Lords Sitting of 18 May 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 Carlisle.
Lord Saint Oswald—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Beef on the Bone: Responsibility of Welsh Assembly
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why, having voted on, and won a Division on the question of the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly for policy on beef on the bone, they did not inform the House of the subsequent change to this policy.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the Government decided that it was most appropriate for the Assembly to have these functions outright. Your Lordships approved the draft order, including these functions, on 3rd March without a Division.
The result of the Division to which the noble Earl refers was that the transfer order did not have to include these powers. It did not preclude their inclusion should the Government decide to bring forward such proposals and should Parliament agree to them.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, is it not a discourtesy to this House that this Chamber was not told of the change of government policy, bearing in mind the fact that there had been a Division on this very issue? Indeed, when introducing the transfer order, did the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, know that there had been such a dramatic change of policy? Further, why was there no apology from the Government when the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, replied to the Private Notice Question? Are we not being treated shamefully?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I trust that the House will forgive me if I go into a little detail to explain that there was no discourtesy and no shameful treatment. I made the response on 2nd June 1998, which was correct. On 31st July last the Act received Royal Assent. On 12th November of last year—quite a long time ago—the transfer order was issued in draft for public consultation. Far from the House being kept in the dark, copies were placed in the Printed Paper Office and in the Libraries of both Houses. Moreover, it was and is available on the Internet. Indeed, we went further. We sent copies to, among others, the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Conwy, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Dixon-Smith, who had taken a prominent part in the debates.
142
We put the matter out for consultation and received no responses of any substance. The end of the consultation period came on 22nd January. On 16th February the order was laid before both Houses and, on 24th February, my right honourable friend Alun Michael told Mr. Nigel Evans that the powers of the Food Safety Act would transfer to the Assembly. On 3rd March, we had a short debate here when the draft order was approved. If one looks at the draft order, one can see that in fact the powers went to the Welsh Assembly.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, in Scotland the Liberal Democrats have surrendered a firm election commitment on tuition fees. Have they done the same somersault on beef on the bone in order to maintain their ministerial position in the Labour Government?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not know what the Liberal Democrats are doing; perhaps they do. Whatever happens in the Welsh Assembly as a necessary and proper consequence of the devolution legislation passed by this House as well as another place, those matters are for the Welsh Assembly.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, now that scientists have declared that the disease in question has nothing to do with the animals and that all the slaughter policy was a waste of time, will the Government be reconsidering their position?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Government constantly keep that policy under review.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I return to the original Question. Does the Minister accept that there was a need for this House to be informed after the Secretary of State for Wales had announced the change of policy on 24th February, in reply to an intervention by Mr. Nigel Evans? I believe that he should also accept that there was a clear opportunity to do so on 3rd March when the transfer order was presented to this House by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. However, there was no specific mention at that time of this particular transfer, which had been the subject of a vote in 1998. I am not accusing the Government of suppressing the truth, but I am charging them with a certain lack of dedication to transparency, which should be practised as well as preached.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the reason I took a little time to explain matters, as I thought it appropriate to do, was to point out—which I do again—that we sent the draft transfer order to the noble Lord himself. One has only to read it to see the consequence. Indeed, the matter was debated and my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey outlined the way in which the order worked. He said,
"It might assist your Lordships if I outlined how the order works. For the most part, the transfer is straightforward. Where the Secretary of State is able to exercise a function now, the Assembly will be able to do so in the future … In many cases legislation requires the Secretary of State to act jointly with his right honorable friends in exercising functions … We do not believe that the Assembly should generally be bound in this way"—[Official Report, 3/3/99; col. 1776.]

143
If one reads the order and pays attention to what my noble friend said, there is no obscurity at all. I repeat that we put out the draft order for consultation, we placed it in the Library and we sent a copy to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, are we being rash in Cardiff, or are we being over-cautious in London?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, they are not being rash in Cardiff and we are not being over-cautious in London. They are putting their minds to the issue as they are entitled to do. Similarly we put our minds to matters in London and elsewhere in the United Kingdom which are not devolved.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that on 2nd June when this matter was debated he said that the matter of beef on the bone would not be transferred for five years and possibly not for 30 years?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I did not say that. I said that it would not be transferred at that time and that was government policy. Thereafter the order was put out for full consultation which included both the farming unions in Wales, which I have not mentioned. I repeat that we sent out the draft order to interested Peers. I do not think one can be more open than that.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, is it not the case that under the devolution of powers to the Welsh Assembly butchers or caterers will be legally able to sell beef on the bone in Wales and probably in Scotland but will commit a criminal offence if they do so in England? Is that not completely absurd?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as far as I am aware, neither the Assembly in Cardiff nor the Parliament in Scotland has come to any conclusion on the matter. The noble Lord may know more about that matter than I.

