment. The resolve of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to do just that is very comforting indeed.
  Lord Hacking: My Lords, I was consulted both by the Law Society and the Bar Council on this issue. I know that my friends in the Law Society, including the president, are very pleased with the final result of these discussions. As a former member of the Bar who always paid his dues and as a present solicitor of the High Court who continues to pay his dues to his society, I know that both sides of the profession are most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for these measures.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am sorry if I am going to be the fly in the ointment on this; group of amendments. I have only today had the assurance of the Law Society that it supports the amendment in my name. The first point one must recollect is that one is not proceeding here from a fresh sheet, so to speak, as one is with the Bar, where these powers are new; one is proceeding from the position where for a long time the Law Society has had the power and right to charge practising certificate fees. That is to be found in Section 11 of the Solicitors Act 1974. The provisions of Section 11 are very different from those contained in Amendment No. 81 because they give the Lord

  461
  Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Justice a joint voice in setting practising fees. All three must agree or there is no agreement at all.
  Furthermore, Section 11 as it stands gives the Master of the Rolls, as judicial overseer of the solicitors' branch of my profession, the initiative in setting fees which he can exercise only with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. That, I believe, is a better balance than the one now proposed in Amendment No. 81, which not only gives the Lord Chancellor the initiative but reduces the role of the Master of the Rolls to that of a mere consultee, along with that of the Law Society.
  My amendment would, too modestly some may think, leave the initiative with the Lord Chancellor, but would require him to obtain the agreement of the Master of the Rolls to any proposals he may make under the new clause by way of restricting the right and power of the Law Society as to how it expends practising certificate fees. I believe that this is a particularly desirable change to make to the clause as contained in Commons Amendment No. 81, because in this case the power to be given to the Lord Chancellor is a very political one, allowing him to control the Law Society in the expenditure of practising fees, so as to be confined to regulation, education and training of solicitors—highly uncontentious—and
  "such other purposes as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate".
  As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made clear in his letter of 2nd July to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, one objective of this change is to prevent the Law Society using practising fees for what he called in the letter "trade union activities". Yet, as he acknowledged by accepting that there will now be an 18-month negotiation period with the Law Society, which will seek to provide a definition of just what that means, "trade union activities" is a wonderfully vague and unclear phrase.
  Furthermore, the noble and learned Lord insists on negotiating during this period, having secured the power, under Commons Amendment No. 81, to enforce his will if negotiations break down or reach no happy conclusion. It is precisely because a political Lord Chancellor will be tempted at moments of controversial activity by the Law Society, such as there has been in the Law Society's recent advertising campaign to oppose certain aspects of the Bill, that I believe the exercise of his initiative under the subsection needs my amendment. For the very threat of the exercise of the power given exclusively to the Lord Chancellor under Commons Amendment No. 81 will have its effect. Further, it could—maybe in certain cases it is bound to—give rise to litigation. Matters of legal aid, legal procedure, legal fees and court organisation could all be described as trade union activities; they are all certainly matters which give rise to conflict of interest on the part of solicitors, because there is absolutely no doubt that any of those subjects, and many more, including many subjects of law reform generally, will involve solicitors in their own capacity as solicitors, just as much—in some cases, much less, however—as they will involve the interests of their clients and justice generally.
  462
  One has only to consider the debate tonight, when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made soft but clear charges of trade unionism against some of those who spoke in favour of the public defender system, to realise that to try to define just what is and is not permissible under this new aegis is impossible. That is why I propose the amendment. It will be too easy for a Lord Chancellor stung by a campaign against his government's policy to ignore his own conflicted position, because of course he is both senior judge and Cabinet Minister, and seek to stifle that opposition by exercise of the powers given in Commons Amendment No. 81.
  I hasten to say that nothing I have said is in any way directed at the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor himself, but in cases such as this one must look to the principles and the possibilities. It would be imprudent in the extreme to allow the amendment to proceed, when the present arrangements, vesting initiative and most influence in the Master of the Rolls, would seem to me to be much more appropriate and better for all concerned.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he indicate to the House whether he is speaking for himself or whether the views he expresses are those of his party, as he is sitting on the Front Bench?
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I hope I can safely say that I am speaking for my party as well as myself.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise briefly to deal with Amendment No. 80.1 speak as the only barrister in current practice who has spoken in this brief debate. This is something which deals with a long-standing grievance of the Bar Council which has had to face the free rider problem of those who receive the benefits provided by the Bar Council without having to pay anything towards them.
  I hope that the Lord Chancellor, in considering what further costs might be allowed to be paid out of the Bar's practising certificate fees, will give consideration to the administration of the free representation unit and also the administration of the undertakings that have been given by a considerable number of members of the Bar of all levels of seniority who volunteered to work pro bono.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I rise to endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and also to support the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about Mr. Brennan QC.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  81 After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—

  FEES FOR SOLICITORS' PRACTISING CERTIFICATES
  (".—(1) The Lord Chancellor may by order made by statutory instrument amend section 11(3) of the Solicitors Act 1974 (power of Law Society to apply fees payable on issue of practising certificates for any of its purposes) by substituting for the purposes referred to in it (at any time)—

  463

  (a) the purposes of the regulation, education and training of solicitors and those wishing to become solicitors, or

  (b) both those purposes and such other purposes as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate.

  (2) No order shall be made under this section unless—

  (a) the Lord Chancellor has consulted the, Master of the Rolls and the Law Society, and

  (b) a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.")

  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 81. I have already spoken to this amendment. I commend it to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 81.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  [Amendments Nos. 81A and 81B, as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 81, not moved.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  82 After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—

  LAW SOCIETY'S POWERS IN RELATION TO CONDUCT OF SOLICITORS ETC
  (". Schedule (Powers of Law Society) which extends the powers of the Law Society in relation to the conduct of solicitors and their employees and consultants) has effect.")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 82. With the leave of the House, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 180, 215, 216 and 217.
  These amendments represent a package of changes which the Law Society sought from the Government and which the Government were happy to promote. Their aim is to strengthen the Law Society's powers to investigate and deal with misconduct and to deal with solicitors who consistently give poor service.
  Amendment No. 82 and Amendment No. 180 insert a new Schedule 7 extending the powers of the Law Society in relation to the practice, conduct and discipline of solicitors and their employees. Paragraph 1 of the schedule will give the society the power to monitor compliance by solicitors with the rules made under Section 31 of the Solicitors Act, whether or not there has been a complaint about a particular case. Paragraph 3 inserts a new Section 33A into the Solicitors Act which will allow the Law Society to make rules, with the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls, requiring solicitors to provide details of bank accounts operated in connection with their practice or any trust of which they are or were a trustee.
  Paragraph 6 will allow the Law Society to close down a solicitors' firm that has been the subject of frequent and serious complaints about inadequate professional service. Paragraph 7 concerns non-qualified employees of solicitors firms found guilty of dishonesty. It will allow the Law Society and the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to order that such a person may not be employed by any solicitors' firm. At present, the society can only require access to a solicitor's papers where a complaint about a particular case has been received.
  464
  Paragraph 11 will allow the society to require solicitors to produce documents and files when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that there has been professional misconduct by a solicitor or a breach of the society's rules, or the professional services provided by a solicitor are not of an adequate quality.
  Paragraph 13 gives the Law Society a new power to direct solicitors to pay any costs incurred during the course of an investigation of professional misconduct or failure to comply with the rules. The other provisions of the new schedule make equivalent amendments to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (which deals with incorporated solicitors' practices), and other minor, technical amendments to the 1974 and 1985 Acts. Amendments Nos. 215–217 make consequential repeals. These powers will remove a number of unnecessary restrictions on disciplinary activity by the Law Society. I commend them to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 82.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I support the Government in the series of amendments, which will prove extremely helpful in the better regulation of the profession.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  83 After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—

  POWERS OF OMBUDSMAN
  (".—(1) Section 23 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (recommendations of the Legal Services Ombudsman) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1)(c) (written report of investigation to be sent to person with respect to whom recommendation is made), after "subsection (2)" insert "or an order under subsection (2A)".
  (3) In paragraph (e) of subsection (2) (recommendation that costs be paid by person or body to which recommendation under paragraph (c) or (d) applies), for "which a recommendation under paragraph (c) or (d) applies" substitute "pay compensation under paragraph (c) or (d)".
  (4) After that subsection insert—
  "(2A) If after completing any investigation under this Act the Ombudsman considers that, rather than recommending the taking of any action by any person or professional body under paragraph (c), (d) or (e) of subsection (2), he should make an order requiring the taking of that action by the person or body—

  (a) he shall afford the person or body, and the person who made the allegation, a reasonable opportunity of appearing before him to make representations; and

  (b) having considered any representations from them, he may, in reporting his conclusions, make the order."

  (5) In subsections (3) and (4) (reports), after "recommendation" (in each place) insert "or order".
  (6) In subsection (6) (duty to have regard to Ombudsman's report), for "subsection (1)(b) or (c)" substitute "subsection (1)(b), (c) or (d)".
  (7) For the sidenote substitute "Recommendations and orders."")
  The Lord Chancellor: I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in Amendment No. 83. With your Lordships' leave I shall speak also to amendments Nos. 84, 85, 86, 181 and 218.

  465
  The amendments amend the powers of the legal services ombudsman and cater for the establishment of a new post of legal services complaints commissioner. The new clause added by Amendment No. 83 will allow the ombudsman to make a binding order rather than a recommendation in respect of a complaint if he thinks that it is more appropriate. Before making a binding determination, the person or professional body concerned would be entitled to appear before the ombudsman to make representations about the order proposed.
  That extension of powers will be a welcome addition to the ombudsman's armoury for dealing with those who are not providing an adequate service to their clients. It should assist clients to recover compensation that they would not otherwise receive. The ombudsman will not be obliged to use that power, but it will be available and will be of value in some cases.
  Amendment No. 85 inserts a new clause giving the Lord Chancellor the power to appoint a legal services complaints commissioner if that proves to be necessary. The commissioner will have powers to intervene to improve the standard of complaints handling by the legal professional bodies where it proves inadequate.
  The new clause inserted by Amendment No. 86 and the schedule inserted by Amendment No. 181 set out in detail the functions and powers of the commissioner, who will have the power to set targets and require a professional body to produce a plan setting out how it intends to improve its complaints handling performance to meet the targets. If a professional body fails to submit an adequate plan or to follow its plan, the commissioner will have power to fine it. The new post will be financed by a levy on those authorised bodies that it is appointed to oversee. It is only right that if the commissioner is appointed, the professional body that is failing should be required to cover the costs of the commissioner overseeing its complaints handling, not least because his appointment will have arisen out of the inadequacies of the profession's self-regulation.
  The principal reason for the provisions is the poor and deteriorating performance on complaints against solicitors at the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. The backlog of cases at the OSS is large and growing. The time taken to deal with complaints is unacceptable. The confidence of the public in our legal system depends in part on there being effective redress. The Government could not have stood idly by watching matters deteriorating when we had a legislative opportunity in the Bill to address the issue.
  The provisions on the legal services complaints commissioner will be brought into force only if it appears that complaints about members of any professional body are not being handled effectively and efficiently. I would use the powers only after much thought and with a great deal of reluctance. In any event, I shall not use them within 18 months of Royal Assent. They are reserve powers and we wish to give the OSS in particular the opportunity to put its house in order.
  466
  The Law Society recently published and adopted a report by Ernst and Young mat set out a blueprint for a more efficient system for dealing with complaints against solicitors. I acknowledge that more resources have been allocated to complaints handling. Those are steps in the right direction. But much remains to be done. We shall watch developments carefully and indicate to the Law Society in particular what performance is necessary to be achieved if the commissioner is not to be introduced.
  Amendment No. 84 gives me power to require any professional body to make payments to the legal services ombudsman in respect of some or all of the expenses of the ombudsman. I do not intend to use that power unless I appoint the legal services complaints commissioner, who will be financed by the failing professional bodies he is appointed to oversee.
  The practice elsewhere is for ombudsman schemes to be financed directly by the professions concerned. Any payments required from a professional body will be proportionate to the size of the body and the number and nature of complaints generated. Those new powers will help to achieve better performance in the handling of complaints which I know is the aim of the Law Society and the other professional bodies. I believe that they are proportionate; they are certainly timely; and I have no doubt that they will be welcome to the public.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 83.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  84 After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—

  FUNDING OF OMBUDSMAN BY PROFESSIONAL BODIES
  (". In paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (financial provisions relating to Legal Services Ombudsman), for sub-paragraph (1) (Ombudsman's expenses to be defrayed by Lord Chancellor) substitute—
  "(1) The Lord Chancellor may require any professional body (within the meaning of section 22 of this Act) to make payments of such amount as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate to the Ombudsman towards meeting the expenditure incurred (or to be incurred) by him in the discharge of his functions.
  (1A) To the extent that that expenditure is not met by payments under sub-paragraph (1). it shall be met by the Lord Chancellor out of money provided by Parliament."").
  85 Insert the following new clause—

  THE COMMISSIONER
  (".—(1) The Lord Chancellor may appoint a person as Legal Services Complaints Commissioner.
  (2) Any appointment of a person as Commissioner shall be for a period of not more than three years; and a person appointed as Commissioner shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
  (3) At the end of his term of appointment the Commissioner shall be eligible for re-appointment.
  (4) The Commissioner shall not be an authorised advocate, authorised litigator, licensed conveyancer or authorised practitioner (within the meaning of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990) or a notary.
  (5) Schedule (Legal Services Complaints Commissioner) (which makes further provision about the Commissioner) has effect")
  86 Insert the following new clause—

  COMMISSIONER'S FUNCTIONS
  (".—(1) If it appears to the Lord Chancellor that complaints about members of any professional body are not being handled effectively and efficiently, he may by direction require the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner to consider exercising in relation to the body such of the powers in subsection (2) as are specified in the direction.
  (2) Those powers are—

  (a) to require a professional body to provide information, or make reports, to the Commissioner about the handling of complaints about its members,

  (b) to investigate the handling of complaints about the members of a professional body,

  (c) to make recommendations in relation to the handling of complaints about the members of a professional body,

  (d) to set targets in relation to the handling of complaints about the members of a professional body, and

  (e) to require a professional body to submit to the Commissioner a plan for the handling of complaints about its members.

  (3) Where the Commissioner requires a professional body to submit to him a plan for the handling of complaints about its members but the body—

  (a) fails to submit to him a plan which he considers adequate for securing that such complaints are handled effectively and efficiently, or

  (b) submits to him such a plan but fails to handle complaints in accordance with it,

  he may require the body to pay a penalty.
  (4) Before requiring a professional body to pay a penalty under subsection (3) the Commissioner shall afford it a reasonable opportunity of appearing before him to make representations.
  (5) The Lord Chancellor shall by order made by statutory instrument specify the maximum amount of any penalty under subsection (3).
  (6) In determining the amount of any penalty which a professional body is to be required to pay under subsection (3) the Commissioner shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including in particular—

  (a) the total number of complaints about members of the body and, where the penalty is imposed in respect of a failure to handle complaints in accordance with a plan, the number of complaints not so handled, and

  (b) the assets of the body and the number of its members.

  (7) A penalty under subsection (3) shall be paid to the Commissioner who shall pay it to the Lord Chancellor.
  (8) Where a direction under subsection (1) in relation to a professional body has been given (and not revoked), section 24(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (power of Legal Services Ombudsman to make recommendations about arrangements for investigation of complaints) shall not have effect in relation to the body.
  (9) No order shall be made under subsection (5) unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
  (10) In this section "professional body" has the same meaning as in section 22 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.")
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 84 to 86.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 84 to 86.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  87 Clause 44, page 26, line 26, at end insert—
  ("(1A) In section 8(1B)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (power of Court to direct entry of judgment and verdict of acquittal on applications relating to order for retrial), after "to" insert "set aside the order for retrial and".
  (1B) In section 9(2) of that Act (right of appeal against sentence for summary offence), insert at the end "or sub-paragraph (4) of that paragraph.".")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 87. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 88 to 90 inclusive. They amend the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. These are technical and I hope uncontroversial amendments which correct drafting defects. They are necessary to facilitate a consolidation Bill in a future Session of Parliament.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 87.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  88 Clause 88, page 26, line 27, leave out ("the Criminal Appeal Act 1968") and insert ("that Act")
  89 Page 26, leave out line 30 and insert ("to (5).")
  90 Page 26, line 38, at end insert—
  ("(5) In subsection (4) (calculation of length of term of imprisonment), after "imprisonment" insert "or detention".")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 88 to 90.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 88 to 90.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  91 Clause 47, transpose Clause 47 to after Clause 52
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 91. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 95, 133 and 236.
  Amendment No. 95 inserts a new clause to correct an unfortunate anomaly in the law relating to the holding of judicial office. It will allow serving UK judges to be seconded to international and European courts.
  At the moment, if a serving judge wishes to take up a temporary appointment on an international or European court, he has to resign from the Bench. That is obviously unsatisfactory. The judge must give up office with no promise of later appointment and this country might lose the opportunity of demonstrating commitment to the international court by being represented on it by a senior serving judge of high quality. That is in marked contrast to arrangements in other countries which use, frequently represented abroad by some of their most distinguished judges.

