Lords Sitting of 16 March 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 Norwich.

Forestry: Government Policy
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are committed to expanding forestry in the United Kingdom, and whether this policy will be pursued by the new separate authorities in England, Scotland and Wales.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, we are indeed committed to expanding forestry and this is a key element of the England Forestry Strategy which we published last year. The Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly in Wales will, of course, develop their own policies on expanding forestry in Scotland and Wales.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is an annual deficit in wood and wood products of over £6 billion per annum? Bearing that in mind will he explain his right honourable friend's statement as regards English forestry strategy that only hardwoods will be planted in England? Does he not realise that hardwoods have a rotation of 80 to 100 years and will make no contribution whatever to the balance of payments situation? Conifers are also trees and the appropriate sprinkling of species in conifer forests can be effective.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, first, I must say that I am aware of my noble friend's expertise in this area over many years. I am also aware of the deficit to which he drew my attention. The forestry strategy for England has four key programme areas where it aims to maximise the benefits that forests and woodlands can provide. The four areas are rural development and economic regeneration—that takes into account what my noble friend said about employment—the environment and nature conservation and, of course, very importantly, recreation and tourism. While this may be the strategy for England, I have no doubt that the Scottish Parliament will develop its own strategy for Scotland.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that what he has said about the advantages of hardwoods for the preservation of the environment and of wildlife is well worth supporting? Is the Forestry Commission, of which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, used to be chairman, to remain one unit, or must it be split up?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, it will remain one unit with its headquarters in Scotland. However, the policy for England will be developed in England and the policy for Scotland will be developed in Scotland. Of course
602
the policy for Wales will be developed in Wales. In the latter two cases the policies will be developed through the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly respectively.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, following what my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe said as regards planting hardwoods that will not mature for 80 to 100 years, is my noble friend aware that that is exactly the right kind of long-term policy that will enable this country at the end of the next century to revel in a century of Labour government?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, what can I say to that except that I agree with my noble friend that I am sure we shall have Labour governments for a long time? We shall certainly look after forestry policy. Indeed we have stopped the sale of forestry land and none will be sold except for small areas and pockets of surplus land.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that an essential element for expanding forestry in the United Kingdom involves having markets? Does not the Minister also agree that it is necessary in the world into which we are moving for woodlands to be certificated to reach the maximum market? What plans do the Government have to ensure that private forestry owners can achieve certification on a simple, cost effective, user friendly basis?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, we are encouraging timber certification. The present regulatory framework delivers a high standard of forestry. We want to build on that framework. There is also a place for independent certification. We hope that this will be facilitated by the UK woodland assurance scheme. Timber certification will, of course, be voluntary under the scheme, but we believe it will be advantageous to those who adopt it.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, due to the long-term nature of forestry and the possibility of a changing climate with the greenhouse effect can the Minister assure the House that planting policies comprise the right species that can tolerate an increase in general temperature and rainfall?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, that will be taken into account as part of our policies. We are concerned about what will happen in the future, particularly in relation to the matters the noble Lord mentioned. As I said in outlining what we are doing in England, we are taking all those matters into account, particularly the environment and the care of the environment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does the Minister wish to answer the question of his noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe? Is it true that the Government's forestry policy in England is that no more conifers will be planted? If that is true, how will the Government ensure that the wood-using industries in England will be

603
supplied with conifers in future? Does the Minister realise that conifers are the trees that supply the jobs in the timber industry?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, of course I realise that conifers provide the jobs in the timber industry. We believe that the existing forest can meet demand in the future. I hear what the noble Lord says; he is pointing. We believe that replanting the existing forests will meet the demands of the timber industry in this country.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, would it not help to reduce the deficit if the national newspapers could be persuaded to stop producing such an indigestible mass of junk every Sunday, which we do not read because we have not finished the Saturday papers?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, that is a little wide of the Question, but my noble friend has the support of the House in what he said.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that, while the Government's strategy for English forestry is perfectly acceptable, we should not lose sight of the fact that England is the least wooded country in Europe? Does he further accept that resources should continue to be made available to ensure that the new community forests in England are capable of making an increased contribution in the next century?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. We hope to increase the amount of woodland in England. At the moment the programme is going quite well. Over the past 12 months we have budgeted for £40 million for woodland generally, which is the highest total there has been so far. Our intention is to increase woodland in England and to try to achieve the target that my noble friend has pointed out.

Nigeria: Aid
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assistance they are providing to the Government of Nigeria to help them in returning to civilian rule based on democratic institutions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we are actively supporting the current transition programme to civilian rule in Nigeria. We aim to help Nigerians secure for themselves a stable, democratic and prosperous future. Help from the FCO has included projects in support of democracy and direct assistance to the election process. The Department for International Development is funding a good governance programme to support and strengthen the work of civil society and non-governmental organisations.
604
Discussion takes place at all levels, including most recently my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who visited Nigeria from 8th to 10th March for constructive talks with the outgoing head of state, General Abubakar and with President-Elect Obasanjo.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Is she aware of how strongly many of us in this House and the country feel about the satisfactory return of Nigeria to democratic institutions? Is it correct that the BBC has just been able to reach a co-operation agreement with Nigeria enabling programmes in both English and Hausa to spread throughout the entire country? Finally, can the Minister say whether the new, but welcome, Anglo-French initiative might be brought to bear on the economic problems of West Africa? She will be aware that anglophone and francophone countries literally interleave across the whole of that part of Africa in ways which suggest that closer economic co-operation might be very helpful to both sides of the Anglo-French groupings.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware that many people draw considerable satisfaction from what has happened in Nigeria. Of course, we must all do our best to maintain the way in which Nigeria is moving. The noble Baroness raised specific points about the BBC. She may be interested to know that the FCO funded the BBC World Service project on responsible journalism and on voter education. I am not entirely sure about the point she raised on Hausa, but I will certainly do my best to get some information on that matter for her. As to economic questions, we have been very pleased with the budget announced on the 1st January which we believe is based on prudent assumptions, tight monetary policy and significant fiscal adjustments. We are also pleased to see that some structural reforms have been introduced which have been advocated by the IMF. I am sure we all agree that these kinds of economic programmes and co-operation between those who wish Nigeria well—this country, France and others—will in due course bear significant fruit.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, in view of all this good news, are the Government yet able to foresee the time when they might recommend that Nigeria be readmitted to the Commonwealth?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the next meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group is due to take place on 29th and 30th April. Her Majesty's Government will then be urging the group to recommend to the heads of Commonwealth governments that Nigeria's suspension be lifted immediately. Her Majesty's Government would very much like to see Nigeria at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in South Africa this autumn.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, during his visit to Nigeria, what assurances did the Foreign Secretary seek from General Obasanjo that Nigeria will not withdraw its forces from the Ecomoa peace-keeping force in Sierra Leone? What assessment has the Minister made of the view that it will be extremely difficult for an elected government in Nigeria to justify the expense of maintaining Ecomoa troops in Sierra Leone given the unpopularity of financing the regional peace-keeping force amid the deprived and impoverished Nigerian population?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that it is commonly known, but let me state again for the record that Her Majesty's Government have encouraged Nigeria to keep its forces in Sierra Leone on all occasions when we have been able to have significant ministerial contact. My right honourable friend would have done so when he was in Nigeria earlier this month.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, given the happy events in Nigeria, will the fear that previously existed for ordinary members of the public there begin to be removed? Will people be able to feel more secure than they did previously? My father, who was a governor there, would no doubt be very pleased that it appears that at long last the great Nigerian nation will be able to begin to rebuild itself.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that we all agree with the points made by the noble Lord. Her Majesty's Government will continue to do what they can to ensure good and stable government in Nigeria. We have been working through the Westminster Foundation for Democracy to provide training for political parties and politicians. We have also, through DfID, been trying to help with the draft constitution. It is important to remember that, even in the strange relationship that we had with Nigeria over a period, we maintained our help in poverty elimination to the tune of some £12 million a year. Her Majesty's Government, with the support of this House, have done what they can to increase stabilisation in the way suggested by the noble Lord.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of those who can play a prominent role in building up civil society in Nigeria, particularly in a human rights capacity, have spent long periods in prison in that country? I refer to people such as Beko Ransome-Kuti and Femi Falana. In looking at the aid we are providing to help the Nigerians build their civil society, will the Government give particular preference to organisations represented by those people who have suffered so much under previous military regimes?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, indeed we do that. We have welcomed the release of political detainees. The most recent releases took place on 3rd March. We continue to urge the Nigerian Government to ensure that political detainees are released. We have welcomed the release of the Ogoni
606
20. A significant point is that we continue to urge Mr. Abubakar's government to release the bodies of Ken Saro-wiwa and the eight associates of the families for proper burial.

Human Embryos: Ethical Issues
2.52 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool Lord Alton of Liverpool asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consideration they are giving to the ethical issues which originate from the creation of human embryos for the purpose of cloning.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the Government have already made it absolutely clear that the deliberate cloning of human individuals is ethically unacceptable and cannot take place in the United Kingdom. The Government are currently considering their response to the report, Cloning issues in reproduction, science and medicine, prepared by the Human Genetics Advisory Commission and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and for re-stating the Government's position. However, is she aware that in the past nine years more than half a million human embryos have been destroyed or experimented upon? Is she further aware that the report to which the Government intend to reply in April recommends that in therapeutic circumstances human cloning should be permissible? Does she agree that before such a momentous decision is taken there needs to be a much more broadly based and widespread debate than has so far taken place? The committee of four established by the HFEA and HGAC consisted of individuals all of whom had previously expressed support for therapeutic cloning. One had significant holdings in the pharmaceutical industry. Does the Minister agree that before the science marches ahead we need to ponder more carefully the ethical considerations?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I agree that we need to consider seriously views on the ethical issues. I have made clear the Government's commitment. The cloning of human individuals is ethically unacceptable. It cannot take place in the United Kingdom. The HGAC/HFEA report recognises that. The report is not that of the four members of the working group; it is the report of both authorities jointly to government. It is right that there should be considered debate on the way forward. The Government will publish their response in due course. As the noble Lord is well

607
aware, any research that uses human embryos is subject to the very strict controls laid down in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the treatment of human embryos as products is utterly wrong?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the terminology used by the noble Earl is clearly offensive to him and to most right-minded people. However, the benefits from strictly controlled research on embryos in some circumstances have been felt by many couples in this country who now have children as a result of in vitro fertilisation techniques made possible by the research. That makes us recognise that a balance has to be struck. The balance is limited and controlled research where that is ethically justified. It does not extend to the cloning of human individuals.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that not only the Church but a large proportion of the general public are increasingly concerned about the way in which the boundaries of embryo research are constantly being pushed outwards? I was encouraged to hear the Minister's remarks about the possibility of debate. Does she acknowledge that the boundaries have been extended far beyond what was envisaged in the Warnock Report without the benefit of the kind of public debate recommended as an essential part of the report?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is absolutely right that we have revisited the debate. The HGAC/HFEA consultation exercise which took place before the report was drawn up was a proper way forward, taking a wide range of responses from a wide range of interests. In an area where it is important that we do not allow the science to outpace the ethics, the Government are considering very carefully the recommendations contained in the report.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the control of embryo research in this country is very closely monitored by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority? Does she agree that informed public, scientific and medical opinion is totally opposed to any suggestion of reproductive cloning of identical human individuals? However, does she further agree that, under regulation, there are huge potential benefits to be gained by the cloning of human tissues for transplantation purposes? Is it not the case that, if regulations allowed, the prospect of the prevention of devastating mitochondrial disease by cytoplasmic transfer could bring enormous benefits to human health?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord has expressed in more eloquent and technical terms the concept I was trying to explain to the House; namely, that there is very strict control on research in these areas. It is right to have that control, and it is right to
608
scrutinise very carefully any proposals for extension. Research and diagnostic procedures using cloning techniques which do not include the cloning of individual humans have been established in medicine for many years and have great potential benefits for health.
Baroness Young: My Lords, while we accept the Minister's statement about current practice and the Government's view, will she accept that any discussion on the published report should take account of the ethical issues? They are of great concern to many people. Will she bear in mind particularly the point made by the right reverend Prelate that this area is expanding all the time and we are not at all clear just where it is leading us?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I agree totally with the noble Baroness that we must ensure that the ethical considerations are fully taken account of in any government response to the report.
Lord Elton: My Lords, following on that reply, will the noble Baroness take note of the great concern in this House and outside with regard to the decision that the Government are reportedly to take in April and, since the usual channels are all represented in the Chamber at the moment, will she make certain that time is found for Members of this House to discuss the matter before the Government announce their view? It would be most unfortunate if the Government were to announce their view without first hearing the views of noble Lords.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful for the formulation used by the noble Lord. I shall certainly take account of that consideration. I know that these issues are of great concern in your Lordships' House, and I am sure that the usual channels will have heard what the noble Lord said.

Sterling and the Euro
3.00 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky Lord Skidelsky asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is their intention that sterling shadow the euro.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have no intention of shadowing the euro.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that reply, I have to say that, following yesterday's events, we should prefer the Government to shadow the Commission than the pound to shadow the euro. In the light of the Minister's reply, can he give the House an assurance that the Government will not try to influence the external value of sterling unless and until a referendum has declared in favour of Britain joining the single currency?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the external value of sterling is not a primary objective of economic policy; it is, rather, the outcome of sound economic policies. As the noble Lord will remember from the debates on the Bank of England Bill last year, the primary objective is price stability. It would be unwise to have, as another primary objective, an objective which could conflict with price stability.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, do not the convergence criteria demand not formal membership of ERM II but a stable exchange rate for a period of roughly two years before we join the euro? If that convergence criterion is in operation, how can we achieve that stability without shadowing the euro?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the convergence criteria which applied before the 11 countries signed up to the euro in May of last year were not interpreted mechanistically, even at that time. Finland and Italy qualified, despite not meeting the criteria; Sweden did not qualify but that was for other reasons, as well. As for the present time, no, there is no requirement that we should join ERM II and there is certainly nothing magical about a two-year period.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether he thinks that the economies within the euro zone at present are converging or diverging?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think it is too early to say. The euro has been in existence for less than three months. What is significant about our relations with the European economies is that inflation and interest rates are converging with those in euroland as a whole, and the Government find that encouraging.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the Chancellor's own five tests before joining the euro included sustainable convergence? Does he accept that it is not possible to have that at the present level? What action does he propose to deal with that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, sustainable convergence is indeed one of the five economic tests which the Chancellor set. But, of course, exchange rate convergence is not the only criterion; it is only one of the four convergence criteria, the others being price stability, sustainable public finances and convergent long-term interest rates.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, given the extreme volatility of the euro at present, I am sure that the Government's stated position on this matter is a wise one. Given that this country's earnings from dollar-denominated trade are growing as a total proportion of our trade, and growing considerably faster than our euro-denominated trade, does it not make sense
610
that, if there is any shadowing to be done—though personally I am against that—it should be of the dollar rather than the euro?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is no shadowing to be done and therefore the question does not arise.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that there is no necessity to converge with, follow or shadow any particular currency? The pound sterling is quite capable of holding its own. Would it not be better if we devoted some constructive effort to assisting the Commission in its present difficulties—largely self-inflicted—and to support the euro when it is appropriate to do so and when it ceases to have a mythical significance? Surely we can carry that on our backs as well.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I sympathise with the desire of the noble Lord to anticipate the Statement which the Prime Minister is about to make, but he must not expect me to anticipate it.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that in general it would be desirable for us to have a stable currency at competitive levels?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that I can broadly agree with such a broad proposition, yes.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, will my noble friend remind the House of the last Chancellor of the Exchequer to shadow a major European currency, from which party he came and with what results?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it has been my consistent practice at this Dispatch Box not to intrude upon private grief.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, following on the answer which the Minister gave to the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, is he aware that there are six clauses left in the Treaty of Rome not included in Protocol 25 at Maastricht which commit us to running our economy on communautaire lines in precisely the same way as the convergence criteria did at the time? In those circumstances, can the noble Lord tell the House whether the Government intend to obey those clauses or to ignore them?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in saying that in many ways we are required to run our economy on what he describes as communautaire lines. From the answers I have already given about the way in which the convergence criteria have in fact been interpreted, he will understand that that is not a very precise commitment.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the European Commission. Following that, my noble friend Lord Hoyle will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on crime reduction.

Access to Justice Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): 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 Access to Justice Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 1 [Principles applicable to Part I]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert—
("(2A) The Lord Chancellor shall before the commencement of each financial year inform the Commission—

(a) of the sums which he intends to pay to the Commission during that year for the funding of services by the Commission as part of the Community Legal Service, and

(b) of the sums which he expects to pay to the Commission during that year to meet the costs of any advice, assistance and representation funded by the Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service.

(2B) The Lord Chancellor shall inform the Commission of any subsequent change in his intention referred to in subsection (2A)(a) or in his expectation referred to in subsection (2A)(b), and of his reasons for making any such change.
(2C) The Lord Chancellor shall not make any change involving a reduction of the sums referred to in subsection (2A)(a) unless the Commission has advised him that such reduction can be made without detriment to the services which are to be funded from the Community Legal Service for that year pursuant to the plan published under paragraph 15 of Schedule 1.
(2D) The Lord Chancellor shall lay before each House of Parliament a statement of the information given by him to the Commission under subsections (2A) or (2B).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the main purpose of this extremely important amendment is to prevent money allocated to the community legal service being transferred to make good an overspend on the criminal defence service arising during the course of a financial year. To go briefly into the background, up until now spending on both civil and criminal legal aid has been uncapped. If the applicant satisfies the criteria he gets it. The cost of both civil and criminal legal aid over the years has, regrettably, increased substantially faster than the rate of inflation. In an effort to control the cost of civil legal aid the financial limits of eligibility for legal aid have been squeezed until almost no one is eligible for civil legal aid unless he is living on benefits. We have undoubtedly gone as far as we can down that route. Reluctantly but nevertheless plainly, we accept the need for the capping of the civil legal aid budget.
Civil legal aid is technically now to be replaced by the community legal service and criminal legal aid will be replaced by the criminal defence service, both being administered by the legal services commission. The criminal defence service, like criminal legal aid, will not be cash-limited. Clearly, that is right. One cannot refuse to pay for the defence of an accused person who faces a long prison sentence because the CDS budget has run out. Indeed, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights entitles an accused,
"if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require".
The community legal service, on the other hand, will be cash-limited. Clause 6(2) provides that the Lord Chancellor,
"shall pay to the [Legal Services Commission] the sums which he determines are appropriate for the funding of services by the Commission as part of the Community Legal Service".
That is the money that the community legal service will get for the year and will be entitled to spend.
The commission is also required under paragraph 15 of Schedule 1 to prepare a plan before the beginning of each financial year setting out how it intends in that year to fund services from the community legal service fund. That plan must be approved by the Lord Chancellor. If he does not approve it he can direct the commission to revise it in accordance with his direction. The funding of the community legal service which the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate must therefore, I assume, be the funding which is required to implement the plan that he himself has approved.
Paragraph 6.10 of the White Paper Modernising Justice published at the same time as the Bill stated:
"The CDS will be a separate scheme from the Community Legal Service … and its budget will not form part of the Community Legal Service Fund. Separating the two schemes in this way reflects the fact that they are responsible for providing different types of service in very different types of case; and that each scheme has its own distinct objectives and priorities".
I concur completely with that statement in the White Paper. I had therefore assumed, as I believe did most other people who had studied the subject, that the CDS and the CLS would have completely independent budgets. Nothing in the Bill or the Explanatory Notes suggested otherwise. We did not become aware that that assumption was misplaced until the second day of the Committee stage when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said:
"what is available for civil legal aid is what is left over from the budget after the prior claims of criminal legal aid have been met".—[Official Report, 21/1/99; col. 738.]
The noble and learned Lord said something very similar on 26th January at col. 918.
The implications of that statement are truly alarming. We hope that the Lord Chancellor will be able to control spending on the criminal defence service so far as the interests of justice permit him to do so. But if he fails to do so, or if circumstances arise which are outside his control, there will be a clear and immediate danger to the funding of the community legal service.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explained in subsequent correspondence that there was no absolute requirement to meet an overspend on the

613
criminal defence service from the community legal service budget. But he also explained that, save in exceptional circumstances, he would expect to meet an overspend on the criminal defence service from the other elements of his departmental budget, which in practice means the community legal service.
The diversion of funds from the community legal service to the criminal defence service is no theoretical risk. The commencement of the main provisions of the Human Rights Act is likely to lead to a temporary, but quite possibly substantial, increase in the cost of the criminal defence service as the criminal procedures are tested against convention rights under the Act. In some Australian states civil legal aid has been suspended altogether in times of budget crisis. In Ontario the capping of the legal aid budget led to an 80 per cent. decrease in civil legal aid certificates for a period of three years.
At Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, moved an amendment that would have required the Lord Chancellor in deciding what amount was appropriate for funding the community legal service to disregard expected spending on the criminal defence service. I forced that amendment to the Vote, which was lost. I cannot therefore bring back that amendment in the same form. Indeed, I accept that that amendment goes somewhat too far. In deciding the annual budget for the community legal service, spending on the CDS must be one of the factors that can be taken into account along with all other items of government spending. We shall have to rely on public opinion and pressure from voluntary organisations active in the field to prevent or limit cuts in spending on the community legal service year on year.
The main aim of this amendment is to restrict transfers during the course of the financial year from the community legal service to the criminal defence service. To use technical jargon, it restricts virement. According to this amendment, transfers can be made only if the commission is satisfied that they will not prejudice the services to be provided by the community legal service under the plan that has been approved for that year. The amendment also requires transparency about the transfer and requires Parliament to be informed. It does not require parliamentary consent to that transfer. If this amendment were accepted and became part of the Act any overspend on the criminal defence service for the year would, presumably, come out of the contingency reserve, which is where I believe it belongs.
This is therefore a modest amendment. It does not restrict the Government's powers over annual expenditure on legal services, either criminal or civil. The amendment merely restricts the power to cut spending on the community legal service during the course of the current year with all the consequences that such cuts would have for access to justice. One cannot sensibly plan the community legal service on the basis that one may be told half-way through the year that the budget for the year is to be cut by 20 per cent. or whatever other figure is appropriate or necessary. Strategic planning will be impossible. How can firms
614
be expected to provide good quality service under their contracts if those contracts can disappear altogether when community legal service spending is cut back?
This amendment is supported by all the members of the Legal Aid Forum: the Law Society; the Bar Council; the National Consumer Council; the Consumers' Association; the Legal Action Group; and the Public Law Project. The fact that consumer bodies as well as legal professional organisations have come together to support the amendment makes it clear that this is not a proposal for the protection of the legal profession.
In the debate on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, at Report stage on the 11th February the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor produced the usual mantra about schools and hospitals coming first. We accept that they are priorities for any increase in public spending, but we do not ask for an increase in spending on civil legal services but for protection of the funding of CSL which now exists for access to civil justice. What does access to justice mean? It means the right of homeless families who have been wrongly refused rehousing by their local authority to challenge that refusal in court. It means the right of a child who has been brain damaged at birth to claim damages for clinical negligence.
Cutting spending on the community legal service means denying those people the rights that they now enjoy. Even now I ask the Government to think again. If they do not do so, I fear that the Bill will become not the Access to Justice Bill but the End of Access to Justice Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, it is not often that a Back-Bencher takes part in these debates. Most of those who take part are lawyers. In the 11 minutes that the noble Lord has been on his feet, he asked just this: will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor make sure that there are sufficient funds to carry out access to justice? I have said that in one minute.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I oppose the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I may take more than a minute but I shall not take 11.
When considering the Marshalled List for today's Third Reading, I was struck by how often noble Lords from the Liberal Democrat Benches have sought to amend the Bill. Almost without exception the amendments maintain the status quo or protect an already established interest. I draw attention to that because of the contrast with the Liberal Democrat Party's tendency to promote itself as the party of radical thought and action.
I wish to make two brief remarks on the amendment. First, we are again faced with lawyers trying to give themselves budgetary "wriggle room". They seek to ring-fence moneys under this heading. That flies in the face of a consolidated budget, controlling costs, making savings on all sides, including criminal and civil, with the whole system subject to the best value regime. Secondly, an important aspect of the modernisation imposed by this legislation is that the budgetary controls are transparent. Money for legal aid comes from the

615
taxpayer and we need a system which we can demonstrate is under control and can be readily understood by people. The amendment does not allow either of those factors. That is why it should be resisted.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, although my name is not attached to the amendment, that is through inadvertence rather than intention. I support the amendment in its entirety.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, at Report, the House agreed that it would not be appropriate to lay down in statute that a Lord Chancellor could not consider the expected cost of funding the criminal defence service when setting the annual budget for the community legal service. The Government must be able to take account of all competing priorities when planning public spending. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, wrote to me after Report that he now accepts that view. It would be neither acceptable, workable or effective to seek to protect spending on the CLS by saying that Ministers may take account of expenditure on all other areas of government-funded activity in setting the CLS budget, except for the amount likely to be spent on the CDS.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has now moved an amendment dealing with the annual budgets once they have been set. Subsections (2A) and (2B) require the Lord Chancellor to inform the commission of the annual budget for the CLS, the expected cost of the CDS, and any changes in either. Those subsections are, in themselves, wholly unnecessary. The system clearly could not operate if the Lord Chancellor did not do this. I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, would deprecate the waste of words. Subsection (2D) would require the Lord Chancellor to lay a statement of any changes before Parliament. I think it is right that the Lord Chancellor should do so; and I would be happy to give an undertaking to that effect.
Subsection (2C), however, would prevent the Lord Chancellor from changing the annual budget for the CLS once it had been set, unless the commission advised him that the change would not be detrimental to the services which were to be funded under the CLS. It is hard to see how any reduction in the budgets would not, in some sense, be detrimental. So the effect of this subsection is to prevent any reduction in the budget once it has been set.
Therefore I cannot accept this amendment. As I made clear at Report, to adopt any proposal totally to ring-fence either the CLS or CDS budget is not to live in the real world. In fact, I do not believe that any Minister in a responsible government would ever be willing—either in a statutory provision or by a non-statutory undertaking—to guarantee that a given level of spending on a particular function would be maintained, whatever other financial pressures might fall unexpectedly on this and other departments.
I have to say that to propose this amendment—I note that it is supported by the official Opposition—is to treat opposition as a luxury which relieves them of the need or the duty to prioritise.
616
Having said that, let me say that I am absolutely determined to ensure that the CLS is properly funded. But I must also tell your Lordships that it makes it more difficult to convince the public and others that legal aid expenditure should be maintained, let alone increased, if it is perceived to be out of control—both in not delivering value for money nor meeting priority needs. Indeed, I find it hard to reconcile the arguments of those who on the one hand wish, like me, to see a properly funded CLS, yet at the same time oppose those parts of the Bill that would give better control over the CDS and by other means help ensure that we get the most we can from the money available.
If in any given year spending on the CDS is higher than forecast, there is nothing in the Bill nor in any administrative arrangement within government that requires an overspend by the CDS to be made good from the CLS.
There will not be an overall legal aid budget or cash limit. Both programmes, however, form part of my departmental spending limit, along with other services such as the Court Service, magistrates' courts and other bodies for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible. I would be in the same position as any other departmental spending Minister faced with a new pressure. My colleagues would expect me to make every effort to offset the overspend by making savings elsewhere, including, but not necessarily from, the CLS. I have to say that the scope for covering a large CDS overspend from in-year savings is limited, because most of the CLS budget would already be committed to fund payments under contracts in earlier years. Of course, in exceptional circumstances, it would be open to me to seek additional resources from my colleagues, and I do not rule that out; but the starting assumption of every responsible department which lives in the real world is that it lives within its means.
I stress that the Bill will provide not only greater control over, but also far greater transparency in, the provision of publicly-funded legal services. The CLS and CDS will each be separate sub-heads on my departmental Vote. This will allow year-on-year comparison of spending plans and actual outturns; and means that any transfers between the two budgets will be reported in the annual appropriation accounts. And, as I have said, I further undertake to announce immediately to Parliament any such transfer beyond a de minimis amount.
The CLS will be based on published assessments of need produced at local level, an annual plan produced by the legal services commission of what services it is intending to secure for meeting that need and an annual report against that plan. So it will be possible to identify and compare what types and levels of services are available to the public year on year, as well as any in-year reduction or increase in those services. That transparency contrasts with the current system whereby the previous government sought to control expenditure by tightening financial eligibility, but there was no ready means to enable people to see what that actually meant in terms of reduced services,

617
and hence hold the government effectively to account for their decision. I am committed to delivering the transparency which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, seeks to achieve through his amendment. Let me put that firmly on the record.
Finally, let me offer some further comfort to those who fear for the provision of services under the CLS. I am determined to create a properly funded community legal service. To do that, I want contracting used to achieve a strategic approach to planning how we meet priority need. But I agree that contractors will need reassurance that funding will not be suddenly cut and their contracts terminated or shrunk, if they are to invest their efforts and resources in providing the services people need. To offer some reassurance on that front, I have asked the Legal Aid Board to extend from six to 12 months the notice that needs to be given to vary or terminate a contract, except in cases of misbehaviour and breach.
It would not be prudent to go beyond that because, especially in the early years, we may need to vary contract terms; for example, to change the way services are paid for, the way work is monitored, or simply to move unused capacity from one supplier to another who is facing excess demand. However, I hope that your Lordships will agree that all this shows that we are prepared to listen to those with concerns about how pressures on the CLS budget might affect contractors and to do what we can to meet those concerns—within the realities of competing demands for scarce resources that every government Minister faces, and will always face.
On the basis of the assurances I have offered, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I listened with great interest and attention to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said. I welcome his undertaking to lay information before Parliament in the event of any cut in the funding of the CLS. I also welcome the extension from six to 12 months of the period of notice to be given before any contract can be terminated.
Nevertheless, the noble and learned Lord has not resiled from the statement which I quoted earlier; that what is available for civil legal aid is what is left over from the budget after the prior claims of criminal legal aid have been met.
No doubt any amendment passed by your Lordships' House will be removed by the House of Commons, but it is important to establish once and for all the very great importance of the issue raised by the amendment. With that in mind, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
3.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 134.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Addington, L.