Ministers: Income Tax and Benefits
2.45 p.m.
Lord Saatchi Lord Saatchi asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether Ministers are among those who pay income tax to the Government and receive benefits from the Government, and what they are doing to eliminate this overlap.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the noble Lord will understand, I am not in a position to comment on the particular tax or benefit circumstances of individuals. But Ministers who draw salaries are liable to pay tax on them. Some Ministers will also receive universal benefits such as child benefit.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I have come directly from a debate organised by the Centre for Policy Studies
144
where some of our most distinguished economists and academics have been studying the subject of my Question which is to consider the massive overlap between tax and benefit payments. Under the present system the Government collect between £30 billion and £40 billion in income tax and national insurance contributions from around 17 million households whose incomes are less than £20,000 a year. The purpose of my question is to ask Ministers whether they believe it is bizarre that the Government first tax people on low incomes—I believe there are 14 million people who earn less than £10,000 a year but who still pay tax—and then, having so taxed them to reduce their income, they satisfy themselves by means testing that income that those people are in need—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Saatchi: The Government then provide those people with a range of benefits to restore their income back to the level it was at before they paid the tax. Do the Government agree that that is an absurd system?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, unlike my noble friends I detected a question in there! I do not accept that the position is absurd or bizarre. For a number of years taxation has been levied generally on an individual basis. Benefits are quite properly awarded according to family circumstances. Under those circumstances it would be quite impossible to have a streamlined system which brought the two together, much as that may seem desirable to the tidy minds of the Centre for Policy Studies.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does the Minister agree that even now the Government are increasing the expensive recirculation of money paid by taxpayers and then paid back to them in benefit? Do the Government accept that the working families' tax credit legislation will return a taxpayer's money even if he has in certain circumstances an income of £37 a year? Money will be returned to him in the form of tax credit. Is that really a cost-effective way of developing the national insurance and taxation system? I believe that the figures have been agreed by the Minister's noble friend Lady Hollis during the passage of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on the contrary, many government policies serve to reduce the amount of money that passes backwards and forwards. As regards the Tax Credits Bill steps have been taken to cancel out the passage to and from the Inland Revenue and the taxpayer. Indeed the Conservative Opposition have tabled amendments which would increase the amount of money passing to and fro rather than the "netting out" principle which has been adopted in the Tax Credits Bill. Therefore the noble Baroness is 100 per cent wrong.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, has the Minister read the report, The War of Independence, to which the Question of my noble friend Lord Saatchi

145
relates? Is he aware that that report does much to demolish the wisdom of the position that he put forward in his reply to my noble friend?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is a very long report. I have read what I can. We did not find the conclusions at all convincing. The comparisons made between the 1950s and the 1990s seem to be unclear and unrealistic. In effect they could damage those who need help the most. If the noble Lord's party is of the opinion—I invite the Opposition Front Bench to confirm whether or not it is the case—that we should no longer have taxation taken from individuals and no longer have benefits directed to families in need, they should say so. They have not yet done so.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, on the point made by the noble Lord a moment or two ago—we can return to the broader issues that have just been raised later in the day perhaps on the Tax Credits Bill—is it not the case that the Government are extending social security benefits—namely, the working families' tax credit—to people with incomes of more than £35,000 a year, while at the same time they are reducing people's benefits on the ground that they have capital of only £6,000 a year? Is not that combination quite absurd?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Pearson of Rannoch, should note that his Front Bench disowns the proposition that he put forward. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, no, that is not the case. What was previously a benefit is now being included in the tax system. The purpose of that is to encourage people into work. I believe that the vast majority of people in this country will believe that that is a worthy objective.