  469
  Parliament took the opportunity in the Human Rights Act 1998 to rectify that anomaly for appointments to the European Court of Human Rights. The United Kingdom is now represented on that court by a High Court judge. This new clause makes more general provision than was possible within the scope of that Act.
  The clause applies to the courts of the European Community and allows the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State for Scotland to designate other international courts to which judges can be seconded. While a judge is seconded, he or she will retain their UK office without having to perform any of the duties of that office. On the other hand, they will have no right to receive their United Kingdom salary and they will not accrue any additional benefits from their judicial pension scheme.
  Provision is also made to ensure that the United Kingdom courts do not suffer through the absence of one of their judges by providing that a seconded judge does not count against the maximum number of judges permitted by law. Because the end of a secondment may not coincide with the retirement or promotion of a judge whom the returning judge could replace, power is taken to make transitional provisions when an appointment to an international court ends.
  Amendment No. 133 provides for new Clause 68 to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, and Amendment No. 236 extends the Long Title of the Bill. The Motion standing in my name to move Clause 47 will bring together the various clauses about judicial posts.
  This simple measure will allow the United Kingdom to demonstrate its commitment to the courts of the European Communities and of the wider international community and ensure that those courts benefit from the best judges this country has to offer.
  As I said, the new clause is modelled on the provision already included in the Human Rights Act. However, the new clause differs from the version in the Human Rights Act in one particular respect which concerns judicial pensions. The amendments put down by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, seek to change the new clause so that it replicates exactly what was in the Human Rights Act in respect of judicial pensions. I should like again to acknowledge the role played by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in securing the earlier provision during the passage of the Human Rights Act. But I hope to explain why I believe that in this case his amendments are not appropriate.
  In the case of the Human Rights Act, the relevant section provides that, subject to the making of an appropriate order, a judge seconded to the European Court of Human Rights can continue to accrue rights in his UK judicial pension scheme for the period of his service abroad. It was appropriate to make this provision because the Council of Europe does not itself provide pensions for judges of the European Court of Human Rights. The new clause does not replicate this facility for a judge seconded to other international courts for the reason, quite simply, that this new clause is designed to apply to international courts which do provide pensions
  470
  or equivalent benefits to their judges. My understanding is that all of the various courts in relation to which we can envisage this provision applying either do, or are likely to, provide pension benefits. The European Court of Human Rights was therefore an unusual exception in this regard.
  Clearly, if an international court already provides pension benefits, there is no need also to provide benefits under the UK judicial pension scheme. I am sure that no one would accept that a judge should receive pension benefits twice over in respect of the same period of service on top of a generous and tax free European salary.
  It is possible, of course, that a new international court or tribunal could be created at some time in the future which does not provide pension benefits to its judges. In that event we could consider whether it was appropriate to make a further legislative provision regarding judicial pensions which would—like that contained in the Human Rights Act—be specific to the particular court. However, as I said, we are not presently aware of any instances where this is likely to be necessary.
  In view of that, it would be risky to create in this new clause—as the noble and learned Lord's amendments would do—a provision which could have the effect of obliging us to provide benefits under the UK judicial pension scheme even where a judge was also receiving pension benefits from an international court at the same time. As this new clause can potentially apply in relation to any and all international courts, I submit that it would not be sensible to make such an open-ended commitment.
  I hope therefore that the noble and learned Lord will be reassured that the reason for the difference on which he has focused attention is not to deprive judges of pensions to which they would properly be entitled; rather, it is that there is simply no need, in relation to courts other than the European Court of Human Rights, for the particular provision on judicial pensions which he seeks. If an example arises in future where the need does arise, we can consider it at that time. I accordingly invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendments. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 91.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for setting out the reason why the generosity which so affected me and my recollection could not be repeated. Perhaps he can tell me this: do the other courts that all have pension facilities have facilities of the same value as are achieved in this country? If they are not of the same value and are less, or significantly less, they may as a result of this clause put off the judge most appropriate to be seconded because of the effect on his pension. Can my noble and learned friend help me in that regard? I would have thought it surprising if these international courts all had pension facilities which would equal or surpass that which is available in this country. I say that without prejudice to my view that the pension provisions

  471
  in this country are grossly inadequate compared to what is payable in Australia, in Canada, in New Zealand and obviously in America.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I thought at first that the noble and learned Lord was comparing British judicial pensions favourably with those on the continent of Europe when he was fearing the possibility that pensions there might be less. But he quickly corrected himself and said that all of this was without prejudice to his general position that judicial pensions are inadequate in this country—although basically they provide that after 20 years service the judge will retire on half pension, index linked and with a fairly massive tax-free capital sum as well.
  Of course I cannot tell the noble and learned Lord that I know the detail of every possible pension scheme that may arise in these international European courts in the future. But the remuneration packages are very generous and I would be surprised if the pension benefits were not equally generous. But if any problem of this kind arises in the future, we will address it in the circumstances of the time.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  92 After Clause 47, insert the following new clause—

  POWER OF HIGH COURT TO VARY COMMITTAL IN DEFAULT
  (". In the Supreme Court Act 1981, after section 43 insert—
  "Power of High Court to vary committal in default.
  43ZA.—(1) Where the High Court quashes the committal of a person to prison or detention by a magistrates' court or the Crown Court for—

  (a) a default in paying a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction; or

  (b) want of sufficient distress to satisfy such a sum,

  the High Court may deal with the person for the default or want of sufficient distress in any way in which the magistrates' court or Crown Court would have power to deal with him if it were dealing with him at the time when the committal is quashed.
  (2) If the High Court commits him to prison or detention, the period of imprisonment or detention shall, unless the High Court otherwise directs, be treated as having begun when the person was committed by the magistrates' court or the Crown Court (except that any time during which he was released on bail shall not be counted as part of the period)."").
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 92. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 93.
  Amendment No. 92 adds a new clause to amend the Supreme Court Act 1981 to enable the High Court to set an appropriate penalty where a magistrates' court or the Crown Court has unlawfully passed a sentence of imprisonment or detention on a fine defaulter. The amendment is required because of a loophole in Section 43 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, which came to light in a recent judgment by Lord Justice Brooke and Mr Justice Sedley in the case of Regina v St Helen's
  472
  Justices ex parte Marlene Ann Jones and others. The effect of the amendment is that the High Court could quash an incorrect committal and reconsider the case in the light of the present circumstances of the wrongfully committed offender.
  Amendment No. 93 moves Clause 51 in order to group together clauses related to the High Court in a more logical structure. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 92.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  93 Clause 51, transpose Clause 51 to after Clause 47
  11.30 p.m.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 93. I have just spoken to this amendment. I commend it to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 93.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  94 After Clause 51, insert the following new clause—

  TIME LIMITS WHERE ACCUSED SENT FOR TRIAL
  (".—(1) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (regulations about service of evidence where a person is sent without committal proceedings to Crown Court)—

  (a) in sub-paragraph (1) (regulations to provide that evidence be served on or before the relevant dale) omit the words "on or before the relevant date" and after paragraph (b) insert "before the expiry of the period prescribed by the regulations; but the judge may at his discretion extend or further extend that period.", and

  (b) for sub-paragraph (2) substitute—

  "(2) The regulations may make provision as to the procedure to be followed on an application for the extension or further extension of a period under sub-paragraph (1) above."
  (2) In section 13(1) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (transitional time limits relating to service of unused material), after paragraph (c) insert—
  "(ca) copies of the documents containing the evidence on which the charge or charges are based are served on the accused (where this Part applies by virtue of section I(2)(cc)),".
  (3) In section 22 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (time limits in preliminary stages of criminal proceedings), in paragraph (a) of the definition of "appropriate court" in subsection (1.1) (which has effect so as to allow the Crown Court to extend time limits where the accused is committed for trial or indicted), after "trial" insert ", sent for trial under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998".")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, ] beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 94. With the leave of the House, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 127, 130, 219 and 220.

  473
  Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides for regulations about the service of evidence where a person is sent without committal proceedings to the Crown Court under Section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The intention is to set a fixed timetable for the service of the evidence so as to speed up the progress of these cases.
  The existing formulation has led to difficulties since the regulations can only set a single period within which, in all cases, the evidence must be served. But plainly some cases are more complex than others and require more preparation time. The result has been that the regulations made for the current pilots have prescribed a date one year after the case is sent to the Crown Court, in order to ensure that the requirement can be satisfied even in the more complex cases. That length of time is not necessary in the vast majority of cases. The new clause inserted by Amendment No. 94 therefore amends Schedule 3 by allowing the judge to have discretion.
  Amendments Nos. 219 and 220 make related repeals, and Amendments Nos. 127 and 130 provide for the commencement of this and other provisions. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 94.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  95 After Clause 51, insert the following new clause—

  JUDGES HOLDING OFFICE IN EUROPEAN OR INTERNATIONAL COURTS
  (".—(1) A holder of a United Kingdom judicial office may hold office in a relevant international court without being required to relinquish the United Kingdom judicial office.
  (2) In this section—
  "United Kingdom judicial office" means the office of—

  (a) Lord Justice of Appeal, Justice of the High Court or Circuit judge, in England and Wales,

  (b) judge of the Court of Session or sheriff, in Scotland, or

  (c) Lord Justice of Appeal, judge of the High Court or county court judge, in Northern Ireland, and

  "relevant international court" means—

  (a) any court established for any purposes of the European Communities, or

  (b) any international court (apart from the European Court of Human Rights) which is designated for the purposes of this section by the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State.

  (3) A holder of a United Kingdom judicial office who also holds office in a relevant international court is not required to perform any duties as the holder of the United Kingdom judicial office but does not count as holding the United Kingdom judicial office—

  (a) for the purposes of section 12(1) to (6) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, section 9(1)(c) or (d) of the Administration of Justice Act 1973, section 18 of the Courts Act 1971, section 14 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907 or section 106 of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 (judicial salaries),

  474

  (b) for the purposes of, or of any scheme established by and in accordance with, the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993, the Judicial Pensions Act 1981, the Sheriffs' Pensions (Scotland) Act 1961 or the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 (judicial pensions), or

  (c) for the purposes of section 2(1) or 4(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, section 1(1) of the Court of Session Act 1988 or section 2(1) or 3(1) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (judicial numbers).

  (4) If the sheriff principal of any sheriffdom also holds office in a relevant international court, section 11(1) of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 (temporary appointment of sheriff principal) applies as if the office of sheriff principal of that sheriffdom were vacant.
  (5) The appropriate Minister may by order made by statutory instrument make in relation to a holder of a United Kingdom judicial office who has ceased to hold office in a relevant international court such transitional provision (including, in particular, provision for a temporary increase in the maximum number of judges) as he considers appropriate.
  (6) In subsection (5) "appropriate Minister" means—

  (a) in relation to any United Kingdom judicial office specified in paragraph (a) or (c) of the definition in subsection (2), the Lord Chancellor, and

  (b) in relation to any United Kingdom judicial office specified in paragraph (b) of that definition, the Secretary of State.

  (7) A statutory instrument containing an order made under subsection (5) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 95.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 95.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton,)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 95A and 95B, as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 95, not moved.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  96 After Clause 52, insert the following new clause—

  ADJOURNMENT OF INQUEST IN EVENT OF JUDICIAL INQUIRY
  (".—(1) In the Coroners Act 1988, after section 17 insert—
  "Adjournment of inquest in event of judicial inquiry.
  17A.—(1) If on an inquest into a death the coroner is informed by the Lord Chancellor before the conclusion of the inquest that—

  (a) a public inquiry conducted or chaired by a judge is being, or is to be, held into the events surrounding the death; and

  (b) the Lord Chancellor considers that the cause of death is likely to be adequately investigated by the inquiry,

  the coroner shall, in the absence of any exceptional reason to the contrary, adjourn the inquest and, if a jury has been summoned, may, if he thinks fit, discharge them.
  (2) Where a coroner adjourns an inquest in compliance with subsection (1) above, he shall send to the registrar of deaths a certificate under his hand stating, so far as they have been ascertained at the date of the certificate, the particulars which under the 1953 Act are required to be registered concerning the death.
  (3) Where a coroner has adjourned an inquest in compliance with subsection (1) above, the Lord Chancellor shall send him the findings of the public inquiry as soon as reasonably practicable after their publication.
  (4) A coroner may only resume an inquest which has been adjourned in compliance with subsection (1) above if in his opinion there is exceptional reason for doing so; and he shall not do so—

  (a) before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the findings of the public inquiry are published; or

  (b) if the Lord Chancellor notifies the coroner that this paragraph applies, before the end of the period of 28 clays beginning with the day on which the public inquiry is concluded.

  (5) Where a coroner resumes an inquest which has been adjourned in compliance with subsection (1) above—

  (a) the provisions of section 8(3) above shall not apply in relation to that inquest; and

  (b) if he summons a jury (but not where he resumes without a jury, or with the same jury as before the adjournment), he shall proceed in all respects as if the inquest had not previously begun and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly as if the resumed inquest were a fresh inquest.

  (6) Where a coroner does not resume an inquest which he has adjourned in compliance with subsection (1) above, he shall (without prejudice to subsection (2) above) send to the registrar of deaths a certificate under his hand stating any Findings of the public inquiry in relation to the death."
  (2) In section 8(4) of that Act (power to summon jury), for "either before he proceeds to hold an inquest" substitute "before he proceeds to hold an inquest, on resuming an inquest begun with a jury after the inquest has been adjourned and the jury discharged".
  (3) In the sidenote to section 16 of that Act (adjournment of inquest in certain cases), for "certain cases" substitute "event of criminal proceedings".")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 96.
  The amendment inserts a new clause which amends the Coroners Act 1988 to make provision for coroners' inquests to be adjourned where the death in question is likely to be investigated adequately by a judicial inquiry set up to inquire into the wider events in which the death occurred. The inquest would be resumed only in exceptional circumstances.
  The new clause reflects the recommendations of the report of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Disasters and Inquests, which was published in 1997, and which concluded that there was some overlap between coroners' inquests and public inquiries. It concluded that there was not normally a need to hold a public judicial inquiry and a full inquest. The duplication prolonged the investigation unnecessarily and could cause additional distress to the relatives of the deceased.
  This is a small but very useful reform which I commend to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 96.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  97 Clause 55, page 29, line 41, at end insert ("; but a commission area may not consist of an area partly within and partly outside Greater London.")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 97. With the leave of the House, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 101 to 113 inclusive, 183 to 193 inclusive, 197, 203, 204, 207, 221, 222, 224 to 227 inclusive, and 231.
  These government amendments all provide: for the establishment of the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority, replacing the existing 22 magistrates' courts committees as the magistrates' courts committee for Greater London.
  The provisions for the new authority broadly mirror those in place for all other magistrates' courts committees in England and Wales. Some of the amendments provide for arrangements that differ from the existing national framework in order to accommodate the particular circumstances in London. The more significant of these are: Amendment No. 108, which requires the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority, rather than the local authorities, to provide accommodation, goods and services; and Amendment No. 207, which provides for the transfer of property from the local authorities to the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority. The remainder of these amendments cover the detail of the functional, financial and transitional arrangements necessary for establishing the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority and make consequential changes to other Acts. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 97.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  98 After Clause 57, insert the following new clause—

  YOUTH COURTS
  (".—(1) Part I of the Second Schedule to the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (constitution of youth courts outside the metropolitan area) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5).
  (2) Omit the headings "Outside Metropolitan Area" and "Youth court panels".
  (3) Omit paragraph 1 (exclusion of inner London and the City of London from the scope of Part I).
  (4) In paragraph 8 (as amended by Schedule 7) (prohibition on forming combined youth court panel unless the area consists of single commission area), at the end insert ", or includes the City of London".
  (5) For paragraph 9 substitute—
  "9. No order under this Schedule shall provide for the formation of a combined youth panel for an area unless the area consists of, or is wholly included in, the area of a single magistrates' courts committee."
  (6) Omit Part II of that Schedule (particular provision for inner London and the City).")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in

  477
  their Amendment No. 98. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 182, 194, 201, 223 and 228 to 230 inclusive.
  This group of amendments provides for the operation of the youth courts in the light of other changes made in this Bill. Schedule 11 to the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 contains provisions relating to the constitution of the youth courts. These are different for the Metropolitan area, that is Inner London and the City, and the rest of the country, including the rest of Greater London. Outside the Metropolitan area much of the detail is set out in rules. However, in the Metropolitan area the relevant provisions are set out in primary legislation.
  Amendment No. 98 creates a common legislative framework for youth courts throughout the country. Amendment No. 194 deals with the position of District Judges (magistrates' courts). Amendment No. 201 makes transitional provisions and Amendments Nos. 223 and 228 to 230 inclusive restructure the schedule of repeals to take account of Amendment No. 98. Amendment No. 182 is simply a drafting improvement. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 98.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  99 Clause 60, page 34, line 23, leave out from ("(which") to ("has") in line 25 and insert ("makes provision about the enforcement of community orders by the Crown Court)")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 99. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 100, 195, 196 and 235. These are minor amendments relating to Clause 60 and Schedule 9, which deal with community orders made by the Crown Court.
  Amendment No. 195 removes an unnecessary provision in paragraph 9 of Schedule 9. Paragraph 9(2) inserts references in paragraph 8(1)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 into three other statutes. Paragraph 8(1)(a) deals with applications to the Crown Court to revoke community orders which the Crown Court itself has made. The insertions are unnecessary because the three other statutes in question provide only for magistrates' courts to make community orders, not the Crown Court.
  Amendments Nos. 100, 196 and 235 move Clause 60, Schedule 9 and the related repeals to different points in the Bill to give it a better overall structure. Amendment No. 99 is a drafting amendment consequential to this. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 99.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  100 Clause 60, transpose Clause 60 to after Clause 51
  101 Clause 62, page 35, line 27, after ("shall") insert—

  ("(a) consist of the whole of one or more commission areas or be included wholly within a single commission area, and

  (b)")

  102 Clause 63, page 38, leave out lines 19 to
  103 Clause 64, page 38, line 44, after ("body") insert ("corporate")
  104 Page 38, line 46, leave out ("Greater London Magistrates' Courts")
  105 page 39, leave out lines 1 and 2
  106 page 39, leave out lines 10 to 19 and insert ("and
  (b) provision about the Authority's constitution and procedure (including quorum and meetings).")
  107 page 39, line 23, at end insert—
  ("Procedure of Authority.
  30C.—(1) The Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority may, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, act through committees appointed by the Authority which, if they include at least one member of the Authority, may also include persons who are not members.
  (2) The Authority may also arrange for the discharge of any of their functions—

  (a) by the chairman of the Authority; or

  (b) by the justices' chief executive.

  (3) Subject to regulations made under this Act, the Authority shall have power to regulate their own procedure, including quorum.").
  108 page 39, ]eave out lines 25 to 28 and insert—
  ("(2) After section 59 of that Act insert—
  "The Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority Functions.
  59A.—(1) The Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority shall provide such petty sessional court-houses and other accommodation, and such goods and services, as they may determine proper for the performance of the Authority's functions and those of—

  (a) the magistrates for Greater London;

  (b) any committee of the magistrates for Greater London; and

  (c) the justices' clerks for any part of Greater London.

  (2) The Authority may do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the exercise of the function in subsection (1) above; but the Authority may not borrow money except insofar as authorised by any other enactment to do so.
  Funding.
  59B.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may pay grants to the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority in respect of the Authority's expenditure.
  (2) Grants under this section shall be paid at such times, in such manner and subject to such conditions as the Lord Chancellor may with the concurrence of the Treasury determine.
  (3) Each London local authority shall pay to the Authority such amount in respect of—

  (a) any kind of the Authority's expenditure in any year; or

  (b) if less, such amount as may, in relation to that kind of expenditure and that year, be for the time being determined by the Lord Chancellor,

  as may be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Lord Chancellor by statutory instrument.
  (4) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision as to the making of payments under subsection (3) above, including provision—

  (a) as to whether payments are to be made by instalments or otherwise;

  (b) as to the time when payments are to be made;

  (c) conferring a right to interest on anything unpaid; and

  (d) permitting a London local authority to anticipate a payment under this section when making calculations in accordance with section 32 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (originally or by way of substitute).

  (5) The Lord Chancellor may with the consent of the Treasury make provision by regulations made by statutory instrument as to how any kind of the Authority's expenditure is to be determined.
  (6) Subject to any such regulations, the Lord Chancellor may direct that in determining any kind of the Authority's expenditure there shall be taken into account or disregarded, to such extent as may be specified in the direction, such items as nay be so specified.
  (7) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by virtue of this, section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (8) In this section "London local authority" means the council of any London borough or the Common Council of the City of London.
  Consultation.
  59C.—(1) The Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority shall consult each London local authority before making any determination under section 59A(1) above or any determination as to—

  (a) the salary to be paid to a justices' clerk or justices' chief executive and to staff of the Authority; or

  (b) the nature and amount of the expenses which the Authority may incur in the discharge of their functions or may authorise to be incurred.

  (2) Any London local authority which is aggrieved by such a determination may, within one month from the receipt by the London local authority of written notice of the determination, appeal to the Lord Chancellor, whose decision shall be binding upon the Authority and the London local authority concerned.
  (3) In this section, "London local authority" has the same meaning as in section 59B above.
  Accounting.
  59D.—(1) The Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority shall keep a fund to be known as the GLMCA fund.
  (2) All the Authority's receipts shall be paid into the GLMCA fund and all the Authority's expenditure shall be paid out of it.
  (3) The Authority shall—

  (a) keep accounts of payments made into or out of the GLMCA fund; and

  (b) make arrangements for the proper administration of their financial affairs.

  (4) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision applying—

  (a) Part VIII of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (financial administration); and

  (b) Part II of the Audit Commission Act 1998 (accounts and audit of public bodies),

  to the Authority, with or without modifications and exceptions.
  (5) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by virtue of this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  Provisions applying to all magistrates' courts committees'"..
  (3) Schedule (The Greater London Magistrates Courts' Authority) (which makes provision supplemental^ to this section) shall have effect.")
  109 Clause 65, page 39, line 31, leave out ("56") and insert ("59D and the heading after that section (inserted by section 64 above)")
  110 Page 39, line 32, leave out ("56A") and insert ("59E")
  111 Page 39, line 36, after ("55(1)") insert ("or 59A(1)")
  112 Page 40, line 11, leave out ("56A(2)") and insert ("59E(2)")
  113 Page 40, line 19, leave out ("56A") and insert ("59E")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 100 to 113. I have already spoken to them.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos.100 to 113.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  114 After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—

  POWER TO DIRECT IMPLEMENTATION OF INSPECTORS' RECOMMENDATIONS
  (". In section 62 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 (inspectors of the magistrates' courts service), after subsection (4) insert—
  "(4A) If pursuant to this section a recommendation is made for the taking of any action by a magistrates' courts committee, the Lord Chancellor may give a direction requiring the committee to take the recommended action within a period specified in the direction."").
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 114. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 115, 131, 202, 205 and 206. Amendment No. 114 adds a new clause to the Bill which gives the Lord Chancellor the power to direct a magistrates' courts committee to implement a recommendation made by Her Majesty's Magistrates Courts Inspectorate.
  Magistrates courts committees are responsible under statute for the efficient and effective administration of the magistrates' courts for their areas. MCCs are made up almost entirely of lay magistrates and, supported by the justices' chief executive, provide local management of the magistrates' courts. The Government value and intend to preserve that.