McNair, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Maddock, B.

Avebury, L.

Mar and Kellie, E

Barber, L.

Middleton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Milverton, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Cadman, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Calverley, L.

Morris, L.

Carlisle, E.

Mountevans, L.

Clancarty, E.

Moyne, L.

Clement- Jones, L.

Moynihan, L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Newall, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Northbrook, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Dholakia, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Pender, L.

Effingham, E.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Ezra, L.

Razzall, L.

Gainford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Geraint, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gisborough, L.

Russell, E.

Goodhart, L. [Teller.]

Sandberg, L.

Grey, E.

Sandford, L.

Halsbury, E.

Soulsby of Swalffham Prior, L.

Hampton, L.

Taverne, L.

Hamwee, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hayter, L.

Tordoff, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Trenchard, V.

Hooson, L.

Trumpington, B

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Vivian, L.

Inglewood, L.

Warnock, B.

Kingsland, L. [Teller.]

Waverley, V.

Kirkwood, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kitchener, E.

Wilcox, B.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

McConnell, L.

Wynford, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Crawley, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

David, B.

Alli, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Amos, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Ampthill, L.

Dixon, L.

Annan, L.

Donoughue, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bach, L.

Dubs, L.

Barnett, L.

Eatwell, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Berkeley, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Blease, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Borrie, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Bragg, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Glanusk, L.

Brookman, L.

Glenamara, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Burlison, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

GrayofContin, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Grenfell, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Hacking, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Hardie, L.

Chorley, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Christopher, L.

Haskel, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hayman, B.

619

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Peston, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hoyle, L.

Puttnam, L.

Hughes, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Ilchester, E.

Richard, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Islwyn, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

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

Sandwich, E.

Sawyer, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Judd, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kintore, E.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Laming, L.

Simon, V.

Lockwood, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Stallard, L..

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L

Mallalieu, B

Stafford, E.

. Mason of Barnsley, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Taylor of Gryfe. L.

Mishcon, L

Tenby, V.

Molloy, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Monkswell, L.

Thomton, B.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Tryon, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Varley, L.

Nelson, E.

Weatherill, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Orme, L.

Wharton, B.

Whitty, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.43 p.m.
Clause 7 [Services which may be funded]:
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 5, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) In funding services as part of the Community Legal Service, the Commission shall aim to obtain the best long term value for money on the basis that all persons and bodies applying for funding who meet the standards set by the Commission shall be able to provide services for individuals under this Part of this Act on terms as to remuneration and otherwise, set by contract or by regulations.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is supported, like the previous one, by the Law Society, the Legal Action Group and the Legal Aid Practitioners' Group whose 500 member-firms probably know more than anyone about the workings of legal aid and the likely consequences of competitive block tendering.
It has been apparent for some time that the Legal Aid Board and the Government intend, after an intermediate phase of allowing only solicitors with legal aid franchises to do legal aid, to move to a position of unparalleled further restriction of public choice in the selection of a solicitor. This will be effected by means of exclusive competitive block tendering.
My amendment refers to the aim of the legal services commission as being,
"to obtain the best long term value for money".
It reinforces quality by limiting legal aid to those firms which,
"meet the standards set by the Commission".
It entitles the commission to impose other terms,
"as to remuneration and otherwise … by contract or by regulations".
Last, but not least, it gives the public the right to engage the services of any solicitor meeting all those requirements.
But how would competitive block tendering work? This much we do know: in a letter to The Times of 25th January last the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said,
"the point of my reforms is to give people on legal aid a choice from amongst 3,000 quality assured firms".
At present 10,600 solicitors' offices carry out legal aid and around 6,000 have, or are in the process of getting, legal aid franchises.
The legal aid authorities will put out legal aid work to tender on the basis—it is inescapable—that at the end of the day a high proportion (at least half) of the firms who were carrying out quality assured legal aid work immediately before the competitive tender will thereafter be prohibited from doing any legal aid work at all. The cull will bear disproportionately on the small legal aid firms (frequently among the best) and also on firms which do only a modicum of legal aid work, often of a specialist kind. It will not be practical for many of them to bid for the big block work, as the Government recognise.
The fact that many of the firms cut out may have the highest reputation, have highly satisfied clients and do excellent work, will be of no avail. Out they will go and with them will come further polarisation of the profession with predictable results on the long-term quality of legal aid work.
The Government also persist in pretending that block tendering will not create local legal aid monopolies. In counties characterised by small towns and villages it is bound to do so and in many of them there will be no contracted legal aid provider at all.
The Government persist, too, in asserting that the present arrangements "guarantee" work to solicitors' firms and preclude competition—an oft-repeated cry in these debates. Yet in today's world clients are not fools. They want to win their cases. They also want fair charges because most of them on legal aid have to pay a substantial contribution to their costs. So they go to the solicitors who they think are most likely to achieve that for them.
Furthermore, this amendment does not endorse the status quo. It does not, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor recently put it,
"largely freeze the existing pattern of (legal aid) provision in place".
Rather, it allows the commission to set the standards it thinks fit and to impose terms under the Act as to remuneration and otherwise whether by contract or regulations. By contrast, today, any solicitor, franchised or not, can offer to do legal aid willy-nilly.
Another government claim is that competitive block tendering will not only improve quality, but also lead to lower cost to clients and the legal aid scheme. This counter-intuitive assertion lies at the heart of these reforms.
If one asks the profession it is more or less unanimous. Legal aid is already much the lowest paid work that it does. Most of the solicitors, far from wanting more, want less. They are falling behind firms which eschew legal aid altogether and so have problems recruiting and retaining good staff.
The only extensive research done into the effects of bulk contracting in other jurisdictions of which I am aware is the recent work by Roger Smith published by the Legal Action Group, of which he was a director, under the title Legal Aid Contracting—Lessons from North America. In it he said this:
"The driving force behind the development of contracts with bulk providers of legal services has been the political requirement of cost containment".
His conclusion is that,
"contracting for large numbers of cases tends to set up pressures for cost containment at the expense of quality".
One would have thought that that was pretty obvious. Yet the Government, with absolutely no evidence to rebut this basic criticism, simply go on asserting that under the new regime economy of scale will prevail, prices will come down and the worker bees of the new regional boards will swarm over the bulk providers to ensure quality.
I suggest this points to a potential Whitehall farce, and a deadly one, where the bureaucratic means used to remedy the existing shortcomings are so unwieldy and expensive that they constitute a completely new and larger problem. That will be seen in the expense to the new regime of accommodating the small providers of legal aid which, it is now suggested, justifies their exclusion from block contracting. As the Lord Chancellor recently said, that would avoid,
"having to manage a larger number of small contracts".
Ultimately, I suppose, it comes down to whether the interventionist command system, promised by the Bill, with its crowning glory of exclusive competitive block tendering, will perform better than a more pragmatic regime which sets quality standards and remuneration terms but leaves the clients to decide who shall do their work.
This issue is not about protecting solicitors. It is about preserving the public's real rights of access; their right to select their solicitor from among the quality assured firms and in a location accessible to them. With control over the means test, the merits test and the terms and conditions on which legal aid must be carried out by lawyers, and just about everything else, this amendment is a modest but vital measure to secure, in the long term, what the name of the Bill promises, namely, access to justice. I beg to move.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is nothing if not persistent in the views expressed in his amendment. However, persistence is not necessarily a virtue in this instance.
622
Once again I find myself at odds with his argument. The noble Lord believes that every solicitor who meets the qualifying criteria should be able to carry out legal aid work. That scenario would turn the community legal service criteria of prioritising, of meeting need and of best value for money completely on its head. If the noble Lord has his way, how will a controlled budget operate? How can there be contracts? What is the point of having contracts if there is a guaranteed right for everyone to do legal aid work? How can best value be established when there is—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She asks how the legal aid budget will be controlled. Is she aware that over the past three years the budgeted costs have been under-shot? In the forthcoming years it: is expected that the amount spent on legal aid will decline.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am aware of the figures for the past three years, but if the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, selected years previous to the last three years he would see that the legal aid budget soared, declined and soared again. None of us has a crystal ball to see what will happen in the future. Therefore, I say that his amendment knocks aside the need for control in terms of a budget, which is at the very heart of the legal aid service.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I attached my name in support of this amendment because I was satisfied that it advanced what is meant to be the desideratum in the Bill; improving access for the public. If the amendment is not accepted there will be a gradual restriction on the public in regard to the lawyers they can consult, a restriction that will be unjustified because the terms of the amendment presuppose that solicitors who are available, or wish to be available, will have passed all the necessary competency requirements. For those reasons I support the amendment.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, my noble and learned friend on Second Reading was at pains to emphasise the enormous importance of the quality of service that litigants should have in the conduct of their litigation. The noble and learned Lord said that one way of achieving that quality of service was for solicitors' firms that wished to offer legal services to enter into contracts with the commission. I venture to suggest that the most important test that the commission should apply, when considering an application from a law firm to enter into a contract, is to see whether such a firm has the quality of service that the litigant has every right to seek and obtain.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, specifies in his amendment a requirement that persons offering those services should meet standards set by the commission. Although he did not give details I understand that he has in mind the quality of service that a particular firm can provide. The noble Lord kindly nods in acknowledgment of the point I make. The

623
amendment specifies that those persons and bodies may provide services on terms,
"as to remuneration and otherwise, set by contract or by regulations".
If the noble Lord suggests that there should be a proper test as to quality, and that that test should be achieved by contract and regulation, I think that the gap between him and my noble and learned friend is much narrowed. However, any diminution in the quality of service and the tests and means of achieving that quality will result in a widening gap between them.
4 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am a little surprised that I find myself debating this subject again with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. It was fully debated in earlier stages of the Bill; in fact, your Lordships have spent over two hours debating substantially the same amendment. Both my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton and I have tried to explain to the noble Lord why his call for a guaranteed job for life for legal aid lawyers cannot be accepted by the Government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, noted the noble Lord's persistence. In raising the issue yet again on Third Reading, I wonder whether the noble Lord is trespassing on the patience of your Lordships' House. I have heard nothing that dissuades me from my view that the noble Lord's amendment would rip the heart out of the community legal service. It would mean that the legal services commission would be forced to purchase services from any lawyer who wished to do legal aid work, provided that such a lawyer could meet the prescribed quality threshold but regardless of where he was located or the types of cases he proposed to undertake—regardless, in short, of any consideration of need and priorities.
We are embarked upon fundamental reform. We shall not settle for tinkering around the edges of the present legal aid system, which was designed in the first half of this century. That is why I have repeatedly said to your Lordships that lawyers must stop looking backwards and start looking forwards, as the Government are, to devise new ways of delivering help to the disadvantaged that are relevant for today and tomorrow.
That is why the commission, through the community legal service, will identify the needs of the people who find themselves in difficulty; and will then seek to match those needs by securing services from a range of legal service providers, within the priorities established by the Government or the commission, and the resources available. That requires a flexible system. Flexibility in securing legal services is essential because the commission is dealing with a real world and real people whose problems differ and change over time. The provisions I have brought before Parliament are not intended to provide a short-term solution. Much as I enjoy the cut and thrust of debate in your Lordships' House, I have no burning desire to take the lead part in bringing forward an "Even Better Access to Justice
624
Bill". My hope is that the structures we are putting in place will last for at least as long as the present basic structure of the legal aid system.
Therefore, the Bill provides the commission with wide powers to do that. It does not seek to provide a blueprint for the nature of services and the manner in which they are to be procured and paid for; rather, it acknowledges that legal services will be procured from a range of providers, not all of whom will be lawyers in private practice, and that the services will be procured by a number of means which best match need and provide good value for money.
That is why we are proposing that, in future, services should be supplied only through suppliers who have contracts (or other arrangements) with the commission. I accept that in using the term "exclusive contracts" we may inadvertently have misled because the expression was misconstrued as signalling local monopolies for single firms. It never was intended to mean that, rather it simply means that only those with a contract (or other payment arrangement) with the legal service commission can receive public funding for work under the two new schemes. But the initiative must lie with the commission.
Perhaps I may give the facts. In making these arrangements, the commission will be charged with securing adequate access for clients. We now expect there to be at least 5,000 first-round contracts for family work. But access should not be judged solely in terms of numbers. In future, no more than 200 firms with a clinical negligence franchise will be allowed to take medical negligence cases. That is an area where par excellence specialists are required to ensure quality. However, access is also ensured because the Legal Aid Board has a freephone number that potential clients can call to find out where the nearest franchised firm is to them. If the client is unable to travel to the solicitor, the contracts include terms requiring the solicitor to make arrangements to go to see the client.
As I have made plain, the Government are not wedded to any one model of contracting (be it "block contracting" or some other system). There will undoubtedly be different types of contract for different categories of work and in different places. In other words, if those who argue that a particular type of contract will not work in a given area are proved right, they need have nothing to fear; it will not be adopted.
The noble Lord's amendment, however, would freeze the existing pattern of provision in place. The ability of the Government to redirect resources to areas of identified need would be removed, or severely restricted. That strikes at the underlying rationale of the community legal service. Guaranteeing work to solicitors' firms would also preclude the development, in the longer term, of any element of competition for contracts, with the scope that that may offer for maintaining and improving value for money. Indeed, I would argue (with, I hope, the greatest courtesy to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury) that the noble Lord is guilty of a verbal sleight of hand when he puts forward an amendment which contains both a guarantee for all existing providers and the aim of ensuring the

625
best long-term value for money. I say that it is a verbal sleight of hand because guaranteed work for all providers stands in the way of best value.
In addition, the amendment would tend to stifle the further development of franchising. Under this amendment, any future enhancements to the quality requirements would be resisted by some parts of the profession as threatening their guarantee of income from the scheme under the present quality criteria.
That said, I have sought to offer as much reassurance as I can to the solicitors' profession about how contracting will be developed in practice. We intend to proceed gradually and carefully to ensure that we get the details right, and to give the profession time to adapt to change. In particular, we have undertaken to contract with all firms with a family franchise in the first round of contracting for family work. As I said on Report, on the current application rate, and subject to applicants having their franchise application with the commission by the end of March, it would not be unrealistic to estimate that family contracts could be awarded to between 5,000 and 6,000 firms. That would cover about 96 per cent. of current family legal aid spend, with most firms doing a volume of work similar to their current caseload. I would expect that a roughly similar number of contracts would be issued to solicitors to provide advice and assistance and here, too, that is subject to solicitors having their applications for a franchise in by the closing date of 31st March.
I have also recently given the president of the Law Society an assurance that we will adopt the same approach when we come to contract for other forms of civil litigation and criminal work.
We have heard again today that the need for this guarantee is not some lawyer's trade union restrictive practice, but a consumer-oriented desire on the part of lawyers to ensure choice and access to justice. Unwittingly or otherwise, I am afraid that the proponents of this measure are in substance making a trade union point for it does not recognise the reality of the needs of those who seek help. When people seek access to justice, that is not synonymous with seeking access to lawyers. What they need is the right help to get access to justice, which may not necessarily involve lawyers. I am determined that the community legal service will ensure that they get the help they need (including the services of the lawyers where this is appropriate) in the right way from the provider who best can meet their needs. That is why the community legal service as a whole has to encompass not simply the legal services commission and lawyers' groups, but local authorities, citizens' advice bureaux, law centres and other not-for-profit sector suppliers.
I am absolutely determined to ensure that public money buys the right services, of the right quality, at the right price. I am determined also to ensure that we identify areas of unmet need and do the best we can to ensure that the need is met. I cannot, therefore, tolerate attempts, however well intentioned, to build into the structures contained in the Bill guarantees which are vested in the provider of the service rather than the procurer of the services.
626
I hope that I have explained why I cannot accept the amendment and why the fears that underlie it are truly misplaced. In the light of those observations—I apologise for them taking a little time—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I have listened with great care to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I feel that there is a dislocation of perception between him and his advisers and those to whom I speak. I repeat that those to whom I speak are not solicitors; they are the public who use the services of solicitors. If there is any sleight of hand, I think that it could be applied also—I say this with the greatest of respect—to the constant reiteration of the phrase "guaranteed work for solicitors". It is like saying "there is guaranteed work for the corner shop" because people go in and buy their cornflakes. No solicitor has a guarantee of anything unless a member of the public wishes to use his or her services.
I have not heard one single argument, whether from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or from those on his Benches, which makes me believe that by cutting out from legal aid work as a matter of policy, possibly more than half of the firms currently doing it can conceivably increase access to justice, when all those firms I have been talking about will have complied with the necessary standards tests.
So two hours we may have spent on this amendment but, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, this goes to the heart of his Bill. He feels very strongly and sincerely about it and, I am afraid, so do I. In the past we have discussed this matter somewhat late at night before a rather thin House and at this moment I feel it would not be inappropriate if the House had the opportunity now to show its views on this specific issue. Therefore I seek the opinion of the House.
4.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 119; Not-Contents, 127.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Addington, L.

Burnham, L.

Addison, V.

Cadman, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Caithness, E.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Carlisle, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Arran, E.

Clement- Jones, L.

Attlee, E.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Avebury, L.

Cox, B.

Barber, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Cranborne, V.

Bethell, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Biffen, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Blatch, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Brentford, V.

Dholakia, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

627

Ezra, L.

Newall, L.

Falkland, V.

Northbrook, L.

Gainford, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Geddes, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L. [Teller.]

Geraint, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Glentoran, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Goodhart, L.

Razzall, L.

GrayofContin, L.

Redesdale, L.

Grey, E.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hampton, L.

Rowallan, L.

Hamwee, B.

Russell, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Sandberg, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sandwich, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Hooper, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hooson, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Inglewood, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Kingsland, L. [Teller.]

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Kirkwood, L.

Swinfen, L.

Kitchener, E.

Taverne, L

Long, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Luke, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lyell, L.

Tope, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Tordoff, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Trenchard, V.

McNair, L.

Trumpington, B.

Maddock, B.

Vivian, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Waddington, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Mersey, V.

Warnock, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Waverley, V.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Wigoder, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Wilcox, B.

Mountevans, L.

Wise, L.

Moyne, L.

Wynford, L.

Moynihan, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ahmed, L.

Crawley, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

David, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Alli, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Amos, B.

Dixon, L.

Ampthill, L.

Donoughue, L.

Annan, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dubs, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Eatwell, L.

Bach, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Barnett, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Berkeley, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Birmingham, Bp.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Blackstone, B.

Glenamara, L.

Blease, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Borrie, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bragg, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Grenfell, L.

Brookman, L.

Hacking, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hardie, L.

Burlison, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Haskel, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hayman, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Chorley, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Christopher, L.

Hoyle, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hughes, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

628

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Ilchester, E.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Islwyn, L.

Puttnam, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal]

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Richard, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Judd, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Lockwood, B.

Sawyer, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Longford, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Shepherd, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Simon, V.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Marsh L

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Mishcon, L

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Molloy, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Monkswell, L.

Tenby, V.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Thornton, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Nicol, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Northbourne, L.

Uddin, B.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Varley, L.

Orme, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Peston, L.

Whitty, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

European Commission
4.19 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement today on the report of the Committee of Independent Experts and the resignation last night of Jacques Santer and his 19 colleagues in European Commission.
"The Committee of Independent Experts set up last January on a Motion from the Socialist Group of the European Parliament to investigate allegations of fraud and mismanagement, reported yesterday. It is a damning report. It catalogues in key areas a culture of complacency and lack of accountability, and in some cases nepotism, that is unacceptable. The report could not be more clear-cut. It has revealed systemic failings in the Commission which have been tolerated for far too long.
"It was absolutely right that the Commission resigned en masse. The President of the Commission should leave as soon as reasonably and practically possible and a new president should take his place. The Commission should stay only in a caretaker role until a new Commission is appointed.

629
"There is no criticism of the two British commissioners. Indeed, they played a key role in bringing this issue to a head and I believe that they should carry on.
"Above all, the appointment of a new president and Commission should be the opportunity to push forward root and branch reform of the Commission, its mandate and its method of operation.
"I will, of course, discuss these issues fully with Chancellor Schroeder, the EU President, when I see him later today.
"The new President of the Commission must be a political heavyweight, capable of providing leadership and authority to the Commission.
"Jacques Santer is by no means solely responsible for this situation. Indeed, to be fair to him, he has instituted many changes of a worthwhile nature. Many of the issues revealed by the report pre-date his appointment.
"But, I will he blunt. We cannot have the next president decided in the same way as the last, debating the narrow interests of one country or another. The top jobs, not just in the Commission, but throughout the European institutions, should go to the top people. Merit and merit alone should decide.
"We need the best person for the job of president. We, heads of government, should make it clear that the Commission President operates under a mandate for reform and is a thorough-going reformer.
"I would like heads of government, in the manner we proposed last year at the conclusion of our presidency, to give the new Commission, with due involvement by the European Parliament, a specific statement of what we believe the aims and mission of the new Commission should be—a new contract between the Commission and the Council.
"It should set a new, clear course for a Europe of reform and change. The changes suggested yesterday by the committee of inquiry are just the first step. In the short term, the reform must include at least the following:
"A complete overhaul of the approval and auditing procedure for financial control; a new system for financial management and spending programmes; an entirely new procedure for the awarding of contracts for the provision of services, with a new management system to oversee it; reworking of the whole of the disciplinary procedure so that staff of the Commission know exactly what is expected of them and what will happen if they fall short of those expectations; and a new system of accountability in the bureaucracy of the Commission so that each individual holding a position of responsibility is fully accountable for the budget and the measures that he or she manages.
"In addition, we also need an entirely new framework for fighting fraud and financial irregularities. We have long been advocates of the appointment of an independent fraud investigation office which has full access to documents and officials and the powers it needs. That appointment should now be made.
630
"The committee of independent inquiry will report again soon with further recommendations on reform. We should implement them.
"In the longer term, we should put in place, as we argued for at Amsterdam, during our presidency and ever since, a new structure for the Commission; a better process of decision-making; and a system of accountability that recognises the importance of connecting the people of Europe more closely to the decisions that affect them.
"The inquiry's report has revealed a sad catalogue of negligence and mismanagement. There will, no doubt, be those who see this as just another chance to bash Europe. Intelligently seen, this is in fact an opportunity to make changes, which many of us believe and have argued are long overdue. It is our responsibility now to use this crisis to ensure that the standards of management and public administration in the European institutions are as high as we expect them to be in national and, indeed, in regional governments in Europe. Let us seize that opportunity and use it well".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement that has been made in another place. In reading the Statement, the noble Baroness made a number of points which I should like to deal with in turn. However, does she agree that this House will view this Statement and the events surrounding it with immense gravity? When so many programmes and projects handled by the Commission now seem to be riddled with incompetence and waste, does she also agree that this is no time to be pushing forward policies which will lead to our nation being run more and more by Europe?
Can the noble Baroness tell the House how seriously the Government now assess the level of fraud in the Commission and the European Union to be? In other words, what is the current estimated cost to the British taxpayer? Will the noble Baroness also acknowledge today that the findings of the auditors completely vindicate the repeated warnings of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, about the prevalence of fraud in the Commission? Is it not sad how often his wise words have fallen on deaf ears on the Front Bench opposite?
Never again must this national Parliament be left in the dark about any step which will lead to the commitment of more resources to Europe. Does the noble Baroness recall that, after the Noordwijk Summit last autumn, my noble friend Lord Cranborne sought a Statement on the summit outcomes, which included agreement to major increases in EU infrastructure spending? Unfortunately, a Statement was not made to the House at the time because of the reluctance of the Prime Minister to report to Parliament. Does the noble Baroness agree that all discussions among the 15 heads of government about the Commission or the funds under its control should in future be reported to the House, whether those summits are formal or informal?

631
Will the noble Baroness assure the House that the Government will agree to no increase in the funding of programmes controlled by the Commission until our national Parliament can be assured that the stables are swept well and truly clean? Will she give urgent consideration to an emergency debate in this House on the implications of this crisis? While on this subject, is the noble Baroness yet in a position to say when this House will have the debate on the National Changeover Plan for the euro that she promised on 23rd February? Surely one or other of these debates should take place before the Easter Recess.
Does the noble Baroness accept that there is nothing new in the central core of these allegations? Action should have been taken long before to bring the Commission to heel. While I welcome the aspirations of the Prime Minister, your Lordships will recall the events in January this year when a Motion to censure the Commission on precisely these charges was voted down in the European Parliament on the votes of the Socialist Group, led by a Labour Member of the European Parliament. That Motion was originally tabled by the Socialist Group, but it then changed its position and did not censure the Commission. Will the noble Baroness inform the House who was responsible for the reprieve given to the Commission in January? What were the contacts between Ms. Pauline Green and the offices of the Prime Minister, or other Ministers, about the vote in January?
Regrettably, also in January, when the Conservatives and the 150 other MEPs in the European Parliament voted for the resignation of Madame Cresson, the Socialist Group supported her continuance in office. Will the noble Baroness confirm that it is now the Government's view that Madame Cresson should not be reappointed? Last night, the Prime Minister's spokesman was able to re-endorse Sir Leon Brittan and Mr. Kinnock immediately. Should we now take it that they have no confidence in any of the other Commissioners?
The most essential step now is that confidence in EU institutions and in the handling of such large sums of money should be restored. When will the Government be more specific about their precise proposals? Does the noble Baroness agree that the Commission now needs to become far more open and accountable and that clear lines of responsibility should be established? Further, does she agree that there should be a new code of conduct on the appointment of senior EU officials; that Commissioners should declare their private interests and connections on a public register; and that the number of European directorates and departments should be reduced? Will the Prime Minister ensure that these items, and others, are on the agenda for the Heads of Government meeting next week?
The Prime Minister has spoken of his desire to be seen as positive in Europe. Good. That is all very well. Indeed, we all want Europe to succeed. However, we need to start digging beneath the fine words and flabby generalities and ask: where is this Government's policy specifically leading us? They have signed up to the social chapter that is loading costs on our business and
632
they have borne down on our beef industry through a ban on beef-on-the-bone. They have allowed our fisheries interests to be overridden. They talk of long-term reform of the CAP but have achieved nothing. Now we are told they are to commit tens of millions of pounds to a changeover plan for the euro. All these policies point to more control for Brussels and its institutions over our national life and less influence for our national Parliament.
In his desire to cosy up to the European Union, has the Prime Minister not been more than a little naïve in moving so far, so fast to turn more authority over to Brussels? Does this crisis not demonstrate that the existing institutions of the EU should not be trusted with more responsibility? Dare I say that our national interest would have been a lot better served if the noble Baroness and her friends in government had spent a little less time on the so-called reform of your Lordships' House, which is working well, and on upheavals in our system of justice, which is generally admirable? Would we not have been better served if they had devoted a little more of their time to reform of EU bodies whose role they have enhanced so unthinkingly and whose virtues they have accepted so uncritically? Is it not time for less rhetoric and more realism in this Government's policy on Europe?
Is it really the time now to invite the Commission to do more and to control more and more of our national life? Is it rather not the time for Europe to do less, but to do it better?
4.31 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, speaking from these Benches I have no need to ask the kind of debating questions which the condition of the Conservative Party obliged the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to raise. I noted that the Minister on this occasion spoke for four minutes and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, spoke for seven. I intend to be much closer to the Minister than to the noble Lord in two respects.
On these Benches we welcome the repetition of the Statement made promptly in another place. It is difficult to take exception to what the Prime Minister said. The Statement is admirably short and to the point. We on these Benches will watch to make sure that the Government continue to put their full weight behind the Statement and the reforms which the Prime Minister says he has in mind and that this is indeed the spirit which will inspire the discussions with other heads of government which are now bound to take place.
There is a case for a short pause now to assess exactly what is happening in Brussels. Last night the Commission seemed to have resigned and that was wholly appropriate. One assumed it had resigned because it believed that what the report said required resignation. However, the President of the Commission has apparently said today that the report is false, unbalanced and unfair, which makes the Commission's decision difficult to understand. These matters have to be sorted out.