Smoke Detectors
2.52 p.m.
Lord Methuen Lord Methuen asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce legislation to make it compulsory to fit smoke detectors in all residential properties.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, guidance on fire safety measures that will tend to show compliance with the building regulations in England and Wales is given in Approved Document B (fire safety). This guidance was changed in 1992 so that the installation of mains operated smoke alarms would become a standard feature in all new dwellings. There are no plans to require smoke detectors to be fitted in existing dwellings. The installation of smoke alarms in other residential properties such as houses in multiple occupation and institutional buildings can be required under other legislation or guidance. However, the approved
146
document is under review and one of the proposals is to increase the scope for the installation of smoke alarms to include other new residential buildings.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware that such legislation requiring the installation of smoke detectors in residential properties new or old is already in being in the state of Victoria in Australia? Can he also indicate the estimated number of lives that might be saved if detectors were required to be installed in all property?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was not directly aware of the precise legislation in Victoria. We give guidance that requires all new dwellings to include smoke detectors. Approximately 75 per cent of all households now have some form of smoke detector. The total number of deaths in dwellings in this country is approximately 600. One could make a rough estimate of how many lives would be saved by the installation of smoke detectors. It would not be a large number, but every life is worth saving. The government guidance through the Home Office and other authorities is that everyone should fit some form of smoke detector in their homes.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, would not an obligation to install smoke detectors in existing buildings mean that very often battery-operated smoke detectors would be fitted? As batteries run out and people do not replace them, such smoke detectors could very often give a false sense of security. People who voluntarily install smoke detectors are interested enough to maintain their batteries.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in certain circumstances there could be that perverse effect. The guidance, therefore, does not require the mandatory fitting of perhaps inadequate smoke detectors or battery-operated smoke detectors in all dwellings. Nevertheless, any form of operational smoke detector has some benefit. We would therefore advise that in most circumstances one should be fitted.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that sometimes smoke detectors are so sensitive that they are likely to be set off at the slightest amount of smoke emerging from cookers and domestic appliances, creating many false alarms and thereby being counter-productive? Does he not further agree that sometimes heat detectors rather than smoke detectors are more efficient?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I see several noble Lords nodding. Obviously their smoking or cooking habits have set off alarms in the past. I would contend that it is better to have the odd false alarm than no smoke detection system at all. As to heat detectors, they tend to be used with sprinkler systems and other forms of control. They are considerably more expensive. Generally speaking an operational smoke detector will give an early indication of any fire hazard.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, is value added tax payable on the price of a smoke detector? Does

147
the Minister not agree that if smoke detectors were zero rated more householders would be likely to purchase them and install them in their houses?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have a feeling that the noble Earl has better information on this matter than myself. It is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look at the total taxation system. Clearly a lower price would induce more people to install them. Whether that should affect our tax policy as a whole I am not at all sure. I shall write to the noble Earl to confirm what I believe to be the case.
Lord Elton: My Lords, would the Minister not entirely dismiss battery-operated smoke detectors? In my experience they have a useful but exceedingly annoying habit of issuing shrill shrieks which one cannot trace for about a fortnight before the battery gives out. It means that one never fails to replace it a second time.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I hope I have said nothing to undermine the value of battery-operated smoke detectors. Clearly in new buildings we are looking to mains-operated smoke detectors in general. I, too, have had a similar experience of not being able to detect where noise was coming from. As the noble Lord has said, having had such an experience one does not make the same mistake a second time. The kind of detectors which indicate when the battery is running out or when they have been triggered are of some benefit.
Lord Renton: My Lords, could smoke detectors be persuaded to detect tobacco smoke? Does the Minister agree that if they did so they would save many more lives?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is looking for a very sophisticated piece of equipment. He and other noble Lords will know the Government's general advice on smoking. Whether noble Lords follow it is unlikely to be affected by the existence of smoke detectors.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, do smoke detectors have to be installed in residential accommodation for the elderly? How is that matter policed?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it depends on what type of accommodation the noble Lord means. In general, all new buildings and dwellings have to be fitted with smoke detectors. One of our discussions about extension relates to hostel accommodation, hotels and bed and breakfast accommodation, some of which escape the present regulations.

Yugoslavia: NATO Bombing and Geneva Conventions
2.59 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia is in breach of the Geneva Conventions Act 1995.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, action by our forces is in strict conformity with international humanitarian law, including the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their additional Protocols of 1977. It is therefore also in strict conformity with the Geneva Conventions Act which implements these treaties.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the Minister knows that I am among the most devoted in the serried ranks of her admirers. But on this occasion she seems to have stuck too closely to her brief. Is not the whole operation contrary to what is laid down in the convention, and particularly in Articles 51 and 52? If my noble friend will refresh her mind by examining those articles, I think that she will find that we are certainly in breach of them. If she still disagrees, will she tell the House which court can determine whether I am right or whether the Government are right? How can that court be approached, and by whom? Did not Winston Churchill say: "Jaw, jaw is better than war, war"?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope I always stick faithfully to my brief. I know that the noble Lord feels very strongly about this issue. He was kind enough to give me a copy of the protocols to the convention and indicate how the bombing might not be in compliance. I have been able to assure the noble Lord that, so far as our actions are concerned, Her Majesty's Government believe that we are in compliance.
Action is presently being taken in the ICJ on some points that have been raised by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I do not believe that any of our actions will be found to be wanting in terms of the Geneva Conventions. However, I suggest that if the noble Lord is worried he should look at some of the information that is presently coming from the ICJ.
The Earl of Drogheda: My Lords, what has the bombing achieved so far? Does the Minister agree that those people whom it was designed to help have suffered far more from the results of it, and that they could be excused for praying that God protect them from their friends?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, yes, I can tell the noble Earl what the bombing has achieved so far. We are pinning down the Serb forces and hence reducing their ability to conduct ethnic cleansing. Of course they continue with the ethnic cleansing, but it is the opinion of Hashim Thaqi, who is