  481
  Under the 1997 Act the Lord Chancellor currently has powers to require MCCs to act in accordance with directions. He can set performance standards and make regulations requiring committees to produce reports and plans and also make regulations requiring them to keep prescribed accounts. If an MCC fails to discharge a statutory duty the Lord Chancellor has the default power to remove one or more members of the committee and if the failure continues, to remove the whole committee.
  MCCs are subject to inspection by the Magistrates' Courts Services Inspectorate. If an MCC is failing the inspectorate will invariably be asked to make a special report. All reports include recommendations for improvement. In most cases MCCs take steps to improve. However, there have been cases in which action has been inadequate. The new power will give the Lord Chancellor a means of dealing with cases of this sort by directing that that the recommendation be complied with. The default power to remove members of the committee will be available if the Lord Chancellor's direction is not complied with. This fits into a graduated response to an MCCs failure. The Lord Chancellor does not intend to use it as a matter of routine but only when, for example, he considers that an MCC has had the opportunity to take action but has failed to do so. The new clause inserted by Amendment No. 115 complements the power to require magistrates' courts committees to administer magistrates' courts in an efficient and effective manner. It enables the Lord Chancellor to introduce a code of conduct to be followed by members of magistrates' courts committees and the panels that select them.
  Amendment No. 115 provides the Lord Chancellor with the power to introduce a code of conduct and, should it ever become necessary, remove individual members of courts' committees or selection panels who fail to comply with the code. It is only right that individuals, as well as the whole body, should be accountable for their actions.
  Amendment No. 131 ensures that the new clause will come into force two months after Royal Assent. Amendments Nos. 202, 205 and 206 make consequential changes.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 114.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  115 After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—

  CODE OF CONDUCT
  (". In the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, after section 39 insert—
  "Code of conduct for members etc.
  39A.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may prepare a code of conduct to be observed by—

  (a) members of magistrates' courts committees; and

  (b) members of selection panels for choosing members of such committees.

  (2) The Lord Chancellor may from time to time prepare a revised version of the code.
  (3) Before preparing the code or a revised version of the code the Lord Chancellor shall undertake such consultation as appears to him to be appropriate.
  (4) The code, and any revised version of the code, shall come into force as provided by an order made by the Lord Chancellor by statutory instrument; and an order providing for the coming into force of the code or a revised version shall set out the code or revised version.
  (5) A statutory instrument containing an order made by virtue of subsection (4) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  Non-compliance with code.
  39B.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may make an order under subsection (2) below if he is of the opinion that—

  (a) a member of a magistrates' courts committee; or

  (b) a member of a selection panel for choosing members of such a committee,

  has, without reasonable excuse, failed to observe the code.
  (2) An order under this subsection shall state that the Lord Chancellor is of the opinion mentioned in subsection (1) above and may provide either or both of the following—

  (a) that, on the making of the order, the person is to cease to be a member of the committee or selection panel concerned or to cease to be such a member for a specified period; or

  (b) that, for a specified period, the person may not be appointed (or co-opted) as a member of any magistrates' courts committee or any selection panel for choosing members of such a committee.

  (3) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision for the purpose of establishing whether persons have failed to observe the code.
  (4) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by virtue of subsection (3) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."").
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 115.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 115.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  116 Clause 67, page 40, line 28, leave out ("in relation to") and insert ("appointed by")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 116. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 117 to 122, 198, 202, 208, 232, 233 and 234. Amendments Nos. 116 to 121 inclusive introduce some drafting improvements to the existing Clause 67. Clause 67 describes the role of justices' chief executives, their responsibility for making arrangements for the efficient and effective administration of magistrates' courts and their powers to delegate duties to the staff. Amendment No. 122 provides definitions to facilitate the construction of the amendments made by Schedule 10. Amendment No. 198 introduces a

  483
  replacement Schedule 10. It lists the many provisions that require amendment in order to transfer responsibility for administrative functions from justices' clerks to justices' chief executives. Amendment No. 208 makes a consequential change to Schedule 11. Amendments Nos. 232 to 234 are related repeals.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 116.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, Amendment No. 198 which inserts the new Schedule 10 is 31 pages long. It appears to have been necessary because the parliamentary draftsman discovered no less than 36 new Acts since the Bill was last before your Lordships' House containing references to justices' clerks which needed to be changed to justices' chief executives. Since this is simply a change in the name of the holder of the office, is it not possible to have a single amendment that provides that all references to justices' clerks should be treated as references to justices' chief executives? That may be sloppy drafting. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would be violently opposed to it. However, I wonder whether it would save a good deal of paper.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I wonder whether it would do so. I do not know. However, we are where we are and it is 10 to 12 at night. I believe that we should proceed as it is.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  117 Clause 67, page 40, line 37, after ("of) insert ("all of)
  118 Page 40, line 43, leave out ("administrative responsibilities") and insert ("responsibility")
  119 Page 41, line 5, leave out ("in relation to") and insert ("appointed by")
  120 Page 41, line 11, leave out ("in relation to") and insert ("appointed by")
  121 Page 41, line 19, leave out ("in relation to") and insert ("appointed by")
  122 Page 41, line 27, at end insert—
  ("() In section 40 of that Act (appointment of justices' chief executive), after subsection (1) insert—
  "(1A) The justices' chief executive appointed by a magistrates' courts committee is—

  (a) the justices' chief executive for every magistrates' court for the committee's area,

  (b) the justices' chief executive for every petty sessions area for which they are the committee, and

  (c) the chief executive to the justices acting for every such petty sessions area."").

  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 117 to 122.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 117 to 122.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  123 After Clause 72, insert the following new clause—

  DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION FOR ENFORCING WARRANTS
  (". In the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, alter section 125B (inserted by section 72(2) above) insert—
  "Disclosure of information for enforcing warrants.
  125C.—(1) Basic personal information held by a relevant public authority may, on the application of a justices' chief executive, be supplied by the authority to him (or to a justices' clerk appointed by, or member of the staff of, his magistrates' courts committee who is specified in the application) for the purpose of facilitating the enforcement of a section 125A(1) warrant which is so specified.
  (2) In this section—
  "basic personal information" means a person's name, date of birth or national insurance number or the address (or any of the addresses) of a person;
  "relevant public authority" means a Minister of the Crown, government department, local authority or chief officer of police specified in an order made by the Lord Chancellor; and
  "a section 125A(1) warrant" means a warrant to which section 125A(1) above applies and which has been issued by a justice of the peace to whom the justices' chief executive making the application is chief executive.
  (3) Information supplied to any person under subsection (1) above, or this subsection, for the purpose of facilitating the enforcement of a section 125 A(1) warrant may be supplied by him for that purpose to—

  (a) any person entitled to execute the warrant;

  (b) any employee of a body or person who, for the purposes of section 125B above, is an approved enforcement agency in relation to the warrant; or

  (c) any person who is the justices' chief executive, a justices' clerk or a member of the staff of the magistrates' courts committee whose justices' chief executive made the application for the information.

  (4) A person who intentionally or recklessly—

  (a) discloses information supplied to him under this section otherwise than as permitted by subsection (3) above; or

  (b) uses information so supplied otherwise than for the purpose of facilitating the enforcement of tine section 125 A(1) warrant concerned,

  commits an offence.
  (5) But it is not an offence under subsection (4) above—

  (a) to disclose any information in accordance with any enactment or order of a court or for the purposes of an y proceedings before a court; or

  (b) to disclose any information which has previously been lawfully disclosed to the public.

  (6) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4) above is liable—

  (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; or

  (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

  (7) The power to make orders conferred by subsection (2) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".").
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 123. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 124 and 125. These amendments are designed to help track down a missing fine defaulter or community service dodger by enabling the courts to check whether other government agencies hold a more recent address for the offender in their records. Barriers to information sharing are among the biggest obstacles to effective enforcement. Over £50 million in fines was written off in 1997–98 alone, and it has been estimated that inability to trace the offender could account for as much as 30 per cent of the total. The Government believe it is quite unacceptable that offenders should be able to get away with their crimes while the taxpayer has to foot the bill.
  Amendment No. 123 will therefore enable the courts to obtain basic information about offenders from relevant public authorities for the purpose of warrant execution. Amendments Nos. 124 and 125 are consequential. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 123.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  11.45 p.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  124 Clause 74, page 46, line 10, leave out ("125B (inserted by section 72(2)") and insert ("125C (inserted by section (Disclosure of information for enforcing warrants)").
  125 Page 46, line 12, leave out ("125C") and insert ("125D").
  126 Clause 86, page 53, line 2, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections (1A) and").
  127 Page 53, line 5, at end insert ("and, in the case of section (Time limits where accused sent to Crown Court for trial)(2), for different areas.").
  128 Page 53, line 5, at end insert—
  ("(1A) Section (Fees on application for appointment as QC) shall come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.").
  129 Page 53, line 8, leave out ("Part II") and insert ("in Part II, sections 27 to (References by Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission)").
  130 Page 53, line 9, at end insert ("apart from section (Time limits where accused sent to Crown Court for trial)(2), section 60 and Schedule 9 and section (Adjournment of inquest in event of judicial inquiry),").
  131 Page 53, line 10, after (" 65") insert (", (Code of conduct)").
  132 Clause 87, page 53, line 19, leave out ("Part II and section") and insert ("Sections 27 to (References by Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission) and").
  133 Page 53, line 21, after ("Sections") insert ("(Judges holding office in European or international courts),").
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 124 to 133.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 124 to 133.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  134 Clause 88, page 53, line 35, leave out subsection (2).
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this is a privilege amendment. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 134.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 134.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  135 Schedule 1, page 55, line 28, leave out ("with the approval of the Treasury,").
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 135. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 136 to 141.
  The purpose of these seven amendments is to remove the requirement for Treasury consent or approval to arrangements for the pay, pensions and compensation of members and staff of the legal services commission.
  These amendments reflect the fact that it is no longer the practice for new legislation to make pay and pensions provisions for non-departmental public bodies subject to Treasury consent. The commission's pay and pensions arrangements will continue to be subject to the Lord Chancellor's approval, and the Lord Chancellor will consult the Treasury as appropriate on issues affecting spending and general policy on public pay, pensions and compensation terms.
  These are technical amendments designed to bring the relevant provisions in line with current Treasury policy. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 135.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  136 Schedule 1, page 55, line 32, leave out (", with the consent of the Treasury,")
  137 Page 55, line 33, leave out (", with the consent of the Treasury,")
  138 Page 55, line 46, leave out ("and consent of the Treasury")
  139 Page 55, line 49, leave out ("and the consent of the Treasury")
  140 Page 56, line 16, leave out ("and consent of the Treasury")
  141 Page 56, line 41, leave out (", with the consent of the Treasury,")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 136 to 141.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 136 to 141.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  142 Schedule 2, page 58, line 28, leave out from ("help") to end of line 5 on page 60 and insert ("(beyond the provision of general information about the law and the legal system and the availability of legal services) in relation to—

  (a) allegations of negligently caused injury, death or damage to property, apart from allegations relating to clinical negligence,

  (b) conveyancing,

  (c) boundary disputes,

  (d) the making of wills,

  (e) matters of trust law,

  (f) defamation or malicious falsehood,

  (g) matters of company or partnership law, or

  (h) other matters arising out of the carrying on of a business.

  2. Advocacy in any proceedings except—

  (1) proceedings in—

  (a) the House of Lords in its judicial capacity,

  (b) the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the exercise of its jurisdiction under the Government of Wales Act 1998. the Scotland Act 1998 or the Northern Ireland Act 1998,

  (c) the Court of Appeal,

  (d) the High Court,

  (e) any county court,

  (f) the Employment Appeal Tribunal, or

  (g) any Mental Health Review Tribunal,

  (2) proceedings in the Crown Court—

  (a) for the variation or discharge of an order under section 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997,

  (b) which relate to an order under section 4 or 10 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, or

  (c) under section 8 of that Act where the order is made by virtue of subsection (1)(c) of that section,

  (3) proceedings in a magistrates' court—

  (a) under section 43 or 47 of the National Assistance Act 1948, section 22 of the Maintenance Orders Act 1950, section 4 of the Maintenance Orders Act 1958 or section 106 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992,

  (b) under Part I of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 relating to a maintenance order made by a court of a country outside the United Kingdom,

  (c) in relation to an application for leave of the court to remove a child from a person's custody under section 27 or 28 of the Adoption Act 1976 or in which the
  488
  making of an order under Part II or section 29 or 55 of that Act is opposed by any party to the proceedings,

  (d) for or in relation to an order under Part I of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978,

  (e) under the Children Act 1989,

  (f) under section 30 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990,

  (g) under section 20 or 27 of the Child Support Act 1991,

  (h) under Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996,

  (i) for the variation or discharge of an order under section 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997,

  (j) under section I. 2, 8 or 11 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and

  (4) proceedings before any person to whom a case is referred (in whole or in part) in any proceedings within paragraphs (1) to (3).").

  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 142, which substitutes a new version of Schedule 2. Clause 5 of the Bill defines, in very broad terms, the services which the commission may provide as part of the community legal service. Schedule 2 lists categories of service and proceedings which proceedings are not, for the time being, eligible for funding under the community legal service.
  Amendment No. 142 simplifies and clarifies the drafting of Schedule 2. Although it is a lengthy amendment, it does not represent a change of policy. The redrafted schedule more accurately and clearly gives effect to the Government's intentions, as set out in the White Paper, and explained by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor during our debates on this topic. The original Schedule 2 was closely based on the provisions of the current Legal Aid Act. The revised schedule better reflects the new and very different structure of the community legal service. The original also contained some obsolete or unnecessary provisions. It lacked precision and clarity. This amendment revises. Schedule 2 to make it both more precise and concise.
  I shall first explain what the revised schedule provides, before I explain the changes that have been made to the original version.
  The revised schedule has two paragraphs. The first lists the areas of law for which the legal services commission may not fund any help except general information about the law, the legal system and the availability of legal services. In other words, in these categories specific advice about a case and more substantial services may not be funded by the legal services commission as part of the community legal service.
  The second paragraph lists the courts and proceedings for which the legal services commission may fund advocacy. This ranges from any proceedings in the county courts, for example, to specific proceedings in the magistrates' courts. Any other categories of case—that is, those not covered by paragraphs 1 or 2—will be eligible for all services except advocacy.

  489
  What are the reasons for the differences between the old and new versions. First, paragraphs 1 to 3 of the original schedule have been combined into one paragraph. Although the intended scope of each paragraph was the same, the wording was different because of the word "proceedings" in paragraphs 2 and 3. By avoiding that word, it has been possible to combine these paragraphs into one.
  The revised paragraph adopts the words of Clause 5(2)(a). It remains the Government's intention that the very basic services described in Clause 5(2)(a) should be available for all types of problem or case. Sub-paragraph (a) deals with the removal from scope of most personal injury cases. This is limited to injury allegedly caused by negligence and, as such, the exclusion would not apply, for example, to allegations of abuse or assault. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has repeatedly stated, some cases of negligently caused damage will remain eligible for public funding because they are not well-suited to conditional fees. For that reason, he intends to direct that cases with high overall or initial investigative costs, and cases of wider public interest shall remain eligible for consideration for funding.
  Sub-paragraphs 1(b) to (h) repeat the other exclusions previously set down in paragraphs 1 to 3 of Schedule 2. These are conveyancing, boundary disputes, the making of wills, matters of trust law, defamation or malicious falsehood, matters of company or partnership law and other matters arising out of the carrying on of a business. Within these broad exclusions, there are a number of specific matters which should continue to be eligible for funding; and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor intends to use his power to direct to provide for these also.
  First, he intends to provide for advice and assistance about wills and conveyancing in those circumstances where it is currently available under the Green Form scheme; for example, advice about wills for the disabled and the over-70s.
  The existing paragraph 3(d) allows funding for proceedings relating to a trust;
  "arising from the joint ownership or occupation of domestic property".
  The way in which the new paragraph 1 is drafted makes it unnecessary to refer specifically to this. The schedule does not exclude funding where an issue about a trust, or for that matter a company or partnership, arises in what is essentially an ancillary relief case.
  The exclusion in sub-paragraph (h) for matters arising out of the carrying on of a business is still intended to apply to businessmen bringing and defending cases, not to consumers bringing cases against businesses.
  Paragraph 4 of the original schedule has been removed, as it is unnecessary. It was drafted so as to mirror the provisions of the current Legal Aid Act.
  Paragraph 5 of the existing schedule deals with those proceedings for which the commission may fund representation. This is too broad a term, and has been changed to "advocacy" to reflect more accurately the scope of the existing scheme.
  490
  There are some other minor changes in paragraph 2. Amendment No. 142 makes the Bill clearer, simpler and shorter. I commend it to the House.
  Amendment No. 142A, moved by and in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would remove personal injury from the list of excluded categories in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said repeatedly in previous debates in this House that he is satisfied that the vast majority of personal injury work can be funded satisfactorily under conditional fee agreements. We do not consider it appropriate to use taxpayers' money to support litigation where a good alternative exists. Your Lordships know that the Government intend to increase access to justice. That means ensuring that the money available is spent to achieve the greatest effect.
  I have already said that for cases which cannot be wholly supported by a conditional fee, additional help will be available from the community legal service fund. This will mean that cases which have exceptionally high investigative or overall costs will still be eligible for help. And because public interest will also be a criterion in funding decisions, some cases which would not currently be given legal aid may qualify under the new scheme. For these reasons, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment No. 142A.
  Amendment No. 142B also seeks to amend the exclusion of personal injury. This amendment seeks to allow funding of a case where it was not reasonably practical for the case to be conducted on a conditional fee basis, and the case met the same criteria for funding as apply to a clinical negligence case.
  The first part of this amendment is, I submit, unnecessary because the exceptions we intend to make for high cost and public interest cases are specifically designed to catch that minority of personal injury cases that are not viable under a conditional fee agreement, but nevertheless merit funding. If, quite exceptionally, an individual case that demanded public funding fell into none of the three general exceptions, the legal services commission could seek the Lord Chancellor's authority to fund it under Clause 7(8)(b).
  As for the second part of Amendment No. 142B, I am puzzled why it is thought that the statute should require the same criteria for funding to apply to general personal injury cases and clinical negligence cases. Different types of case involve different issues. Each should be considered on its own merits, not against criteria designed for a another type of case. For these reasons, I also invite the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment No. 142B.
  Amendment No. 142C would extend legal aid for representation in hearings under Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already spoken about this subject in reply to Amendment No. 56A, and I shall not repeat him at this late hour. The Government will bring forward an alternative amendment in the Commons to ensure that conditional fees remain available in these cases. I therefore do not believe that this amendment is necessary and again invite the noble Lord to withdraw.
  Moved. That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 142.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

  AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 142
  142A Line 4, leave out paragraph (a).
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, it is most unfortunate that Amendments Nos. 142A and 142B, arguably the most important amendments in the whole of this debate, and certainly among the most important, have come up at a time of night which makes it absolutely impossible to debate them properly. I do not blame the Government specifically on this occasion. I recognise that inevitably the Northern Ireland Bill had to have priority and therefore consideration of the Commons Amendments to this Bill had to be put back until that had finished. Nevertheless, this is simply a particularly bad example of a problem which seems to be facing your Lordships' House more and more. It is a lottery, when we are considering important amendments, whether they will come on at a time of day which makes it possible to debate them properly and, if necessary, to divide.
  Needless to say, at this time of night, midnight—some five hours after we started this debate—I do not propose to move either amendment. Nevertheless this is the appropriate time to speak to them. I intend to do so as briefly as I can.
  These amendments raise the issue, much debated in your Lordships' House and the other place—
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord should move his Amendment No. 142A, which we have in front of us.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as I understood it, we were on Amendment No. 142, but in so far as it is necessary to move Amendment No. 142A, I shall do so for the record.
  I beg to move Amendment No. 142A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 142. These amendments raise the issue, much debated in your Lordships' House and the other place, of the exclusion of personal injury cases from legal aid except for cases of clinical negligence.
  The problem, I believe, is the immovable belief of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that conditional funding agreements are the answer to all difficulties. In his view they are the best thing since sliced bread, but like sliced bread, they are actually rather nasty.
  The noble and learned Lord says that legal aid is not necessary in personal injury cases because the CFAs, together with cost insurance, will be available in any case with a good chance of success. Even he admits that this is not so in clinical negligence cases. He says that if he is wrong on CFAs, he can always make an order altering the exclusions in Schedule 2. That may be so, but I believe that a lot of harm will be done on the way. We say that this is being done the wrong way round. So far, CFAs only have a substantial track record in road
  492
  accidents and industrial injury cases. They are unproven elsewhere and there is good reason to believe that they may not be effective.
  We should, therefore, retain the power to fund personal injury cases out of the community legal service until we are satisfied that CFAs do what the Lord Chancellor thinks they can do. Anything else creates a serious risk of injustice and it does so even though legal aid for personal injury cases does not save serious money.
  I am sure that the noble and learned Lord is fully aware of the figures: £502 million was recovered in damages in the year 1996–97. The legal aid accounts show a net cost to the Legal Aid Fund of £34 million. However, if we take into account the fact that nearly £33 million was recycled back to the Treasury as VAT on counsels' fees, the net loss to the Treasury on non-medical personal injury was under £1.5 million. That is peanuts compared with the net cost to the Legal Aid Fund of family litigation, which is by far the largest burden.
  This matter was raised in the House of Commons on Report when the House was divided by the honourable friend of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, Mr Robert Marshall-Andrews, QC—perhaps friend is a euphemism in that particular case. I believe that when he divided the House some 19 Labour Members supported the amendment. Of all the issues in the Bill, this is the one which has led to the widest concern among the non-legal public.
  I shall not go into the detail of how these amendments were intended to operate. They would simply have made it possible—particularly Amendment No. 1428, which is the one I preferred—to avoid what I believe will be a substantial injustice.
  Moved, That Amendment No. 142A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 142, be agreed to.—(Lord Goodhart.)
  Midnight
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I would prefer not to engage in a general debate about the advisability or otherwise of CFAs as we would simply revisit a matter that we have already discussed at considerable length—which would be especially redundant at this time of night.
  There is considerable merit in not adopting an overly heavy-handed and bureaucratic approach to cases where a person, for very good reasons—whatever they may be—is genuinely unable to procure a conditional fee agreement. I hope that my noble and learned friend will feel that it is appropriate to consider this matter rather differently than he did in his introduction.
  There are strong reasons to suppose that, in a minority of cases—and I think that it would be a minority; the Legal Services Commission should not face a heavy volume of applications when a conditional fee agreement is wholly appropriate and obtainable—solicitors could demonstrate that the cases were akin to clinical negligence cases. Those cases would be unusual

  493
  in nature and could be analysed swiftly as being appropriate for an approach of the kind envisaged in this amendment.
  I agree with the point made by the noble Lord that it is difficult to debate this matter properly at this stage in the proceedings. It is an important matter precisely because a minority of cases will be affected. I support the noble Lord in his amendment.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I rise to make two very short points. First, I support entirely what has already been said. Secondly, I put it to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that there is no need to introduce a black-and-white reform such as this. Given the statistics that are compelling in terms of the almost negligible cost to the Exchequer of the existing system, there does not seem to be any reason why we could not run legal aid and the conditional fee system side by side and see what happens. Equally, if we are to go the whole hog and maintain legal aid for personal injury cases, there is no reason why conditional fees should not be allowed for those who are not within the legal aid limits.
  Some of the most difficult claims and small claims of modest value—which are none the less enormously important to the litigants involved—are the sorts of cases that will get short shrift under the conditional fee system. Solicitors will be driven to have regard to their own self-interest and there will be cherrypicking and selection against the clients' interests. There are inherent conflicts and I cannot understand why the Government will not allow personal injury cases to remain within the ambit of legal aid.
  Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I had not planned to intervene, but I was interested in the remarks of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer on this matter. I think I heard him say that the Government would bring forward an amendment to deal with one of the aspects of this matter but would be doing it when the Bill goes back to the other place. Can my noble and learned friend explain to the House why the Government are planning to do that rather than table the amendment in this House so that it would then be available for the Commons to consider with all the other business that has to go back there from this end?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that point was discussed earlier in the context of the Environmental Protection Act. We have agreed to an amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in relation to environmental protection with a view to amending this Bill when it goes back to the Commons. The end result will be that conditional fees will still be available in relation to the Environmental Protection Act. That covers both the procedural aspect and the substance of it.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment No. 142A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 142, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 142B and 142C not moved.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  143 Schedule 3, page 60, line 9, leave out first ("of') and insert ("to")
  144 Page 60, line 12, leave out first ("of") and insert ("to")
  145 Page 60, leave out lines 17 to 31
  146 Page 60, line 34, leave out first ("of') and insert ("to")
  147 Page 60, line 35, at end insert—
  ("() Where a right to representation is granted for the purposes of criminal proceedings it includes the right to representation for the purposes of any related bail proceedings and any preliminary or incidental proceedings; and regulations may make provision specifying whether any proceedings are or are not to be regarded as preliminary or incidental.")
  148 Page 60, line 36, leave out first ("of') and insert ("to")
  149 Page 60, line 39, leave out third ("of') and insert ("to")
  150 Page 60, line 42, leave out ("before a court may be withdrawn by the court") and insert ("may be withdrawn by any court before which the proceedings take place; and a court must consider whether to withdraw a right to representation in such circumstances as may be prescribed.")
  151 Page 60, line 43, at end insert—
  ("(6) The powers of a magistrates' court for any area under this paragraph may be exercised by a single justice of the peace for the area.
  (7) Any rules under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 which provide for the functions of a single justice under sub-paragraph (6) to be exercised by a justices' clerk may make different provision for different areas.")
  152 Page 61, line 3, leave out first ("of') and insert ("to")
  153 Page 61, line 4, leave out ("of') and insert ("to")
  154 Page 61, line 6, leave out third ("of") and insert ("to")
  155 Page 61, line 13, leave out ("of') and insert ("to")
  156 Page 61, line 14, leave out ("of') and insert ("to")
  157 Page 61, line 16, leave out ("of') and insert ("to")
  158 Page 61, line 33, leave out ("of') and insert ("to")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 143 to 158. These amendments have already been spoken to.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 143 to 158.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  159 Schedule 4, page 61, line 46, at end insert—
  ("The Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c.19)
  In section 50 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (meaning of "sentence"), at the end insert—
  "(3) An order under section 17 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 is not a sentence for the purposes of this Act."").
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 159. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 160 to 179 inclusive and Amendments Nos. 209 to 214 inclusive.

  495
  This group makes amendments and repeals to other legislation consequential on the replacement of the existing legal aid scheme by the community legal service and criminal defence service. They supplement or correct the consequential amendments already set out in Schedule 4 to the Bill.
  Your Lordships will note in particular Amendments Nos. 162 and 173 which amend the Solicitors Act 1974 and the Administration of Justice Act 1985. These Acts provide for professional disciplinary tribunals to exclude solicitors and barristers from undertaking legal aid work. This sanction is predicated on the fact that, at present, all lawyers have a right to take legal aid cases and submit their bill to the Legal Aid Board for payment. In future, however, it will generally be for the legal services commission to decide with whom it will contract or otherwise engage to provide services. I commend these amendments to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 159.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  160 Schedule 4, page 62, leave out lines 2 to 9 and insert—
  (". The Children and Young Persons Act 1969 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  . In section 12AA(9) (restrictions on power to require young offender who is not legally represented to live in local authority accommodation)—

  (a) for paragraph (a) substitute—

  "(a) he was granted a right to representation funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service for the purposes of those proceedings but the right was withdrawn because of his conduct; or", and.

  (b) in paragraph (b), for "legal aid" substitute "such representation".

  . In section 23 (remands and committals to local authority accommodation), in subsection (5A) (restrictions on imposing a security requirement on person who is not legally represented)—

  (a) for paragraph (a) substitute

  "(a) he was granted a right to representation funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service but the right was withdrawn because of his conduct; or", and.

  (b) in paragraph (b), for "legal aid" substitute "such representation".

  . In that section as it has effect pursuant to section 98 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (alternative provision for 15 and 16 year old boys), in subsection (4A) (restrictions on remand of boy who is not legally represented)—

  (a) for paragraph (a) substitute

  "(a) he was granted a right to representation funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service but the right was withdrawn because of his conduct; or", and.

  (b) in paragraph (b), for "legal aid" substitute "such representation".")

  161 Page 62, leave out lines 16 to 28 and insert—
  ("5. In section 21(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 (restrictions on imposing sentence on person who is not legally represented)—

  (a) for paragraph (a) substitute—

  "(a) he was granted a right to representation funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service but the right was withdrawn because of his conduct; or", and.

  (b) in paragraph (b), for "legal aid" substitute "such representation".")

  162 Page 62, leave out lines 32 to 38 and insert—
  ("(2) In subsection (2)(d) (exclusion of solicitor from legal aid work), for "legal aid work" substitute "providing representation funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service".
  (3) In subsection (2A) (exclusion of solicitor from providing legal aid work because of conduct in connection with services under the Legal Aid Act 1988)—

  (a) for "legal aid work" substitute "providing representation", and

  (b) in paragraph (a), for "tinder the Legal Aid Act 1988" substitute "funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Community Legal Service or Criminal Defence Service".

  (4) In subsection (2B) (exclusion of member of solicitor's firm from legal aid work), for "legal aid work" substitute "providing representation funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service".
  (5) In subsection (2D) (person excluded from legal aid work may apply for termination of exclusion), for "legal aid work" substitute "providing representation funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service".")
  163 Page 63, leave out lines 32 and 33 and insert ("the words from "section 23" to "to" substitute "section 17(2) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 (payment by individual in respect of".")
  164 Page 63, line 41, leave out ("(a) of the Note") and insert ("1(a) of the Note at the end")
  165 Page 63, line 44, leave out ("or Criminal Defence Service")
  166 Page 64, line 1, at end insert—
  (". The Supreme Court Act 1981 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  . In section 28 (appeal by way of case stated from decisions of Crown Court, other than those relating to trial on indictment), at the end insert—
  "(4) In subsection (2)(a) the reference to a decision of the Crown Court relating to trial on indictment does not include a decision relating to an order under section 17 of the Access to Justice Act 1999."
  . In section 29 (judicial review of decisions of Crown Court, other than matters relating to trial on indictment), at the end insert—
  "(6) In subsection (3) the reference to the Crown Court's jurisdiction in matters relating to trial on indictment does not include its jurisdiction relating to orders under section 17 of the Access to Justice Act 1999."").
  167 Page 64, line 2, leave out ("of the Supreme Court Act 1981")
  168 Page 64, line 5, leave out ("requiring the payment of a contribution")
  169 Page 64, leave out lines 7 to 19 and insert—
  ("18. In section 3(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (restriction on imposing sentence on person under 21 who is not legally represented)—

  (a) for paragraph (i) substitute

  "(i) he was granted a right to representation funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service but the right was withdrawn because of his conduct; or", and.

  (b) in paragraph (ii), for "legal aid" substitute "such representation".")

  170 Page 64, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 65 and insert—

  ("(a) in paragraph (a), for the words from "include" to "of contribution;" substitute "the cost of representation funded for him by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service;", and

  (b) in paragraph (b), for the words from "and 19" to the end substitute ", 19 and 19A of this Act, his costs shall be taken to include the cost of representation funded for him by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service;".")

  171 Page 65, line 11, leave out ("or Criminal Defence Service")
  172 Page 65, line 21, leave out ("in connection with services provided by him by the Legal Services Commission") and insert ("by the Legal Services Commission in connection with services provided by him")
  173 Page 65, leave out lines 24 to 27 and insert—
  ("28.—(1) In section 42 (exclusion of barristers from legal aid work), in subsections (1) and (3), for "legal aid work" substitute "providing representation funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service".")
  174 Page 65, line 30, leave out ("in connection with services provided by the solicitor by the Legal Services Commission") and insert ("by the Legal Services Commission in connection with services provided by the solicitor")
  175 Page 66, line 26, at end insert ("or Criminal Defence Service")
  176 Page 66, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("(functions") in line 36 and insert ("In section 53(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991")
  177 Page 66, leave out lines 40 to 45
  178 Page 67, line 41, after ("of") insert (", in the second place,")
  179 Page 67, line 41, at end insert—
  ("The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37)
  . The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  . In section 50(2) (procedure at early administrative hearing), for paragraphs (a) to (c) substitute "the accused shall be asked whether he wishes to be granted a right to representation funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service and, if he does, the justice shall decide whether or not to grant him such a right."
  . In paragraph 3(8) of Schedule 3 (matters which may be contained in a report of an application for dismissal of charges), for paragraph (g) substitute—

  "(g) whether a right to representation funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service was granted to the accused or any of the accused."

  The Disability Rights Commission Act 1999
  . In section 8(4)(a) of the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999 (charges to recover costs of assistance in legal proceedings subject to any charge for benefit of Legal Aid Board), for the words from "under" to "Board" substitute "imposed by section 11(7) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 and any provision in, or made under, Part I of that Act for the payment of any sum to the Legal Services Commission".")
  180 After Schedule 6, insert the following new schedule—

  SCHEDULE POWERS OF LAW SOCIETY
  Monitoring of compliance with rules
  1. In section 31(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974 (power of Council of the Law Society to make rules about professional practice, conduct and discipline), insert at the end "and for empowering the Society to take such action as may be appropriate to enable the Society to ascertain whether or not the provisions of rules made, or of any code or guidance issued, by the Council are being complied with."
  Bank and building society accounts
  2. In—

  (a) section 32(4) of that Act (power of Council of the Law Society to disclose report or information about solicitor's accounts to Director of Public Prosecutions for investigation and prosecution of offences), and

  (b) paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (corresponding provision in relation to accounts of incorporated practices),

  omit "to the Director of Public Prosecutions" and ", if the Director thinks fit,")
  3. In the Solicitors Act 1974, after section 33 insert—
  "Inspection of practice bank accounts etc.
  33A.—(1) The Council may make rules, with the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls, empowering the Council to require a solicitor to produce documents relating to any account kept by him at a bank or with a building society—

  (a) in connection with his practice; or

  (b) in connection with any trust of which he is or formerly was a trustee,

  for inspection by a person appointed by the Council pursuant to the rules.
  (2) The Council shall be at liberty to disclose information obtained in exercise of the powers conferred by rules made under subsection (1) above for use in investigating the possible commission of an offence by the solicitor and for use in connection with any prosecution of the solicitor consequent on the investigation."
  4. In section 87(1) of that Act (interpretation), in the definition of "building society", omit "; and a reference to an account with a building society is a reference to a deposit account".
  5. In Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985, after paragraph 4 insert
  "Inspection of bank accounts
  4A. Where rules made under section 33A(1) of the 1974 Act are applied to recognised bodies in accordance with section 9(2)(f) of this Act, the Council shall be at liberty to disclose information about a recognised body's accounts obtained in pursuance of the rules for use in investigating the possible commission of an offence by that body and for use in connection with any prosecution of that body consequent on the investigation."
  Intervention for breach of rules on practice, conduct and discipline
  6. In Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (intervention in solicitor's practice), in paragraph 1(1) (circumstances in which Law Society may intervene), in paragraph (c) (failure to comply with rules made by virtue of section 32 or 37(2)(c)), after "section" insert "31,".
  Solicitors' employees and consultants
  7.—(1) Section 43 of that Act (control of employment of clerks) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (power of Law Society to apply to Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for order in the case of clerk guilty of an offence of dishonesty or other act which makes it undesirable for him to be employed by solicitor)—

  (a) for "a clerk to a solicitor" substitute "employed or remunerated by a solicitor in connection with his practice",

  (b) after "employed" (in both places) insert "or remunerated",

  (c) for "to whom he is or was clerk" substitute "by whom he is or was employed or remunerated", and

  (d) for the words from "an application" to the end substitute "the Society may either make, or make an application to the Tribunal for it to make, an order under subsection (2) with respect to him."

  (3) After that subsection insert—
  "(1A) Where the Society investigates whether there are grounds for making, or making an application to the Tribunal for it to make, an order under subsection (2) with respect to a person, the Council may direct him to pay to the Council an amount which—

  (a) is calculated by the Council as the cost to the Society of investigating the matter; or

  (b) in the opinion of the Council represents a reasonable contribution towards that cost."

  (4) In subsection (2) (order of Tribunal barring solicitor from employing the clerk)—

  (a) for the words from the beginning to "an order" substitute "An order under this subsection made by the Society or the Tribunal shall state", and

  (b) for "application is" substitute "order is".

  (5) For subsection (3) (revocation by Tribunal) substitute
  "(3) Where an order has been made under subsection (2) with respect to a person by the Society or the Tribunal,

  (a) that person or the Society may make an application to the Tribunal for it to be reviewed, and

  (b) whichever of the Society and the Tribunal made it may at any time revoke it.

  (3A) On the review of an order under subsection (3) the Tribunal may order—

  (a) the quashing of the order;

  (b) the variation of the order; or

  (c) the confirmation of the order;

  and where in the opinion of the Tribunal no prima facie case for quashing or varying the order is shown, the Tribunal may order its confirmation without hearing the applicant."
  (6) In subsection (5) (inspection of orders), for 'this section and filed with the Society" substitute "subsection (2) by the Society, or made, varied or confirmed under this section by the Tribunal and filed with the Society,".
  (7) In the sidenote, for "employment of certain clerks" substitute "solicitors' employees and consultants".
  8. In section 44(2) of that Act (breach of order by solicitor), for the words from "an order" to the end of paragraph (b) substitute "an order under section 43(2) is in force in respect of a person".
  9.—(1) Section 49 of that Act (appeals from Tribunal) is amended as follows.
  (2) in subsection (3) (who can appeal)—

  (a) for "43(2)" substitute "43(3A)", and

  (b) for "application" substitute "order".

  (3) In subsection (6) (finality of appeal), for "43(2)" substitute "43(3A)".
  10. In paragraph 11(1) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (control of employment of employees of recognised bodies)—

  (a) after "employed" (in each place) insert "or remunerated", and

  (b) for the words from "an application" to the end substitute "the Society may either make, or make an application to the Tribunal for it to make, an order under subsection (2) of section 43 of the 1974 Act with respect to him."