633
I hope that my next comments will chime with the feelings of your Lordships on all Benches. Whether one is in favour of the European Union and its development, or whether on the whole one is hostile to its future prospects, we must all wish to see this crisis resolved. Only those who wish to withdraw from the European Union can hope that positive results do not come out of what has happened.
The outcome is to the credit of the European Parliament. We should note that. The prospect is that it will lead to greater accountability on the part of the Commission, and we must welcome that. It may also result in far better day-to-day management which is something noble Lords on all sides of the House have pursued. The Prime Minister referred to root and branch reform of institutions. I am sure that he is right to take that view.
I ask the noble Baroness the following short questions. What happens now? Who makes the next moves? It is far from clear, either in what the Prime Minister said or from what is coming out of Brussels, what happens now. Is it likely that Sir Leon Brittan may become the acting President of the Commission? We on these Benches would look favourably on that. He has served this country and the European Union well. My next question follows from my first question. Institutionally, what are the rules within the Commission and within the Union which govern an unprecedented occasion of this kind?
4.34 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have broadly welcomed the position that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has taken in his swift response to the crisis in Brussels, rightly described by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, as grave. I am sure the tone of the Statement reflects the gravity with which the Government view the activities of the Commission and the situation that has occurred in Brussels over the past 24 hours.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, rightly drew attention to the role of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington in raising some of these issues, as he has, of course, done over many years. The House should not take the view that somehow all of this has happened recently. In fact the report of the wise men covers a period of four-and-a-half years, long before my right honourable friend took responsibility. I remind your Lordships of the comments of the previous Prime Minister, the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Major, when M. Santer was appointed; namely, that he was a wise choice and was the right man in the right place at the right time. There is nothing to be gained in any of us trying to ascribe responsibility on a party political basis for presiding over a period of fraud and difficulty.
It is, of course, right to take this matter extremely seriously. I emphasise that again to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and to everyone in the House. It is the Government's intention to do that. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, asked about the next steps. It is fortunate that the summit will take place in
634
Berlin next week. I believe that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will meet within an hour the President of the European Union, Chancellor Schroeder, to discuss these events as a preliminary to the meeting in Berlin next week.
There was a question about whether or not our commissioners would stay in post. Of course the UK Government are responsible for nominating their own commissioners. As the Statement says, the Government have confidence in our own commissioners although we are aware that they take collective responsibility. It was their collective responsibility which led them to resign with their colleagues in Brussels. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred to Madame Cresson. That is, of course, a matter initially for the French Government, but I believe the British Government would be surprised if she were reappointed. However, that would, of course, be a matter for the heads of state meeting next week.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked whether there was any estimate of the size of the fraud by commissioners. I emphasise to the House that there was no suggestion in the report of the wise men that commissioners had been responsible for fraud. They had certainly been responsible for mismanagement; indeed, the word "nepotism" was used. The level of possible financial fraud among the officials of the Commission and within the organisation is a matter which I imagine will be looked at closely in the further investigations of the group of wise men, who, as I said in repeating the Statement, will take their investigations further.
Both noble Lords asked whether there would be some suspension in the immediate term of the agenda on Europe. As noble Lords will be aware, the Commission's report on Agenda 2000 which is to be considered at the Berlin summit next week, is of enormous importance, and is one which I am sure no one in your Lordships' House would want to see derailed. But, of course, these initial problems with the Commission will have to be addressed and will obviously be matters of great importance in those discussions. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked whether the Government would be looking to a more open and accountable Commission. The answer to that must surely be yes. Indeed, that was reflected in the terms of the Statement and in the provisions for reform which my right honourable friend described as being essential. Of course it is important that the Commission should be both open and accountable. It should have more rigorous systems of management and accountability throughout its structures, not simply among its senior people and senior management.
As always when we discuss these matters in your Lordships' House there is perhaps a basic division of opinion about whether the European institutions are, in principle, worthwhile. I would simply say that the Government's view is that it is in the best interests of this country to stay in Europe, to stay wall the European Commission, but to work as vigorously and as importantly as we can to ensure that we lead a reformed Union. After today, I think that will find an echo throughout Europe.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend will accept that she should add quite a large number of items to the short list of defects which the Commission has to remedy. A root and branch reform is needed. What worries me-- I am sure it worries my noble friend from her responses already—is that there is no one to ensure that major reforms and changes take place. What also worries me is that for four years the Commission's own Court of Auditors has failed to certify the accounts and the European Parliament has sat on its hands. Are we really to rely upon its new endeavours or simply wait for another whistle-blower like the brave young man who exposed what has been going on? Can we not find some ways of returning and repatriating powers already handed over to the Commission to our own Parliament where they can be properly supervised?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, it may not meet my noble friend's requirements for this Parliament to supervise those accounts and the auditing processes within the Commission, but I am sure he will be pleased to hear of the proposal put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the beginning of this year for an independent person to head the internal organisation of the Commission's fraud arrangements. I suppose one could call him an independent fraud-buster. He would be someone very senior. He would have powers independent of the Commission and would report directly to the Council of Ministers. That initiative was supported yesterday by ECOFIN and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is confident that it will now go ahead.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will answer the following question. An Augean stable has been disclosed—an Augean stable which runs a common agricultural policy which we know to be fatuous and a fisheries policy which we know depletes the North Sea of fish. All these matters are agreed by the Government. If the Augean stable is not cleansed; if the common agriculture policy is not completely changed; and if the fisheries policy is not made completely sound, will we still go on belonging to an institution which runs a rotten and Augean policy? Is there any situation in which the Government will say "Up with this we will not put" or will they go along with anything?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, in his usual robust fashion the noble Earl identified the division of principle to which I referred in my initial response to the two Front Bench contributions. It is absolutely clear that there needs to be a systemic review, revision and reform of what is happening. That is something which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who is not known for shirking radical reform, will, I am sure, take forward in line with his colleagues. As I said in my initial response to the two Front Bench contributions,
636
the Government's position is that it is in the interests of this country to stay in Europe. We believe that being pro-Europe is being pro-reform in Europe.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that if there had been a problem on this basis with a British public company its entire board would have had some very serious questions to answer from the Department of Trade and Industry and that on some aspects criminal charges might have been considered? Does she accept also that this is not something which was suddenly discovered? We have joked with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, but this has been commonly discussed in every business newspaper in Europe over a period of years. How can the Minister justify, against the background of collective responsibility, an immediate reassurance that two of the members of that body are immediately eligible for reappointment?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, all that my right honourable friend has done in supporting the two British commissioners is to identify the fact that they were in no way, either explicitly or implicitly, implicated in the report of the organisation set up to investigate the matter. My right honourable friend the former Commissioner for Transport, Mr. Kinnock, explicitly expressed today in on-the-record statements that he saw it as part of his training—presumably in British politics—to accept collective responsibility for what had been uncovered and to move on that basis.
I draw the attention of the House to the actions that the Government have taken since May 1997 to combat fraud and irregularities in the European Commission. I have mentioned already, in response to my noble friend Lord Shore, the proposal of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the question of the independent fraud-buster. We also took steps to secure a legal base in the Amsterdam Treaty to combat fraud. We have taken steps in the context of the agriculture structural reforms to impose tougher penalties on member states which misuse Community funds. We have seconded our own expert staff to the Commission's financial control. We have taken a series of practical steps which underline our seriousness in responding to the gravity of the situation which, as the noble Lord rightly identifies, has gone on for a long time.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I have had the honour of serving in your Lordships' House for 25 years. I am bound to say that the results of a report that I have not yet read in detail comprise the most shocking revelations about public life that I have ever heard during my entire political life. They are not to be brushed aside lightly. They are matters of the utmost importance in which no one concerned—whether at governmental level, Commission level, Council level or even (dare I say it?) in this place and in another place—is free from blame. I sincerely hope that we shall have an opportunity to debate the report in detail.
There are lessons in it for all of us. There are lessons in it for every democrat, not only in the United Kingdom but in Europe as a whole. I sincerely hope that, before

637
finally replying to the various responses to the Statement, the Government will give the House an assurance that a full opportunity—not time-limited to two-and-a-half hours—will be given to discuss the contents of the report and its implications for the United Kingdom.
I have only two questions to ask. First, will the Government give the House an assurance that, through the Council of Ministers, the European Council or acting as an independent member state, protection will be given forthwith to the very courageous servant of the European Commission, M. Paul van Buitenen, who blew the whistle on the whole affair and who was the subject of immediate threats thereafter at 'the hands of the Commission itself and at the hands of its servants? Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will proceed vigorously in that matter? Can my noble friend give an assurance that in future some regard may be had to the actions that are supposed to be taken under the Treaty of Maastricht, where it was laid down that the Court of Auditors should provide a statement certifying the reliability of the accounts of the Commission?
After four years of ignored requests that a discharge at any rate be discussed at Council level and action taken thereon, can we have an assurance that, in future, such matters will be acted on explicitly and quickly? Will the Government bear in mind one of the most damning parts of the report by the independent committee? With the leave of the House I shall read it to your Lordships. It goes to the root of the whole business. It says:
"The responsibility of individual Commissioners, or of the Commission as a body, cannot be a vague idea, a concept which in practice proves unrealistic … It is becoming difficult to find anyone who has even the slightest sense of responsibility".
That thought might remain in all our minds.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, perhaps I may quickly draw the attention of the House to the necessity of keeping interventions as brief as possible so that as many noble Lords as possible can intervene.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I say without hesitation that I am sure the whole House joins me in recognising the extraordinary assiduousness with which he has pursued this subject over many years. It is right that we should pay tribute to the work that my noble friend has done. I hope that he will accept, as was mentioned in the Statement, the seriousness with which the Government take these overall suggestions and recommendations and the way in which we intend to lead the debate in seeing that they are implemented in the most rigorous way.
My noble friend asked specific questions about the member of the Commission staff who was the initial whistle-blower. I understand that his case for employment is now under appeal and is therefore subject to relative understandings about an industrial tribunal. I am sure that the matter will be examined by the requisite authorities. Whether it is an appropriate matter for discussion by the Council of Ministers will depend on legal status.
638
My noble friend also asked me about the oversight of auditing and accounts management within the European Commission. I hope that he was assured by my remarks about the way in which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister intends to pursue greater clarity and strictures on that financial audit and management and that this will now be taken forward. Perhaps I may briefly quote the conclusion of the Statement, which I hope will reassure him:
"It is our responsibility now to use this crisis to ensure that standards of management and public administration in the European institutions are as high as we expect them to be in national … government(s)".
I am sure my noble friend will accept that my right honourable friend and his colleagues will pursue that course with vigour.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, will the Leader of the House tell us when printed copies of the report will be available for Members of this House to read?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am informed that they are available.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the Government bear in mind that the Treaty of Rome should now be completely re-negotiated so that, instead of having a Commission that aims at economic and financial cohesion and harmonisation of laws, we have an alliance of independent states in a free trade area, giving each other mutual help when necessary but remaining independent instead of being governed from Brussels?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord will accept in answer to that point the line in the Statement which refers to the need to look in the longer term for an entirely new structure for the Commission and a better process for decision-making.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have a slight interest to declare. I was a member of the European Commission. While it was wholly unacceptable and unwise for Mr. Santer to say what he did today while accepting that members had to resign, is it not also very difficult to take from the Leader of the Opposition assertions that problems which proved completely elusive to the previous government over a period of 18 years should have been resolved by this Government in two years? Is it not also a fact that, in 1987, at the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, the then Commission put forward a proposition to deal with independent investigations into fraud in the member states and elsewhere which was rejected by the then government? Is this situation veering just a little on the hypocritical?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am not sure whether noble Lords would be happy if I were to

639
say "yes" to the whole of my noble friend's statement, particularly the last sentence, but in general I entirely support his remarks.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness may be able to help me on a matter that puzzles me slightly about this episode. My understanding is that, at the January Session of the European Parliament, almost all the British Labour MEPs did not vote to dismiss the Commission. Since then, it has been stated in the report of the Conunittee of Independent Inquiry that the document, to paraphrase paragraph 9.1.2, does not contain any significant new evidence beyond that which is contained in the van Buitenen allegations and that which was discussed before Parliament in January. How, then, has there been a change of attitude in favour of supporting the resignation of the Commission?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the committee that was set up to examine these matters consisted of independent experts within the Commission. As I understand it, there were, for example, some allegations made by the initial whistle-blower about individual commissioners which were simply not borne out. Some of those were strongly borne out by the report of the so-called wise men, but others were not.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can we be quite clear as to the Government's position? I suppose I should declare, as my noble friend did, a past interest as a former member of the European Commission. To mix a metaphor, is this not a Pandora's Box which has now been opened and the can of worms has now come out? Does my noble friend agree that there is nothing wrong with the basic institutional structure of the European Union? Does she also agree that it is no part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government to change the basic institutional structure of the European Union? Will she finally agree that what the report has revealed is a degree of maladministration inside the Commission which is capable of being rectified and ought to be rectified quickly?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I do not wish to add to the size of what my noble friend rightly described as the Pandora's Box or the can of worms. However, I say to him—and I regret that I did not mention this in response to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington—that any debate on this subject, of whatever length, will be a matter for the usual channels. I am sure that he will take that matter up. I suspect that the point raised by my noble friend Lord Richard will need to be addressed in that context. However, I draw his attention to what was said in the Prime Minister's Statement and which I repeated to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. In the longer term we should put in place, as we argued at Amsterdam during our presidency and have done ever since, a new structure for the Commission and a better process for decision-making.

Crime Reduction Strategy
4.58 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I wish to make a Statement on forthcoming Government initiatives to tackle crime. The Crime and Disorder Act provides the foundation for our strategy on crime and disorder. The major reforms of the youth justice system for which it provides are currently being rolled out. The House will be familiar with them. Two other major parts of the Act come into force in the next two weeks.
"From 1st April effective local crime strategies to reduce crime and disorder must be in place in every area of the country. These strategies are being drawn up by more than 400 statutory partnerships established between the police and local authorities. They follow a six-month period of consultation between local communities, police and local authorities. Clear and deliverable local targets are being set to reflect the priorities of each local community. These targets will, for the first time, give local people the means to monitor how effective are the police and local authorities in reducing crime and disorder in their area. The early signs are that these local partnerships have invested considerable energy and enthusiasm. Now they must deliver.
"I know that many Members of this House have been as concerned as the police and local authorities at the lack of effective remedies to combat serious and persistent anti-social behaviour in our communities. We have been determined to put that right. I am now pleased to tell the House that the new Anti-Social Behaviour Order under the Crime and Disorder Act will come into force and be available to the courts from 1st April.
"This civil order will be available against any individuals over the age of 10 whose behaviour is such that the court judges it likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to others. In terms of the rules of evidence and the burden of proof, it is similar to a civil injunction. The order will typically impose conditions restraining the behaviour of named individuals. These may include a curfew and prohibition on going to particular areas or houses or contact with particular individuals. A breach of an order will be an arrestable offence punishable on indictment by up to five years in prison.
Many police forces and local authorities are undertaking work to prepare for the start date on 1st April. I am today issuing detailed guidance about the use of the orders. Copies have been placed in the Library and are available in the Vote Office.
"Last July I announced our intention to begin a £250 million, evidence-based crime reduction programme to reverse the long-term upward trend in crime. This is the biggest programme of its kind ever

641
undertaken in this country or abroad. I am pleased to say that the first projects under this programme will soon be under way.
"On Thursday, I shall be announcing the first 11 provisional areas to benefit from a £30 million initiative in targeted policing to establish what works. This will give targeted support to some of the most innovative and dedicated police work which is taking place. It will bolster the police in their dedicated work to tackle crime.
"England and Wales has one of the worst records on burglary in the industrialised world, despite recent falls due to excellent work by the police and local authorities. So, early next month, we shall be announcing the 60 areas which are to benefit from the first phase of a £50 million anti-burglary initiative. Over three years, our scheme will cover more than 2 million homes in about 500 of the country's high crime areas. It builds on the previous government's safer cities campaign and should have a major impact on property crime rates.
"Let me now turn to the outline announcement made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement last week. As he told the House, an additional £150 million is being allocated to boost support to crime prevention in areas where crime is highest. This brings the total funds for the crime reduction programme to £400 million.
"The breakdown of the additional £150 million funds will be £20 million in the coming financial year (1999–2000), £60 million in the forthcoming year and £70 million in the third year (2001–2002). In addition, £13 million will be available for projects in Scotland, £4 million in Northern Ireland and a further £3 million for the housing element of projects in Wales which lie outside the remit of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
"One key focus of this additional programme will be investment in closed-circuit television systems and the infrastructure necessary to make these systems operate most effectively, including in housing estates, towns, bus and railway stations and car parks.
"The evidence is clear. In the right context CCTV can significantly reduce crime and disorder. It is like having a number of police officers permanently on the beat in particular streets, with eyes in the backs of their heads and with an incontrovertible record of what they have seen. When used properly, CCTV can deter criminals, greatly assist the police and others in bringing offenders to justice, and help reduce people's fear of crime.
"Take vehicle crime, for example. It accounts for almost a quarter of all recorded crime and costs us £4 million a year. Last September my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced a national target to reduce vehicle crime by 30 per cent. over the next five years. These additional resources for CCTV and related security improvements are a major step on the road to achieving that target.
"Among other things, these resources will be targeted at improving car-park security. Home Office research from six cities provides firm evidence that
642
the installation of CCTV in car parks leads to significant reductions in vehicle crime. A project in Hull, for example, led to theft of cars in the targeted car park falling by almost 90 per cent. compared to a reduction of only 6 per cent. in the city centre as a whole. With up to 30 per cent. of all car crime taking place in car parks, the potential pay-off from this major new investment in security is enormous. In a project in Darlington the number of vehicle offences in the town centre has been cut by over 80 per cent.
"Funding for this new initiative will be allocated through a competitive bidding process. We shall invite bids for schemes in places to which the public has access. We expect roughly half the funding to be allocated to residential areas, although the precise split will depend on the quality of the bids received. Bids must be submitted through the local crime and disorder partnerships. Successful bids will be those which have the biggest impact on reducing crime, which are part of a broader strategy and which represent value for money.
"This initiative will be managed jointly by the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions as part of the crime reduction programme, with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland offices discharging their separate responsibilities. This joint working between the DETR and the Home Office is significant. It represents co-ordinated government at both the national and local level and will complement existing programmes such as the new deal for communities and the single regeneration budget. My right honourable friend and I will issue a joint prospectus as soon as possible which will set out guidance to partnerships on the submission of bids, including time-scales and selection criteria.
"The measures I have announced today. are part of a coherent strategy for giving local communities the means they need to tackle crime, fear of crime and disorder. I commend them to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am sure we all wish to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. When I first saw on the enunciator a reference to the European Commission and crime reduction I did not realise that it denoted two separate Statements. Dealing with the present Statement, we are all in favour of crime reduction. I believe that, my right honourable friend Michael Howard gets less credit than he deserves for the fact that the figures have been moving in the right direction for a number of years. The Statement does not appear to contain very much that is new as opposed to recycled, apart from the one sentence that today the Home Secretary is issuing detailed guidance about the use of anti-social behaviour orders. That is all that is said about it. No detail is given, although I understand that it is available in the Printed Paper Office. For those who have to use the orders the details emerge a fortnight before they are due to begin on 1st April. That does not give them much time to absorb what they contain.

643
Perhaps the Minister can give me some help on the question of money. I was not quite clear from where the money was to come. As far as I can tell it does not appear to be new money. Does the money come from the police budget or the Home Office central budget? What is being reduced, as it were, to pay for it? As to the initiatives, we have welcomed them before and we continue to do so. Many of them build on action taken under the previous administration. The difficulty is that the background to the Statement is falling numbers in the police force. The numbers rose by about 15,000 under the previous administration but have fallen by about 800 since the general election, quite apart from any effects on the morale of the police force as a result of other events. That is the background to this matter.
A key part of any crime reduction strategy is the numbers in the police force. The best crime reduction strategy is to catch criminals and deter those who disturb the peace by catching people who have already done it. The best way to do that is to make the police force as effective as possible.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the fear of crime and crime itself—crime against property and the person—is a major source of distress to millions of people in this country. We naturally welcome anything that contributes to a reduction in crime. We believe that the measures proposed in the Statement will contribute to a reduction in crime and therefore we welcome them. We also give a very warm welcome to the idea of partnerships. As to the Crime and Disorder Act and the introduction of the new anti-social behaviour orders, we believe that if used sensitively and with moderation they can lead to a great reduction in the types of objectionable conduct, perhaps semi-criminal behaviour, that is a cause of great unhappiness to people in many parts of the country. However, the powers here are draconian. We were somewhat concerned about them in the debates when the Crime and Disorder Bill was passing through Parliament. If they are used excessively they can be a cause of oppression. We hope that the guidance will ensure that they are used rightly and where they will do good, as they are capable of doing.
The crime reduction programme is also warmly welcomed. I take minor issue with the noble Lord, Lord Cope. In many ways the best crime prevention strategy is not to catch people who have committed crime but to take steps to prevent them committing those crimes altogether. For example, better household protection through locks, alarms and so on is a very useful measure because it stops crime being committed. Certainly, CCTV has proved itself a very valuable weapon against crime and we welcome the measures for the extended use of it. It is not clear to us whether the money proposed to be spent is new money or is simply being brought forward from spending plans in future years. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, will explain the position. In conclusion, this is a Statement to which we give a warm welcome.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked from where the money would come. This is new money for CCTV. It is the largest single funding of crime prevention not only in this country but throughout the world. I was rather surprised to hear his comment about the reduction in police numbers under this Government. While it is certainly true that police numbers went up in the 1970s and 1980s under both Labour and Conservative governments, over the past five years of the previous Conservative government there was a significant reduction in numbers. We intend to give the police extra measures to deal with crime prevention.
I was very pleased by the welcome given by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to the measures outlined in the Statement. Like him, I believe that they will be extremely useful and efficient. These measures do not replace the police but are complementary to the police in dealing with crime. I believe that over the years they will result in a reduction in crime. We also undertake to use the measures sensitively.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, it is a commonplace that much anti-social behaviour and some crime is committed by children and young people who have been suspended or excluded from school. For that reason I very much welcomed the announcement by the Government two or three weeks ago that £22 million would be available to make certain of continuing education for these children and young people. I ask the noble Lord on the Front Bench, who has already made reference to Northern Ireland, whether the money to which I refer for excluded and suspended children will also be available in Northern Ireland whether as a slab of the national cake or as a supplementary programme of some kind.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, so far as I am aware it will be available to Northern Ireland, but I prefer to write to the noble Lord on that point.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I welcome the Statement. I do not believe that anyone can doubt that crime is a blight on society. Crime reduction is far more important than crime detection. If one can stop crime being committed that is what one should do. Over the past few years crime has reduced. The reduction began in about 1993. The number of reported offences has dropped by about 1 million in any one year. That represents 1 million fewer victims. To make no bones about it, I pay tribute to the previous administration for that turnround. That reduction has continued under the present Home Secretary.
The large number of burglaries represent very serious offences. When someone enters a home and destroys and steals items, it has a lasting effect on the victim. Quite often it results in a victim having to move. The Crime (Sentences) Act which comes into force in December of this year will provide automatic sentencing for burglars committing offences for the third time—the "three strikes and you're out" provision.

645
The anti-social behaviour order is an extremely good measure. One difficulty for the police was getting witnesses to give evidence against so-called neighbours from hell. It is understandable that if someone is causing tremendous problems in a community, the last thing people wish is to be seen reporting the matter to the police and identifying themselves. We saw what happens when witnesses' names were released inadvertently following the Lawrence inquiry.
The advantage of the new system is that the police or the chief executive of the local authority can give evidence before the court relating to intimidation. The victim remains anonymous. It is a tremendous advantage. I believe that we shall see a sharp reduction in that type of offence, and an improvement in the quality of life for people living in those communities. I welcome the Statement.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his remarks. I agree that one of the difficulties previously related to vulnerable members of the public who were afraid to give evidence in civil proceedings. Under these orders, it is the professional witness—whether from the police or local authority—who will give evidence in relation to conduct likely to cause harassment. So I believe that that will be a step forward.
I also welcome what my noble friend said on the action we are taking against burglary. The figures have been coming down, thanks to the effective actions of the police. We have to ensure that that continues. I know the distress that burglary causes to many families.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Statement. Can the Minister confirm that the alarming rise in the number of crimes being committed by the youth of today will not be adversely affected by the recent decision of the European Commission of Human Rights in the Jamie Bulger case?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, we have taken the best legal advice in relation to these matters. As far as we are aware these provisions will not be an infringement of the human rights legislation.
Lord Christopher: My Lords, I welcome the Statement. I do not wish to engage in any political knock-about. However, perhaps I may suggest to my noble friends who believed that the issue related to recent policy changes that the demographic figures demonstrate the position. We are a long way from completing the battle on crime, in particular burglary.
I wish to address a few remarks on burglary and ask my noble friend a question. All the evidence suggests that the same people are burgled again and again. Although I exaggerate a little, it is the poor robbing the poor. As a consequence, very different policies will be called for. Will partnership and community involvement mean community on a small scale? The evidence of Oscar Newman in the 1970s on New York demonstrated that success was achieved when small communities—tower blocks and small housing estates—were involved
646
in the necessary changes in their environment. They will not accept diktat from above, even if "above" is the local town hall.
As an anecdote, I cite one case where the police said, "If only hedges were planted, how different it would be" and the tenants said, "The local authority won't let us plant hedges." There needs to be a dialogue with the local community. I hope that my noble friend will confirm that.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, good progress has been made in relation to the crime and disorder partnership. Involving the community includes not only authorities but also magistrates and health authorities. I believe that that is the way forward. Who know better the difficulties that have been created than those living in the area? We believe that the targeting of estates in relation to the use of CCTV will play its part in reducing crime on those estates. Those are valuable measures to improve people's lives in the worst crime areas. The estates play a leading role in the measures I have announced today. However, part of the package is the provision of better housing, amenities and, as has been said, ensuring that children go back to school.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, would anti-social behaviour orders be appropriate for people who ride motorcycles in the immediate vicinity of houses, intimidating people on footpaths and making a considerable degree of noise? It has proved to be a substantial nuisance to many people.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, of course it all depends on the circumstances. The provision of anti-social behaviour orders is to tackle behaviour which causes harassment or intimidates neighbours or a community in general. If such behaviour causes intimidation or harassment, I do not see why it could not come under one of those orders. I think that the measure is all-embracing. The noble Earl will agree with me that it all depends on the circumstances being experienced. That is why we are making local communities partners in what we are doing.