149
the political spokesman for the KLA that the current bombing is keeping the Serb forces divided; that it prevents them re-grouping; and that without NATO bombing the situation in Kosovo would be even worse. He says that if the bombing stops now, the situation would simply be back to square one.
We have indeed destroyed a great deal of Milosevic's artillery. We have struck eight brigade command posts; we have destroyed two-thirds of the most modern MiG 29 aircraft, and around 100 aircraft in all; we have struck 432 tanks, artillery pieces, and armoured personal carriers. I have an enormous list, including 50 per cent of the ammunition storage in Kosovo and 60 per cent of the production facilities for Serb ammunition. So in military terms there is no doubt that the bombing is achieving an end. I would also point out to the noble Lord that the fact that Serb forces on the ground have to spend a good deal of their time hiding prevents them from fighting.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords does the Minister accept that there is a deadline by which NATO must reach a conclusion in its process of updating planning for all contingencies if ground troops are to be committed in order to ensure that Kosovar Albanian refugees can return to their homes before winter? In the light of that, will the Minister say what the Foreign Secretary's objectives will be when he travels to the United States this week?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, talking about deadlines at the moment puts us in the position of revealing rather more about our planning and thinking on this issue than is sensible in terms of what we communicate to Mr. Milosevic himself. The very concept of talking about having to decide matters by a certain time is a foolish thing to do in terms of military planning. It may be all very well for us to talk privately to each other, but what I communicate in this House is of course communicated to a much wider audience.
In visiting Washington, my right honourable friend will be talking to his opposite numbers there about planning. He was at the GAC yesterday, when he saw a number of our interlocutors. The G8 political planners will meet again tomorrow to take forward some of the thinking that was done in Bonn. So my right honourable friend will have the opportunity to discuss what happened at the G8 meeting with the Americans. I hope that he will also have the opportunity of putting Her Majesty's Government's thinking on this matter very clearly, not only to interlocutors but also to the American people.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, are the Serbs able to re-equip their forces that we have destroyed and damaged? If so, from where are they equipping them? What diplomatic or other measures are we taking to prevent that?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am unable to say whether there is a trickle of equipment that is possibly getting through to the Serbs. I would point out that we have already destroyed an
150
enormous amount of Serb hardware. In addition to the list I have mentioned, we have destroyed major oil refineries; 70 per cent of military oil stocks; and 30 per cent of fuel storage. A good deal of the NATO activity is devoted to ensuring that lines of supply to the Serb forces are cut down. That is why a great deal of the targeting has been on bridges and main roads. In that way it is hoped to cut off any sources of supply that Milosevic might want in order to replace what he has already lost through NATO bombing.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House which court may be approached to determine the difference in the interpretation of the convention that has arisen; who may approach it; and how?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hoped that I had indicated to the noble Lord that the appropriate way, if such a case were to be pursued, would be through the International Court of Justice. Indeed the FRY is presently pursuing a case at the International Court of Justice against NATO states.
I know that the noble Lord feels passionately about this matter. However, he must also ask himself about the appalling actions against humanity that have been taken by Milosevic's forces. He seems to want to concentrate only on the things that might have gone wrong in terms of NATO bombing. I have in front of me an appalling and sickening document. It is a chronology of the atrocities committed in Kosovo by Serbian forces. It is almost unbearable to read. I shall see whether I am able to release it to the noble Lord. I hope that he will study it as carefully as I have studied the protocol that he sent me.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order! Sit down.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, 30 minutes has elapsed. That is the time set aside for oral Questions.