  Power to examine files
  11.—(1) Section 44B of the Solicitors Act 1974 (power of Law Society to examine files of solicitor or his firm in connection with complaints) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1), for the words from "investigating" to the end of paragraph (h) substitute "investigating—

  (a) whether there has been professional misconduct by a solicitor;

  (b) whether a solicitor has failed to comply with any requirement imposed by or by virtue of this Act or any rules made by the Council;

  (c) whether any professional services provided by a solicitor were not of the quality which it is reasonable to expect of him as a solicitor; or

  (d) whether there are grounds for making, or making an application to the Tribunal for it to make, an order under section 43(2) with respect to a person who is or was employed or remunerated by a solicitor in connection with his practice,";

  and for the words from "all documents" to the end substitute "all relevant documents in the possession of the solicitor or his firm."
  (3) For the sidenote substitute "Examination of files."
  12. In paragraph 14(1) of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (power of Law Society to examine files of recognised body in connection with complaints), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute—

  "(a) whether a recognised body has failed to comply with any requirement imposed by or by virtue of this Act or any rules made by the Council and applicable to it by virtue of section 9 of this Act;

  (b) whether any professional services provided by a recognised body were not of the quality which it is reasonable to expect of it as a recognised body; or

  (c) whether there are grounds for making, or making an application to the Tribunal for it to make, an order under section 43(2) with respect to a person who is or was employed or remunerated by a recognised body in connection with its business,";

  and for the words from "all documents" to the end substitute "all relevant documents in the body's possession."
  Payment of costs by solicitor under investigation
  13. In the Solicitors Act 1974, after section 448 insert—
  "Costs of investigations
  Payment of costs of investigations.
  44C. Where the Society investigates possible professional misconduct by a solicitor, or a failure or apprehended failure by a solicitor to comply with any requirement imposed by or by virtue

  501
  of this Act or any rules made by the Council, the Council may direct him to pay to the Council an amount which—

  (a) is calculated by the Council as the cost to the Society of investigating and dealing with the matter; or

  (b) in the opinion of the Council represents a reasonable contribution towards that cost."

  14. In Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985, after paragraph 14 insert—
  "Payment of costs of investigations
  14A. Where the Society investigates a failure or apprehended failure by a recognised body to comply with any requirement imposed by or by virtue of this Act or any rules applicable to it by virtue of section 9 of this Act, the Council may direct the body to pay to the Council an amount which—

  (a) is calculated by the Council as the cost to the Society of the investigation; or

  (b) in the opinion of the Council represents a reasonable contribution towards that cost."

  Registered foreign lawyers
  15. Subsections (5) to (7) of section 89 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (power to apply existing provisions to registered foreign lawyers with or without modifications and power to modify existing provisions in their application to recognised bodies whose officers include registered foreign lawyers) apply in relation to the provisions contained in this Schedule as if they were contained in an Act passed before the commencement of that section.")
  181 Insert the following new schedule—

  SCHEDULE LEGAL SERVICES COMPLAINTS COMMISSIONER
  Provision for discharge of functions
  1.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may give general directions concerning the discharge of the functions of the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner.
  (2) Any such directions shall be published by the Lord Chancellor in such manner as appears to him to be appropriate.
  (3) Subject to any such direction and to the provisions of this Act, the Commissioner may make such provision as he considers appropriate for the discharge of his functions.
  Delegation of functions
  2.—(1) The Commissioner may delegate any of his functions to such members of his staff as he thinks fit.
  (2) All reports prepared by or on behalf of the Commissioner must be signed by him.
  Remuneration
  3.—(1) The Lord Chancellor shall pay to, or in respect of, the Commissioner such amounts—

  (a) by way of remuneration, pensions, allowances or gratuities, or

  (b) by way of provision for any such benefits, as he may determine.

  (2) If—

  (a) the Commissioner ceases to hold office, and

  (b) it appears to the Lord Chancellor that there are special circumstances which make it right that he should receive compensation,

  the Lord Chancellor may pay to him such sum as the Lord Chancellor may determine.
  Staff
  4.—(1) The Commissioner may appoint such staff as he thinks necessary for the discharge of his functions.
  (2) Appointments shall be made by the Commissioner on such terms and conditions (including terms as to pensions, allowances and gratuities) as he may, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, determine.
  (3) The reference in sub-paragraph (2) to pensions, allowances or gratuities includes a reference to pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation to or in respect of any of the Commissioner's staff who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments.
  Annual and other reports
  5.—(1) The Commissioner shall make an annual report to the Lord Chancellor on the discharge of his functions during the year to which the report relates.
  (2) The Commissioner may, in addition, report to the Lord Chancellor at any time on any matter relating to the discharge of the Commissioner's functions.
  (3) The Commissioner shall provide the Lord Chancellor with such information relating to the discharge of his functions as the Lord Chancellor may see fit to require.
  (4) The Lord Chancellor shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of any annual report made to him under sub-paragraph (1).
  Accounts and audit
  6.—(1) The Commissioner shall keep accounts with respect to his receipts and expenditure and shall prepare a statement of accounts with respect to each financial year.
  (2) The accounts shall be kept, and the statement of accounts prepared, in such form as the Lord Chancellor may, with the approval of the Treasury, direct.
  (3) The accounts shall be audited by persons appointed by the Lord Chancellor in respect of each financial year.
  (4) The auditors shall send to the Lord Chancellor a copy of the statement of accounts and of their report.
  (5) The Lord Chancellor shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of every statement of accounts and auditors' report sent to him under this paragraph.
  Financial provisions
  7.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may require any professional body in relation to which a direction under section (Commissioner's functions) of this Act has been given (and not revoked) to make payments of such amounts as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate to the Commissioner towards meeting the expenditure incurred (or to be incurred) by him in the discharge of his functions.
  (2) To the extent that that expenditure is not met by payments under sub-paragraph (1), it shall be met by the Lord Chancellor out of money provided by Parliament.
  (3) The Commissioner may, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, pay fees or allowances to any person who, in the Commissioner's opinion, is qualified to assist him in the discharge of his functions and who so assists him.
  Parliamentary disqualification
  8. In Part III of Schedule 1 to—

  (a) the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, and

  (b) the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975,

  (disqualifying offices), insert (at the appropriate place in alphabetical order)—
  "The Legal Services Complaints Commissioner."
  Parliamentary Commissioner
  9. In Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (which lists the bodies subject to the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner), insert (at the appropriate place in alphabetical order)—
  "The Legal Services Complaints Commissioner."
  Acting Commissioner
  10. —(1) The Lord Chancellor may appoint a person to exercise the functions of the Commissioner where—

  (a) the Commissioner's office becomes vacant, or

  (b) the Commissioner is incapable of exercising his functions or considers that it would be inappropriate for him to exercise any of his functions in connection with a particular matter (because of a possible conflict of interests or for any other reason).

  (2) A person so appointed shall have the powers of the Commissioner but shall act only in accordance with the terms on which he is appointed.
  (3) The Lord Chancellor may pay to any person so appointed such remuneration as he may determine.")
  182 Schedule 7, page 80, line 32, leave out ("the area or)
  183 Page 82, line 30, at end insert—
  ("The Sunday Theatre Act 1972 (c.26)
  . In section 2(2) of the Sunday Theatre Act 1972 (definition of "inner London area"), for the words from "which" to the end substitute "consisting of the inner London boroughs".")
  184 Page 82, line 43, at end insert—
  ("33A. In section 146(5) (rules relating to youth courts), for "inner London area" substitute "area consisting of the inner London boroughs".")
  185 Page 83, line 8, at end insert—
  ("The Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c.53)
  36A. In section 76 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (provision of court security officers), in subsection (5) (requirement of confirmation of Secretary of State), for "consists of or forms part of" substitute "falls wholly or partly within".")
  186 Page 83, line 12, leave out from ("subsection") to end of line 14 and insert ("(2)(d) (expenses of the Receiver relating to magistrates' courts in the inner London area)—

  (a) after "courts" insert "acting for petty sessions areas falling wholly or partly", and

  (b) for "that area" substitute "the inner London area".")

  187 Page 83, line 17, leave out ("and the City of London")
  188 Page 83, line 29, at end insert—
  ("39A. In section 18(2) (expenditure of inner London probation committee)—

  (a) for "If" substitute "Unless", and

  (b) for "does not include any petty sessions area outside" substitute "includes any petty sessions area not falling wholly or partly within".

  39B. In section 29(1)(a) (definition of "responsible authority for inner London probation area), for the words from "is situated" to the end "a petty sessions area included in the inner London probation area by virtue of section 2(3)(b) above wholly or partly falls".")
  189 Page 83, line 32, leave out ("and the City of London")
  190 Page 85, line 3, after ("means") insert ("the area consisting or)
  191 Schedule 8, page 86, leave out lines 8 and 9
  192 Page 86, line 10, after ("4") insert ("of the Metropolitan Police Courts Act 1897")
  193 Page 86, leave out lines 14 to 17
  194 Page 86, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 on page 87 and insert—
  ("(2) Before paragraph 2 insert—
  "Qualification to sit as member of youth court".
  (3) In paragraph 2 (justice not qualified to sit as member of youth court unless he is a member of a youth court panel), after "he is" insert—

  "(a) a District Judge (Magistrates' Courts), or (b)".

  (4) After that paragraph insert—
  "Constitution by single District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)
  2A. A youth court may consist of a District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) sitting alone.
  Youth court panels".").
  195 Schedule 9, page 93, leave out lines 44 to 46
  196 Transpose Schedule 9 to after Schedule 6
  197 After Schedule 9, insert the following new schedule—

  SCHEDULE GREATER LONDON MAGISTRATES' COURTS AUTHORITY
  The Public Works Loans Act 1965 (c.63)
  1. In section 2(1)(a) of the Public Works Loans Act 1965 (authorities to which Public Works Loans Commissioners may make unsecured loans), after sub-paragraph (iv) insert "and
  (v) the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority;".
  The National Loans Act 1968 (c.13)
  2. In paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 4 to the National Loans Act 1968 (authorities to which local loans may be made), after sub-paragraph (iv) insert "and
  (v) the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority,".
  The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c.53).
  3. In section 82(2A) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (definition of "paying authority" and "responsible authority"), at the end insert "; except that, in relation to the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority, the Authority is the paying authority and responsible authority."
  The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c.42)
  4. The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  5. In section 39(1) (authorities to which provisions about revenue accounts and capital apply), after paragraph (e) insert—
  "(ea) the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority;".
  6. In section 67(3) (authorities to which provisions about interests in companies apply), after paragraph (g) insert—
  "(ga) the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority;".")
  The Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c.53).
  7.—(1) Section 76 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (as amended by Schedule 7 to this Act) (provision of court security officers) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (determination as to provision of officers), after "area" insert "outside Greater London".
  (3) After subsection (4) insert—
  "(4A) In relation to each petty sessions area within Greater London, the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority shall from time to time determine—

  (a) whether court security officers should be provided; and

  (b) if so, how many such officers should be provided.

  (4B) As soon as practicable after making a determination under subsection (4A)(b) above, the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority shall provide the required number of court security officers, on such terms and conditions as they may determine—

  (a) by employing persons to act as court security officers; or

  (b) by entering into a contract with another person for the employment by him of persons to act as such officers."

  The Local Government Finance Act 1992 (c. 14).
  8. In section 19(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (exclusion of Crown exemption in relation to certain authorities), after paragraph (e) insert—
  "(ea) the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority;".
  The Justices of the Peace Act 1997 (c.25)
  9. The Justices of the Peace Act 1997 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  10. In section 10(7) as amended by Schedule 7 to this Act (authority responsible for paying allowances to justices), after "justice" insert "for a commission area consisting wholly or partly of Greater London, the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority, and in relation to any other justice".
  11. In section 40(8) (regulations about appointment of justices' chief executive), after "by statutory instrument" insert "which may make different provision in relation to the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority and other magistrates' courts committees".
  12. In section 44 (terms of employment), after subsection (1) insert—
  "(1A) The approval of the Lord Chancellor shall be required for any determination by a magistrates' courts committee reducing the salary of a justices' clerk or justices' chief executive, unless the justices' clerk or justices' chief executive concerned consents to the reduction."
  13. For section 50 substitute—
  'Pensions of employees of GLMCA.
  50.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may, with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service, make provision by order made by statutory instrument for section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 (pensions of civil servants etc) to apply to persons employed by the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority (and may make such provision by amendment of that Act)..
  (2) An order under subsection (1) above may provide for the Authority to pay to the Minister for the Civil Service, at such times as he may direct, such sums as he may determine in respect of the increase attributable to such provision in the sums payable under the Superannuation Act 1972 out of money provided by Parliament.
  (3) Where an order under subsection (1) above is made, the Minister for the Civil Service may, to such extent and subject to such conditions as he thinks fit—

  (a) delegate to any person the function of administering a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972, so far as relating to employees of the Authority; or

  (b) authorise the exercise of that function (so far as so relating) by, or by employees of, any person.

  (4) A person to whom the function of administering a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 is delegated under subsection (3)(a) above may, to such extent and subject to such conditions as he may determine, authorise the exercise of that function by, or by employees of, any person.
  (5) Where a person is authorised under subsection (3)(b) or (4) above to exercise the function of administering a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972, anything done or omitted to be done by or in relation to him (or an employee of his) in, or in connection with, the exercise or purported exercise of the function shall be treated for all purposes as done or omitted to be done by the person who authorised him.
  (6) Subsection (5) above does not apply for the purposes of—

  (a) any criminal proceedings against the authorised person (or any employee of his); or

  (b) any contract between him and the person who authorised him, so far as relating to the function.

  (7) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (1) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
  14.—(1) Section 54 (indemnification of justices' and their clerks) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (2) (indemnification out of local funds), for "out of local funds" (in both places) substitute "by the appropriate authority".
  (3) After that subsection insert—
  "(2A) In subsection (2) above the "appropriate authority" means—

  (a) the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority, where at the material time the justice or justices' clerk was acting for an area consisting of or falling within Greater London; or

  (b) the paying authority or authorities, where at the material time the justice or justices' clerk was acting for an area outside Greater London."

  (4) In subsection (7) (apportionment between paying authorities), for the words from "there are" to "clerk," substitute ", in relation to any justice or justices' clerk acting for an area outside Greater London, there are two or more paying authorities,".
  (5) In subsection (9) (interpretation), in the definition of "paying authority", for the words from ", in relation" to the end substitute—

  "(a) in relation to any justice or justices' clerk who at the material time acted for an area outside Greater London, means any authority which is a paying authority for the purposes of section 55 below in relation to the magistrates' courts committee for that area; and

  (b) in relation to a justice or justices' clerk who at the material time acted for an area consisting of or falling within Greater London, means the council of any London borough or the Common Council of the City of London."

  15. Before section 55 insert the heading—
  "Magistrates' courts committees outside Greater London".
  16.—(1) Section 55 (duties of local authorities) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (duties of local authorities), after "committee", in the first place, insert "for an area outside Greater London".
  (3) In subsections (4) and (5) (duty of paying authority or authorities to pay expenses of magistrates' courts committee), after "courts' committee" insert "for an area outside Greater London".
  (4) In subsection (10) (interpretation) after "courts' committee" insert "for an area outside Greater London".
  17. —(1) Section 56 (provision supplementary to section 55) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (determination by committee)—

  (a) in paragraph (b), after "committee" insert "for an area outside Greater London", and

  (c) in paragraph (c), after "which" insert "such".

  (3) In subsection (2) (apportionment), after "committee", in the first place, insert "for an area outside Greater London".
  18. In section 59(1) (regulations relating to accounts of magistrates' courts committees), after "magistrates' courts committees" insert "for areas outside Greater London".
  19. After section 68 insert—
  "Provision of accommodation for justices and staff
  68A. Any accommodation provided under any enactment for any justice, justices' clerk or justices' chief executive may be outside the area for which the justices act and, in the case of a petty sessional court-house, shall be treated as being in that area for the purposes of the jurisdiction of the justices when acting in the court-house."").
  198 Schedule 10, leave out Schedule 10, and insert the following new schedule—

  SECTION 69
  ("SCHEDULE 10 FUNCTIONS TRANSFERRED TO JUSTICES' CHIEF EXECUTIVES
  The London Hackney Carriages Act 1843 (c.86)
  1. In section 24 of the London Hackney Carriages Act 1843 (application for summons), for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  The Evidence Act 1851 (c.99)
  2. —Section 13 of the Evidence Act 1851 (proof of previous conviction by copy of record certified by clerk) is amended as follows.
  (2) Number the existing provision as subsection (1) and for the words from "under the hand" to "such clerk or other officer," substitute "by the proper officer of the court where such conviction or acquittal took place".
  (3) After that subsection insert—
  "(2) In subsection (1) "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court or other officer having the custody of the records of the court, or the deputy of such clerk or other officer."

  The Criminal Procedure Act 1865 (c.18).
  3.—(1) Section 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1865 (proof of previous conviction of witness by certificate signed by clerk) is amended as follows.
  (2) Number the existing provision as subsection (1) and for the words from "the clerk" to "such clerk or officer," substitute "the proper officer of the court where the offender was convicted".
  (3) After that subsection insert—
  "(2) In subsection (1) "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court or other officer having the custody of the records of the court, or the deputy of such clerk or other officer."

  The Prevention of Crimes Act 1871 (c.112).
  4.—(1) Section 18 of the Prevention of Crimes Act 1871 (evidence of previous conviction by record signed by clerk) is amended as follows.
  (2) For the words from "clerk of the court" to "such clerk or officer;" substitute "proper officer of the court by which such conviction was made;".
  (3) For "clerk or other officer" substitute "proper officer".
  (4) At the end of that section insert—
  "In this section "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court or other officer having the custody of the records of the court, or the deputy of such clerk or other officer".

  The Fairs Act 1873 (c.37)
  5. In section 6 of the Fairs Act 1873 (alteration of fair day on representation of justices), for "clerk to the justices acting in and for" substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  The Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907 (c.53)
  6. In section 94(7) of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907 (licensing of pleasure boats), for "clerk" substitute "justices' chief executive for the court".
  The Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act 1920 (c.33)
  7.—(1) Section 4 of the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act 1920 (power of magistrates' courts to confirm maintenance orders made in certain Commonwealth countries) is amended as follows (but that section as modified in relation to Northern Ireland by section 11 of that Act is not so amended).
  (2) In subsection (5B) (powers of court), for—

  (a) "the clerk of the court or the clerk of any other magistrates' court", and

  (b) "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court,",

  substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  (3) In subsection (6A) (application of section 60 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980)—

  (a) in paragraph (b), in the paragraph to be regarded as substituted for subsection (4)(b) of that section, for "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court," substitute "a justices' chief executive", and

  (b) in paragraph (c) (words to be regarded as replaced in subsection (5) of that section), for "clerk"" substitute "justices' chief executive for the court"".

  The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c.12)
  8. The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  9. In section 42(2)(b) (transmission of deposition of child), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  10. In section 45 (constitution of youth courts), number the existing provision as subsection (1) and insert—
  "(2) The justices' chief executive appointed by a magistrates' courts committee is the justices' chief executive for every youth court for their area."
  11. In—

  (a) section 46(1A) (notification of guilty plea),

  (b) section 56(3) (remission of case to youth court), and

  (c) section 106(2) (certification of copy of order),

  for "clerk of" substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  The Maintenance Orders Act 1950 (c.37)
  12. Part II of the Maintenance Orders Act 1950 (enforcement of certain maintenance orders made in another part of the United Kingdom) has effect subject to the following amendments.
  13.—(1) Section 18 (enforcement of registered orders) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (2ZA) (application of section 76 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980), in the subsection to be regarded as substituted as subsection (5) of that section, for—

  (a) "the clerk of the court or the clerk of any other magistrates' court", and

  (b) "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court,",

  substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  (3) In subsection (2A) (requirement of person liable under order to notify change of address to clerk of the court), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (4) After that subsection insert—
  "(2B) In subsection (2A) of this section "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction in Northern Ireland, the clerk of the court."

  14.—(1) Section 22 (discharge and variation of registered orders) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1B) (powers of court), for—

  (a) "the clerk of the court or the clerk of any other magistrates' court in England and Wales", and

  (b) "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court in England and Wales,",

  substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  (3) In subsection (1E) (application of section 60 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980)—

  (a) in paragraph (a), in the paragraph to be regarded as substituted for subsection (4)(b) of that section, for "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court," substitute "a justices' chief executive", and

  (b) in paragraph (b) (words to be regarded as replaced in subsection (5) of that section), for "clerk"" substitute "justices' chief executive for the court"".