Access to Justice Bill [H.L.]
5.26 p.m.
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
Clause 11 [Terms of provision of funded services]:
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton) moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 8, line 23, leave out ("conduct such as is specified in section 9(2)(f)") and insert ("relevant conduct").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships may recall that at Report stage amendments were moved to Clause 9 on the funding code, and what was then Clause 10, on financial contributions, to narrow the definition of "conduct"—first, in relation to the factors taken into account in funding decisions under the code; and, secondly, in relation to contributions that an assisted person may be asked for. Thai was in

647
response to the concerns that had been voiced at Committee, by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and others, that the definition of conduct in the Bill at that stage could be used to exclude cases where the applicant was, for whatever reason, unpopular. The same definition of conduct was given in each of the clauses.
Those amendments were welcomed by your Lordships. I am pleased to return to the subject now with a further narrowing of the definition of conduct as it relates to the making of financial contributions. This is because the definition of conduct as it stands in relation to the funding code allows conduct in previous proceedings to be taken into account. That is necessary so that the commission could, for example, take a previous fraudulent application into account in deciding whether to grant an application for funding. However, it would be wrong, once a person has been given funding for a case, to insist on a higher contribution towards the cost of that case because of any conduct other than the conduct in that particular case.
It is solely to confine the relevant conduct to that which occurs in the proceedings for which services are being funded that these amendments are now being moved. On that basis, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 8, line 31, at end insert—
("and in paragraph (b) "relevant conduct" means conduct in connection with the services (or any application for their funding) or in. or in connection with, any proceedings in relation to which they are provided.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause
DETERMINATION OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR CONTRIBUTIONS AND COSTS
(". —(1) In determining for the purposes of sections 11 and 12 the financial resources of an individual, regulations shall provide that the first £100,000 (or such larger amount as may be specified) of the value of the beneficial interest of the individual in the equity of a dwelling house which is his only or principal residence shall be disregarded.
(2) For the purposes of this section "equity value" means the market value of the dwelling house after deducting the debts not exceeding £100,000 (or such larger amount as may be specified) secured on it by a mortgage or charge.
(3) Regulations may provide that the amount to be disregarded under subsection (1) may be reduced in specified circumstances where the equity exceeds £100,000 (or such larger amount as may be specified) and the individual does not have the sole beneficial interest in the equity.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is the same as one which I moved at Report stage but withdrew. Under the present legal aid regulations, an applicant for legal aid is not eligible if he or she has capital of more than £6,750. If he or she has capital of more than £3,000 but less than £6,750, the excess over £3,000 may have to be paid in contributions to the cost of an action. However, the equity in the dwelling house
648
of the applicant is not treated as capital either for eligibility or liability to pay contributions unless it exceeds £100,000.
In Annex A to the Explanatory Notes, the Government announced an intention to change the regulations. Under the proposed new regulations, the value of equity up to £100,000 will still be disregarded when deciding whether the applicant is eligible for legal aid, but that equity will be taken into account for the purposes of liability to pay contributions. As a result, someone with equity of, say, £90,000 in a house could obtain legal aid, but if the case were lost he might find himself liable to pay tens of thousands of pounds, even the whole value of the equity, as a contribution. The payment of contributions can be deferred until the house is sold, but must be paid then and not carried over into the purchase of a new house. In the meantime, interest is payable.
The Law Society pointed out that for people whose only capital is equity in their home the risk of liability to pay contributions was an enormous disincentive to applying for public funding out of the community legal service. In practice, only those who are renting houses would be likely to apply for such funding. I therefore tabled an amendment to prohibit the equity in the house being taken into account so long as it was under £100,000.
I accept that the changes which this amendment seeks to prevent could be made under the existing powers to make regulations under the Legal Aid Act. However, it is an important amendment. It is not one I would normally have wished to bring back on Third Reading, but I do so now because I understand that the Government are willing to undertake to hold wide consultations before implementing changes to the relevant regulations with a view to drafting those regulations in ways which will minimise hardship. If that is the case, I greatly welcome it. I would like the statement of the Government's intention to be recorded in Hansard. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, Clause 12(1) provides that clothes, household furniture and the tools and implements of trade are disregards. I believe that those classes of property have always been a disregard in all forms of execution. They have certainly been disregards from the inception of the legal aid scheme. Moreover, my recollection is that a dwelling house has also been a disregard from the beginning of the legal aid scheme.
It is arguable how much a person with property should be required to contribute to his legal advice or representation, but the dwelling house has always been, and is today, regarded differently from other property. For example, the Government are considering benevolently exempting the dwelling house from the necessity of being sold as a contribution when an old person goes into a retirement home. If that is so, it seems to me equally applicable in this case. It is undesirable that something so intimate as a dwelling house should have to be sacrificed to the last farthing before aid in any form is extended by the Government. I understand from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart,

649
that the Government have an open mind on the matter. I hope that they may consider it also in relation to the contributions made when a pensioner moves into a retirement home.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this amendment was originally tabled at the Report stage, but was withdrawn by the noble Lord after some debate. The Government's aim is greater fairness between people who have capital assets in different forms. At present, someone with £10,000 savings, perhaps as a result of redundancy, would not be eligible for legal aid at all; whereas someone who owned a £90,000 house might be eligible for free legal aid. That is basically unfair. In essence, it says that homeowners are uniquely deserving of more favourable treatment in exercising their legal rights.
However, we have always recognised that property in the form of a home is a special case. That is why we propose that equity up to £100,000 should not affect eligibility; and that any contribution should not be enforced at least until the house is next sold. This recognises that residential property is more than an investment —a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. However, at the same time it does not put those with substantial equity in property in a stronger position than others, whose only assets may be a relatively small amount of cash, particularly if they have retired and sold their homes and moved into more limited accommodation.
I should remind your Lordships that our proposals on eligibility and financial conditions, as set out in the Explanatory Notes, would all be possible under the existing powers in the Legal Aid Act. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is unwilling in principle to provide in the Bill for more restricted powers than exist now. Moreover, the changes are intended to be part of a balanced package, designed to be broadly cost neutral. The cost of changes that relax financial conditions will be offset by savings from those that tighten them. If the Bill were to preclude this proposal about equity, it might be necessary to abandon some of the other changes; for example, extending eligibility for advice and assistance. I am sure that your Lordships would not welcome that.
Nonetheless, I recognise the concerns that have been raised about how a scheme of postponed contributions from equity would work in practice. On behalf of the Government, I am therefore happy to undertake to consult widely about the details before implementing this or any of our other proposed changes to the existing financial conditions. Among other things, we could consider rules to ensure that contributions from equity were not enforced where that would result in hardship. We could also look at the extent to which it was appropriate to add interest to a liability for contribution postponed beyond the end of the case. I recall from Report stage that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was particularly concerned about the effect of interest accruing on the debt, a point he has repeated today.
650
I believe that prospective changes to eligibility and financial conditions are best dealt with in regulations, as they are now. I repeat the undertaking to consult widely on the changes and, on that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for those comments. Obviously, a rigid application of the rule about contributions could cause great hardship, particularly for a family which needed to move because the size of the family was growing or for a family which needed to move from one part of the country to another in order to obtain a job. But no doubt such hardship will be looked at in the course of the consultation process. Therefore, I am happy to accept what the noble and learned Lord said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [The Criminal Defence Service]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 10, line 22, leave out (", for dealing with an individual in respect of a sentence or") and insert ("(including proceedings in respect of a sentence or order),
(ba) proceedings").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 7 to 12 inclusive. These are technical amendments to ensure that the term "criminal proceedings" is defined in a way which includes relevant proceedings and that the drafting is as clear as possible.
I shall deal first with Amendment No. 7. That will have the effect of deleting Clause 13(3)(e). That paragraph reflects an existing provision in the Legal Aid Act 1988 relating to proceedings for variation or discharge of a supervision order made under Section 15 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, or appeals under Section 16(8) of that Act.
I shall not delay this House by setting out the history of the consequential effect on these sections of subsequent provisions under the Children Act 1989. Suffice it to say that Clause 13(3)(e) is no longer necessary. Those criminal proceedings will fall within the scope of Clause 13(3)(b) and the first part of Amendment No. 6 puts that beyond doubt by adding the word "order".
The second part of the amendment places the reference to proceedings under the Extradition Act 1989 in a separate paragraph. Earlier amendments removed the necessity for reference to "an individual" in some parts of Clause 15(8) and Amendments Nos. 9 and 11 reflect that. The remaining Amendments Nos 8, 10 and 12 are intended to improve drafting without affecting the meaning of those paragraphs. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 10, leave out lines 31 to 34.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Representation]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 8 to 12:
Page 12, line 37, leave out ("for him").
Page 12. line 38, leave out ("for an individual").
Page 12, line 39, leave out ("by him").
Page 12, line 41, leave out ("an individual may select").
Page 12, line 42, at end insert ("may be selected").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 32 [Barristers and solicitors]:
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Clause 40 [Permission to appeal]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 25, line 20, after ("court") insert ("or courts").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that on Report, I indicated that it was my intention, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, to introduce some drafting amendments concerning the appeal provisions contained in the Bill.
Amendment No. 14 provides for more than one court to hear an application for permission to appeal. As I said in Committee, the Government support the principle that where a court which has made a first instance decision refuses an application for permission, it should be possible for a litigant to renew his application to the tier of court which would hear the appeal if permission were given.
Amendment No. 15 reinstates the effect of Section 54(6) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 which provides that there is no appeal from the decision of a single Lord Justice on an application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. However, the amendment extends that principle also to the lower appellate courts, where there may in future be a requirement for permission.
The overall practical effect of Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 may be illustrated by the following example. Where in future a route of appeal lies from a circuit judge to the High Court, permission to appeal can first be sought from the circuit judge who gave the first instance judgment. If the circuit judge refuses permission, there is no appeal against that refusal but a further application for permission to appeal may be made to the High Court. The decision of the High Court judge on the application for permission will be final, as at present for the single Lord Justice.
Amendment No. 17 and the consequential Amendment No. 56 reintroduce in an amended form Section 58 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 which had previously been repealed by the Bill under Schedule 11. That will ensure that decisions made by single judges and court staff, in any application incidental to a matter pending before the Court of Appeal, can continue to be called into question by that court. At present, decisions of a single Lord Justice may be called into question by the full Court of Appeal and decisions of court staff, acting as deputy registrars, may be called into question by a single Lord Justice. Without that provision, our appellate procedures would not provide an effective
652
route of appeal for such matters. Most applications that are determined at that level are plainly unsuitable for consideration by the House of Lords. They are extremely unlikely to obtain permission to appeal to that court—I am thinking of applications for an extension of time for setting down an appeal, for security for costs or for solicitors to be removed from the record. This amendment will maintain the existing means by which such decisions can be reviewed and I see no reason to alter this practice which has been found to work well in the past.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 retain existing provisions relating to applications for permission to appeal in the Court of Appeal and extend the provision to courts generally. Amendments Nos. 17 and 56 merely rectify a lacuna which would result from the repeal of Section 58 of the Supreme Court Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 25, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) No appeal may be made against a decision of a court under this section to give or refuse permission (but this subsection does not affect any right under rules of court to make a further application for permission to the same or another court).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Business
5.45 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene for just a moment. In the proceedings on the Statement on the European Commission, my noble friend the Leader of the House inadvertently omitted page 3 of the text as supplied to the Opposition and as made available to your Lordships in the Printed Paper Office.
After discussions through the usual channels, it has been suggested that in order to ensure accuracy and completeness of the record of proceedings, the Statement should appear in Hansard tomorrow in its full and complete form. I hope that the House will accept my noble friend's apology for that error and will agree that the full text should appear in Hansard in the morning.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the Government Chief Whip for making that statement. We fully accept the apology made on behalf of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. We accept that in reading the Statement, she inadvertently turned over two pages at once and we were deprived of the advantage of hearing her repeat page 3.
I have not yet looked at page 3. There may be some points on that page which Members of the House will not have seen. My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition will have seen it because he had a copy of the Statement. However, some noble Lords may wish to ask questions on the content of page 3. Perhaps the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will be available at some stage so that noble Lords can ask

653
questions on that page of the Statement. Or is there some other mechanism by which that matter may be resolved?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I must admit that I had not thought of that. I believe that that page is something to do with the role of M. Santer and that the content of those paragraphs will meet with the full approval of your Lordships' House. I suggest that noble Lords should read that page of the Statement and if they wish to raise matters with my noble friend, they should do so by writing to her. If there is a need to take the matter further, we shall try to do that.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I imagine that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will be available tomorrow. I know that the noble Lord the Chief Whip has it in mind to make a statement after Question Time tomorrow. It may be that noble Lords will be able to ask questions at that stage.

Access to Justice Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Third Reading resumed.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 16
After Clause 43, insert the following new clause
APPEALS AGAINST ORDERS TO SERVE REMAINDER OF SENTENCE
(".—(1) In section 40(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (order returning offender to prison for unserved portion of sentence to be treated for purposes of appeal provisions as sentence passed for original offence), for the words from "any enactment" to "made" substitute "sections 9 and 10 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, any order made by the Crown Court under subsection (2) above, or made under subsection (3A) above,".
(2) Section 10 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (appeal to Court of Appeal by person dealt with by Crown Court for offence of which he was not convicted on indictment) is amended in accordance with subsections (3) and (4).
(3) In subsection (2) (proceedings from which an appeal lies), insert at the end "; or
(c) having been released under Part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 after serving part of a sentence of imprisonment or detention imposed for the offence, is ordered by the Crown Court to be returned to prison or detention,".
(4) In subsection (3) (cases where person may appeal), in paragraph (cc) (order under section 40(3A)), for "40(3A)" substitute "40(2) or (3A)''.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this new clause makes amendments to both Section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and Section 10 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. This is a minor, technical and, hope, uncontroversial clause. These changes have been identified, in consultation with the Law Commission, as being necessary to facilitate the consolidation of certain enactments relating to the sentencing powers of the courts. They are needed before a Consolidation Bill can be introduced in a future Session of Parliament.
The amendments will clarify the appeal rights of an offender who is returned to prison under Section 40 of the 1991 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause—
CALLING INTO QUESTION OF INCIDENTAL DECISIONS
(". For section 58 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (exercise of incidental jurisdiction in civil division of Court of Appeal) substitute—
"Calling into question of incidental decisions in civil division.
58.—(1) Rules of court may provide that decisions of the Court of Appeal which—

(a) are taken by a single judge or any officer or member of staff of that court in proceedings incidental to any cause or matter pending before the civil division of that court, and

(b) do not involve the determination of an appeal or of an application for permission to appeal,

may be called into question in such manner as may be prescribed.
(2) No appeal shall lie to the House of Lords front a decision which may be called into question pursuant to rules under subsection (1)."").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 51, insert the following new clause—
POWER TO ALLOW CHILDREN TO ATTEND CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
(". —(1) In section 36 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (child not to be present at criminal trial except where required as witness or otherwise for the purposes of justice), after "justice" insert "or while the court consents to his presence".
(2) In section 50(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (child not to be present at criminal proceedings unless required as witness or otherwise for the purposes of justice), after "justice" insert "or the court consents to his presence".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 18, with your Lordships' leave I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 23, 24, 55 and 68. Section 36 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 prohibits children (that is, young people under the age of 14) from attending criminal trials unless the child is a defendant, a witness, an infant in arms, or his presence is required for the purposes of justice. At Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, proposed an amendment which would allow children to attend criminal trials with the consent of the court. He stressed the educational value of such a change.
The Government put a high value on participation in our justice system. Two notable examples are juries and the lay magistracy. Equally, the road to justice is generally, in our country, a public one. Our courts sit in public unless there are countervailing public interests, and these are rare. It is a useful promotion of a sense of citizenship for children to be able to witness our criminal justice system in action. In was for that reason, when the noble Lord first proposed these amendments, that I expressed some sympathy for the spirit of the

655
amendment, but wished to give it further thought. This I have done. I have also had further correspondence with the noble Lord, and I have been able to consult the Lord Chief Justice.
The Government have already made changes to youth court procedure to achieve a greater openness in proceedings, and we entirely agree with the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, which will affect not only the magistrates' court, but also the Crown Court. The Lord Chief justice also supports such a change.
Amendment No. 18 therefore permits children under 14 years of age to attend criminal trials in England and Wales, with the consent of the court. It also makes a comparable change for Scotland, which has the support of the Lord Justice General.
I am advised that, if your Lordships agree to the inclusion of this new clause, a technical amendment is needed to the Long Title. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 68.
Amendment No. 23 amends the extent of the Bill in respect of children attending criminal proceedings in Scotland. Amendment No. 24 improves the drafting changes of Clause 83 on extent.
At the same time we have taken the opportunity to remove from Section 36 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 a redundant qualification on the prohibition in respect of children who had cause to attend court for purposes connected with their employment. This is achieved by Amendment No. 55. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, perhaps I may express gratitude to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the thought that he has given to this proposal and the amendments now brought forward. I can assure him that the extra allowance that the amendments permit will be extremely well used.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I, too, welcome this new clause. There is one point on which I would like some assurance from the noble and learned Lord. From the wording of the amendment I assume that there cannot be a case in which a child is compelled to attend a trial against its will. If a member of the child's family is the accused then the child could be very upset by the proceedings and should not be required to remain in court. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord can give an assurance on that point.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I understand the changes, they are to enable, and not compel, children to attend, with the consent of the court.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 56, insert the following new clause—
ENFORCEMENT OF COMMUNITY ORDERS MADE BY CROWN COURT
(". Schedule (Enforcement of community orders made by Crown Court) (which transfers to the Crown Court certain functions relating to the enforcement of community orders made by the Crown Court which are currently functions of magistrates' courts) has effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these amendments make changes to the way in which alleged breaches of community orders are dealt with by the courts. These changes are, I believe, uncontroversial and will make the process for dealing with certain breach cases quicker and more efficient. They reflect the views of the judiciary who have argued that they are necessary in order to avoid unnecessary court proceedings, delays in resolving breach cases, and to increase confidence in community sentences.
The new clause inserts into the Bill a new schedule concerning the enforcement of community orders made by the Crown Court. The new schedule makes amendments to Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Schedule 2 currently provides that alleged breaches of community sentences imposed by the Crown Court should be brought first to the magistrates' court to be dealt with or, depending on the circumstances, to be committed to the Crown Court.
The new schedule creates a more streamlined process. Certain functions are transferred from the magistrates' court to the Crown Court in respect of the enforcement of those orders made originally by the Crown Court. Amendment No. 67 makes related repeals.
The changes flow from representations made by the judiciary that it is inappropriate for alleged breaches of orders made by the Crown Court to be heard by magistrates, and that all subsequent issues concerning such orders, in particular alleged breaches, should be heard by the Crown Court. It would also be more efficient for any such proceedings to start in the Crown Court, thereby saving the time and expense of a magistrates' hearing.
The Government are committed to ensuring that court processes are not needlessly long or complex. The amendment provides an element of flexibility, in that it is left to the judge, when passing a community sentence, whether to reserve jurisdiction to the Crown Court or not. It is important that if an offender has failed to comply with requirements of a community order the matter is dealt with swiftly and efficiently by the courts. We see no benefit in retaining the current arrangements whereby some cases have to be dealt with in the first instance by a magistrates' court only to be passed on to the Crown Court. I think it is right, then, to take the opportunity provided by this Bill to make these changes, which will improve and streamline the process by which community sentences are enforced. By the same token, it makes sense for all proceedings in respect of revocation of orders made by the Crown Court, which are always heard by that court, to start their life there rather than in the magistrates' court. The amendment so provides. I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I welcome this provision. Ever since the 1991 Act came into force Schedule 2 has been the subject of much argument, and many profound speeches at judicial seminars have been given by eminent people from all walks of life. The matter is still incomprehensible to most of us.
I ask two things of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. First, does this provision indicate that there is to be some consolidation? It is high time that

657
there was. One has only to look at the text of Amendment No. 52 to see that it is totally incomprehensible unless it is placed in the proper context with the other text.
Can the noble and learned Lord also say whether it is the Government's intention, by means partly of clarifying this matter, that the court's attention should be focused not only on the revocation of the community order, but also on the decision whether an alternative sentence should be imposed? Too often, what happens is that someone is brought before a magistrates' court or a Crown Court and sentenced for the new offence and the Probation Service asks for revocation of the previous community sentence. It is very seldom that there is any discussion of what ought to take the place of the remainder of the community service which is being revoked, in addition to the penalty for the new matter. It may be that there should be no additional penalty, but nevertheless the matter ought to be considered; otherwise community sentences fail to carry the weight that they are supposed to carry as alternatives to prison in the first instance. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord would like to contemplate that matter. I believe that it is not a matter for the Bill, but something on which guidance could usefully be given.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Viscount raises two points. First, one sees all too well the number of statutes concerned with consolidation and we shall give thought to that question. On the noble Viscount's second point, this amendment streamlines the procedure. His point is an important one which is worthy of consideration, but it seems to me that it is not appropriate for this Bill or this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6 p.m.
Clause 60 [Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 38, line 40. leave out ("subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House") and insert ("laid in draft before, and subject to approval by resolution of, both Houses").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, recently I was approached by the deputy chairman of the Inner London Magistrates' Courts Committee to put forward this amendment. I do not know why I was approached. I suppose I was chosen on the basis of alphabetical merit.
The amendment seeks to replace the proposed annulment procedure for the making of statutory instruments under Clause 60 by the affirmative procedure, as laid down in other provisions in the Bill. Clause 60 proposes far-reaching changes to the magistrates' courts service in Greater London. It will create a Greater London magistrates' court authority to run all the Greater London magistrates' courts and replace the existing 22 magistrates' courts committees. Clause 60 is an enabling clause, leaving a great deal of detail about the new authority to be covered by statutory instrument.
The Greater London magistrates' courts authority will be a radically different animal from other magistrates' courts committees in its constitution and powers. In contrast to other magistrates' courts committees, it will be able to own property, to acquire rights and liabilities and, crucially, to be its own paying authority, which presumably is a power to precept local authorities directly for their contribution towards its annual running costs.
The restructuring of the magistrates' courts in Greater London represents—so I am told—the largest rationalisation by far of magistrates' courts committees anywhere in England and Wales. The GLMCA—the Greater London magistrates' courts authority—will be bound to be seen as a flagship authority. It will affect the lives of 7 million people living in Greater London, plus many hundreds of thousands of commuters and visitors from overseas and other parts of the United Kingdom.
Parliament will reserve to the Lord Chancellor extensive powers to give flesh to this new body by the making of regulations. It is submitted, therefore, that there ought to be a proper parliamentary scrutiny of such regulations. In other parts of the Bill—for example, in procedures relating to the funding code under Clause 10—the affirmative procedure is to be used. There is a danger that if the annulment procedure is used for regulations made under Clause 60, the regulations might slip through. Of course, such regulations will have a profound effect on the running of magistrates' courts throughout the capital and the new body will be different from all other magistrates' courts committees in England and Wales. I respectfully submit that the affirmative procedure should apply to them. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. We have seen the negative resolution procedure used when matters are not of such great importance that parliamentary approval is not essential, although it can, if necessary, be invoked. We have here the power on the part of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to make regulations governing the whole of the criminal jurisdiction but, in the first instance, only for the 7 million people of London, the capital city of the United Kingdom. Therefore it is important that it should be a matter for an affirmative resolution, after discussion in either House of Parliament. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will look sympathetically at this amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this amendment would apply the affirmative resolution procedure to regulations relating to the membership and procedure of the Greater London magistrates' courts authority. Similar matters to these for magistrates' courts committees throughout England and Wales generally are currently dealt with under the negative resolution procedure. They relate to administrative details, such as constitution, procedure and quorum of committees, which may need to change from time to time.

659
The Government recognise the special needs of the capital in creating the Greater London magistrates' courts authority. Although it will be much larger than, and have some additional functions over and above those of other magistrates' courts committees, it is important that it still fits within the national framework for the magistrates' courts service wherever this is appropriate. As I indicated, if this amendment were allowed, for everywhere else except London the negative procedure rather than the affirmative procedure would apply.
The Government intend to bring forward further amendments to this clause in another place, which I hope will relieve some of the noble and learned Lord's concerns. I should emphasise that the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation has already considered that the existing structure involving the negative procedure provides the appropriate degree of parliamentary control. In seeking differentiation from other magistrates' courts, he is also asking for more than the Select Committee suggested is appropriate. In those circumstances, I respectfully invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am bound to say that I am disappointed with that answer. In effect, we are considering the effective and efficient administration of summary justice for approximately one-seventh of the population. At this late stage, I can do no more than express the hope that in another place a good deal of what I have sought may be achieved. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 82 [Commencement]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 52, line 26, leave out ("and") and insert—
("( ) Schedule 10,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 is to provide that Schedule 10 and Section 81 of the Act shall both come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, rather than by order. That will remove the need for separate commencement orders. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 52, line 28, at end insert ("and
( ) section 81.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 83 [Extent]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24:
Page 52, line 32, leave out ("extends") and insert ("and section (Power to allow children to attend criminal proceedings)(2) extend").
Page 52, line 34, leave out from ("77") to ("this") in line 4 on page 53 and insert ("extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
(4) The other provisions of this Act which make amendments or repeals or revocations in other enactments also have the same extent as the enactments which they amend or repeal or revoke.
(4A) Subject to subsection (4), the provisions of this Part (including paragraph 1, but not the rest, of Schedule 10) extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
(5) Subject to the preceding provisions,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Legal Services Commission]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 57, line 33, at end insert—
("and the plan shall include a summary of what the Commission has ascertained in the exercise of its functions under section 5(5).").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment clarifies that the annual plan prepared by the legal services commission will include a summary of the assessment of the need for services to be provided through the community legal service, which the commission will carry out under Clause 5(5).
On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, tabled an amendment along very similar lines. He argued that, since under Clause 5(5) the commission will be under a duty to inform itself about the need for services, and under paragraph 15 of Schedule 1 it must prepare a plan setting out how it will fund services and exercise its other functions, it would be appropriate for the plan to include the assessment of need upon which it is based.
There is an undoubted logic in the argument advanced by the noble and learned Lord. Indeed, as I explained on Report, it has always been our intention that the annual plan should summarise the outcome of the assessment of need which will be carried out by the regional legal services committees and reported to the commission in the "regional strategies". I therefore undertook to seek the draftsman's view on the precise wording of an amendment to make this intention clear on the face of the Bill. The result of that exercise is the amendment now before the House.
The amendment provides the final element of the planning and reporting arrangements set out in the Bill, which will deliver a high degree of transparency for Parliament and the public about the activities of the commission and the provision of publicly funded legal services. The "regional strategies" will be the subject of wide consultation and will be published. The commission's annual plan, which will set out the results of the assessment of need and how the commission intends to meet that need having regard to the priorities set out by the Lord Chancellor, will be laid before Parliament and published. The commission's annual report, setting out how it has performed against its plan,

661
will also be laid before Parliament and published. I believe that these provisions will allow careful scrutiny of the functioning of the new arrangements. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the amendment. It is another step forward in ensuring that this House and the public at large obtain full information about the working of the legal services commission. I am happy to support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 58, leave out lines 7 to 32 and insert—
("(3) The Commission shall send a copy of the statement of accounts in respect of each financial year to the Lord Chancellor and to the Comptroller and Auditor General within such period after the end of the financial year to which it relates as the Lord Chancellor may specify by direction given to the Commission.
(4) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall—

(a) examine, certify and report on each statement of accounts received by him under sub-paragraph (3), and