  15. In section 24(5A)(b) (order requiring payment to the clerk of a magistrates' court to cease to have effect on cancellation of registration of order), for "the clerk of a magistrates' court in England and Wales" substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  The Army Act 1955 (c.18)
  16. The Army Act 1955 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  17.—(1) Section 189 (delivery into military custody of person dealt with by court of summary jurisdiction as illegally absent) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (fee payable to clerk of the court), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) After subsection (3) insert—
  "(3A) In subsection (1) of this section "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction elsewhere, the clerk of the court."

  18.—(1) Section 199 (proof of outcome of civil trial) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsections (1), (2) and (3) (certificate signed by clerk is proof of outcome), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) For subsection (4) substitute—
  "(4) In this section "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court, his deputy or any other person having the custody of the records of the court."

  The Air Force Act 1955 (c.19)
  19. The Air Force Act 1955 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  20.—(1) Section 189 (delivery into air-force custody of person dealt with by court of summary jurisdiction as illegally absent) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (fee payable to clerk of the court), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) After subsection (3) insert—
  "(3A) In subsection (1) of this section "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction elsewhere, the clerk of the court."

  21.—(1) Section 199 (proof of outcome of civil trial) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsections (1), (2) and (3) (certificate signed by clerk is proof of outcome), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) For subsection (4) substitute—
  "(4) In this section "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction in England and Wales. the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court, his deputy or any other person having the custody of the records of the court."

  The Naval Discipline Act 1957 (c.53)
  22. The Naval Discipline Act 1957 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  23.—(1) Section 110 (delivery into naval custody of person dealt with by court of summary jurisdiction as illegally absent) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (2) (fee payable to clerk of the court), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) After subsection (2) insert—
  "(2A) In subsection (2) of this section "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction elsewhere, the clerk of the court."

  24.—(1) Section 129B (proof of outcome of civil trial) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsections (1), (2) and (3) (certificate signed by clerk is proof of outcome), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) For subsection (4) substitute—
  "(4) In this section "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court, his deputy or any other person having the custody of the records of the court."

  The Maintenance Orders Act 1958 (c.39)
  25. The Maintenance Orders Act 1958 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  26.—(1) Section 2 (registration of orders) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (2)(b) (procedure on application for registration of order), for "clerk of" substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  (3) In subsection (5) (registration of orders), for "or clerk of" substitute "of, or justices' chief executive for,".
  (4) In subsection (6) (effect on magistrates' court order of registration in the High Court), for "the clerk of a magistrates' court" (in both places) substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  (5) In subsection (6ZA)(b) (effect on High Court order or county court order of registration in magistrates' court), for "the clerk of the court or the clerk of any other magistrates' court" substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  (6) In subsection (6ZC) (payments under order becoming or ceasing to be payable to clerk of a magistrates' court), for "the clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  27. In section 3(3A) (requirement of person liable under order to notify change of address to clerk of the court), for "clerk of" substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  28.—(1) Section 4(5B) (application of section 60 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980) is amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph (a), in the paragraph to be regarded as substituted for subsection (4)(b) of that section, for "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court," substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  (3) In paragraph (b) (words to be regarded as replaced in subsection (5) of that section), for "clerk"" substitute "justices' chief executive for the court"".
  (4) In paragraph (e), in the subsection (9) to be regarded as substituted for subsections (9) and (10) of that section, for—

  (a) "the clerk of the court or the clerk of arty other magistrates' court", and

  (b) "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court,",

  substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  29.—(1) Section 5 (cancellation of registration) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (5) (cancellation of registration of High Court or county court order), for "the clerk of a magistrates' court" (in both places) substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  (3) In subsection (6)(b) (cancellation of registration of magistrates' court order), for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  30. In section 18 (powers of magistrates to review committals), for "clerk of (in each place) substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  31. In section 20(1) (clerk of magistrates' court entitled to receive payments for transmission to another)—

  (a) for "the clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "a justices' chief executive", and

  (b) for "the clerk is" substitute "a justices' chief executive is".

  The Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (c.2)
  32. The Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  33.—(1) Section 10A (cancellation of betting office licence) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (4) (notification of cancellation)—

  (a) for "clerk of" substitute "proper officer of", and

  (b) for "clerk to" (in both places) substitute "proper officer of".

  (3) After that subsection insert—
  "(5) In subsection (4)—
  "the proper officer of the authority" has the same meaning as in Schedule 1; and
  "the proper officer of the court" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to a court of summary, in Scotland, the clerk of the court."

  34.—(1) Section 11 (cancellation of and disqualification for bookmaker's permit or betting agency permit) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (5) (notification of cancellation)—

  (a) for "clerk of substitute "proper officer of", and

  (b) for "clerk to" (in both places) substitute "proper officer of".

  (3) After that subsection insert—
  "(6) In subsection (5)—
  "the proper officer of the authority" has the same meaning as in Schedule 1; and
  "the proper officer of the court" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court."

  35.—(1) Schedule 1 (bookmaker's permits, betting agency permits and betting offices licences) is amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph 2 (interpretation), for the definition of "clerk to the appropriate authority" substitute—
  "the proper officer of the appropriate authority" means—

  (a) in England, the chief executive to the justices comprising the committee referred to in paragraph 1 of this Schedule; and

  (b) in Scotland, the clerk to the licensing court;".

  (3) In paragraphs 5 and 6 (applications for grant of permit or licence), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".
  (4) In paragraph 7 (notification of meeting to consider application)—

  (a) for "clerk to", in both places, substitute "proper officer of", and

  (b) for "clerk", in the remaining four places, substitute "proper officer".

  (5) In paragraph 8 (applications for renewal of permit or licence), for "clerk to" (in each place) substitute "proper officer of".
  (6) In paragraph 9 (person to whom application to be made)—

  (a) for "clerk to" (in both places) substitute "proper officer of", and

  (b) in paragraph (a), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".

  (7) In paragraph 11(b) (receipt of objections), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".
  (8) In paragraph 12 (procedure where objection received), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (9) In paragraph 20 (grant or renewal of permit or licence)—

  (a) in sub-paragraph (1), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of", and

  (b) in sub-paragraph (2), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".

  (10) In paragraph 20A (clerk to act on unopposed applications for renewal)—

  (a) in sub-paragraph (1), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of and for "clerk may" substitute "clerk to the authority may", and

  (b) after sub-paragraph (4) insert—

  "(5) For the purposes of this paragraph, the clerk to the appropriate authority, where the authority is a committee of the justices acting for a petty sessions area, is the clerk to those justices or, if there are two or more clerks to those justices—

  (a) such one of those clerks as the magistrates' courts committee having power over the appointment of clerks to justices for that area may direct; or

  (b) in default of any such direction, any of those clerks."

  (11) In—

  (a) paragraph 21(1), (2) and (4)(b) (appeals),

  (b) paragraph 25 (notification of change in directors),

  (c) paragraphs 26 (in both places) and 27(1) (cancellation of bookmaker's permit),

  (d) paragraphs 28A(1)(a) and (2), 28B(2) and (3) and 28C(1) and (2) (cancellation of betting office licence),

  (e) paragraph 34 (registers), and

  (f) paragraphs 36 and 37(1) (provision of information), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".

  The Licensing Act 1964 (c.26)
  36. The Licensing Act 1964 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  37. In—

  (a) section 8A(2) (approval of prospective licensee),

  (b) section 9A(2) (grant of interim authority), and

  (c) section 19(1) and (2) (requirement for structural alterations),

  for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  38.—(1) Section 20 (consent for alteration of premises) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (2) (plans to be deposited with clerk), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  (3) In subsection (4) (notice of order forfeiting licence or directing restoration of premises)—

  (a) for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for", and

  (b) for "clerk to" (in each place) substitute "chief executive to".

  39. In section 20A(3) (revocation of justices' licences), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  40.—(1) Section 22 (procedural provisions as to appeals) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsections (1) and (2) (notice to be given to clerk), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  (3) In subsection (4) (clerk to send notice of appeal to Crown Court) for "clerk to" substitute "chief executive to".
  (4) In subsection (5) (recording by clerk of persons opposing grant), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  41. In section 27(4)(c)(ii) (notice for renewal of licence given to clerk), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  42.—(1) Section 28 (clerk to licensing justices) is amended as follows.
  (2) In the heading and in the sidenote, after "clerk" insert "and chief executive".
  (3) After subsection (4) insert—
  "(5) The justices' chief executive for a petty sessions area shall be chief executive to the licensing justices for the licensing district consisting of that area."
  43. In section 30 (register of licences), in—

  (a) subsection (1) (clerk to keep register), and

  (b) subsection (4) (certification of entry by clerk),

  for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  44.—(1) Section 31 (matters to be entered in register) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (notice of conviction to be entered in register)—

  (a) for "clerk", in the first place, substitute "chief executive",

  (b) for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for",

  (c) for "clerk", in the third place, substitute "chief executive", and

  (d) for "that clerk" substitute "him".

  (3) In subsection (2), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  45. In section 32(1) and (2) (persons with interest in property to be registered), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  46. In section 33 (notice of conviction of licence holder to be served on registered owner), in—

  (a) subsection (1) (clerk to serve notice), and

  (b) subsection (2) (provisions about service) (in both places),

  for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  47. In section 34(3) (refusal of inspection of register), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  48. In section 46(2) (notice to fire authority of application for registration certificate), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  49.—(1) Section 51 (register of clubs) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (clerk to keep register), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  (3) In subsection (2) (particulars to be registered), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  (4) In subsection (4) (notice of change of particulars), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  50. In—

  (a) section 62(3) (permitted hours in clubs),

  (b) section 75(2) and (3) (application for exemption order) (in each place),

  (c) section 87A(5) (permitted hours in vineyard premises),

  (d) sections 133(1) and 142(1) (restoration of suspended licence),

  (e) sections 150(3) and (4)(a), 151(6), 153A(3) and 154(1)(b) (canteen licences),

  (f) section 180(3) and (4) (occasional licences) (in each place), and

  (g) section 199(c) (saving relating to theatres),

  for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  51. In Schedule 2 (applications for justices' licences), in—

  (a) paragraph 1(a) (notice to clerk),

  (b) paragraph 3 (deposition of plan), and

  (c) paragraph 6 (list of applicants),

  for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  52.—(1) Schedule 6 (applications and complaints relating to registration certificates) is amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraphs 1(1) and (3) and 2 (procedure on making of application), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  (3) In paragraph 4 (copies of application)—

  (a) for "clerk to" substitute "chief executive to",

  (b) for "clerk is" substitute "chief executive is", and

  (c) for "clerk needs" substitute "chief executive needs".

  (4) In paragraphs 6(1) and 7 (objections) for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  53. In Schedule 8A (procedure for making, varying or revoking restriction orders), in—

  (a) paragraph 1(1) (notice of application to licensing justices), and

  (b) paragraph 4(2) (notice of application to magistrates' court), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".

  54. In paragraph 7 of Schedule 11 (clerk to licensing planning committee)—

  (a) for "clerk", in the first place, substitute "chief executive", and

  (b) for "districts, the clerk to the licensing justices", substitute "districts for which there are different chief executives, the chief executive".

  55. In Schedule 12 (canteen licences), in paragraphs 1(1)(a) and 3, for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  56. In Schedule 12A (children's certificates), in—

  (a) paragraphs 1(1) and 2(1) (applications), and

  (b) paragraphs 7(3)(a) and 8(a) (duration),

  for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  The Gaming Act 1968 (c.65)
  57. The Gaming Act 1968 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  58.—(1) Schedule 2 (grant etc. of licences) is amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph 1(1) (licensing authority), at the end insert "and references to the proper officer of a licensing authority shall be construed accordingly".
  (3) In paragraphs 5(2) and 6(2) (procedure for application), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".
  (4) In paragraph 7 (public notice of application)—

  (a) in sub-paragraph (1), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of",

  (b) in sub-paragraph (2), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of" and for "if the clerk" substitute "if the proper officer", and

  (c) in sub-paragraphs (3) and (4), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".

  (5) In paragraph 12(1) (making of application for renewal), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".
  (6) In paragraph 13 (notification of application for renewal)—

  (a) in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of",

  (b) in sub-paragraph (4), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of and for "clerk", in the other two places, substitute "proper officer", and

  (c) in sub-paragraph (5), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".

  (7) In paragraph 14(2)(a) (proceedings on application for grant or renewal), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".
  (8) In paragraph 15 (objections)—

  (a) for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of", and

  (b) in paragraph (b), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".

  (9) In—

  (a) paragraph 28 (notification of Board's advice),

  (b) paragraph 29(1) (in both places) and (2) (appeal by applicant),

  (c) paragraph 31(1) and (2) (appeal by Board),

  (d) paragraph 33(1) (appeal in Scotland),

  516

  (e) paragraph 35(5) (revocation of certificate of consent), and

  (e) paragraphs 36(1) and (3) and 37 (cancellation),

  for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".
  (10) In paragraph 46(1) (notice of appeal), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (11) In paragraph 48 (cancellation of licence where holder convicted of offence)—

  (a) in sub-paragraph (4), for "clerk of" and for "clerk to" (in both places) substitute "proper officer of", and

  (b) after that sub-paragraph insert—

  "(5) In sub-paragraph (4) of this paragraph, "the proper officer of the court" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court, the justices' chief executive for the court, and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court."

  (12) In paragraphs 57(4) and 58(1) (transfer of licence), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".
  (13) In paragraph 63 (fees)—

  (a) in sub-paragraph (1), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of", and

  (b) in sub-paragraph (2), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".

  (14) In paragraphs 64(1) and 65(1) and (2) (notification of corporate changes), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".
  59.—(1) Schedule 3 (registration of members' clubs in England and Wales) is amended as follows.
  (2) In—

  (a) paragraph 12(1) (appeal by applicant),

  (b) paragraph 13(1) (appeal by Board), and

  (c) paragraphs 15(1) (in both places) and 16(1) (cancellation),

  for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  (3) In paragraph 17 (cancellation pursuant to conviction)—

  (a) in sub-paragraph (3), for "clerk of" substitute "proper officer of and for "clerk to" (in both places) substitute "chief executive to", and

  (b) after that sub-paragraph insert—

  "(4) In sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph the "proper officer of the court" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court, the justices' chief executive for the court, and

  (b) in relation to the Crown Court, the appropriate officer of the court."

  (4) In—

  (a) paragraph 23 (fees), and

  (b) paragraph 24(1) and (2) (relinquishment of registration),

  for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  60. In Schedule 7 (registration for gaming by means of machines), in—

  (a) paragraph 3(1) (application for registration),

  (b) paragraph 4(1) (application for renewal of registration),

  (c) paragraph 11(1) (in both places) and (2) (appeal),

  (d) paragraphs 13(1), 14 and 20(1) (cancellation of registration),

  (e) paragraph 24 (fees), and

  (f) paragraph 25(1) and (2) (relinquishment of registration),

  for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  61.—(1) Schedule 9 (permits under section 34) is amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph 11(2) and (3) (appeals), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".
  (3) In paragraph 21 (fees), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (4) After paragraph 23 insert—
  "24. For the purposes of this Schedule, the proper officer of an appropriate authority is—

  (a) where the appropriate authority is the licensing justices for a licensing district in England and Wales, the chief executive to the justices, and

  (b) in any other case, the clerk to the authority."

  The Late Night Refreshment Houses Act 1969 (c.53)
  62. In section 6(2) of the Late Night Refreshment Houses Act 1969 (licensing authority to give to clerk to justices a copy of register of late night refreshment houses in the area), for the words from "to the clerk" to the end substitute "a copy of or extract from the list or register to the justices' chief executive for any petty sessions area falling wholly or partly within their area."
  The Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (c.54)
  63. In the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, in—

  (a) section 18(3) (copies of, or of variation or discharge of, supervision order) (in both places), and

  (b) section 19(5) and (10) (copies of supervision arrangements),

  for "clerk to the justices" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  The Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 (c.32)
  64. The Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  65. In section 3(1)(c) (persons who may apply for an attachment of earnings order), for "the clerk of a magistrates' court, the clerk of that court" substitute "a justices' chief executive, that justices' chief executive".
  66. In section 6(7)(c) (clerk to be collecting officer in case of order made by a magistrates' court), for "clerk either of that court or of" substitute "justices' chief executive for that court or for".
  67. In section 17(3)(d) (power to require court officer to deal with payments under consolidated attachment order as directed by court or rules), for "clerk or registrar" substitute "officer".
  68.—(1) Section 18 (certain action not to be taken by collecting officer except on request) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (clerk of magistrates' court not to make certain applications unless requested by person entitled to receive payments), for "The clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "A justices' chief executive".
  (3) In subsections (2) and (3) (effect of request), for "the clerk" substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  69. In section 21(2)(a)(ii) (costs due to clerk of magistrates' court), for "clerk of ' substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  The Immigration Act 1971 (c.77)
  70.—(1) Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (administrative provisions) is amended as follows.
  (2) In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 23, in paragraph (b) (particulars of recognizance to be given to clerk), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) After that sub-paragraph insert—
  "(1A) In sub-paragraph (1) "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction in Northern Ireland, the clerk of the court."

  (4) In sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 31 (particulars of forfeited recognizance to be given to clerk), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (5) After that sub-paragraph insert—
  "(3A) In sub-paragraph (3) "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction in Northern Ireland, the clerk of the court."

  The Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 (c.18)
  71. The Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  72. In section 7(5B) (powers of magistrates' court on confirming provisional order made in reciprocating country), for—

  (a) "the clerk of the court or the clerk of any other magistrates' court in England and Wales", and

  (b) "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court in England and Wales".

  substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  73.—(1) Section 8 (enforcement of maintenance order registered in United Kingdom court) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (3) (requirement of person liable under order to notify change of address to clerk of the court), for "clerk" substitute "appropriate officer".
  (3) After that subsection insert—
  "(3A) In subsection (3) above "appropriate officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to a court elsewhere, the clerk of the court."

  (4) In subsection (4A) (application of section 76 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980), in the subsection to be regarded as substituted as subsection (5) of that section, for—

  (a) "the clerk of the court or the clerk of any other magistrates' court", and

  (b) "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court,",

  substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  74.—(1) Section 9(1ZA) (application of section 60 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980) is amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph (a), in the subsection (3A) to be regarded as inserted in that section, for—

  (a) "the clerk of the court or the clerk of any other magistrates' court,", and

  (b) "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court,",

  substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  (3) In paragraph (b), in the paragraph to be regarded as substituted for subsection (4)(b) of that section, for "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court," substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  (4) In paragraph (c) (words to be regarded as replaced in subsection (5) of that section), for "clerk"" substitute "justices' chief executive for the court"".
  75.—(1) Section 23 (maintenance orders registered in High Court under Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act 1920) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsections (2), (3) and (4) (procedure), for "clerk" substitute "appropriate officer".
  (3) After subsection (5) insert—
  "(6) In this section "appropriate officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to a magistrates' court in Northern Ireland, the clerk of the court."

  76. In section 26 (application for recovery of maintenance in convention country), for subsections (6) and (7) substitute—
  "(6) The appropriate officer for the purposes of this section is—

  (a) where the applicant is residing in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the petty sessions area;

  (b) where the applicant is residing in Northern Ireland, the clerk of the court for the petty sessions district; and

  (c) where the applicant is residing in Scotland, the sheriff clerk or sheriff clerk depute of the sheriff court within the jurisdiction of which the applicant is residing."

  77. In section 27B (sending application to the appropriate magistrates' court), for "clerk of (in each place) substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  78.—(1) Section 27C (application for recovery of maintenance in England and Wales) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (4) (powers of court), for—

  (a) "the clerk of the court or the clerk of any other magistrates' court in England and Wales,", and

  (b) "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court in England and Wales,",

  substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  (3) In subsection (7) (registration of order), for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  79.—(1) Section 32 (transfer of orders) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (2) (transmission of copy of order)—

  (a) for "the clerk" (in both places) substitute "the appropriate officer", and

  (b) for "that clerk" substitute "the appropriate officer".

  (3) After that subsection insert—
  "(2A) In subsection (2) above, the "appropriate officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to a court in Northern Ireland, the clerk of the court."

  80. In section 34(3) (application from abroad to vary a registered order), for "the clerk of that court" substitute "—

  (a) the justices' chief executive for the court, if the court is in England and Wales; or

  (b) the clerk of the court, if the court is in Northern Ireland."

  81.—(1) Section 34A (variation of orders by magistrates' courts) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (3) (powers of magistrates' courts), for—

  (a) "the clerk of the court or the clerk of any other magistrates' court in England and Wales", and

  (b) "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court in England and Wales,",

  substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  (3) In subsection (4)(b) (application for variation), for "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court in England and Wales," substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (c.18)
  82.—(1) Section 38 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (orders for repayment of sums paid after cessation of order by reason of marriage) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (6) (protection for clerk)—

  (a) for "The clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "A justices' chief executive", and

  (b) for "the clerk" substitute "the justices' chief executive".

  (3) In subsection (7) (definition of "collecting officer"), for "the clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  The Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 (c.62)
  83. The Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  84. In section 1B(5)(b) (memorandum of conviction in magistrates' court), for "clerk of the court" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  85. In section 26(5) and (7) (suspended sentence supervision orders), for "clerk to the justices" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  The Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 (c. 51)
  86.—(1) Schedule 4 to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 (procedure relating to offences) is amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraphs 10 and 12 (delivery of licence and certificate of conviction), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) After paragraph 13 insert—
  "14. In paragraphs 10 and 12 above, "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to the Crown Court, the appropriate officer."

  The Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 (c.32)
  87.—(1) Schedule 3 to the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 (permits for commercial provision of amusements with prizes) is amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph 1(2) (interpretation), at the end insert "and
  "the proper officer of the appropriate authority" means—

  (a) where the appropriate authority is the licensing justices for a licensing district in England and Wales, the chief executive to the justices; and

  (b) in any other case, the clerk to the authority."

  (3) In paragraph 8(2) and (3) (appeals) for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".
  (4) In paragraph 18 (fees), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer'.
  The Adoption Act 1976 (c.36)
  88. In section 58A(3) of the Adoption Act 1976 (duty of clerk of a magistrates' court to send to Secretary of State particulars about proceedings relating to children), for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  The Bail Act 1976 (c.63)
  89. In section 6(9)(c)(i) of the Bail Act 1976 (certification of copy of court record by justices' clerk), for the words from "clerk" to the end substitute "chief executive".
  The Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 (c.22)
  90. The Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  91. In section 20ZA(3) (variation of orders for periodical payments to provide that payments shall be made to the court clerk), for "to the clerk" substitute "to the justices' chief executive for the court".
  92. In section 32(2) (enforcement of orders for payment of money), for "the clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  93.—(1) Section 35 (orders for repayment of sums paid after cessation of order by reason of marriage) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (7) (protection for clerk)—

  (a) for "The clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "A justices' chief executive", and

  (b) for "the clerk" substitute "the justices' chief executive".

  (3) In subsection (8) (definition of "collecting officer"), for "clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  The Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) Act 1980 (c.32)
  94.—(1) Section 4 of the Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) Act 1980 (supplemental) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (3) (copy of exclusion order to be sent to licensee of relevant premises), for the words from "clerk" to "may be," substitute "proper officer of the court".
  (3) After that subsection insert—
  "(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above—

  (a) the proper officer of a magistrates' court in England and Wales is the justices' chief executive for the court;

  (b) the proper officer of the Crown Court is the appropriate officer; and

  (c) the proper officer of a court in Scotland is the clerk of the court."

  The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c.43)
  95. The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  96. In section 6(5) (clerk to display details of cases committed for trial), for "clerk of" substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  97. In section 12 (non-appearance of accused: plea of guilty), in subsections (1)(b), (4) (in both places) and (6) (in both places), for "clerk of" substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  98.—(1) Section 14 (avoidance of certain proceedings) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1)(b) (service of declaration), for "clerk to the justices" substitute "justices' chief executive for the court".
  (3) In subsection (2) (deemed service), for "clerk to the justices" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  99.—(1) Section 59 (orders for periodical payment: means of payment) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (3)(b) (power of the court to order payment to clerk), for "the clerk of the court or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court" substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  (3) In subsection (8) (power to specify method of payment to a clerk), for "the clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  100.—(1) Section 59A (orders for periodical payments: proceedings by clerk) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (proceedings by clerk where payment not made)—

  (a) for "the clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "a justices' chief executive",

  (b) for "the clerk of the relevant court" substitute "the relevant justices' chief executive", and

  (c) for "to the clerk" substitute "to that justices' chief executive".

  (3) In subsection (2) (authority to clerk to act under subsection (3))—

  (a) for "the clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "a justices' chief executive", and

  (b) for "the clerk of the relevant court for the clerk" substitute "the relevant justices' chief executive for him".

  (4) In subsection (3) (proceedings by cleric), for "the clerk of the relevant court, the clerk" substitute "the relevant justices' chief executive, he".
  (5) In subsection (4) (cessation of authority)—

  (a) for "the clerk of a relevant court" substitute "a justices' chief executive",

  (b) for "clerk cancelling" substitute "justices' chief executive cancelling", and

  (c) for "clerk shall" substitute justices' chief executive shall".

  (6) In subsection (7) (interpretation), for the definition of "the relevant court" substitute—
  "the relevant justices' chief executive", in relation to an order, means—

  (a) in a case where payments under the order are required to be made to or through a justices' chief executive, that justices' chief executive;

  (b) in a case where such payments are required to be made by any method of payment falling within section 59(6) above and the order was made by a magistrates' court, the justices' chief executive for that magistrates' court; and

  (c) in a case where such payments are required to be made by any method of payment falling within section 59(6) above and the order was not made by a magistrates' court, the justices' chief executive for the magistrates' court in which the order is registered;".

  (7) In the sidenote, for "clerk" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  101. In section 60(5) (variation of order to provide that payments be made to magistrates' clerk), for "to the clerk" substitute "to the justices' chief executive for the court".
  102. In section 61(1)(b) (rules about apportionment of sums paid to clerk between two or orders)—

  (a) for "clerk to a magistrates' court" substitute "justices' chief executive", and

  (b) for "that clerk" substitute "that justices' chief executive".

  103. In section 62(1)(ii) (proceedings by clerk for sums payable to child), for "clerk or substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  104. In section 82(5A) (clerk to serve notice of hearing to consider issue of warrant of commitment for default in paying fine), for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  105.—(1) Section 87 (enforcement of payment of fines by High Court and county court) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (enforcement as if sum due to magistrates' clerk in pursuance of High Court or county court order), for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  (3) In subsection (3) (clerk not to take proceedings unless authorised by court after inquiry), for "clerk of the magistrates' court" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  (4) In subsection (4) (expenses of clerk in recovering sum to be treated as expenses of magistrates' courts committee), for "the clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  106.—(1) Section 87A (fines imposed on companies) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (power of court to apply for administration order or winding up), for "clerk of" substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  (3) In subsection (2) (expenses of clerk to be treated as expenses of magistrates' courts committee), for "the clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  107. In section 89(2) (transfer of fine order: functions of clerk exercisable by clerk of court specified in order), for "clerk of" (in both places) substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  108. In section 90(3) (functions of clerk in relation to payment of fine to cease to be exercisable on making of order for payment to be enforceable in Scotland or Northern Ireland), for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  109. In section 91(1) (functions of clerk in relation to payment of fine imposed in Scotland or Northern Ireland on making of order for payment to be enforceable in England and Wales), for "clerk of" substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  110. In section 95(3) (instalments: powers of the court in relation to non-English maintenance orders), for—

  (a) "the clerk of the court or the clerk of any other magistrates' court", and

  (b) "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court,",

  substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  111. In section 97A(9), (10) and (11) (summons or warrant as to committal proceedings), for "clerk of" substitute "chief executive to".
  112. In section 99 (proof of non-payment of sum adjudged)—

  (a) for "clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "justices' chief executive", and

  (b) for "the clerk" (in both places) substitute "the justices' chief executive".

  113. In section 114 (payment to clerk of fees and recognizances on case stated), for "him the fees payable for the case and for the recognizances" substitute "the fees payable for the case and for the recognizances to the justices' chief executive for the court".
  114. —(1) Section 137 (fees) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (fees chargeable by clerks limited by Part I of Schedule 6), for "clerks of magistrates' courts" substitute "justices' chief executives".
  (3) In subsection (2) (no fee chargeable by clerk in respect of matters specified in Part II of Schedule 6), for "clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  115. In section 139 (application by clerk of money received on account of sum adjudged to be paid by summary conviction), for "clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  116. In section 144(1) (rules about procedure and practice to be followed in magistrates' courts and by justices' clerks), insert at the end "and justices' chief executives."
  117. In Schedule 6 (fees), in the heading to Part I (fees to be taken by clerks), for "CLERKS TO JUSTICES" substitute "JUSTICES' CHIEF EXECUTIVES".
  The Highways Act 1980 (c.66)
  118. In section 47(6) of the Highways Act 1980 (notification by clerk as to decision of justices who view allegedly unnecessary highway), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  The Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981 (c.63)
  119. The Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  120.—(1) Paragraph 15 of Schedule 1 (enforcement of betting duty) is amended as follows.
  (2) In sub-paragraph (4) (notification of forfeiture and cancellation of betting office licence)—

  (a) for "clerk of" substitute "proper officer of", and

  (b) for the words from "clerk to", in the first place, to "clerk to", in the second place, substitute "proper officer of the appropriate authority who last either, granted or renewed the licence, send a copy of the order to the proper officer of".

  (3) After that sub-paragraph insert—
  "(4A) In sub-paragraph (4) above—
  "proper officer of the court" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court, and

  "appropriate authority" and "proper officer of the appropriate authority" have the same meaning as. in Schedule 1 to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963."
  121.—(1) Paragraph 15 of Schedule 4 (register of permits) is amended as follows.
  (2) In sub-paragraph (1) (registers of permits, etc), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".
  (3) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—
  "(3) In sub-paragraph (1) above, "proper officer of the appropriate authority" means—

  (a) where the appropriate authority is a committee of the justices acting for a petty sessions area, the chief executive to the justices; and

  (b) in any other case, the clerk to the authority."

  The Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (c.27)
  122. —(1) Section 5 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (recognition and enforcement of maintenance orders) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (5B) (application of section 76 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980), in the subsection to be regarded as substituted as subsection (5) of that section, for—

  (a) "the clerk of the court or the clerk of any other magistrates' court,", and

  (b) "the clerk of the court, or to the clerk of any other magistrates' court,",

  substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  (3) In subsection (7) (requirement of payer to notify change of address to clerk of the court), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (4) After that subsection insert—
  "(8) In subsection (7), "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to a magistrates' court in Northern Ireland. the clerk of the court."

  The Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c.418)
  123. —(1) Section 18 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (order discharging or varying an attendance centre order) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (8) (clerk to deliver copies of order), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of".
  (3) After subsection (9) insert—
  "(10) In subsection (8) above, "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to the Crown Court, the appropriate officer."

  The Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Act 1983 (c.24)
  124. In section 2(2), (3), (4) and (5) of the Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Act 1983 (applications for occasional permissions), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c.60)
  125. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  126. In section 16(10) and (11) (warrants to be returned to and retained by clerk), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  127. In section 47(3A)(b) (date for appearance on granting of bail), for "clerk to the justices" substitute "justices' chief executive."
  128.—(1) Section 73 (proof of conviction) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (2) (certificate of conviction to be signed by clerk), for "clerk" (in each place) substitute "proper officer".
  (3) For subsection (3) substitute—
  "(3) In subsection (2) above, "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court, his deputy or any other person having custody of the court record."

  The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (c.23)
  129. The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  130. In section 7(4) (justices' clerk to send to Director of Public Prosecutions details of certain cases which do not proceed)—

  (a) for "justices' clerk" substitute "justices' chief executive", and

  (b) for "the magistrates' court to which he is clerk" substitute "a magistrates' court for which he is the justices' chief executive".

  131. In section 23(3), (7) and (8) (discontinuance of proceedings by Director of Public Prosecutions), for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  The Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985 (c.57)
  132. In section 4(6) of the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985 (power of justices' clerks to charge fees), for "clerks" substitute "chief executives".
  The Insolvency Act 1986 (c.45)
  133. In sections 9(1) and 124(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (applications for administration order and winding up), for "the clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  The Public Order Act 1986 (c.64)
  134. In section 34(1) and (2) of the Public Order Act 1986 (notification by clerk of making or termination of exclusion order), for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  The Coroners Act 1988 (c.13)
  135. In sections 16(1)(a) and 17(1) of the Coroners Act 1988 (coroner to adjourn inquest on being notified by clerk of proceedings relating to the death in question), for "clerk of" substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c.33)
  136. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  137. In section 41(10) and (11)(a) (clerk of magistrates' court to be notified about outcome of certain proceedings in Crown Court and Court of Appeal), for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  138. In section 67(1) (clerk to be notified of fine imposed by coroner), for "clerk of" clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  139. In section 81(3) to (9) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (application of proceeds of realisation and other sums), for "justices' clerk" (in each place) substitute "justices' chief executive".
  The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c.53)
  140. The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  141.—(1) Section 7 (duty of accused to provide licence to clerk of court) is amended as follows.
  (2) Number the existing provision as subsection (1) and, in paragraph (a) of that provision, for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) After that provision insert—
  "(2) In subsection (1) above "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court, and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court."

  142. In sections 8(a) and 25(2)(a) (notification to clerk of date of birth and sex), for "to the clerk of a court in pursuance of section 12(2)" substitute "to a justices' chief executive in pursuance of section 12(4)".
  143.—(1) Section 26 (interim disqualification) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (7), in paragraph (b) (licence of person subject to interim disqualification to be sent to clerk), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) After that subsection insert—
  "(2) In subsection (7) above, "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court, and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court."

  144.—(1) Section 27 (production of licence) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (4) (exceptions), for "clerk" (in both places) substitute "proper officer".
  (3) After that subsection insert—
  "(5) In subsection (4) above, "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court, and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court."

  145.—(1) Section 34B (certificate of completion of course) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsections (1), (2) (in both places), (6) and (7), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) In subsection (9)—

  (a) for "clerk of a court" substitute "proper officer of a court", and

  (b) for "clerk or" substitute "officer or".

  146. In section 34C(2) (interpretation), after the definition of "petty sessions area" insert—
  ""proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court, and

  (b) in relation to a sheriff court in Scotland, the clerk of the court;".

  147. In section 52(3)(c) (fixed penalty notice to specify justices' clerk to whom payment to be made), for "justices' clerk" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  148.—(1) Section 69 (payment of fixed penalty) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (payment to be made to justices' clerk specified in notice), for "justices' clerk" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  (3) In subsection (4) (definition of "fixed penalty clerk"), after "references to the" insert "justices' chief executive or".
  149. In section 70(4)(a) (registration certificate to be sent to clerk to justices where offender resides), for "clerk to the justices" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  150.—(1) Section 71 (registration of sums payable in default) is amended as follows.
  (2) For subsections (1) and (2) substitute—
  "(1) Where, in England and Wales, a justices' chief executive receives a registration certificate issued under section 70 of this Act in respect of any sum payable in default—

  (a) if it appears to him that the defaulter resides in a petty sessions area for which he is the justices' chief executive, he must register that sum for enforcement as a fine in that area by entering it in the register of a magistrates' court acting for that area,

  (b) if it appears to him that the defaulter resides in any other petty sessions area in England and Wales, he must send the certificate to the justices' chief executive for that area, or

  (c) if it appears to him that the defaulter resides in Scotland, he must send the certificate to the clerk of the court of summary jurisdiction for the area in which the defaulter appears to him to reside.

  (2) Where, in Scotland, the clerk of a court receives a registration certificate issued under section 70 of this Act in respect of any sum payable in default—

  (a) if it appears to him that the defaulter resides in the area of the court, he must register that sum for enforcement as a fine by that court,

  (b) if it appears to him that the defaulter resides in the area of any other court of summary jurisdiction in Scotland, he must send the certificate to the clerk of that court, or

  (c) if it appears to him that the defaulter resides in England and Wales, he must send the certificate to the justices' chief executive for the petty sessions area in which the defaulter appears to him to reside.

  (2A) Subsections (1) and (2) apply to executives and clerks who receive certificates pursuant to the provision they contain as they apply to the original recipients."
  (3) In subsection (6) (notice to defaulter), for "clerk to the justices" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  151. In sections 72(1) and (6) and 73(1)(b) and (7) (invalidity of registration notice), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  152.—(1) Section 74 (supplementary) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (4) (service of statutory declaration), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) In subsection (5) (interpretation), for paragraph (b) substitute—
  "(b) references to the proper officer of the relevant court are—

  (i) in the case of a magistrates' court, references to the justices' chief executive for that court, and

  (ii) in the case of a court of summary jurisdiction in Scotland, references to the clerk of the court, and".

  153. In section 75(6) (definition of "fixed penalty clerk" for purposes of conditional offers)—

  (a) for "justices' clerk" substitute "justices' chief executive", and

  (b) for "that clerk" substitute "he".

  154. In section 82(2) (accounting where one clerk acts for another), for "justices' clerk" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  155. In section 83(1)(b) (powers where clerk of court deceived). after "Act the" insert "justices' chief executive or".
  156. In section 84(c) (power to make regulations prescribing duties of justices' clerks), for "justices' clerks" substitute "justices' chief executives".
  The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. (c.4)
  157.—(1) Schedule 4 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (forfeiture orders) is amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph 1(5) (meaning of "proper officer"), for "clerk of'. in the first three places, substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  (3) In paragraph 9(4) (functions of clerk to be exercised by appropriate officer of High Court in case of order made elsewhere in British Islands), for "the clerk of a magistrates' court" substitute "a justices' chief executive".
  The Football Spectators Act 1989 (c.37)
  158. In sections 7(7)(b) and 18(1) of the Football Spectators Act 1989 (duties of clerk in relation to notices of conviction and restriction orders), for "clerk of" substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  The Children Act 1989 (c.41)
  159. The Children Act 1989 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  160. In section 83(5) (clerk to provide particulars of proceedings), for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  161. In paragraph 6A(3) of Schedule 1 (variation of order to provide that payments be made to clerk), for "to the clerk" substitute "to the justices' chief executive for the court".
  162. In paragraph 24(6) of Schedule 2 (signature of clerk as evidence of contribution order), for "clerk of ' substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  The Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead Act
  1991 (c.25)
  163.—(1) Schedule 2 to the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 (supervision and treatment orders) is amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph 3(4) (clerk to receive copy of supervision and treatment order), for "clerk to the justices" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  (3) In paragraph 10(1) (clerk to send copy of revocation of supervision and treatment order to supervising officer), for "clerk to" substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  (4) In paragraph 11 (amendment of orders), in sub-paragraph (1), for "clerk to the justices" (in both places) substitute "justices' chief executive" and after that sub-paragraph insert—
  "(1A) Where the justices' chief executive for the court making the order is also the justices' chief executive for the new petty sessions area—

  (a) sub-paragraph (1)(b) above does not apply; but

  (b) the justices' chief executive shall give copies of the amending order to the supervising officer."