(b) lay a copy of each such statement of accounts, and his report on it, before each House of Parliament.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to appoint the Comptroller and Auditor General auditor of the legal services commission. As currently drafted, paragraph 16 of Schedule 1 provides that the accounts of the legal services commission shall be audited by persons appointed by the Lord Chancellor in accordance with a scheme of audit approved by him. It further provides that the auditors shall report to the Lord Chancellor on the accounts and the statement of accounts and, on completion of the audit, shall send a copy of the statement of accounts and their report to the Lord Chancellor and to the Comptroller and Auditor General, who may inspect the accounts and any records relating to them. The Lord Chancellor shall then lay before Parliament a copy of the statement of accounts and the auditors' report. These arrangements replicate those currently in place in relation to the Legal Aid Board.
Under these arrangements, therefore, the Comptroller and Auditor General would have inspection rights to the commission's accounts and related records to enable him to discharge his functions under the National Audit Act 1983 to carry out examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which public bodies have used their resources in discharging their functions and to report to Parliament through the Select Committee on Public Accounts. But in practice, under such arrangements, the Comptroller and Auditor General tends to rely to a great extent on the work of the appointed auditors to avoid a major duplication of work.
The Government are committed to increasing transparency and openness to Parliament. For that reason, we believe that the auditor of public bodies should be the Comptroller and Auditor General rather than an auditor appointed by the relevant Minister unless there is some special reason why the auditor of a particular public body should have knowledge or
662
experience which can be found only in the private sector. No such reason exists in the case of the legal services commission.
This amendment will improve the accountability to Parliament of the commission. The Comptroller and Auditor General will have complete discretion, on behalf of Parliament, over the scope of the audit, and the Comptroller and Auditor General will report to Parliament rather than to the Lord Chancellor. I know that the chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts supports the improved accountability which will result from the amendment.
The amendment will also bring other benefits. The commission's accounts will be scrutinised by those who possess the greatest expertise in the audit of public moneys; and the total audit burden will reduced because the duplication of the Comptroller and Auditor General having to inspect the commission's accounts separately in order to report to Parliament on regularity and propriety will be removed. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, this is obviously a good amendment which should be supported. There is, however, one point on which I think we should have some assurance from the noble and learned Lord. We must avoid delay. The amendment states that the statement of accounts shall be submitted,
"within such period … as the Lord Chancellor may specify by direction given to the Commission".
What sort of period does the Lord Chancellor have in mind? On any matter of public accounts, it is essential that the whole issue should be resolved within a few months of the end of the financial year and not hang over until the following financial year. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will say what period he has in mind. Indeed, when the Bill goes to another place, perhaps that period could be specified rather than the provisions stating as now,
"within such period … as the Lord Chancellor may specify".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall give thought to that point. I can assure your Lordships that I, for one, am the enemy of delay and that I contemplate only such period of time as is reasonable to enable the accounts to be prepared immediately upon the end of the financial year in accordance with ordinary standards of business efficiency in the public sector.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Community Legal Service: excluded services]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 59, line 5, leave out ("for clinical negligence") and insert ("specified in sub-paragraph (2)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment would allow the community legal service to fund help for certain types of claimant in respect of personal injuries. It would assist parties under a disability, together with those entitled to a retirement pension, or the disabled who are in receipt of disability living allowance or the disability working allowance.
Under the present provisions of the Bill, legal aid will be withdrawn from personal injury cases save for clinical negligence cases. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will have the power, under Clause 7, to direct the commission to fund the provision of services, otherwise excluded by Schedule 2, in specified circumstances.
The noble and learned Lord has indicated that that power is likely to be used in personal injury cases where there are particularly high investigative costs. Essentially, the noble and learned Lord believes that conditional fees can provide a satisfactory alternative to the funding of all other cases which would otherwise merit support from public funds. But conditional fees will not provide the desired extension to access to justice unless it is possible to provide after-the-event insurance to cover the risk of payment of the opponent's costs if the case is lost. On that criterion, there remain some categories of case where it will be particularly difficult to use conditional fees.
There will also be clients who cannot readily afford insurance or disbursements. Although the noble and learned Lord has suggested that conditional fees will be profitable for solicitors, in reality firms will have to take a view with respect to the proportion of cases they can afford to run on a risk basis.
This amendment seeks to give priority to the interests of the vulnerable who might otherwise not secure access to justice. Those who are disabled, whether by reason of their personal injury or otherwise, and in receipt of relevant benefit, are unlikely to have the resources available to fund premiums and disbursements themselves. Entitlement to a retirement pension should also properly act as a passported benefit.
One of the few extensions to the scope of legal aid in recent years came when the previous Lord Chancellor, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, decided that the resources of children should not be aggregated with those of their parents. It is surprising, therefore, that the present Government wish now to exclude legal aid from children for personal injury actions. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, for the reasons which have just been given by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I support this amendment, and there is nothing I can usefully add.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, these amendments together would put on the face of the Bill a number of exceptions to the exclusion of personal injury cases from the scope of public funding. They are exceptions which have been moved with the understandable intention of protecting those members of society who are considered to be most vulnerable. At Report my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell put forward an amendment covering similar ground. He sought to keep in scope cases involving children and people suffering from a mental disability. He was concerned that they would have greater difficulty than others in finding a solicitor prepared to act under a conditional fee agreement and in negotiating a fair agreement.
664
In the long debates that we have had about personal injury during the passage of this Bill, many of your Lordships came up with examples of cases which, it is alleged, solicitors would not be prepared to undertake. I must say that the more I thought about this the more I found it to be almost an indictment of the profession by the very people who have often sought to maintain the status quo in other respects. The Jonahs are everywhere. Cases are either too risky, they require planning of payments over the duration of the case, they are too complex or they involve vulnerable members of society. The list goes on.
I do not believe that clients will be turned away by lawyers simply because they are minors, aged, are mentally ill or are physically disabled. If they have good cases they will certainly find lawyers willing to take them. People, whatever their physical or mental state, will find it hard to secure lawyers who will work on conditional fees if they have poor cases. That must be right, because we do not wish to encourage people to take cases which do not have a sufficient prospect of success. They may have a difficulty if their case requires considerable expenses before a decision can be taken about the prospects of success.
However, only yesterday the Royal and Sun Alliance insurance group, through First Assist—its legal expenses subsidiary in association with the brokers Willis Corroon group—launched its new conditional fee insurance product. The essential features of the product are that it removes from the client the risk of having to pay disbursements, and provides unlimited cover for an opponent's costs. The insurance premium is only payable if the case is won, and then only at the end of the case. It provides for the majority of solicitors costs and expenses, including counsel's fees if he is not working under a conditional fee agreement, to be met if the case is unsuccessful. Also it can be extended to include appeal costs. The premium is assessed by the insurers on the likelihood of success and merits of the case. The eventual premium will be expressed as a proportion of the solicitor's basic fees.
I should add that a non-refundable fee of £200 plus VAT is required with the proposal form to cover the underwriters' costs of carrying out the assessment of the claim. I predict that in practice solicitors will be willing to bear that fee because they too benefit from the cover provided by the policy, and it is a small investment for a solicitor to make in order to secure his client's case.
So I believe, as I have long predicted, that the insurance industry is bringing forward the products which will underpin conditional fee agreements. However, I have said repeatedly and I say again that I will be ready to use the power given to me in the Bill, if necessary, to ensure that provision is made to assist in meeting high investigative costs. There may be difficulties there, at least until lawyers have become more accustomed to working with conditional fees, have restructured the financial base of their practices and gained experience of the insurance products that are going to come on to the market. However, I repeat what I have said before: I am ready to make provision for assistance to be given in funding cases where unusually high investigative costs arise.

665
I also accept that it may be necessary, particularly for those who lack legal capacity such as children and the mentally ill, for specific provision to apply where a conditional fee agreement is offered. I do not believe that in principle there is any reason why such people will not be able to use conditional fee agreements. Currently, next friends or guardians ad litem need to consider how best to retain the services of a lawyer to represent children and the mentally ill. I accept that it may be necessary to ensure that regulations address the different situation of the lawyer being retained by a third party on behalf of a person under a legal disability.
It is important that the person who makes an agreement with a lawyer on behalf of such a person and gives the necessary undertakings as to an opponent's costs is fully informed about all options for funding the case and the consequences of specific options, not least any success fee. This can be provided for by regulations under the proposed Section 58(3)(c) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, as inserted by Clause 29 of the Bill. I take this opportunity of saying that I would welcome any proposals that any of your Lordships may have on provisions that ought to be included in regulations.
So of course making the success fee recoverable will benefit all users of conditional fee agreements, including children. It will ensure that the damages are not eaten up by the success fee. The availability of conditional fees gives everyone, old and young, healthy or infirm, greater access to justice, particularly if they are not eligible for legal aid and not rich enough to self-finance. If 1 am wrong in my assessment of how the profession will respond in offering conditional fee agreements—and I see no reason why I should be—and if specific groups find themselves unable to secure lawyers to work under a conditional fee agreement (for reasons that I have to confess escape me at present) I will be ready to use the powers that I have mentioned to ensure that no group nor any individual is excluded simply because they lack legal capacity, are old or are disabled.
I firmly believe that this flexible approach to personal injury cases will benefit everyone. It will encourage the successful growth of the conditional fee market and so increase access to justice for millions who currently do not have adequate access. It will provide, too, many profitable opportunities for lawyers and it will ensure that scarce taxpayers' money will be deployed in the areas where those moneys are most needed. And with the powers to make directions, I shall be able to respond to any market imperfections which truly prove to be a real problem. On that basis, therefore, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the reply of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has not satisfied the terms of my amendment. However, I have to say that it is the fullest and, I believe, the most sympathetic reply he has yet given to an amendment on this issue. I trust that his faith in conditional fees and their efficacity
666
will prove justified. But, if not, I am heartened by the fact that he said he will react flexibly and sympathetically in those circumstances where they are seen not to work. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 59, line 27, after ("costs,") insert—
("( ) proceedings in coroner's inquests into death in appropriate cases,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I revisit a discussion we had on Report on 11th February, following which my noble and learned friend courteously wrote to me at length. I suspect that there is not so much a division of principle between us, more a division as regards the best way to approach the issue. I hope that my noble and learned friend agrees with that assessment.
I am moved to revisit the matter because in the Macpherson Report on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry recommendation No. 43 suggests that,
"consideration be given to the provision of Legal Aid to victims or the families of victims to cover representation at an Inquest in appropriate cases."
That is powerful support for what I was arguing before and for what I argue now. However, in his letter, my noble and learned friend says that it would be premature to come to a conclusion about that because the Government are considering their full response to the Macpherson Report and therefore he is not in a position to give a definite answer to that particular suggestion.
I appreciate the generality of that response and I hope that my noble and learned friend will give me an assurance that this is a matter to which the Government will give careful consideration notwithstanding the current conclusions I think he will impart to the House and to which he referred in his letter. I believe that it would be desirable to establish some sort of machinery beyond that vested at present in my noble and learned friend to enable this procedure to be invoked where it is appropriate to do so.
I am not quite sure what is the best way of proceeding in the matter. This is simply a further probing amendment. However, it is not always possible to determine at an early stage leading to a coroner's inquest how difficult the matter will be, what sort of evidence it is necessary to rely on, and how best one can proceed with cross-examination within the limits of something which is not a usual form of legal proceeding. It is a legal proceeding for arriving at certain facts.
Therefore, at what stage would it be appropriate for my noble and learned friend and his department to intervene? On what basis would they do so? Would it be on the basis of an application made by the family of the victim? Alternatively, would it be made by a lawyer on behalf of that person? Would it be possible for the coroner to indicate that it would be appropriate in the

667
circumstances outlined to him that a person should be legally represented through a form of legal aid?
In his letter, my noble and learned friend thinks it,
"better and clearer for the Bill … to establish that funding is not generally available, subject to the clause 7(8) power to make provision for exceptional cases".
My problem is that I do not know how one identifies those "exceptional cases" until it is perhaps too late. It can be very expensive to invoke the assistance of the necessary expert evidence to help a lawyer and, indeed, to ask the right sort of questions where it is wholly appropriate, for example, to rely upon medical evidence. I have faced that situation myself on a number of occasions. It would not have been possible for me to have cross-examined without access to it. It so happened that I was instructed on a private basis and the financial circumstances of the people involved were such that it did not matter. I did not have to consider applying for legal aid.
However, I can say definitively—and I am sure that this is the experience of lawyers in the House who have conducted proceedings in coroners' courts—that to proceed without the basis of that evidence would render one's appearance pretty nugatory. Therefore, it would be helpful if my noble and learned friend could indicate how the machinery will work. I really do not think that the green form is at all adequate to deal with the sort of cases I have been seeking to enlist in support of my argument. Cross-examination can be very important notwithstanding the nature of inquests in so far as they are quite different from the normal form of legal proceedings.
I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to offer some additional guidance as to the way in which Clause 7(8) might be invoked. Above all, I trust that I can get an assurance from him that the Government will certainly not close their minds to this proposition when it comes to examining the Macpherson Report. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis proposes an amendment to Schedule 2 which would allow the legal services commission to fund representation in proceedings in coroners' inquests into death "in appropriate cases". My noble friend proposed similar amendments at both the Committee and Report stages. In response to my noble friend's concerns, we amended the Bill on Report in order to allow funding to be authorised in "exceptional cases". I had rather thought that that would have been the end of the matter. Indeed, at Report stage, my noble friend said:
"I do not say that in every case legal aid should be available automatically. I am not saying that at all. It must be apposite and within the community legal service's power to provide legal aid. It should not be a duty but a power".—[Official Report, 11/2/99; col. 429.]
That is exactly what we have done in providing, under Clause 7(8)(b) of the Bill, that the Lord Chancellor:
"may authorise the Commission to fund the provision of any of those services in specified circumstances, or, if the Commission request him to do so, in an individual case".
668
However, my noble friend has given the reason for his return to the matter by way of the current amendment. It is because the Macpherson Report, following on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, recommended, among other things, that,
"consideration be given to the provision of Legal Aid to victims or the families of victims to cover representation at an Inquest in appropriate cases".
As my noble friend intimated, the Government are still considering their response to the Macpherson Report. Therefore, it would really be premature for me to give a definitive response to that recommendation about legal aid.
I have to tell my noble friend that my initial view is that legal aid is not appropriate in the overwhelming majority of inquests, which are inquisitorial proceedings intended to establish the facts. However, I acknowledge that there may be exceptional cases where funding should be available to provide representation. This is already possible under the existing Legal Aid Act. In previous debates I have cited the example of the second "Marchioness" inquest where my predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, caused legal aid to be made available.
As I have already said, the Access to Justice Bill allows for funding to be authorised in exceptional cases. However, I do not wish to seek to define on the face of the Bill, or to offer a definition of, "exceptional cases". Furthermore, advice and assistance, short of representation at the proceedings, will continue to be available to any financially eligible person involved in an inquest. Therefore I do not at this stage believe that this amendment is necessary. I ask my noble friend to recognise that we have already responded to his concerns in this area. On the basis of the explanations I have offered I invite him to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have listened carefully to my noble and learned friend. I do not apologise for returning to this matter as it is appropriate in the light of the Macpherson Report to do so. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for having made amendments earlier in our proceedings which are helpful in this context. I note that the Government will, of course, have to give further consideration to this matter alongside other recommendations in the Macpherson Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 [Authorised bodies: designation and regulations and rules]:
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Lord Goodharthad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 31:
Page 69, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) The Lord Chancellor shall not decide to grant the application unless at least two of the designated judges have advised him that the application should be granted.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to move my amendments in this group, but instead I shall support the amendments which stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I shall not move Amendment No. 31.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 74, leave out lines 36 and 37.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 33 and the other amendments which are grouped with Amendment No. 32; but in doing so I shall be most telegraphic. This issue has been well rehearsed in Committee, at Report stage and, indeed, at Second Reading.
Part III of Schedule 5, as I am sure your Lordships now well know, enables the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to alter existing professional rules where he considers it necessary to do so.
This power is draconian. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor appears to be determined to have this power. Consequently, under the present provisions of Schedule 5, there is a real risk that amendments to professional bodies' rights of audience or rules of conduct might be made simply on the basis of political preference.
Amendment No. 33, in particular, would ensure that Her Majesty's Government's power is limited. Thus, power would be exercisable in Schedule 5, Part III, only if at least two of the four designated judges favour a change proposed by the noble and learned Lord. This would help to ensure that changes were made only where the judges considered they were necessary for the proper operation of the justice system of this country. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, when the Government have a massive majority in the House of Commons the executive becomes all powerful and parliamentary scrutiny of the acts and intentions of the executive is not always as careful as it ought to be. That is when the constitutional principle of the separation of powers becomes more important. In its judicial capacity the House of Lords has emphasised that the British constitution is firmly based on the separation of powers. Those were virtually the opening observations made by my noble and learned friend Lord Steyn, a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, in the Kalisher memorial lecture delivered on 13th October 1998.
When similar powers were sought by his predecessor some 10 years ago, the judges, who were carefully defined as the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor, the Lord Justices of Appeal and Justices of the High Court, robustly stated as follows,
"It is of fundamental importance that the existing degree of separation of the powers and functions of the Judiciary from those of Parliament and the Government. evolved gradually over the centuries, should be maintained. The independence of the Judiciary and of advocates is perhaps more important now than ever, because one of the great constitutional tasks of the Courts today is to control misuse of powers by Government ministers and departments.
670
"The Government is proposing that in the future the Lord Chancellor should make the final decision on standards of education and training for advocates, prescribe the principles to be embodied in codes of conduct for advocates, and be empowered to make decisions on rights of audience in the High Court and Court of Appeal by means of subordinate legislation. These proposals represent a grave breach of the doctrine of separation of powers.
"Until now no Government minister has had. and no Government has sought power to exercise ultimate control over the profession of advocacy in the courts. Once a power is given, the risk that it may be misused by some future Government cannot be disregarded.
"The Government should recognise that it has gone too far in making these proposals and should accept that such powers as the Lord Chancellor may require should only be exercised by him with the concurrence of the Judiciary.
"In this way the necessary separation of the proper powers of the Judiciary from those of the Executive would be preserved".
The Government backed down and that is how the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee came to be set up.
The extraordinary thing in the context of this Bill is that the White Paper The Way Ahead, which was designed to premedicate the public generally in relation to the forthcoming Bill, and which sought these powers, never at any stage referred to the doctrine of the separation of powers, never at any stage referred to the past history, and in fact suppressed that very important aspect of the situation. I find this quite startling when one bears in mind the observations which the Lord Chancellor has made quite recently.
Prior to the issue of the White Paper the Lord Chancellor introduced legislation designed to enable him to have a Permanent Secretary in his department, some other civil servant than had been prescribed by the Supreme Court (Offices) Act. He said:
"The Lord Chancellor is at a crucial cusp in the separation of powers between Parliament, government and the judiciary … Under the previous government the public were disturbed that the separation of powers was not alive and well because the judiciary and the executive appeared to be at war. It is for the Lord Chancellor to ensure that the public can continue to have confidence that our system, based on the separation of powers, is working".—[Official Report, 25/11/97; col. 934.]
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor very recently, on 17th February, in a debate specifically directed to separation of powers in the House of Lords between the judicial branch and the legislative and executive branches of government, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said:
"The protection of the judiciary from Executive interference is, in my view, a high order duty—perhaps the highest order duty—of any Lord Chancellor".—[Official Report, 17/2/99; col. 734.]
But my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor does not seem fully to understand the nature of the so-called doctrine because on the second day of the Debate on the Address the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, raised the very issue of the separation of powers, and back came this very odd observation from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. He said:
"So far as rights of audience go, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that there will he no violation of the separation of powers because, in the unlikely event that I, as Lord

671
Chancellor, having consulted with the judges and with the professions, have to exercise a fallback power to impose rules upon the profession … I would not do so without the support of an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament".
He continued:
"When that is said, as I say quite unequivocally, I can see no ground for argument that there is any violation of the separation of powers".—[Official Report, 25/11/98; col. 127.]
However, that misunderstands the doctrine. It presupposes that the Lord Chancellor has removed, as he desires, the existing powers and, having done so, he then makes a decision which the judges do not like. In order to get further authority for his executive act he goes to Parliament for an affirmative resolution, which we all know he is bound to get.
Finally, what is even more startling is that the Lord Chancellor has given no reason why the designated judges should be relegated to a purely consultative role, nor has he paid the judges the courtesy of referring to their responses, which were indeed very hostile—that is the judges of the High Court in a separate memorandum, the Court of Appeal judges in a separate memorandum and the Council of the Inns of Court—to his White Paper. I support the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I believe that there is a serious constitutional issue here. It is of the utmost importance that neither the courts nor the legal profession should be under the control of the executive. That is because there is a potential conflict of interest between the judiciary and the executive. The courts may have to rule on the validity of executive action. That is likely to become increasingly the case with the enactment of the Human Rights Act. In principle it is wrong that the executive should have power to decide who can or cannot appear in court or to alter the rules that govern the conduct of advocates or litigators when they do so.
The regulation of the legal profession by the executive is open to much more objection than, for example, the regulation of the health profession which is included in the Health Bill now before your Lordships' House. Historically, it has been for the judiciary as a collective body to regulate its own proceedings and to decide who can appear as advocates. That was recognised by a decision of the Court of Appeal, a panel presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, in the case of Abse v. Smith in 1986.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out in Committee that Parliament has several times conferred statutory rights of audience in certain specific courts and tribunals. Indeed, it did so in 1990 in the Courts and Legal Services Act. But until the 1990 Act it is my understanding that it had always done so by primary legislation. Giving powers to the Lord Chancellor in 1990 to designate new authorised bodies and to revoke their designation by secondary legislation, by Order in Council, was very controversial. As I understand it, a compromise was reached on the basis of the role of the designated judges. That created what I described previously as a double-key procedure. The
672
secondary legislation route could be used only if both the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges agreed that it was appropriate. Otherwise, primary legislation would be required. It was of course recognised later that what had been created was not a double key but a quintuple key because each of the four designated judges had to agree to any proposed change. It is now generally accepted that that was too strict.
However, I believe that it is still appropriate to have a double-key procedure before changes to the rights of professional bodies or of their rules can be made by secondary legislation. Secondary legislation does not give the same degree of parliamentary control as primary legislation even with the affirmative procedure. Secondary legislation cannot be amended or delayed and, under the conventions of your Lordships' House, it is not rejected. It is dealt with always in a short debate.
I suggest that if three out of the four designated judges were to object to any future proposals of the Lord Chancellor, those proposals should require primary legislation if they are to take effect. It is a serious issue and I would ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to reconsider.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I was of course one of the holders of the office which became a designated judge judicial office under the 1990 Act. I had always been brought up to believe that it was the duty of the judiciary to maintain the separation of powers for good constitutional reasons. In 1990 the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, proposed to do precisely what the present Lord Chancellor is proposing to do; namely, to transfer the separation from being a separation between the Lord Chancellor and the judiciary to being one between the Lord Chancellor and his Cabinet colleagues. That is a major change. It is a major narrowing—possibly an abolition—of the separation of powers.
I expressed my grave disquiet in the debates on the Act. It may be—it has been said, certainly—that the then Lord Chief Justice used language of undue vividness. If I did the same, I apologise. But the point remains that neither I nor any of my judicial colleagues had the least qualms about what my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay might do with those powers. We can say the same for the present Lord Chancellor. But this constitutional principle does not exist to deal with specific Lord Chancellors. It is a constitutional safeguard against future Lord Chancellors who may for one reason or another wish to subordinate the administration of justice to the needs of the Executive.
I have pointed out before in this House and I mention it en passant that, while it is the tradition that the Lord Chancellor is legally qualified, and highly qualified, and while some Lord Chancellors such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, served in a judicial capacity, there is no statutory qualification for a Lord Chancellor. He need have no knowledge of the traditions that govern the administration of justice; he may have no sympathy with them. Indeed, he may be strongly sympathetic to the views of Cabinet colleagues, in particular those of the Prime Minister of the time.

673
Again, I am not talking about the present Prime Minister; I am talking about long-term constitutional safeguards which would be wholly eroded were this amendment to be rejected.
I could perhaps express some slight disquiet at the suggestion that the support of two designated judges for the Lord Chancellor's proposal would be sufficient. We are in the curious position that two of the present designated judges evidently do not share the disquiet of the rest of the judiciary. But just as one cannot tailor a constitutional provision to faith in the present Lord Chancellor or the previous one, nor can we tailor it to the views, misguided though some of us may think they are, of two of the present designated judges. I very much hope that this amendment will be supported by a majority of this House, though in view of the hour I am not sure that I expect that.
7 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, having participated throughout the passage of the Courts and Legal Services Act and throughout the passage of this Bill, I thought that I was past the point of being amazed. But I have been totally amazed by the arguments presented by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, about draconian powers and political preference. I have even been amazed that the noble and learned Lords, Lord Ackner and Lord Donaldson, are still clinging to the argument about breaches of the doctrine of separation of powers and, in the case of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, adding that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor does not even understand the doctrine at all.
It should he stated firmly that it is Parliament which makes the laws relating to restrictive practices, monopolies and competition law; and Parliament makes the laws on rights of audience, which go right into restrictive practices, monopolies and competition law. Those noble Lords who were present when my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer replied at Second Reading will recall that he traced the statutory history of Parliament's role in the rights of audience. I have not had time to research that statutory history, but I know that my own profession has always been governed by Parliament under a succession of solicitor Acts.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, will the noble Lord concede that that control has been by primary legislation?
Lord Hacking: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the mainstream of my argument and then I will deal with the noble and learned Lord's point.
Unfortunately, there was great opposition from the judiciary and others during the passage of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. In the result, the noble and learned Lord agreed to the provision under which there was effectively a right of veto by any of the designated judges on the issue of rights of audience. During the passage of that Bill, I tried to give all the support that I could through the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord. Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
674
We have seen that opposition arise again in this and other debates during the passage of this Bill. We have unfortunately lost, at least for the moment, Clause 32 from the Bill, in which the noble and learned Lord, with the support of my party, proposed that employed lawyers should have rights of audience. I have therefore tried to support the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. Perhaps I may confess and take your Lordships into my confidence: it has been necessary for me to cross over the Floor of the House out of my devotion and loyalty to Lord Chancellors and the office that they hold. As I intimated just now, the result of the pressure that was put on the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, was the inclusion in Schedule 4 of the power that the Lord Chancellor or any designated judge had the right to refuse an application.
Under the provisions set out in this Bill, the noble and learned Lord rightly listens to the advice of the consultative panel and of the Director-General of Fair Trading, and to the advice given by each—I emphasise that—of the designated judges, and then makes his decision. Over the issue of primary or secondary legislation, the matter comes before your Lordships under the affirmative procedure. There is full power for your Lordships. In the unlikely event that the noble and learned Lord, taking a different position to the advice of any of the designated judges, seeks to move an affirmative order in this House, I have no doubt that the views of this House will be freely and clearly made known to him.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the central point is that it is for Parliament to decide the rights of audience. That is a tougher application of the separation of powers. In no way is it, as described by noble and learned Lords, a breach of that doctrine. I say with as much force as I can that I hope the noble and learned Lord will not back down and will hold his ground completely on this issue.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, no one disputes that the judges will play an important role in rights of audience issues. The question is whether they should be advisers, decision-makers or part decision-makers.
At present, all decisions under Schedule 4 to the 1990 Act are subject to the individual veto of each designated judge. These amendments would not preserve that position, which I think no one now defends. Instead, they would give the designated judges a power of veto by a majority.
I do not believe that that is appropriate. The decisions of the Lord Chancellor under Parts I, III and IV, are already subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament. It seems to me inappropriate to provide that in these circumstances the designated judges, or a majority of them, should be able to override the decision of the Lord Chancellor, who is responsible to Parliament. It is Parliament which will take the final decision.
As I have previously made clear, I do not accept the argument that decisions about which categories of people should be able to appear in the cowls are properly for the judiciary as distinct from Parliament.