  (5) In that paragraph, in sub-paragraph (2), after "(1)" insert "or (1A)".
  The Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c.53)
  164. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  165. In section 20A(2) (official request is one made by clerk), for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  166.—(1) Schedule 2 (enforcement etc. of community orders) is amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph 11, in sub-paragraph (1) (procedure on revocation of order), for "clerk to" substitute "proper officer of and after that sub-paragraph insert—
  "(1A) In sub-paragraph (1) above "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court, the justices' chief executive for the court, and

  (b) in relation to the Crown Court, the appropriate officer."

  (3) In paragraph 18, in sub-paragraph (1) (procedure on the making of an amending order)—

  (a) for "clerk to the court" substitute "justices' chief executive for the court", and

  (b) for "clerk to the justices" (in both places) substitute "chief executive to the justices".

  (4) In that paragraph, in sub-paragraph (1A) (procedure on making of order amending drug treatment and testing order), for "clerk to the court" substitute "justices' chief executive for the court".
  The Social Security Administration Act 1992 (c.5)
  167. The Social Security Administration Act 1992 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  168. In section 107(5) and (11) (recovery of expenditure on income support), for "to the clerk" substitute "to the justices' chief executive for the court".
  169. In section 121(1)(b) (receipt of statement by clerk), for "clerk of substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  The Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 (c.9)
  170. In section 14(5)(b) of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 (Secretary of State to send supervised release order to clerk to the justices), for "clerk" substitute "chief executive".
  The Pension Schemes Acts 1993 (c.48)
  171. In section 68(1)(b) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (receipt by clerk of statement of failure to pay premiums), for "clerk of ' substitute "justices' chief executive for".
  The Drug Trafficking Act 1994 (c.37)
  172. In section 30(4) to (8) of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 (application of proceeds of realisation and other sums), for "justices' clerk" (in each place) substitute "justices' chief executive".
  The Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995 (c.13)
  173.—(1) Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995 (duty to provide test certificate) is amended as follows.
  (2) In sub-paragraph (3), in paragraph (b) (certificate not previously supplied to clerk), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) After that sub-paragraph insert—
  "(3A) In sub-paragraph (3) "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court, and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court."

  The Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (c.21)
  174.—(1) Section 68 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (power to summon witness) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (4) (particulars of fine to be given to clerk), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) After that subsection insert—"
  (4A) In subsection (1) above "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court, and

  (b) in relation to a magistrates' court in Northern Ireland, the clerk of the court".

  The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c.46).
  175. In section 234(9) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (copies of probation order relating to person resident in England and Wales to be sent to clerk of relevant area), for "clerk to the justices" substitute "justices' chief executive".
  The Reserve Forces Act 1996 (c.14)
  176. The Reserve Forces Act 1996 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  177.—(1) Paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 (delivery into military, air-force or naval custody of person dealt with by court of summary jurisdiction as illegally absent) is amended as follows.
  (2) In sub-paragraph (3) (fee payable to clerk of the court), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) After that sub-paragraph insert—"
  (3A) In sub-paragraph (3) "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a magistrates' court in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court."

  178.—(1) Paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 (proof of outcome of civil trial) is amended as follows.
  (2) In sub-paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) (certificate signed by clerk is proof of outcome), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
  (3) For sub-paragraph (4) substitute—
  "(4) In this paragraph "proper officer" means—

  (a) in relation to a court of summary jurisdiction in England and Wales, the justices' chief executive for the court; and

  (b) in relation to any other court, the clerk of the court, his deputy or any other person having the custody of the records of the court."

  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37)
  179.—(1) Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (procedure where no committal proceedings for indictable-only offence) is amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph 4(9), (10) and (11) (power of justice to take depositions etc), for "clerk of substitute "chief executive to".
  (3) In paragraph 6(7) (Crown Court to inform clerk of magistrates' court of outcome of trial), for "clerk of" substitute "justices' chief executive for".")
  199 Schedule 11, page 107, line 43, at end insert—
  ("() To the extent that that duty has effect as a duty of the Lord Chancellor he shall comply with it by making payments to persons or bodies in respect of the provision of representation by them; and, accordingly, references in this Act and any other enactment to representation (or services) funded by the Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service include representation funded by the Lord Chancellor under this sub-paragraph.
  () The Lord Chancellor shall by order made by statutory instrument make provision about such payments (including provision for reviews of, or appeals against, determinations required for the purposes of the order); and subsections (2) and (3) of section 25 of this Act shall apply to it (as if it were a remuneration order as defined by subsection (4) of that section).")
  200 Page 108. line 11, at end insert—
  ("Legal aid in Scotland
  . If section 28 of this Act comes into force before section 1 of the Tax Credits Act 1999, the reference in section 28 to disabled person's tax credit shall, until section 1 of the Tax Credits Act 1999 comes into force. have effect as a reference to disability working allowance.")
  201 Page 110, line 40, at end insert—
  ("Youth courts
  26A.—(1) Subject to any order under paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule to the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (as amended by this Act), there shall from the coining into force of section (Constitution of youth courts) of this Act be a combined youth court panel for the area consisting of the inner London boroughs and the City of London (in spite of paragraph 3 of that Schedule).
  (2) If section (Constitution of youth courts) of this Act comes into force before section 64 of this Act, then until section 64 comes into force paragraph 9 of the Second Schedule to the Children and Young Persons Act (as amended by this Act) shall not prevent there being a combined youth panel for the City of London and any other area.")
  202 Page 111. line 3, leave out ("coming into force of section 64 of this Act,") and insert ("Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority becomes the magistrates' courts committee for Greater London.")
  203 Page 112, leave out line 5
  204 Page 112, line 6, after ("liabilities") insert ("and to exercise any function")
  205 Page 112, line 7, leave out ("begins to act as a magistrates' courts committee,") and insert ("becomes the magistrates' courts committee for Greater London,")
  206 Page 112, line 9, at end insert—
  ("(2) For the purposes of sections 39A and 39B of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 (inserted by section (Code of conduct) of this Act the Authority shall be treated as a magistrates' courts committee until it actually becomes the magistrates' courts committee for Greater London.")
  207 Page 112, line 9, at end insert—
  ("Schemes for transfer of property to GLMCA
  30A.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may make one or more schemes for the transfer to the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority of such of the property, rights and liabilities of—

  (a) a magistrates' courts committee,

  (b) the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District,

  (c) the council of an outer London borough. Or

  (d) the Common Council of the City of London,

  as appear to him to be appropriate to be transferred for the performance of the Authority's functions.
  (2) In this paragraph references to the "transferor", in relation to a scheme, are to the person mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) from whom property is transferred under the scheme.
  (3) A scheme under this paragraph may—

  (a) provide for transfers under the scheme to be on such terms (including terms requiring payment to the transferor) as the Lord Chancellor thinks fit,

  (b) apportion or create rights and liabilities in relation to any property transferred, and

  (c) make any appropriate, consequential, incidental or supplementary provisions.

  (4) On the day appointed by a scheme, the property, rights and liabilities which are the subject of the scheme shall, by virtue of this sub-paragraph, and in spite of any provision (of whatever nature) which would otherwise prevent or restrict the transfer, be transferred in accordance with the scheme.
  (5) Anything done (or having effect as if done) by or in relation to the transferor before the time when a scheme comes into effect for the purposes of, or in connection with, anything transferred under the scheme shall, so far as is required for continuing its effect alter that time, have effect as if done by or in relation to the Authority.
  (6) Any reference to the transferor in any document, including any enactment, constituting or relating to anything transferred under a scheme shall, so far as is required for giving effect to the scheme, be construed as a reference to the Authority.
  (7) Where rights and liabilities under a contract of employment are transferred under a scheme under this paragraph

  (a) for the purposes of Part XI of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (redundancy payments etc.), the employee shall not be regarded as having been dismissed by virtue of the transfer, and

  (b) for the purposes of that Act, the employee's period of employment with the transferor shall count as a period of employment with the Authority, and the change of employment shall not break the continuity of the period of employment.

  Stamp duty on transfer schemes
  30B.—(1) Stamp duty shall not be chargeable—

  (a) on any scheme under paragraph 30A, or

  (b) on any instrument or agreement which is certified to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue by the Lord Chancellor as made in pursuance of such a scheme.

  (2) No such scheme, and no instrument or agreement which is certified as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b), shall be taken to be duly stamped unless—

  (a) it has, in accordance with section 12 of the Stamp Act 1891, been stamped with a particular stamp denoting that it is not chargeable with that duty or that it is duly stamped, or

  (b) it is stamped with the duty to which it would be liable, apart from this paragraph.

  (3) Section 12 of the Finance Act 1895 shall not operate to require—

  (a) the delivery to the Inland Revenue of a copy of this Act, or

  (b) the payment of stamp duty under that section on any copy of this Act,

  and shall not apply in relation to any instrument on which, by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), stamp duty is not chargeable.
  Continuing provision of court-houses, accommodation etc
  30C.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations provide that any petty sessional court-house or other accommodation specified in the regulations which immediately before the time when paragraph 30A comes into force was provided by—

  (a) the council of an outer London borough, or

  (b) the Common Council of the City of London,

  pursuant to section 55 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 (and is not transferred under a scheme under paragraph 30A) shall after that time be provided by that council to the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority for the performance of the functions referred to in section 59A(1) of that Act.
  (2) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1) may—

  (a) prescribe terms and conditions, including conditions as to payment, on which any court-house or other accommodation is to be provided, and

  (b) prohibit a council providing a court-house or other accommodation under sub-paragraph (1) from altering or extending it without the consent of the Lord Chancellor.

  (3) Any duty imposed on a council by regulations under sub-paragraph (1) may at any time be—

  (a) varied or restricted by agreement between the council and the Lord Chancellor, or

  (b) terminated by the Lord Chancellor after consulting the council.

  (4) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1) shall be made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  Pensions of inner London court staff
  30D.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may by order made by statutory instrument make provision about the provision of pensions for or in respect of persons who are or have been members of the inner London court staff.
  (2) An order under this paragraph may include provision for, or in connection with—

  (a) enabling persons to participate, or continue to participate, in any pension scheme and requiring their employers to make contributions under that scheme, and

  (b) the administration or management of pension schemes or pension funds.

  (3) Provision of the kind specified in sub-paragraph (2)(a) may—

  (a) with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service, include provision for section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 (pensions of civil servants etc) to apply to persons who are or have been members of the inner London court staff, or

  (b) include provision for persons who have been members of the inner London court staff but who are employees of the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority by virtue of a scheme under paragraph 30A to be regarded as continuing to be members of the metropolitan civil staffs for the purposes of section 15 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967 (pensions of metropolitan civil staffs).

  (4) An order under this paragraph containing provision of the kind specified in sub-paragraph (3)(a) may also contain provision for such body or person as may be specified in the order to pay to the Minister for the Civil Service, at such times as he may direct, such sums as he may determine in respect of the increase attributable to such provision (so far as referable to that body or person) in the sums payable under the Superannuation Act 1972 out of money provided by Parliament.
  (5) Where an order is made under this paragraph containing provision of the kind specified in sub-paragraph (3)(a), the Minister for the Civil Service may, to such extent and subject to such conditions as he thinks fit—

  (a) delegate to any person the function of administering a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972, so far as relating to persons who are or have been members of the inner London court staff, or

  (b) authorise the exercise of that function (so far as so relating) by, or by employees of, any person.

  (6) A person to whom the function of administering a scheme made under section I of the Superannuation Act 1972 is delegated under sub-paragraph (5)(a) may, to such extent and subject to such conditions as he may determine, authorise the exercise of that function by, or by employees of, any person.
  (7) Where a person is authorised under sub-paragraph (5)(b) or (6) to exercise the function of administering a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972, anything done or omitted to be done by or in relation to him (or an employee of his) in, or in connection with, the exercise or purported exercise of the function shall be treated for all purposes as done or omitted to be done by the person who authorised him.
  (8) Sub-paragraph (7) does not apply for the purposes of—

  (a) any criminal proceedings against the authorised person (or any employee of his), or

  (b) any contract between him and the person who authorised him, so far as relating to the function.

  (9) An order under this paragraph may provide that any enactment repealed by this Act shall continue to have effect for any purpose specified in the order with such modifications as may be so specified.
  (10) A statutory instrument containing an order under this paragraph shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (11) In this paragraph the "inner London court staff" means—

  (a) the justices' chief executive employed by the magistrates' courts committee for the area consisting of the inner London boroughs,

  (b) any justices' clerk for that area, and

  (c) staff of the magistrates' courts committee for that area.")

  208 Page 112, leave out lines 20 to 24
  209 Schedule 12, page 112, line 35, at end insert—

  ("1973 c. 62.

  The Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973.

  In section 21(2), the words from ", and in subsection" to the end.

  1974 c. 47.

  The Solicitors Act 1974.

  In section 47, in subsection (2C), the words "excluding any person from legal aid work", in subsection (2D), the words "from such work" and subsection (6).")

  210 Page 112, line 45, at end insert—

  ("1982 c. 48.

  The Criminal Justice Act 1982.

  In section 3(2), the words from ", and in subsection" to the end.")

  211 Page 113, column 3, leave out line 3 and insert—

  ("In section 42, in subsection (3), the words "from such work" and subsection (4)(b) and the preceding "and".

  Section 43(4).

  Section 44(4).")

  212 Page 113, line 11, column 3, after ("18,") insert ("19(b) and the preceding "and",")
  213 Page 114, line 14, at end insert—

  ("1998 c. 37.

  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

  Section 49(1)(j).

  Section 50(5).

  In Schedule 8, paragraph 67.")

  214 Page 114, line 14, at end insert—

  ("1999 c. 00.

  The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

  Section 39(2).")

  215 Page 114, line 21, at end insert—

  ("1974 c. 47.

  The Solicitors Act 1974.

  In section 32(4), the words "to the Director of Public

  Prosecutions" and the words ", if the Director thinks fit,".

  In section 87(1), in the definition of "building society", the words "; and a reference to an account with a building society is a reference to a deposit account".")

  216 Page 114, line 36, column 3, at beginning insert ("Section 9(2)(g).")
  217 Page 114, line 36, column 3, at end insert—
  ("In Schedule 2, in paragraph 3, the words "to the Director of Public Prosecutions" and the words ", if the Director thinks fit," and, in paragraph 11(2), the words from the beginning to "those provisions,".")
  218 Page 115, line 21, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In Schedule 3— in paragraph 3, in sub-paragraph (1) the words "with the approval of the Treasury" and, in sub-paragraph (2), the words ", with the consent of the Treasury,", in paragraph 4(2) the words "given with the consent of the Treasury", and in paragraph 9(3), the words "with the approval of the Treasury".")

  219 Page 116, line 12, at end insert—

  ("1996 c. 25.

  The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.

  Section 13(1)(cc).")

  220 Page 116, line 14, at end insert—

  ("1998 c. 37.

  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

  In Schedule 3, in paragraph 1(1), the words "on or before the relevant date".

  In Schedule 8, paragraph 127(a).")

  221 Page 116, line 32, at end insert—

  ("60&61 Vict. c. 26.

  The Metropolitan Police Courts Act 1897.

  Section 7(1).")

  222 Page 116, line 38, at end insert—

  ("2 & 3 Geo.6 c. xcvii.

  The London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939.

  In section 151(1)(bb), the word "the" immediately preceding "magistrates' courts", the words from "in the inner" to "London)" and the words "in that area".")

  223 Page 117, column 3, line 13, at beginning insert ("In section 12(1), the words from the beginning to "reference to the inner London area.".")
  224 Page 118, line 22, at end insert—

  ("1994 c. 29.

  The Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994.

  In Schedule 8, paragraph 35.")

  225 Page 119, line 20, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In Schedule 4, paragraph 6.")

  226 Page 119, line 22, column 3, leave out ("3, 5 to")
  227 Page 119, line 25, column 3, leave out ("34(3)") and insert ("34")
  228 Page 119, line 26, at end insert—

  ("(1A) CONSTITUTION OF YOUTH COURTS

  Chapter

  Short title

  Extent of repeal

  23 Geo.5 c. 12.

  The Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

  In the Second Schedule, in Part I, the headings "Outside Metropolitan Area" and "Youth court panels", paragraph 1 and, in paragraph 10(a), the words "(except where the committee's area is a borough)" and Part II.

  1964 c. 42.

  The Administration of Justice Act 1964.

  Section 12.

  1969 c. 54.

  The Children and Young Persons Act 1969.

  In section 70(1), the definition of "petty sessions area".

  1980 c. 54.

  The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

  In section 146, in subsection (4), the words from "with respect to the making" to the end and subsection (5).

  1985 c. 61.

  The Administration of Justice Act 1985.

  Section 61.

  1991 c. 53.

  The Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  In Schedule 11, paragraph 40(2)(f) and (p).

  1998 c. 37.

  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

  Section 48.

  1999 c. 00.

  The Access to Justice Act 1999.

  In Schedule 7, paragraphs 16(2) and (4) and 33A.")

  229 Page 120, column 3, leave out line 9
  230 Page 121, leave out lines 2 and 3
  231 Page 122, line 14, at end insert—

  ("(5A) GREATER LONDON MAGISTRATES' COURTS AUTHORITY

  Chapter

  Short title

  Extent of repeal

  60 & 61 Vict. c. 26.

  The Metropolitan Police Courts Act 1897.

  Sections 3 and 4.

  2 & 3 Geo.6 c. xcvii.

  The London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939.

  In section 151(1)(bb), the words "magistrates' courts".

  1965 c. 63.

  The Public Works Loans Act 1965.

  In section 2(1)(a), the word "and" at the end of sub-paragraph (iii).

  1967 c. 28.

  The Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967.

  Section 15(1)(a)(ii) and (9).

  1968 c. 13.

  The National Loans Act 1968.

  In Schedule 4, in paragraph l(a), the word "and" at the end of sub-paragraph (iii).

  1971 c. 56.

  The Pensions (Increase) Act 1971.

  In Schedule 6, paragraph (d).

  1991 c. 53.

  The Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  Section 76(5).

  1994 c. 29.

  The Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994.

  In Schedule 8, paragraphs 24, 25 and 33(5).

  1997 c. 25.

  The Justices of the Peace Act 1997.

  In section 10(8), the words "the City of London, a London borough," and the words from "and for" to the end.

  Section 56(4).

  In section 54(9), the definition of "local funds".

  In section 55, subsection (8) and, in subsection (10), in the definition of "responsible authority", paragraph (d) and the words from "or the" to the end.

  In section 72(1), the definition of "inner London area".

  Schedule 3.

  In Schedule 4, paragraphs 7, 8, 10 and 11.

  1999 c. 00.

  The Access to Justice Act 1999.

  In Schedule 7, paragraphs 36A, 37(2)(a), 46, 47(2) and 48.

  In Schedule 8, paragraph 11.

  In Schedule 11, paragraph 26A(2).")

  232 Page 122, line 29, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In section 21(1), the definition of "proper officer".

  1964 c. 26.

  The Licensing Act 1964.

  In section 22(4), the words from ""as in" to "magistrates' court".

  Section 30(2).

  1968 c. 65.

  The Gaming Act 1968.

  In Schedule 2, in paragraph 2(2), the definition of "the clerk to the licensing authority".")

  233 Page 122, leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert—

  ("1986 c. 64.

  The Public Order Act 1986.

  Section 34(3).

  1988 c. 33.

  The Criminal Justice Act 1988.

  Section 41(13).

  Section 81(10).

  1988 c. 53.

  The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

  In section 34C(2), the words from "and any reference" to the end. Section 71(4) and (5).

  In section 89(1), the definition of "justices' clerk".

  1989 c. 4.

  The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.

  In Schedule 4, in paragraph 1(5), the words from "and in this sub-paragraph" to the end.")

  234 Page 123, line 8, at end insert—

  ("1998 c. 37.

  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

  In Schedule 3, paragraph 6(11).")

  235 Transpose Part IV(4) of Schedule 12 to the end of line 14 on page 116
  236 In the Title, line 4, leave out from ("appeals") to ("court") in line 7 and insert (", courts, judges and")
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 160 to 236. These amendments have already been spoken to.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 160 to 236.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at eight minutes past midnight.