675
This issue has nothing whatever to do with the separation of powers between executive, legislature and judiciary. The issue is not about the independence of the judiciary but about whether a power is properly for the judges or Parliament. The issue is whether judges, not Parliament, should determine rights of audience. I say as clearly as I may that this is a matter for Parliament. Listening to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, I began to wonder whether the true thrust of his argument was that Parliament was to be sidelined just because the Government in power have a strong popular majority.
Questions about whether, for example, a class such as crown prosecutors should be able to lead prosecutions in the Crown Court are questions of policy for the Government and ultimately for Parliament to decide in a democracy. I say that Parliament proceeds entirely properly either by primary legislation or by secondary legislation.
We have to look realistically at the history of this controversy and those who have interests to restrict rights of audience. I shall not weary your Lordships with the sorry piece of history which I set out at Second Reading on 14th December 1998 at col. 1110. What it came to was this. The results of six years of painfully slow debate, consultation and advice within ACLEC about what rights of audience employed solicitors should have in the higher courts were in practice negligible. The noble and learned Lord and the designated judges granted the Law Society's application in a very limited form, allowing employed solicitors to appear in substantive proceedings in the higher courts if they succeeded in obtaining the Law Society's higher courts qualifications, but only if led by an advocate in private practice. An employed solicitor could appear as the sole advocate only in preliminary proceedings which did not dispose of the merits of the case.
What source material will this prove for a PhD student whose doctoral theses might be entitled—and if it were published I might even be persuaded to contribute a foreword—"The endurability of restrictive practices in twentieth century Britain"?
Why was it that the designated judges were given vetoes in the 1990 Act? The answer is obvious: the opponents of change thought that this would prove an effective means of preventing any significant liberalisation of rights of audience, whatever the clear purpose of the Act might be. I am sorry to say that, by and large, their hopes were not disappointed. I hope that your Lordships will not repeat the error.
The noble and learned Lords the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls made clear at Second Reading that they supported my judgment on this issue. They are the two most senior designated judges who have experience of how the approval system currently works. Your Lordships should weigh opinions and not just count them.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, made clear at the last Bar conference, when questioned on the subject, that he did not think it would be an improvement to move to a system in which a majority
676
of the designated judges could exercise a veto. He thought this both because, in practice, the designated judges would not wish to reach a split decision and because he thought there was a danger that at some point the perceived views of the judiciary on these questions might come to influence the likelihood of their being appointed to the most senior posts. His firm view was, and is, that the buck must stop somewhere and that the appropriate place is with the Lord Chancellor as the Minister responsible to Parliament whose decisions will be subject to approval, or not, by Parliament. That is my judgment too.
The provisions in the Bill will still require the Lord Chancellor to take the advice of the designated judges in every case, and I or any Lord Chancellor would give great weight to that advice; but I do not believe that the judges should be able to veto decisions which are ultimately for Parliament. The issue is whether rights of audience should be determined by Parliament, not by judges. The dispute we are having has nothing whatever to do with the separation of powers, which is concerned to protect the independence of the judiciary in its own, proper judicial sphere. I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, we have debated this matter at great length, from the beginning of the Second Reading until towards the end of the Third Reading of the Bill. We are as far apart as ever. It is because I believe that the independence of the legal profession is inextricably linked with the independence of the judiciary that I wish to test the opinion of the House.
7.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 32) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 109.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L. [Teller.]

Goodhart, L.

Aldington, L.

Gray, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Greenway, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Grey, E.

Bethell, L.

Hampton, L.

Blatch, B.

Hamwee, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Hanningfield, L.

Brightman, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Byford, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Howe, E.

Camock, L

Inglewood, L.

Chesham, L.

Jopling, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kingsland, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Cross, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Ludford, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Luke, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Lyell, L.

Dundee, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Fookes, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Gisborough, L.

Mancroft, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

677

Monson, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Shrewsbury, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Newall, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Newby, L.

Stair, E.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Stewartby, L.

Northesk, E.

Stockton, E.

Norton of Louth, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Nunburnholme, L

Strathclyde, L.

OxSuird, V.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Park of Monmouth. B.

Teviot, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Phillips of Sudbury. L.

Thurso, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Tope, L.

Poole, L.

Tordoff, L.

Renton, L.

Vivian, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Rowallan, L.

Weatherill, L.

Russell, E.

Wigoder, L.

Seccombe, B.

Wynford, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hughes, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Amos, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord

Bach, L

Chancellor.]

Barnet, L.

Islwyn, L.

Berkeley, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy

Blease, L.

Seal.]

Bragg, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Brooke of Alvenhorpe, L.

Judd, L.

Brookman, L.

Kennedy of The Straws, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kennet, L.

Burlison, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Lovell-Davis, L.

Chandos, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Christopher, L.

[Teller.]

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Crawley, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Desai, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dixon. L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Donoughue, L.

Nicol, B.

Domiand of Easington, L.

Orme, L.

Dubs, L.

Peston, L.

Eatwell, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falconer of Thornton, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rea, L.

Glenamara, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Richard, L.

Goudie, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sawyer, L.

Grantchester, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Grenfell, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hacking, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hanworth, V.

Simon, V.

Hardie, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Haskel, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hayman, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Thomton, B.

Hoyle, L.

Tomlinson, L.

678

Turner of Camden, B.

Wedderhum of Charlton, L.

Varley, L.

Whiny, L.

Warner, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.23 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 33 to 44 not moved.]
Schedule 7 [Commission areas and petty sessions areas: amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 79, line 9. at end insert—
("The Parochial Libraries Act 1708 (c.14)
. In section 10 of the Parochial Libraries Act 1708 (warrant to search for lost library books), for "within the county riding or division" substitute "for the commission area".
The Distress for Rent Act 1737 (c.19)
. In section 4 of the Distress for Rent Act 1737 (procedure where goods fraudulently carried off), for "county, riding, or division or such county," substitute "commission area".
The Inclosure Act 1773 (c.81)
. In section 4 of the Inclosure Act 1773 (expenses), for "county" substitute "commission area".
The Burial Ground Act 1816 (c.141)
. In section 2 of the Burial Ground Act 1816 (valuation of land), for "county, town, or district" substitute "commission area".
The Inclosure and Drainage (Rates) Act 1833 (c.35)
. In section 1 of the Inclosure and Drainage (Rates) Act 1833 (recovery of rates or assessments), for "county, riding, or division" substitute "commission area".
The Ordnance Survey Act 1841 (c.30)
. In section 2 of the Ordnance Survey Act 1841 (powers of entry), for "of the county" substitute "of the place".
The Geological Survey Act 1845 (c.63)
. In section 1 of the Geological Survey Act 1845 (powers of entry), for "county in which" substitute "place where".
The Inclosure Act 1845 (c.118)
. In section 159 of the Inclosure Act 1845 (recovery of penalties), after "county" insert "or other jurisdiction".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 45 and, at the same time, to speak to Amendments Nos. 46 to 51, Nos. 57 to 63 and Nos. 64 to 66. These amendments to Schedules 7 and 11 are consequential on the establishment of single definitions for commission areas and petty session areas under the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, as amended by the Access to Justice Bill. The amendments are minor and technical.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 46 to 51:
Page 79, line 21. at end insert—
("The Municipal Corporations Act 1882 (c.50)
. In section 153(3) of the Municipal Corporations Act 1882 (warrant of two justices for the county requiring payment to county treasurer), for "for the county" substitute "for a commission area consisting of or including the whole or part of the county".
The Local Government Act 1888 (c.41)
. In section 28(2) of the Local Government Act 1888 (power of county council to delegate to justices of the county functions relating to contagious diseases of animals), for "county sitting in petty sessions" substitute "peace for a commission area consisting of or including the whole or part of the county".").
Page 80, line 8, at end insert—
("The Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951 (c.65)
.—(1) Paragraph 4 of Part II of Schedule 2 to the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951 (allocation of functions to make up civil remuneration of justices' clerks) is amended as follows.
(2) In the first column—

(a) for "Clerk to county justices" substitute "Justices' clerk", and

(b) for "said Act" substitute "Justices of the Peace Act 1997".

(3) For the entry in the third column substitute—
"The paying authority is the authority which is the paying authority in relation to the magistrates' courts committee for the purposes of section 55 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 (and where there are two or more such authorities, the proportions in which they contribute to give effect to any determination shall be such as they may agree or, in default of agreement, as may be determined by the Lord Chancellor).
The justices for whom the clerk acts are the authority entitled to appeal against a determination."
The Prison Act 1952 (c.52)
. In section 19(1) of the Prison Act 1952 (right of justice to visit prison)—

(a) for "county", in the first place, substitute "commission area", and

(b) for "county", in the second and third places, substitute "area".").

Page 80, line 8, at end insert—
("The Maintenance Orders Act 1958 (c.39)
. In section 21(1) of the Maintenance Orders Act 1958 (interpretation), in the definition of "magistrates' court" and "petty sessions area", for the words from "and "petty sessions area"" to "court" substitute "has the meaning assigned to it by the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and".").
Page 80, line 14, at end insert—
(". In section 85(1) (search warrants for parties organised for gain), for "county or borough" substitute "commission area".
. In section 187(1) (search warrants), for "county or borough" substitute "commission area".
. In section 188(1) (closing of licensed premises in case of riot or tumult), for "county or borough" (in both places) substitute "commission area".
.—(1) Section 193 (disqualification of justices) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) (disqualifying trades)—

(a) for "any county" substitute "any commission area", and

(b) for "county or borough" substitute "area".

(3) In subsection (2) (disqualifying shareholdings)—

(a) for "any county" substitute "any commission area", and

(b) for "that county" substitute "that area".").

Page 81, line 9, at end insert—
("The Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (c.14)
. In section 82(1) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (interpretation), in the definition of "magistrates' court" and "petty sessions area", for "and "petty sessions area" have the same meanings" substitute "has the same meaning".
The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c.27)
. In section 142(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (interpretation), in the definition of "magistrates' court" and "petty sessions area", for "and "petty sessions area" have the same meanings" substitute "has the same meaning".").
Page 83, leave out lines 1 to 3.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments and I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 52:
After Schedule 8, insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE
ENFORCEMENT OF COMMUNITY ORDERS MADE BY CROWN COURT
1. Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (enforcement of community orders) has effect subject to the amendments in paragraphs 2 to 8.
2. In paragraph 2(2) (issue by justice of the peace of summons or warrant to direct offender to appear or be brought, in the case of a drug treatment or testing order, before the court responsible for the order and, in the case of any other relevant order, before a magistrates' court for the petty sessions area concerned), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute—

"(a) in the case of a drug treatment and testing order, before the court responsible for the order;

(b) in the case of any other relevant order which was made by the Crown Court and included a direction that any failure to comply with any of the requirements of the order be dealt with by the Crown Court, before the Crown Court; and

(c) in the case of any other relevant order, before a magistrates' court acting for the petty sessions area concerned."

3. In paragraph 3(1) (powers of magistrates' court), for "the magistrates' court" substitute "a magistrates' court".
4. In paragraph 6(5) (community service orders)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for "7(2)(a)(ii)" substitute "7(2)(b)", and

(b) in paragraph (b), for "reference in paragraph 7(1)(b)" substitute "references in paragraphs 7(1)(b) and 8(1)(a)" and for "a reference" substitute "references".

5.—(1) Paragraph 7 (revocation of order by magistrates' court) is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) after "a relevant order" insert "made by a magistrates' court", and

(b) for "for which a magistrates' court is responsible, to that court" substitute ", to the magistrates' court responsible for the order".

(3) For sub-paragraph (2) substitute—
"(2) The court may—

(a) revoke the order; or

(b) revoke the order and deal with the offender, for the offence in respect of which the order was made, in any manner in which it could deal with him if he had just been convicted by the court of the offence."

(4) In sub-paragraph (3), for "(2)(a)(i)" substitute "(2)(a)".
(5) In sub-paragraphs (4) and (5), for "(2)(a)(ii)" substitute "(2)(b)".
(6) Omit sub-paragraph (6).
6. For paragraph 8(1) and (1A) (circumstances in which Crown Court may revoke an order) substitute—
"8.—(1) This paragraph applies where—

(a) a relevant order made by the Crown Court is in force in respect of an offender and the offender or the responsible officer applies to the Crown Court for the order to be revoked or for the offender to be dealt with in some other manner for the offence in respect of which the order was made; or

(b) an offender in respect of whom a relevant order is in force is convicted of an offence before the Crown Court or, having been committed by a magistrates' court to the Crown Court for sentence, is brought or appears before the Crown Court."

7.—(1) Paragraph 8A (replacement of probation order with conditional discharge) is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1), for "it appears to a magistrates' court acting for the petty sessions area concerned" substitute "to a magistrates' court acting for the petty sessions area concemed (where the order was made by a magistrates' court) or the Crown Court (where the order was made by the Crown Court) it appears to the court".
(3) In sub-paragraph (2), after "paragraph 7" insert "or 8".
(4) In sub-paragraph (3)—

(a) omit "and the probation order was made by a magistrates' court", and

(b) for "the magistrates' court" substitute "the court".

(5) Omit sub-paragraphs (4) and (5).
(6) In sub-paragraph (6)—

(a) for "sub-paragraphs (3) and (5)" substitute "sub-paragraph (3)", and

(b) in the words treated as substituted in section 1A(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, omit "or (5)".

8. In paragraph 11A (application of paragraph 6A for purposes of paragraphs 6 and 7), for "7(2)(a)(ii)" substitute "7(2)(b)".
9.—(1) In each of the provisions specified in sub-paragraph (2) (which refer to paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991)—

(a) for "7(2)(a)(ii)" substitute "7(2)(b)",

(b) for "reference in paragraph 7(1)(b)" substitute "references in paragraphs 7(1)(b) and 8(1)(a)", and

(c) for "a reference to the" substitute "references to the".

(2) The provisions referred to in sub-paragraph (1) are—

(a) section 168(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969,

(b) section 35(5) and (8) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, and

(c) paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 5 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 108, line 2, after ("stipendiary") insert ("magistrate").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 53 I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 54. These are technical amendments. It has always been the intention of the Government that until the creation of the Greater London magistrates' courts authority existing arrangements for London should be preserved. There are transitional provisions in the Bill which give the senior district judge (chief magistrate) and other district judges
682
(magistrates' courts) the right to representation on the Inner London Magistrates' Courts Committee pending the creation of the Greater London magistrates' courts authority. Additional provisions are needed as a result of the Government's proposal to commence changes to the stipendiary Bench by order. These amendments preserve the rights of representation on the Inner London Magistrates' Courts Committee by reference to the current judicial titles. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 108, line 4, at end insert—
("(6) This paragraph has effect subject to paragraph 28A.
28A.—(1) If section 55 of this Act has not come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, paragraph 28 shall apply as follow's until that section comes into force.
(2) The subsection (3) treated as substituted by sub-paragraph (2)(c) of that paragraph shall have effect as if—

(a) for "Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate)" there were substituted "chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate", and

(b) for "District Judges (Magistrates' Courts)" (in both places) there were substituted "metropolitan stipendiary magistrates".

(3) Sub-paragraph (5) of that paragraph shall have effect as if paragraph (a) read—
"(a) after the words "chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate" there were inserted "(if he is a member)", and".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Repeals and revocations]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 55.

Page 111, line 33, at end insert—

("1933 c. 12.

The Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

In section 36, the proviso.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 56 to 67:

Page 111, column 3, leave out line 42.

Page 112, line 32, at end insert—

("31&32 Vict. c. 72.

The Promissory Oaths Act 1868.

In the Second Part of the Schedule, the words"for counties and boroughs".")

Page 112, line 44, at end insert—

("14&15 Geo.6 c. 65.

The Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951.

In Part II of Schedule 2, paragraph 5(b) and, in paragraph 6(b), in the third column, the words from "and where" to the end.")

Page 112, line 44, at end insert—

("7&8 Eliz.2 c. 7.

The Manoeuvres Act 1958.

In section 9, the definition of "petty sessions area.".")

Page 112, column 3, leave out line 45 and insert—

("In section 2, in subsection (1), the words from ", within" to the end and subsection (2A).")

Page 113, line 5, at end insert—

("1969 c. 54.

The Children and Young Persons Act 1969.

In section 70(1), in the definition of "pettysessions area", the words "has the same meaning as in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, except that" and the word "it".")

Page 113, line 22, at end insert—

("In Schedule 7, paragraphs 27 and 85.

1980 c. 66.

The Highways Act 1980.

In section 329(1), the definition of "petty sessions area".")

Page 113, line 28, at end insert—

("1988 c. 52.

The Road Traffic Act 1988.

In section 192(1), the definition of "petty sessions area".

1988 c. 53.

The Road TrafficOffenders Act 1988.

In section 34C(2), the definition of "petty sessions area".

In section 89(1), the definition of "petty sessions area", apart from the word "and" at the end.")

Page 113, column 3, leave out line 44 and insert ("2(1), (3) and (7) and 5.").

Page 113, line 47, column 3, leave out from ("Schedule,") to end of line 50 and insert ("paragraph 7.").

Page 114, line 17, column 3, after (""above,"") insert (", the words "or to county justices" and the words "or justices for the City").

Page 116, line 32, at end insert—

("(3A) ENFORCEMENT OF COMMUNITY ORDERS

Chapter 1991 c. 53.

Short title The Criminal Justice Act 1991.

Extent of repeal In Schedule 2, paragraph 7(6) and, in paragraph 8A—in sub-paragraph (3), the words "and the probation order was made by a magistrates' court", sub-paragraphs (4) and (5), and in sub-paragraph (6), in the words treated as substituted in section 1A(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, the words "or (5)".

1998 c. 37.

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

In Schedule 4, paragraphs 3 and 7(1).")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
In the Title:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 68:
Line 7, leave out ("the reporting of").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords,
"The daintiest last, to make the end most sweet".
Nevertheless, I wish to ask a question. It relates to the Title. The amendment proposes to leave out "the reporting of'. Line 7 will then read,
"to make provision about court proceedings".
I hope that I have that right. However, so far as I can see, in so far as the Long Title is meant to refer to important provisions, that provision about reporting refers to paragraph 17 of Schedule 10 which has not been affected by any amendment.
I am not sure that we are not engaging in some backsliding. A few years ago we used to have Long Titles which dribbled on sometimes for pages. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is no longer in his place. He presided over a great improvement: he benevolently allowed us to reduce a Long Title of a page and a quarter to 12 lines. I am not sure that it is necessary to refer to the provision about the reporting, but if it is, it is wrong.
I have only just told my noble and learned friend that I should refer to this matter. I shall be content if he says that he would like to consider the matter before the Bill goes to another place.
7.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is a quite remarkable change of stance by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Throughout the course of the Bill he has chided me for sanctioning surplusage—excessive statutory language. But now he chides me about the abbreviation of statutory language.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I shall be more than content if my noble and learned friend would remove the whole phrase.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, but the noble and learned Lord chides me about removing three words from the statute. I shall undertake to take advice on the point and write to him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, this has been an important and seriously controversial Bill. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the vigour and forcefulness with which he has piloted the Bill through your Lordships' House. I also wish to thank

685
him for the considerable degree of flexibility he has shown, particularly by accepting the great majority of the proposals of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in respect of requiring the exercise of his own powers to be made by statutory instrument rather than simply by direction.
I greatly welcome the fact that the noble and learned Lord acceded to the proposal of my noble friend Lord Meston to remove CFAs from matrimonial cases. I also welcome the fact that he has introduced many minor improvements to the Bill. Indeed, I think that the total number of government amendments during Report and Third Reading stages must be well over 150.
However, the Bill seems to me in many ways a leap in the dark. A number of important questions remain to he answered. Will the community legal service receive adequate funds to do its job? Shall we keep a sufficient network of publicly funded legal services provided by firms all over the country? Will CFAs work effectively outside the limited field of road accidents and industrial injuries? I am not optimistic as to the answers to those questions. I hope that time will prove me wrong.
The members of the Liberal Democrat Lawyers Association have a custom of drinking a toast at our annual dinner to the Legal Aid Act. I doubt whether in future we shall drink a toast to the Access to Justice Act. However, now that we are sending the Bill on its way to another place, I wish it well.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I, too, wish to observe, as did the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the Bill is a remarkable achievement by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Together with the changes in civil procedure which are to be enacted next month, it matches that of Lord Selborne some 100 years ago. I trust that, like Lord Selborne, the noble and learned Lord will one day have a building named after him to commemorate the fact.
I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that there are some good provisions in the Bill. Some were there from the beginning. Others arrived by virtue of the noble and learned Lord's generosity during the Bill's passage.
The most important theme that has underlain the Bill, and remained intact, is the introduction of what I would call preventive legal advice. Rather like preventive medicine, it is supposed to anticipate people's problems so that they do not have to litigate in the first place. For the first time in our legal history, I think, we have a real chance of giving people who need it early and accessible advice that will prevent their having to go to court.
On the other hand, I remain disturbed by a number of aspects of the Bill; in particular, the noble and learned Lord's unwillingness to accept that lawyers are professionals rather than entrepreneurs. Indeed, his view of conditional fee arrangements suggests that sometimes they are highly speculative entrepreneurs. I would have hoped for more guarantees than he has been able to give that if the conditional fee system does not work the traditional protections of the legal aid system will quickly be reintroduced—a system that has in so many respects served this country well.
686
I have also been somewhat disturbed by some of the language used on occasions by the noble and learned Lord about the legal profession. The expression "feather bedded" has been used more than once. The expressions "inward looking" and "backward looking" have been used; indeed, sometimes the legal profession has been backward and inward looking at the same time.
But the noble and learned Lord introduced a novel thought today in response. I think for the fourth time of making, to a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. He used the term "trade unionist." When the noble and learned Lord first used that word I thought, "Good heavens above, the noble and learned Lord has had a great change of heart. Lawyers are no longer feather bedded, inward looking, backward looking or protected." I then realised that it was just another way for the noble and learned Lord to say exactly the same thing. The truth of the matter is that the legal profession is no better or worse than any other. For the most part, its members are deeply committed to the ethics of their profession and their primary intention is to serve the public. I am sure that that will continue to be the case in the dramatically changed conditions which the Access to Justice Bill is bound to introduce.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I shall be brief. We owe a great deal of gratitude to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the explanations that he has given. We congratulate him on the open-mindedness with which he accepted amendments moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, at the beginning of the Committee and Report stages. They were fundamental amendments and the noble and learned Lord's acceptance is most welcome.
The Bill contains many amendments to previous legislation. I should not like to estimate what proportion of its many pages do so, but it is high. Therefore, if the Bill is to be acceptable to those who will be responsible for administering it, there should be consolidation of this branch of the law as soon as may be.
Finally, I have been a proud member of the Bar since 1933 and still maintain that the integrity, independence and efficiency of the Bar of England is something of which we can all be proud. I trust and believe that in the work the noble and learned Lord still has to do on the Bill he will maintain the Bar's independence.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, when my noble and learned friend introduced the Bill at Second Reading, I and a number of colleagues on these Benches gave it a warm welcome. Now that it passes from this House to another place, I and colleagues on these Benches agree that it is a better Bill and wish it an even better passage through another place.
The handling of the Bill through this House by the noble and learned Lords, the Lord Chancellor and Lord Falconer, has been significant. Like other Bills from the Government, it has had the advantage of excellently prepared Explanatory Notes extending to more than 65 pages. At earlier stages, they were useful reference points. We thank the noble and learned Lord and his

687
officials for all the time and trouble they took in preparing not only the Bill but the most helpful Explanatory Notes.
The second matter for congratulations is the flexibility which the noble and learned Lord has shown throughout the Bill in listening to amendments and accepting their principle. I am unable to count the number he accepted, but I venture to calculate that well over two dozen have been incorporated into the Bill with the assistance of the noble and learned Lord. Indeed, to put it the other way round, the noble and learned Lord, having heard our contributions, went back to the Bill with his officials.
It must be recognised that the flexibility which the noble and learned Lord has shown must have placed a great deal of work, if not strain, on some of his officials. We should be grateful for all the work carried out behind the scenes in drafting the amendments once the principles had been accepted by the noble and learned Lord.
Perhaps I may remind the House what the noble and learned Lord said in his first speech in Committee. In conclusion, he said:
"In almost 12 years in the House, I have spent too long … listening from the Benches opposite to government spokesmen who were obdurately insistent of adhering to their briefs and were unwilling to accept manifest improvements to Bills under consideration. That approach is destructive of the raison d'être of a revising Chamber. I hope that I have said enough to satisfy your Lordships that that is and will be the opposite of my approach, as I intend to demonstrate to your Lordships as we proceed through the Committee stage".—[Official Report, 19/1/99; col. 487.]
The noble and learned Lord demonstrated that throughout the Committee stage, throughout the Report stage and throughout the final stage today in your Lordships' House.
In the light of the great flexibility that the noble and learned Lord has shown, perhaps I may draw his attention to the fact that I have tabled a dozen amendments to the next Bill he is to take through your Lordships' House; that is, the Contracts (Right of Third Parties) Bill. I hope that he will show the same flexibility and friendship to my amendments to that Bill as he has shown during the passage of this Bill. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, there are many things which I do badly and one of them is to dissemble. I am bound to say in clear terms that I believe the Bill can do enormous harm to the profession of the Bar and the solicitors. We have already drawn attention to the constitutional aspects in the Bill. I was horrified to hear my noble and learned friend seek to support what he did as not being a breach of the separation of powers. If he is right, all the judges who submitted a memorandum on the Green Paper were totally wrong because they stated in terms, "These are serious violations of the doctrine of separation of powers".
Enough of that; we have dealt with it in some detail. There have been occasions when, anxious to enjoy the genial smile that my noble and learned friend often
688
gives, I have reminded him of some of the observations he made in Opposition. He has repented of all of them and I expect that soon a Pugin confessional box will be found somewhere in the Lord Chancellor's residence.
I am worried about the extent to which the statutory objective set out in Section 17 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which is still in force, is not to be complied with. It provides for:
"the development of legal services in England and Wales (and in particular the development of advocacy …) by making provision for new or better ways of providing such services and a wider choice of persons providing them,"
and I stress the next words,
"while maintaining the proper and efficient administration of justice".
In some detail, we went through the very small number—one tenth—of solicitors in private practice who have the entitlement to appear in the higher courts. It was clearly pointed out that there was a considerable inability in those who tried to get through what were quite moderate examinations to qualify themselves for that entitlement. That is to change and it can change only by the Law Society making the right to exercise rights of advocacy very much easier.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, this matter has been raised before. I can say categorically, because I am close to the decision-making of the Law Society on this issue, that that is not the case. The Law Society has every intention of upholding all the standards of its professional members, including advocacy standards. An example of the testing of the Law Society in the application of those principles is that a moderately small number of solicitors achieved the higher advocacy certificates. That is because the Law Society deems that to be an important certificate and that only those worthy of it should get it.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, we shall wait and see. I do not see how more solicitors will be encouraged to qualify to undertake advocacy in the higher courts while the tests produce a very high failure rate and indicate further that, generally speaking, solicitors are not enthusiastic about exercising those rights because they find that there is not sufficient work, it does not pay well enough or it is cheaper to go to counsel.
However, the point I am seeking to make is that if, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, anticipates, the demands upon the solicitor branch of the profession are not substantially reduced in order to enable them to have rights of audience in the higher courts, then the block contracts which are there, in the majority of cases, to be accepted by solicitors doing the work from beginning to end will not be able to be carried out.
The other point is the considerable faith which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has in conditional fees. I do not see how they can be accommodated by the Bar. The Bar will be in receipt of requests to take on cases on the basis of no win, no fee, but they will be the difficult cases. The easier cases will have been dealt with by solicitors and they will come to the Bar to speculate on the outcome of the difficult cases. The Bar is not structured to do that. Members of

689
the Bar will either be unable to take on those cases or will be unwilling to do so or some species of partnership will be devised which will be to the disadvantage of the public because with partnerships, the choice of barristers will be substantially limited by the obvious rule that one cannot have partners on both sides.
Therefore, I am extremely concerned about the extent to which this Bill will encroach upon both the standards and efficiency of the profession. But in making those gloomy observations, I join in the congratulations offered to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the immense amount of hard work that he has put in to taking this proposed legislation through your Lordships' House. I thank him for the genial good nature and humour which he has shown, almost throughout all of it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this Bill has been before the House since the beginning of December. It has made excellent progress. We have completed every stage in the time allotted. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to our deliberations for the good spirit in which the cuts and thrusts of debates have been delivered and accepted.
The fundamental purpose of the Bill is to increase access to justice. I am determined to build structures which will provide services that go much further towards meeting people's needs than legal services do at present. That is the purpose of the community legal service. That is the rationale behind contracting with quality-assured suppliers; behind conditional fees; behind extensions to rights of audience; and behind our reforms of the magistrates' courts system.
Anyone listening to debates in this House might have gained the impression that legal services, or at least those provided by the Bar, had attained a state of perfection, and that no change could possibly be for the better in the best of all possible legal worlds. In fact, we all know that many legal services are poor; many are disproportionately expensive; and not a few are both.
While our legal profession includes some of the finest minds in the country, the system often fails the ordinary person, whose pocket is small and whose case may be mundane.
I have had the feeling at times during our debates that party politics had been suspended, and that I was addressing a meeting of the militant tendency of the Bar (which a few solicitors had been granted special dispensation to attend). For that reason, I particularly welcomed the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in the Division on 28th January on Clause 31 relating to employed lawyers.
I believe that the House has accepted most of the important principles in this Bill. In particular, the House has accepted the principle of a community legal service. The House has accepted that to take on legal aid cases lawyers must meet prescribed quality standards. The House has not resiled from the principle of a greater use of conditional fees, although doubts have been expressed, as they always are about the new. The House has accepted that a more streamlined system than the
690
current ACLEC arrangements should be put in place, and your Lordships accepted my proposals for reinforcing the ethical duties of lawyers.
There was, I believe, no real dissent from the principle that appellate procedures in civil matters should be reformed to ensure that appeals are heard at the right level, and are dealt with in a way which is proportionate to their weight and complexity; and the proposals for reforming the administration of the magistrates' courts and unifying the stipendiary Bench have been accepted.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hacking for quoting what I said by way of undertaking at the outset of the Committee stage. I am grateful to those of your Lordships who have said that I proved as good as my word and that, as a result, we have a Bill that has been substantially improved. I do not believe that a Minister proves his virility by saying "no" to better arguments. The reverse is true.
First, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for his tireless efforts, made with that mix of humour and bite which we associate with him. to improve the drafting of the Bill. I was pleased to be able to accept several—not as many as he would have liked—amendments he proposed, and the drafting is consequently tighter and more succinct.
I have accepted, or adopted the substance of, many other amendments from a number of noble Lords, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland, Lord Goodhart, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Phillips of Sudbury, my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell and my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. These amendments serve, in particular, to make explicit what had been implicit in the Bill, or to ensure greater transparency for the decisions and actions that will be taken under it. I was particularly pleased to agree to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, which ensure that consumer affairs will be a criterion for membership of both the legal services commission and the legal services consultative panel. I much appreciated her visual and audible pleasure in having her amendments accepted.
In addition, I made a large number of changes following the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. I was anxious to achieve a better distinction between those substantive matters which should be subject to further procedure in this House and another place, and those matters of an administrative or budgetary nature which require no such procedure. I believe that the House is now broadly content that the parliamentary procedure attaching both to my powers and the legal services commission's funding code are appropriate.
I agreed to withdraw our proposals to make conditional fee agreements available in matrimonial cases which only involved property. While I can still conceive of cases where such agreements might be appropriate and helpful, I concluded that, on balance. it is difficult to identify winners or losers in matrimonial cases and that these agreements are not generally a practical proposition in this area, and that: is the position to which I adhere.

691
I was also pleased to accept the proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for an ethical code for employees of the legal services commission providing services as part of the criminal defence service. However, an observer, unused to the ways of this House, might then have been more than puzzled to observe the noble and learned Lord marching through the Lobbies to support an amendment that would ensure there could be no-one to whom his code could apply. As an older hand, I cannot say I was surprised; but in retrospect I am inclined to wonder whether my giving nature had received the response it deserved.
Before today, the debates on the Bill had brought up four issues on which the opinion of the House was sought. The Government won the Division on whether the cost of the criminal defence service was relevant when setting the budget for the community legal service fund. Notwithstanding that, I recognise the genuine concern that the demands of the CDS will draw resources away from the CLS. I spoke about this issue on the amendment to Clause 2 moved today by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I repeat that I am determined to ensure that the CLS is properly funded.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, persuaded your Lordships to insert a new Clause 1 in the Bill. This clause purports to set principles or objectives—it is a little confused as to which—for the operation of the community legal service and the criminal defence service.
The amendment was pressed despite the fact that the Government were proposing their own amendments which clearly set out the separate purposes of the community legal service and the criminal defence service. The new clause creates confusion by trying to cover two distinct schemes with a single set of objectives.
Also, as drafted, I regard the clause as expressing unrealistic aspirations. It seems to suggest that the taxpayer should meet any legal costs that a person wants to incur but cannot afford. No test of merits and no limits of financial eligibility are mentioned. There is no recognition of other ways in which people might finance their cases, such as by insurance or conditional fees; and, equally, no recognition that not everyone can have a solicitor's office on the doorstep, any more than everyone can have a hospital or a supermarket on the doorstep—although by and large one does need to visit a hospital, or bring goods home from a supermarket—whereas telephone, fax, e-mail and post can today play a vital part in providing legal help. The reforms in this Bill will enable us to improve access to legal services for people who live in rural areas. But to suggest that those people could and should enjoy the same access as people who live in large cities is pie in the sky.
We will seek to remove these deficiencies in another place. But at the same time we will consider whether it would be helpful to retain a provision enshrining the principle of non-discrimination. Rather oddly, the current clause seeks only to prevent discrimination against the disabled, whose interests are already protected by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It
692
does not mention other vulnerable groups who may be subject to discrimination or prejudice, for example ethnic minorities. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, acknowledged that his amendment might be too narrow in that respect.
Finally, I come to the two Divisions on the issue of rights for employed lawyers. I have left them until last because they are, I suggest, the only points of real substance on which the House was divided. The Government were defeated in Committee on Clause 31 in relation to employed lawyers in the Crown Prosecution Service and more widely; and on Report in relation to employed lawyers in the criminal defence service. The result is that, as the Bill stands, no employed lawyers will enjoy rights of audience in the higher courts, whether they are employed by the Crown Prosecution Service or any other government body or private company. The criminal defence service will not be able to employ lawyers to carry out any legal work, whether the provision of advice or assistance, or representation in the courts.
First, I can assure the House that the Government intend to seek the reinstatement of these provisions in another place. Secondly, let me repeat that we are not proposing to establish a comprehensive public defender system. We are proposing a system in which criminal defence services are provided by a mix of employed lawyers and lawyers in private practice. As I said on Report, this is a modest proposal, which has provoked a quite disproportionate reaction.
It is contended that employed advocates in the Crown Prosecution Service cannot behave ethically if they are prosecuting counsel in the Crown Court. Yet they undertake this role every day in the magistrates' court where 97 per cent. of criminal cases begin and end. There are vast numbers of "either way" offences in the criminal law. If the prosecution is in the magistrates' court then the CPS lawyer can prosecute but not, it is said, if the same case happens to go to the Crown Court. That simply does not wash, and every independent outsider knows that it does not. I simply do not believe that employed advocates will suddenly act unethically if they appear in the Crown Court rather than the magistrates' court. By Clause 37, the Bill reinforces the existing ethical duties of the professions.
I do not believe that employed lawyers should carry the stigma that has been placed on them by some in this House. I believe that arguments which prevailed here will be seen by many outside this House as motivated more by lawyers' self-interest than by high principle.
Your Lordships may also find it helpful if I mention one or two other changes that we hope to make in another place. Following undertakings made in this House, the Government will be bringing forward amendments to clarify the definition of conditional fee agreements, to ensure the legality of privately-managed contingency funds, and to modernise the principles underlying costs between the parties to litigation.
We hope to simplify the structure of Schedule 2 about the scope of the community legal service fund. There will also be additions to Schedule 9 which transfers administrative functions to justices' chief executives,

693
and further detailed provisions about the constitution, structure and powers of the Greater London magistrates' courts authority.
We are giving active consideration to the possibility of legislating to make subscriptions to the Bar Council compulsory. If we conclude that a statutory provision would be in the public interest, we will bring forward an amendment to this Bill in another place.
Also, I confess that I am dismayed that performance at the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors seems to be deteriorating. The effective handling of complaints is important both for those who use legal services and for the long-term health of the legal professions. I am considering whether the Government should take any action and I do not rule out the possibility of legislative change.
The Bill remains in pretty good health. Its health has not declined at all today. It will now go to the other place, from which I am confident that it will emerge in even more robust health.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Tourism
8.8 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their strategy for tourism.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have indicated their wish to speak in the debate. I tabled this Unstarred Question in order to give the House the opportunity to examine the Government's tourism strategy for England, an opportunity denied by the Government who chose to announce the strategy outside Parliament with a photo-call for the Secretary of State and Minister for Tourism in the Dome while the chairman of the BTA was left to speak about the content of the strategy in Glaziers' Hall in the City.
First, the arts strategy was announced in the Tate. And now this. It is not good practice. It is not even good publicity for the industry because the launch attracted so little attention.
What do we have? Is it an English DCMS strategy masquerading as joined-up thinking across departments? For the sake of the tourism industry I hope that the Minister can persuade us that it is more than that.
The tourism industry's biggest challenge, yet its great strength, is its fragmentation and complexity. It is the fifth largest industry in the United Kingdom, worth more than £53 billion a year. Tourism directly accounts for about 5 per cent. of Britain's GDP and 8 per cent. of all consumer spending. Tourism employs 1.75 million people—7 per cent. of the UK's workforce—and in recent years it has created one in six of all new jobs. Last year it brought 25.5 million overseas visitors to Britain. Yet the industry has the potential to create even more jobs, to generate more wealth and to help rejuvenate rundown areas at a time when the profile of tourism is changing.
I recognise and value the contribution made to Tomorrow's Tourism by members of the tourism industry and I welcome their commitment to try to make
694
the DCMS strategy work. My questions are based upon the following concerns. First, I am concerned that the Government's attempt at joined-up thinking is flawed; secondly, that changes have been made to the English Tourist Board which damage the tourist industry; thirdly, that coastal resorts may not benefit from regeneration funds; and finally, that the paper does not address some of the most important issues facing the industry today and tomorrow.
The consultation process was welcomed by the industry. But, as the Tourism Society pointed out, it focused on specific matters that had a political imperative, with,
"heavy orientation towards regionality … emphasis on structure with almost nothing on strategy, quality, competitiveness or marketing … As a result, the topics contained in the document are in most cases hardly priority areas".
The strategy speaks of a joined-up approach between departments headed up by Mr. Chris Smith. That is a laudable objective in itself. How will it be achieved in practice? How will the Secretary of State fulfil the burden placed upon him to be a puppeteer, deftly operating the strings of the tourist industry marionette in order to promote the interests of tourism throughout government when the spectre of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, tweaking the odd string here and there, is never far from sight?
We are told that there will be a tourism summit next year. Can the Minister say what else will be done to persuade departments to act in a co-ordinated way now and subsequently? How often will the tourism summit meet? The action list on page 15 refers to an annual summit, but the main body of the report steps back from that commitment and merely refers to,
"intervals agreed by Summit members".
What should we expect? I hope it will he more than a millennium photo-call for Ministers.
The English Tourist Board is regarded around the globe as the world's best, and rightly so. I welcome the Government's U-turn on their initial proposal to abolish it entirely. I was interested to see the public response to that proposal and the many press campaigns, such as that of the News of the World to save it.
However, I am appalled that the ETB will have its marketing powers removed to the regions. How can the ETB of the future be little more than a think tank? It will have neither the resources nor the remit to promote England, unlike its Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland counterparts which actively promote their own areas. The ETB is left in place without establishing structures which are a prerequisite for its success. As yet, it does not even have a name. Can the Minister say whether it will continue to be called a national body or will the "England" marque be lost?
The current political developments of devolution and regionalisation in England focus growing attention on the need for increased co-ordination. It is vital to prevent the fragmentation of strategy, making industry fragmentation even worse.
The Tourism Society advised the Government:
"The problem is that tourism … does not follow the pattern of other sectors. Indeed the absolute reverse is true—whereas greater regional focus might well be appropriate for the majority of UK interests, not only within the DCMS portfolio, the future prosperity of England's tourism requires a move away from regional focus".
Why did the Government ignore that expert advice?
We are told that fewer than four out of every 10 holidays are taken at our seaside resorts and less than 5 per cent. of tourists from abroad go to the seaside. The strategy talks about the decline in profitability of businesses in seaside resorts and the need for their regeneration. Against that background, why did the Government increase the amusement machine licence duty last year and thereby depress economic activity at the seaside even further?
Many resorts have taken innovative measures to help themselves by diversifying and developing niche markets. Tomorrow's Tourism gives several good examples, one of which is farm tourism. I am looking forward to my own summer holiday in Devon when I shall take advantage of renting a converted farm building. There are severe problems in many resorts where diversification simply is not an option open to them. The strategy promises help in the shape of regional regeneration programmes administered via the RDAs. I quote from page 18:
"£160 million additional money will be available from the Single Regeneration budget for areas where there is severe deprivation, for example coastal resorts".
Can the Minister tell the House how much of that £160 million will go to seaside resorts? Who will decide how the money is apportioned and which resorts may receive it? On behalf of seaside resorts, I ask whether the Minister can guarantee that service industries, the hospitality industries—the mainstay of seaside resorts—will qualify for payments and that they will not be limited merely to manufacturing industries? Of course, I appreciate that manufacturing rock may fall within that division.
Tourism matters to all of us but at the moment the tourism industry is paying a high price for the Government's policies. Our party's "Listening to Britain" exercise identified that key concerns for British tourist operators are burdensome, new regulations arising from matters such as the works council, the working time directive, the parental leave directive and the part-time workers directive, among many others.
The paper talks about reducing regulation but the reality is very different. If this is joined-up thinking, why are there vital gaps in the strategy, gaps of great concern to the tourist industry? Where is the section on transport? A five-minute speech on video by the Transport Minister at the launch and a fleeting reference in Annexe 4 of the strategy are no substitute.
What about planning? Planning law remains an area of real upset and contention for the tourism industry. Can the Minister confirm that the DETR's report on planning policy guidance and tourism will not be published until July at the earliest? I understand that to be the case from a Written Answer earlier this year.
What of licensing? The industry argues that the present licensing regulations hamper business and employment opportunities and greatly puzzle visitors, especially, I am told, in Scotland. As a former magistrate on a licensing bench, I recognise the conflicting issues and the difficulty in resolving them. What action do the Government propose to take?
I hope that the millennium celebrations and the opening of the Dome will attract millions of extra visitors from abroad and within the United Kingdom. It is important that we continue to develop a healthy tourist industry that gives the traveller reliability and quality. The Government have presented us with a strategy which, I believe, may be flawed, although I hope that that proves not to be the case. No doubt we shall return to this issue again to measure the results against the objectives.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I shall be the first, I suspect, of many this evening to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, for choosing the very important subject of tourism for this debate. However, I must disagree with her slightly. The noble Baroness gave only modest praise to the Government for introducing a very comprehensive document. I concede that, inevitably, much of it is aspirational rather than prescriptive, but that is very much the nature of tourism. Tourism is not delivered by governments, but by hoteliers, restaurateurs and transport providers, among others.
If I may take just the three words which the noble Baroness quoted from those of the Tourism Society and refer to "quality", "competitiveness" and "marketing", your Lordships will realise that there are specific proposals on each. The new grading scheme puts heavy emphasis on quality—not as much, I regret to say, as the Scottish grading scheme, but I am sure that that will come in time. On competitiveness, I should have thought that setting the British tourist industry the target of matching global growth by 2010 will demand a fairly high degree of competitiveness. On marketing, I can assure the House—I speak as a member of the British Tourist Board because I am chairman of the Scottish Tourist Board—that the extra £5 million is most welcome.
The really encouraging thing about the Government's document Tomorrow's Tourism is that it puts tourism high on the agenda. This is not a party political matter; the problem has not been Westminster, but Whitehall. It has been difficult for successive tourism Ministers to convince the Treasury that tourism should be taken seriously. However, I believe that there are several ways of convincing the Treasury of that. First, over the next few years no other single industry in this country will deliver jobs on anything like the scale of tourism. More importantly, as tourism uniquely has the customer coming to the product, those are jobs which, if we do our job properly, will remain secure in Britain.
The next argument that should appeal to the Treasury is that any investment that it makes in the marketing of tourism through funds for the BTA, the Scottish Tourist

697
Board or the Welsh Tourist Board, will be repaid many times over simply by the increase in VAT receipts from the tourists who are encouraged to come here. I also welcome the stark recognition that, despite the fact that our annual revenues from tourism are increasing simply because the size of the market is growing so fast, Britain's share of world tourism is declining. That is an important recognition. The demand that action be taken augurs well for the development of tourism in this country.
The Government are right to address several aspects of this matter. First, we must get the product right. The new grading scheme will certainly help. I sympathise in part with what the noble Baroness said about the regions and the English Tourist Board because there will always be tension between the national tourist boards, which think that they know what the country wants, and the regional tourist boards which are very close to the industry there and believe that they know a bit better. We must harmonise those and get the best of both while avoiding duplication and waste.
As I have already said, on marketing I welcome the extra money for the BTA. In marketing terms, it is also important to avoid waste resulting from each regional tourist board promoting itself abroad. We must harmonise that. I am sure that that will happen.
As regards the infrastructure, it is vitally important—I concede that this lies outwith the remit of the DCMS—that we get the transport infrastructure right for tourism. I commend to your Lordships our very good debate of exactly a week ago on airline competition, which was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes. I recognise that we must go with the grain of the market and not try to introduce services which will not be viable. Equally, we must be ruthless in rooting out restrictive practices. As somebody from Scotland, I find it galling that we are on the equivalent of the M.1 as regards long-haul air routes yet not nearly enough flights touch down in Scotland. One reason is that we do not have the fifth freedom and are not allowed to pick up passengers or freight in Scotland and move them on elsewhere. Frankly, that is ridiculous.
I hope that the high priority that the Government have given to tourism in the document will seep through to the Chancellor when considering any taxation modifications. Having had the privilege last November of initiating a debate on VAT and hotels, I shall not weary the House tonight with that. I simply suggest that if VAT in Paris is 5.5 per cent. and in London it is 17.5 per cent., we might just possibly be at a slight disadvantage.
Likewise, I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Montague of Oxford in last week's debate. The current air passenger duty impinges especially hard on the low-cost airlines and their passengers. That point needs to be considered. We must also be careful that petrol does not become too easy a hit for successive Chancellors. We must remember that a car is absolutely vital in rural areas.
The most important feature of the document is that it attempts to restore pride in tourism. For too long people have regarded jobs in tourism as second-class jobs, to
698
be taken by students on their summer vacations. We must all work—not only the Government, but also the industry—through a combination of training and conquering the seasonality problem in many areas to ensure that people regard tourism as a worthwhile career.
Finally, tourism is important because it can help to restore pride in our country. Frankly, I was staggered by the statistic that 40 per cent. of the British population have not taken a holiday of longer than three days in Britain in the past year. If we can encourage more people to take their holidays in Britain., not only will we boost the indigenous tourist trade, but they will return home with the zeal of the convert and preach the gospel of what a wonderful country we have. That will make everyone all the more glad that we have the great pleasure of living here all the year round.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I begin by joining the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, in thanking my noble friend Lady Anelay of St. Johns for raising this matter. I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute. I do so principally because for 33 years I had the honour of representing a large part of the Lake District. Tourism is a massive and vitally important part of the economy of that rural area, and of many other rural areas where there are tourist honeypots.
When I travel round and talk to residents of the United Kingdom I am always surprised to find how relatively few of them are familiar with the Lake District. Conversely, I am always equally surprised when travelling abroad and I meet foreigners who have been to this country and have included the Lake District in their tours. The Lake District is a hidden area for many of our fellow citizens, which is a great pity.
There have been huge changes in the Lake District. The first relates to rearranging the affairs of the area since the habit of taking long holidays in one place in Britain has declined. At the same time, there are now many more day and weekend visits. Such visits are a very important part of the tourist scene in rural areas.
The quality of the food available is hugely important. When I was first elected to the other place about 40 years ago, it was very difficult indeed to find something plain to eat, like a steak, because the facilities were oriented to over-cooked meat and two veg. All that has changed.
The facilities of the Lake District have been totally transformed as it builds on its local heritage. I think especially of those visitors who are particularly concerned about the literary heritage. Whether their interest is Wordsworth, Ruskin, Beatrix Potter or Arthur Ransome, visitors can find many fascinating exhibitions to demonstrate that great heritage.
I am not sure whether the recent television programme on Sunday evening, "The Lakes", will bring more or fewer tourists to the Lake District. Certainly, I did not recognise for one second the behaviour of those characters in that rather deplorable series and I could not relate it to the people I had the honour of

699
representing for so many years. I suppose that, given the BBC and their lamentable standards, we have to put up with it.
What I wish to do tonight is to draw attention to some of the highlights and the problems which face the tourist industry as the Government decide on their strategy. I shall just mention the highlights. First, there is the very strong pound, which makes it very difficult for those from overseas to afford to come here. Secondly, the higher rate of VAT and interest rates, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, mean that our interest rates are almost 50 per cent. higher than French interest rates. Thirdly, there is the very high fuel tax in the United Kingdom which very much deters tourists from visiting rural areas where a car is almost essential. Fourthly, there are the food scares that we have had over the last few years, which tend to cause particular hardships for people seeking farm accommodation. Fifthly, we have the minimum wage and working time directive. I know of one group in the Lake District whose payroll has been increased by 2; per cent. as a result of the directive. Sixthly and finally, there has been the increase in non-domestic rates. Again I know of a hotel in the Lake District—I can give the noble Lord details if he wishes—which has had an increase of almost 30 per cent. in two years in non-domestic rates. However, the hotel has not increased its tariff over the same period.
Having pointed out all those difficulties, I wish to make one final point. Far too many hotels in the United Kingdom respond to difficulties by overcharging their guests. The cost of rooms in many instances is far too high when compared with similar hotels on the Continent. Mercifully, not everyone charges such high prices. Last weekend, my wife and I had the good fortune to attend a wedding in Scotland and stayed at an admirable hotel between Glasgow and Stirling. I will name it: the Castle Carey Hotel. It produced outstanding facilities and comfort for a very reasonable price, with a thumping breakfast thrown in. I wish that many more of our hoteliers would follow the example of that hotel. I am sure that the tourist industry would then expand very considerably.
8.32 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I share the regret of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that the Minister had to be "smoked out" for this debate rather than our having a Government-initiated debate on their strategy when the White Paper was published.
In her introduction the noble Baroness toured the horizon, as was her right. I want to concentrate on one particular area, because we have only a short time available and because it is an area which I know a little about. There is a reference in the White Paper to the specific problems of our seaside towns. I grew up in the Blackpool of the 1950s, and still retain a great pride in the town and its achievements. Certainly I was never in any doubt that tourism was a real industry that created real jobs, and so I welcome the attention paid to seaside resorts in Tomorrow's Tourism.
700
I also welcome the belated recognition of the special problems faced by those towns. In the case of Blackpool, the town needs an infrastructure, in both physical and social terms, to cater for a population of 152,000 and 17 million visitors annually. There is the disruptive effect of having a large transient element within the resident population, which has to be dealt with in terms of housing, levels of health, quality of life, community cohesion and educational standards. The lack of a year-round economy offering stable employment is causing severe social problems.
The statistics of the town are in many ways breathtaking. The service sector employs 87 per cent. of the people living in Blackpool. Like other seaside towns, it has had to come to terms with the "double whammy" of a decline in demand for the traditional holiday week or fortnight and an increased use of its accommodation—because it is cheap—by the socially vulnerable. Add to that a narrow economic base, and one sees why towns like Blackpool have areas of social deprivation as high as any in our inner cities.
Indeed, the Director of Strategic Services for Blackpool sent me information on 10 key points relating to various deprivations in the town. However, for reasons of time and also of presentation I shall not put them on the record tonight. Ministers and government departments will be well aware of the statistics and, if they are not, I will gladly provide them to the Minister.
However, that is not the whole story, because our seaside towns represent a success story. Each year more than 20 million people spend their holidays in United Kingdom seaside towns. That generates over £4.2 billion in earnings. By any standards, that is a large and successful industry. Towns like Blackpool are fighting back. Unlike our football team, we have always stayed in the premier division in terms of resort attractions.
I am pleased to say that, even in advance of the White Paper, Blackpool launched a "challenge partnership", bringing together the public and private sectors, supported by all parties: by the Blackpool Tower and the Pleasure Beach coming together, which means that it has few parallels in terms of co-operation; the Hotel and Guest House Association; the churches; the local media; education and business. All these are attempting to bring together a strategy of regeneration for the town. We all have ideas about how that could be done, and I certainly would like to see the rapid improvement of the notorious West Coast main line, and regular direct links into Blackpool. It is not only Labour Cabinet Ministers on their way to conference who find the changeover at Preston very difficult indeed.
I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon. Blackpool has a very fine airport, and I see that airport and its expansion as a point of regeneration. I also see education as a basis for expansion. The Blackpool and Fylde College could, if we are to see an expansion in student numbers, be the basis for a university of the Fylde. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, pointed out, there is a need for the seaside resorts to be beneficiaries of regional and European funds. It is up to government to make sure that those are received. However, I should

701
like to emphasise that Blackpool is not looking for a handout but for a helping hand. If I had more expertise on the subject I could refer to Torquay and other resorts.
Most people have a Blackpool story, as I realise every time a cabbie recognises my accent, because this either produces memories of a childhood visit to the illuminations, that first trip up the Tower or on the Pleasure Beach's Big Dipper, a holiday romance or a family holiday. Blackpool has always been part of our family life. Its motto is "Progress", and ever since Alderman Bickerstaff went to the Paris Exhibition, saw the Eiffel Tower and said, "We'll have one of them!" it has been a town of initiative. It is a national asset, among the many national assets that we have in our seaside resorts. The Government have said that they need to get their act together and we are now asking, if we get our act together, will we get a positive response from government?
8.39 p.m.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is to be warmly congratulated on raising this issue tonight in this debate. I support the theme adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, in his speech on 1st March when he said that tourism is enormously important in the North, particularly in Scotland. It probably provides more jobs overall than any other single subject; numbering no less than 177,000 that certainly helps local communities. It provides transport services through demand and reinvigorates local culture. The world tourist market overall is extending and it is very important that we get our share of that market. Tourists will come here because they like the environment and the people, as well as history, art and culture.
I am the first to recognise how sensitive tourists can be to adverse publicity. I recall when I was tourist Minister the "Braer" disaster and the consequent oil spillage in Shetland. No less than 800 journalists descended upon the island. In vain I argued that it was only 3 per cent. of the coastline and that it was one of the healthiest environments in the world. Temporary, over-the-top reporting did enormous harm, though I am glad to say that it did not last for more than a short period of time.
I have three points to make tonight. The first is that the Scottish Tourist Board should not only work closely with the British Tourist Authority in attracting visitors, but it should also work closely with the area tourist boards which should remain as key drivers of local tourist strategies. The area tourist boards represent the best partnership locally between the public and the private sector.
Secondly, I contend that the quality assurance scheme of the Scottish Tourist Board has proved to be an outstanding success. Some 90 per cent. of those with available accommodation in Scotland have joined the scheme as members compared to 40 per cent. in England. The Scottish Parliament should recognise the success of the quality assurance scheme, as that subject will come under its responsibility on 6th May.
702
In addition, I mention my deeply held conviction, derived from my days as a tourist Minister, that many will come to Britain and to Scotland for holidays if they can get access to a golf course and a good hotel. I should point out that Scotland has been the home of golf, but there are many countries in the world where golf is not the game of the people as it is in Scotland, but is an exclusive and extremely expensive occupation. Ft is difficult for some people to obtain access to golf courses on reasonable terms. I believe that that is an area in which we can genuinely excel.
My third point is that the Scottish Tourist Board and area tourist boards should be equipped with the very best information technology. The last Secretary of State, Michael Forsyth, greatly increased resources for the Scottish Tourist Board. In the future, the Scottish Parliament should allocate resources to the tourist board and its agencies commensurate with the need to present Scotland as a quality destination internationally. Local enterprise companies, the area tourist: boards and the private sector should invest in the Scottish Tourist Board's new information technology project called Ossian.
I shall conclude by responding to a question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, in his speech on 6th May. He asked if agreement could be obtained on the top 20 visitor attractions in the Highlands. Perhaps I may suggest to him five for Scotland. First, there is one which is dear to his heart; namely, the Burrell Collection, which enhanced Glasgow's role as European City of Culture. Secondly, there is the Forth Railway Bridge in the constituency for which I am a prospective candidate. It is every bit as impressive as the Eiffel Tower but, if I may say so frankly, far more useful.
Thirdly, there are the Callanish Stones. The best way to describe them is by saying that Stonehenge is the English equivalent. Fourthly, there is Edinburgh Castle, which attracts about 1 million visitors a year. Some of us are well aware of the apocryphal story of the tattered skeleton with a medallion, which was found between the outer and inner walls of the castle. When the skeleton was dusted down and the medallion was cleaned up, all it revealed were the words:
"Scotland's Hide and Seek Champion 1825".
Thinking of such stories, I would mention as the final visitor attraction, Loch Ness, the locality of the Loch Ness Monster and its sightings. When I was asked as a Minister by foreign journalists point blank, "Does the Loch Ness Monster really exist?", I always gave the same reply: "The facts cannot be conclusively established, except at disproportionate expense to the taxpayer".
I conclude by saying that a strategy for tourism in all its manifestations is vital to Scotland and to Britain. In particular, Scotland must be kept competitive and unburdened by extra taxes. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, about VAT are especially relevant. I particularly contend that there must be no tourist tax. Tourism must be worthy of the Scottish Parliament's strongest support.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for initiating this important debate. I also welcome the publication of Tomorrow's Tourism and last December's publication of A Cultural Framework. I am particularly happy to see that in both documents the Government appear to recognise the enormous influence of the arts and heritage on tourism. However, I am worried that though they are keen to develop an improved strategy to promote Britain's cultural attractions, the Government are failing to build on some schemes that present the best of British arts, which instead are being allowed to fall by the wayside. That is short-sighted, although I am sure that it is not deliberate.
The economic impact of arts tourism is considerable. Indeed, the British Tourist Authority has quantified its value to Britain as £5 billion a year and furthermore states that it is one of the fastest growing areas of tourism demand. As surveys published over the past few years show, culture in Britain plays a major part in helping people decide to come here for their holidays, as it does for UK tourists to stay in their own country. Once here, more than 50 per cent. of overseas tourists enjoy arts activities.
The tourism industry has become extremely important to the UK's economy; indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, mentioned, it represents some 4 or 5 per cent. of UK GDP and is still growing, while 7 per cent. of the working population is employed in tourism and one in six of all new jobs in Britain in the past 10 years is connected to the tourist trade.
The Government state that they are keen to realise the full potential of the tourism industry. To that end they have introduced a 15-point action plan. They have also, among other suggestions, called for a "joined-up" approach by which different government bodies in Whitehall and the regions will work closely together to promote Britain as a major tourism destination. That approach strikes me as sensible.
However, its results are more complicated. To take one example, the British Council and the BTA signed a memorandum of understanding in July 1998 seeking to co-operate where their objectives overlapped. The two organisations have quite separate basic aims: the British Council seeks to promote the English language and Britain's culture abroad while the BTA is more interested in attracting people to the UK on purely commercial grounds. Nonetheless, while naturally wary of each other's functions, it is within both their remits to participate in marketing Britain as an attractive venue. The British Council has already taken over from the BTA as a public tourist information service in 11 countries, including Mexico, Korea, Poland and the Czech Republic.
While the BTA pays for the cost of that service, it does not contribute towards those activities of the British Council, which is one of the most effective showcases of Britain's lively arts scene abroad, thus providing exactly what the Government are looking for: effective, though not overt, advertisements for Britain. The Government promise,
704
"more money for a more focused and aggressive overseas promotion programme to bring in more overseas visitors".
Yet there have been substantial cuts to the British Council's budget. These have led—unwisely, in my view—to a disproportionate downsizing of its broad and very focused visual arts programme, which covers everything from architecture to design to photography. The effect on British tourism can only be negative, quite apart from diminishing the role of the British Council.
Clearly the joined-up approach has to be financially as well as departmentally meaningful. I therefore ask the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to consider the provision of additional and possibly ring-fenced funding in order to encourage and assist the arts section of the British Council to address its dual role as a promoter of British culture and of British cultural tourism. That would fulfil the Government's promise to,
"act as tourism's champion through the DCMS, to increase awareness of tourism's potential and represent its interests".
In other words, if the DCMS's cultural tourism strategy is to be really effective and have any meaning, it must recognise the role of cultural promotion within other government departments such as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and give specific—if not additional—funding to important tourism shop windows. The Government are right to see British culture past and present as an important and desirable tourist attraction. But it is only by aiding its promotion that it will make sense of the strategy of joined-up government.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, Tomorrow's Tourism makes little or no reference to restaurants, which are an important segment of the whole tourist industry. Restaurants generate over £4 billion annually and employ many hundreds of thousands of people. Here I must declare an interest as the honorary patron of the Restaurant Association.
I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Anelay not only for bringing up the subject of tourism this evening but also for mentioning licensing, on which I have spoken many times in your Lordships' House. The Restaurant Association has long campaigned for generalised licensing reform, but unfortunately as things stand at present the Home Office will publish a White Paper sometime in the middle of next year. This means that, after wide consultation on generalised licensing reform, legislation could not be introduced until the Queen's Speech in 2001 at the earliest, and that would be implemented hopefully sometime in 2002, by which time there will probably have been a general election. That is a long timescale indeed.
In the meantime there seem to me to be several minor matters which could be dealt with quite simply by deregulation orders. I have in mind Extended Hours Orders. To obtain an EHO, restaurants face two obstacles. First, they must obtain a supper hour certificate to serve drinks with meals until 1 a.m. In addition they must provide some form of live entertainment. Most restaurants, many of which are small businesses, find this both impractical and an unnecessarily costly activity. In addition many diners

705
prefer convivial conversation to entertainment. Surely a factor of tourism—as everyone has brought out in this debate—is that there should be a plethora of choice.
In an exchange on this subject last July, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, speaking for the Government, stated that they would,
"be willing to consider the use of deregulation orders if they seem appropriate".—[official Report, 14/7/98; col. 102.]
I followed this up with a letter subsequently but so far nothing has happened, despite pressure on the Home Office by various interested groups.
I regret to say that I have not given adequate notice to the noble Lord. Lord McIntosh, of this specific matter and do not expect him to comment on it tonight. However, I would be most grateful if he could investigate why nothing has happened and when something might happen. If he could write to me later, that would be agreeable and most helpful. It would indeed be progress if we can move forward on this simple matter in the near future.
8.53 p.m.
The Earl of Stair: My Lords, I must start by declaring an interest in that I run a small tourism business. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has addressed an extremely important question tonight. At a time when devolution is almost upon us, and agriculture and rural business as a whole is undergoing some of the darkest moments for several years, tourism and leisure are highlighted as the industries of the future.
In Britain we have some of the most spectacular countryside certainly in Europe, but I would say on a global scale as well. We have a rich heritage and environment, much of which we owe to the way in which the countryside has been managed throughout history. There is, however, still a vast tourist potential to be developed, to encourage people to visit these often isolated areas, which will not only provide employment but will also contribute to the gross domestic product of a region.
The pattern of the tourist—or perhaps the "short-term visitor" is a better description—is changing. Due to improved availability, particularly of air transport, many people are able to enjoy short break holidays within the United Kingdom, and perhaps a longer holiday overseas. The Internet provides information for planning from home. And Project Ossian, which is currently under development by the Scottish Tourist Board, will enable the entire resources of an area to be available to those wishing to plan a break from their home or work areas.
There is already a co-ordinated approach to organising tourism development on a national and regional level in Scotland, with the formation of the strategic tourism groups. These are a mixture of both public and private sector organisations, and aim to co-ordinate tourism development in areas where there may be an overlap of interests between councils, enterprise boards, and tourist boards. The main mission of the strategy is to create benefit through the development of successful tourism businesses.
706
I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on the government's strategic plan for the tourist industry, and would like to raise three points before doing so. First, the regional tourist boards in Scotland receive a small proportion of their funds from the Scottish Office through the main Scottish Tourist Board. I assume the same applies in the remainder of the United Kingdom as regards the relevant Government Offices. However, they are expected to generate the remainder of their funds from sales in tourist information centres, from subscriptions, and from advertising. Thus a considerable proportion of the boards' income is taken up in their own administration when these funds could far better be used in the marketing of the area, to generate more visitors, and to support the small businesses in the tourism and associated sectors. Funding should perhaps be based on the establishment of the board, or on the number of businesses marketed. This funding should be centrally provided, which would reduce the annual subscription costs for the often seasonal small businesses.
Secondly, I referred earlier to the potential for development in the regions of the country. I do not wish to create an excess of caravan parks or bed and breakfast establishments. They tend to be self-regulating in any case. There is a tremendous opportunity offered by undeveloped heritage visitor centres, historical attractions, and, as Forest Enterprise has proved, even commercial forestry can create jobs by attracting visitors. However, much of this potential is in the private sector, and although public sector funding is available, it is often not enough to enable this potential to come within the financial reach of a small business. Historic buildings and historic sites are the natural core for the development of heritage visitor centres, enabling the visitor not only to enjoy the architecture and workmanship of previous eras, but also to]earn from the experience. Sadly, many of these buildings are in a state of decay, and in Scotland the public sector body which could boost this opportunity has no funds available until at least 2004.
Rural diversification programmes are much used sources of European funding for diversification into tourism related business, and, under Objective 5b status, tourism is identified as a key sector of the rural economy for funding. However, following the recent negotiations in Europe, all this is subject to review, and Objective 5b will be replaced by Objective 2, which may not be so far-reaching.
My third point is on marketing. I referred earlier to Project Ossian currently being researched by the Scottish Tourist Board. However unless the information technology is available throughout and allows all the regional tourist boards to make use of the facility, its value is lost. Once again this all comes down to the strategic funding of the tourist industry. The Government should remember that the success of the tourist strategy will depend on the success of the small, mostly private sector businesses providing a service to the visitor.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Anelay of St. Johns for introducing this debate. I declare an interest as the director of a company which at present is developing a hotel and is also involved in the leisure industry. The 26th February tourism strategy which the Government announced must be welcomed with its 15 core points for recovery, especially in the development of the film and sports niche market and the regeneration of traditional resorts. That must be good for tourism.
As my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas said, it is essential, now that devolution is coming about, that the Scottish Tourist Board and the Welsh Tourist Board work very closely after devolution with the British Tourist Authority as 86 per cent. of all tourists coming into the UK start in London and work outward. The BTA's primary role is to encourage regional dispersal of tourists and their spending, so it is essential that we continue to market Britain as a whole rather than its composite parts separately. Obviously the STB and the WTB must exist to promote tourism within their own countries. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, has taken that on in his role as head of the Scottish Tourist Board.
As we are all aware, there are two kinds of tourist. There are the foreigners who come to Britain to see the sights and to play sports, such as golf, and there are the British themselves who want to holiday within the United Kingdom. Both groups have the same problems to a very large extent. Hotels are expensive in this country, as we have heard, and with VAT at 17.5 per cent. that is guaranteed to be so. But, as has been said, we discussed that in November and we do not need to discuss it again. The Government are fully aware of that.
Bed and breakfast is becoming better and better value, but in Britain, and especially in Scotland, the tourist industry is dominated by the large number of small businesses where all too often there has been inadequate investment in knowledge and skills. That has had a strong impact on the quality of the product available. The Scottish Parliament must address this matter by encouraging the industry to help itself. It must also review all aspects of commercial taxation in Scotland. Costs, government-led especially, lead to uncompetitiveness in the market place. If they are found in only one part of the United Kingdom they will have a great adverse effect. The suggested bed tax will certainly do that. There is strong evidence that 500,000 tourists could be deterred by that cost alone. An imaginative and attractive tax regime would bring significant inward investment.
My noble friend Lady Anelay of St. Johns said that there are strong hopes that EEC funds will be available for the regeneration of Scotland's beaches and tourist resorts such as Ayr and Aviemore. And, my goodness, both towns need it! Will the Minister please remember to remind those who make the decisions that it will be the service industries rather than the manufacturing industries that will provide the impetus to regenerate tourism in Scotland, clean up our beaches, tidy up our hotels, improve our pubs and encourage all tourists to spend their holidays in Britain.
708
The Government must also review the licensing laws, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein. We must clear away the present over-regulation of framework and go back to first principles. The law must recognise social changes and bring itself into line with modern consumer needs. Too much paperwork discourages businesses from changing bad working practices. We surely need one set of agreed countrywide computer-generated forms to save time and administration.
Planning authorities, too, must accept tourist developments much more readily. We need more tourist route signs on roads—the "white-on-brown" ones—to show where venues of interest are. We must have a better integrated transport system, a subject very dear to our Deputy Prime Minister. Of all Scottish airports, only Prestwick has a railway station; not Edinburgh or Glasgow. In England, except for Gatwick, Heathrow and Stansted, I think the story is the same.
The Government can make or break the tourist industry. Their policy of highly priced petrol and diesel is stifling tourism in Scotland. Goods are expensive because of carriage costs. It is now 12 times more expensive to license a lorry in this country than in France and diesel costs £300 more every time the lorry is filled up. The car is still the best, and very often the only, way to see Scotland and some of the more remote parts of England and Wales. There is no other mode of transport there. Costs are now so high. Petrol costs more than £3 a gallon whereas in the United States it costs 38 pence. We must wonder what the Chancellor is up to.
We have in Britain so much of what the tourists of today want to see. We must make it more readily available to all of our tourists—whether they are rich or poor, British or foreign—at an attractive price with affordable, comfortable accommodation.
9.6 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I always feel at a slight disadvantage when declaring my interests in a tourism debate because at the last count there were more than 12 companies of which I am a director and I am either patron or president of half a dozen industry associations. So, with the leave of your Lordships, perhaps I may declare those interests en bloc bar two. I declare those separately because on pages 46 and 47 of the strategy there is reference to Hospitality Assured and I am the chairman of the governing council of that body; and because the noble Baroness in her opening remarks spoke of the Tourism Society, I point out that it very kindly made me a fellow last month.
I should like to welcome the noble Baroness to what the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, once described as "this happy band of old lags who come to discuss tourism". The noble Baroness is a welcome and refreshing new face. I should like to thank her for bringing the subject to our attention though, as she pointed out, it is an extremely big subject and six minutes is not long enough to do anything but canter through.

709
I welcome the Government's paper Tomorrow's Tourism, not least because it follows many of the points which I raised in a paper published last July called Tourism Tomorrow. I wonder if perhaps the name had anything to do with it. But that was the Liberal Democrat tourism policy which I co-authored and published last July. I sent the document to the DCMS. It appears to agree with a great deal of what we put in the document and has taken it on board. That is a very good reason for welcoming the strategy.
I also welcome it because there is much in the strategy that is clearly good. I will mention that briefly. Equally. I have to say that there is also a good deal of dross in it, although there are some lovely gems hidden away within that dross. Perhaps I may quickly mention what I think is good. First, the best of the lot is that we have a strategy—the document has been published—and we should not under-estimate the importance of the document. Even if the document was awful all the way through, having a document and a strategy means that one can have another document and improve the strategy.
The second point that I think is good is that the Government have genuinely recognised many of the issues which those of us practising in the tourist industry have been trying to bring before government for a great many years. For example, in paragraph 2.3 on page 14, there is a very good analysis of the role of government in marketing support. I like the concept that is used. I believe it is called "market failure". There is an understanding of what needs to be done in licensing, a point to which the noble Viscount referred. My noble friend referred to seaside resorts. At least the issues have been recognised in the document. Agricultural tourism, to which the noble Baroness referred and to which I referred in the debate on the countryside last Wednesday, is also mentioned. So there is much in the document that I welcome. I certainly welcome the fact that we have a strategy at all.
I have one question and three criticisms. The question regards money. A long paragraph on page 15 states that,
"the Government will provide an extra £5 million to the BTA over the next three years".
The following paragraph states that the BTA,
"will focus its activity on 27 priority markets, releasing a further £5 million".
Is that the same £5 million or is it a total of £10 million? Equally, the London Tourist Board is said (on page 24) to be getting £1.5 million over three years. Does that mean that the total is up to £14.5 million of new money; or is it old money that has been switched around? I should welcome the Minister's comment.
I now turn to my three criticisms. My major criticism relates to what is omitted from the strategy. Any strategy not only needs to analyse the problems and set out the course that is to be travelled, but also needs an action plan stating how it is to be done. In relation to a great many of the bullet points in the document I was able to ask: "How will this happen?". The strategy seemed to be very much a diagnosis without a prescription. That is its main weakness.
710
My second criticism relates to the new ETB, whatever it will be. I welcome the fact that there will be a strategic body for England. At the time of the Comprehensive Spending Review it was certainly under threat. I am delighted that a body has been chosen. I am worried about the relationship with the regions and with local areas. I am not sure that it has been thought through. However, I shall defer further comment until the implementation group has reported, when we shall know what is going on.
My third major criticism is an old chestnut for which the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, has been waiting. It relates to devolution. I believe that the Government have got the matter comprehensively wrong. It is a complex subject. I have been in correspondence with the Scottish Office, and have sent copies of the correspondence to the noble Lord, Lord Gordon. I do not have time now to go into it. I believe that making the BTA a cross-Border authority is a recipe for disaster. I shall happily expand on that to anyone outside the Chamber when I have more time.
I wrote an article which appeared on 11th March in the Caterer&Hotelkeeper. It was headlined by the magazine's editors, not by me:
"Tourism paper fails to satisfy—so far"
In that article I said that I very much wished that I could have given three cheers to the Government—I wanted to do that, but felt that I could give only one. Having re-read the document now that I have had more time, I can certainly go to one-and-a-half cheers. I may, with a little persuasion, raise that figure. I congratulate the Government on having produced a strategy. However, I hope that we shall now go on to complete the job with an action plan.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, if the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, went at a canter, I shall go at a gallop.
I thank my noble friend Lady Anelay for introducing this excellent debate on a subject that we often discuss in this House. We do so because tourism is a vitally important part of our economy. Also, it is exceedingly diverse and complex, as my noble friend said.
It seems a pity that the Government find it necessary to tinker with the various bodies administering the industry. The English Tourist Board was abolished (nearly) and now it is being resuscitated—but what for? All its power to publicise England has been taken away and given to a new tourist authority with no name, no remit, no agreed budget, and no chairman. This flagship for English tourism will not be able to advise customers or the press on its own subject. Who or what will be responsible for these extremely important matters? No doubt the Minister will tell us.
With regard to the ETB, is it not bizarre that England is the only developed country whose own tourist board does not promote its own country?
The Government are spending between £9.7 million and £10 million on promoting tourism to England through the BTA—less than the amount that was spent on refurbishing the House of Commons kitchens last

711
year! However, there are new strings attached to the government funding of BTA. And what services do the Government expect the BTA to provide in the various British Council and British Embassy offices to which it is having to move in certain countries? Who will be accountable for that? What will be the role of the Foreign Office?
Why is so little mention made of transport in Tomorrow's Tourism? Only on pages 76 and 77 of Annexe 4 is an attempt made to discuss the matter. The tone is that he or she who drives a car is hardly acceptable. I quote:
"Make public transport part of the cultural experience—Publicise broadly the negative impacts of the car".
Surely many, many tourists visit this country by car, or hire a car. Many of those living in these islands like to go on holiday by car. Are they to be discouraged from going unless they travel by bus, train or bicycle? How absurd!
However, I welcome the proposed combined hotel and restaurant grading scheme. It has long been needed and I wish it well.
The British Tourist Authority is doing an excellent job in promoting Britain abroad. I am delighted to see that this is highlighted thus on page 15 of Tomorrow's Tourism:
"BTA has rightly won much praise for its work over recent years to improve the overseas marketing of Britain".
My noble friend Lady Anelay and I were able to see at first hand its fruitful and increasing co-operation with the British Council in Paris on our visit there last week.
BTA achieves a return of £27 for every £1 of public money spent on marketing Britain abroad and will shortly top £30 for every £1. One reason that BTA is so successful in promoting Britain is its concentration on our island's history, tradition and culture. I am not one who thinks that the so-called modern culture activities inspire visitors. Our history is unique; let us be as proud of it as we should be.
Then there is the Dome. Love it or hate it, it is fast becoming an icon known round the world. It must be an integral part of the marketing strategy to promote London, England and Britain as the tourist destination for the year 2000. I am delighted that BTA will be liaising closely with NMEC on this subject.
Nothing is said in Tomorrow's Tourism about the River Thames and how it fits in with next year's activities. New vessels are being launched, which will provide one way of getting from Westminster to the Dome. Sadly, other great ideas about the use of the Dome have become rather small-scale. However, I hope that these new boats will attract many tourists to spend at least part of their time in London on our splendid river.
I have spent part of today in Greenwich learning about some of the new developments which it is hoped will make that an even more attractive part of the world. There is not only the Dome; the National Maritime Museum is having some new extensions, which are nearly complete, and Woolwich Arsenal is scheduled to
712
be developed in a few years' time as a "cultural village", and I believe that that will make a great deal of difference.
It has been an excellent debate and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. Perhaps I may make one comment about the speech of my noble friend Lord Rowallan to back up what he said about the brown signs on motorways. I would ask that those who are responsible for designing these signs should take a trip from Calais to Rheims on the new motorway. There the brown signs actually represent what one can see if one looks at the particular town or item which is advertised. In England the signs are very graphic but bear no resemblance to what they are drawing attention to.
9.17 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before I forget, I must respond to the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Luke. These graphic signs are all over France. My favourite one, which is in Burgundy, says, "Buses rapaces". It was a long time before I got to a dictionary to discover that buses referred to vultures. For years I could not understand what the sign was about.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for making this debate possible and for doing it at such an appropriate time when we have just published our tourism strategy. I am sorry that she did not like the launch and that she and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, would have wished it to be a parliamentary launch. It was not that kind of occasion, because it was not an occasion when government were talking to Parliament about what government were going to do. This was a collaborative effort between government—all government, not just the Department for Culture, but other departments, too—and the whole of the tourist industry. It sounds as though the noble Baroness was not invited to the launch at Glaziers' Hall. If that is the case, I am deeply sorry. Perhaps she would have felt compromised if she had been invited. She should have been invited, I think. If she had attended that occasion she would have found that, apart from a speech by Chris Smith and another by Janet Anderson, there were many 10-minute speeches, almost all of them from the tourist industry itself. That was the significance of the launch: it was the whole of the tourist industry presenting this strategy, not just the Government. I believe that such an occasion is better than the rushed kind of debate that we have on a Statement to Parliament, with merely 20 minutes for Back-Bench questions. However, we have learnt a lesson from what the noble Baroness said.
Our production of Tomorrow's Tourism was, though everybody hates the phrase, an example of joined-up government. It was across all government departments, with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport taking the lead in promoting tourism's interests within government and maximising the involvement of the industry in policy initiatives across government. It contains a very substantial list of initiatives: to promote and improve career opportunities in the tourism industry, to which my noble friend Lord Gordon referred; to increase access to tourism for those on low incomes, families, the elderly and the disabled; and to open up new markets as a whole. I appreciate the

713
surprise of my noble friend Lord Gordon that 40 per cent. of people in this country have not taken a holiday of more than three days.
Clearly, we must open up new markets both for those who need holidays and those who could afford to pay for holidays in Britain but do not do so at the moment. That means that another part of the strategy is to provide better information about tourism. Another element is the provision of sustainable development of tourism; in other words, not to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs; namely, our art and culture, which were spoken to by the noble Lords, Lord Selkirk and Lord Freyberg, and our history, which was spoken to quite rightly by the noble Lord, Lord Luke. Another initiative is to develop and promote quality tourism experiences—I shall return to the grading of accommodation in a minute—and provide a new and improved support structure for tourism in England.
A number of contributors, beginning with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, complained that there were gaps in the strategy. I must say that she is wrong about that. There is a substantial section from pages 56 to 58 on transport. It is not just about transport information but is concerned with transport improvements. There is also a substantial section on planning from pages 58 to 59, to which I shall return in a moment. There is also coverage of licensing to which the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, referred. I shall also return to that matter. Before I leave the coverage of the strategy I should point out to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that the £5 million additional funding of BTA is in addition to the £5 million that is to be expected from the refocusing of its activities.
I said at the outset that this is the most comprehensive, far-reaching tourism strategy ever produced by government. But it is not just produced by government. We expanded the Tourism Forum so that with 57 members it would be truly representative of all sectors of tourism, not just the industry itself but those representing the interests of consumers, people with disabilities and special needs and the environment. We had two quite elaborate formal public consultation exercises on sustainable tourism and future support structures. The working groups of the Tourism Forum were those who reported back at the launch at Glaziers' Hall on 26th February.
Many noble Lords have quite properly been interested in support structures and funding. One of the implications of having a strategy is that all government departments must take account of tourism and the tourism industry when formulating their policies and programmes. We intend to maximise the return from increased government funding for the overseas promotion of tourism. The British Tourist Authority will now focus its activity on key markets to release extra money for pro-active marketing and investment. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Luke, that as to joint premises for BTA and the British Council there are a number of countries involved but the separate premises for BTA cover countries that provide 88 per cent. of tourists who come to this country. There is a memorandum of understanding between the BTA and
714
the British Council. Foreign Office funding for the British Council is intended specifically to include funding for the promotion of British culture abroad.
As regards the structures in this country, we intend to create a more effective, leaner national body for tourism in England to focus on the national strategic framework rather than the provision of direct services.
I disagree with those noble Lords who expressed disagreement with the new division of responsibilities between the national body for England and the regional tourist boards. Regional tourist boards are different: they are largely run by the tourist industry itself with the collaboration of local authorities, which are responsible on the ground. Those are independent companies; they are companies limited by guarantee. They know what is happening in their own areas; and that part of the responsibilities of the English Tourist Board is properly on a regional basis, with people who know what they are talking about on a regional basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, referred to the Lake District. Although the location of the Cumbria Tourist Board in relation to regional development agencies is not resolved, it is determined to maintain its independence. As I said, those boards include the important participation of local authorities, which between them contribute £75 million a year to promote tourism.
It is regrettable that we have not been able to announce the full details of the national body for tourism in England. However, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that it will have what she calls an England mark. It will be a national body. It will have the strategic responsibilities which we have described; and it will be an effective resource complementary to the regional tourist boards. I can assure the noble Lords, Lord Selkirk and Lord Rowallan, that arrangements for the Scottish Tourist Board and the Wales Tourist Board to work with the BTA are well established.
I wish to say a word about improving quality. Very properly, there has been reference to the grading system to be introduced by the end of this year. Let me acknowledge to the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, that Scotland is ahead of us in that respect. However, the fact that the AA, the RAC and the English Tourist Board have been able to join together in a common grading system for England is a considerable advance and one which I think will be widely welcomed in the tourist industry.
Throughout our strategy document, Tomorrow's Tourism, there are many examples with case studies showing how businesses and destinations have prospered by diversifying or developing into niche markets. There is much to be learned from those examples.
Let me assure the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, that there is no intention to have a tourist tax. There is no intention to have a bed tax in Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, referred to taxation of tourism. We have taxation, VAT, on accommodation. But, on the other hand, we do not have many of the tourist taxes, the bed

715
taxes, which exist in other countries. I think that our debate on a previous occasion demonstrated that we are still competitive.
On the points which noble Lords said were omitted from the document, let me first refer to transport. The most conspicuous item in the transport pages relates to an integrated public transport information system. It may sound trivial but I do not think that it is. In the document, we talk about guidance on best practice to help tourist and leisure site managers to produce green transport plans. We talk about the necessity for the upgrading of transport infrastructure, park-and-ride schemes and integrated ticketing schemes. There is a great deal of valuable thinking on the transport element of tourism.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said that planning had been omitted. In June last year, we published guidance for planning officers and developers called Planning for Tourism and we are now working on planning policy guidance to facilitate leisure and tourism development.
As regards liquor licensing laws, again, I must write to the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery. I appreciate his passion for a simplification, even an abolition, of our licensing laws, and many people share his view. However, the issue is complicated and many vested
716
interests are involved. He and I will have to be patient a little longer, and I know that neither of us is happy about that.
I turn to seaside resorts. It is true that the duty was raised on amusement machine arcades, but it was the first increase for four years. It is not that much compared with the benefits from deregulation on the number of machines allowed, the maximum price per play and the maximum jackpot prize. Perhaps more significant is the fact that within the single regeneration budget round there were 44 bids from seaside towns this year. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will make a decision in June based on social exclusion generally rather than on manufacturing, as had been suggested. From what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said about Blackpool. it sounds as though there could be a considerable degree of social exclusion there as well as in other seaside towns.
Many noble Lords referred to Scotland. I have difficulty in answering the questions, bearing in mind the fact that later this year the matter will be devolved. However, I can assure noble Lords that there is a proper relationship between the BTA and the Scottish Tourist Board. For example, the Ossian website will be available on the BTA website.
This is not the end of the process; it is the beginning of a continuing process. An annual tourism summit will be in operation and Tomorrow's Tourism will remain the basis of our agenda for years to come.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before ten o'clock.