Business
3.8 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I wonder whether this is a convenient moment for me to ask the Government whether they can enlighten the House on how they see future progress on the House of Lords Bill. It is a unique Bill in that the major part of it is the result of a formal agreement between three parties: the Government, the Opposition and three Members of these Benches, not representing Members on these Benches—my noble friend, Lord Weatherill, my noble friend Lord Carnarvon and myself.
In return for the Weatherill amendment, it was formally agreed that the Bill would enjoy a normal progress through the House. Many of us believe that that side of the bargain is at least possibly at risk. Certainly after last night's performance the House as a whole is entitled to know whether the Government at this stage are confident

151
that the Bill will progress normally, or whether other steps should be taken to ensure and preserve stage one in order that we may sensibly proceed to stage two.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, last night those of your Lordships who wanted to get on with working on the House of Lords Bill were prevented by busloads of hereditaries, who at a quarter-past 11 made a majority to close down the Committee. That was high-order profligacy with parliamentary time. By that behaviour they are at risk of testing the patience of the country and the Government to destruction.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that he does not do himself or his office great credit when he speaks in those terms? He says that "busloads" of Peers were brought in. That is not so. There were nine votes more from this side of the Committee than there were on the other side. The only trouble is that the other side did not bus in 10 more people than it did. It does no credit to the office that the noble and learned Lord holds when he speaks in those terms.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I reject every word of that. What we saw last night was a "go slow" by hereditaries, very many of whom were not even actively participating in our debates. That was self-indulgence of a high order. They compelled those who wanted to work to down tools when they themselves had come in not to work but to close down a House of Parliament.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I wonder if I could put a question to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, as to his—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in that case I wonder whether I may put a question to whoever it is appropriate to put a question to about the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, when he says that this great bargain was struck between the Government, the Opposition and three leading Cross-Bench Peers. It must be clear that a number of Cross-Benchers did not participate in that secret deal, and as far as I am aware the Opposition certainly never participated in it.
We had a very interesting debate on other things yesterday, including a very sensible alternative to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. I have to put it to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that his premise is simply inaccurate.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, since my name has been mentioned directly, I crave the indulgence of the House to make one simple point. If there is no agreement, perhaps someone will say so and we can reassess our way of dealing with the Bill.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am intrigued by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. I understood
152
that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House had not given permission for a Private Notice Question, so that is not what it is and therefore I suppose it is entirely in order for the noble Lord to respond.
I was rather hoping that today we would get away from the churlishness of last night. It is not an attitude which sits well on this House. What happened last night was a very unusual circumstance. There was a breakdown in the arrangements which best serve this House, the arrangements that work through the usual channels. The usual channels have worked consistently well, in good times and in bad, over a considerable number of years. It must be infinitely preferable for us to return to that happy state. But we on this side of the House, and those in other parts of the House, who do not support the intentions of the House of Lords Bill cannot be blackmailed with threats that are issued from time to time from the party of government.
My noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip had made it plain that we did not feel that it was right for a Bill of this importance to be taken into the small hours of the night. He offered that we should try to complete the business in another hour, and if that was not possible that we should complete it today. He further said that he would do everything he possibly could, short of a total guarantee, to ensure that all the business that the Government wanted between now and the Recess would be honoured.
That was not acceptable, and a vote ensued. As my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, there was only a nine vote difference between our side and the government side, which must be particularly galling to the government side.
What is also particularly surprising about this issue—
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Strathclyde: In a moment, when I have finished this point.
I was saying that what is also particularly surprising is that within a few hours of the House adjourning the Government themselves were planning to adjourn another place under very different circumstances and to muck up their own business. This is a very odd state of affairs.
I say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who has achieved a great statesmanlike attitude towards the Bill, that we should revert to that state, because it is one which best serves the interests of the House.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may make one point simply and shortly for the record and in order not to raise the temperature.
We are speaking of a five-clause Bill, with a single schedule. It is admittedly of considerable constitutional importance. Let us consider the extent of the debate that we have had on the issues thus far: one day on the Queen's Speech, two days on the White Paper, two days on Second Reading and six-and-a-half days on the Committee stage, including today. The Government have been very reasonable, but I have to say that there must come an end to all debate.
Lord Carter: My Lords, this is extremely important. I ask the noble Lord the Leader on the Opposition to make

153
one thing absolutely clear. I thought that I had been given, and that the House had been given, by the Opposition Chief Whip in the Chamber last night a guarantee that the business that I need before Whitsun would be reached. That was confirmed by the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip outside the Chamber. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has just appeared to imply that there was something less than a total guarantee. Is he reneging on an agreement that was made by his colleague?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, no. The noble Lord misunderstood me. I said that it fell mildly short of a guarantee, but what I am trying to say is that we would do everything we possibly could as the Official Opposition to make sure that the Government's business was produced.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I think your Lordships should rise a little above this detail, which can he exchanged between the two sides for an infinite time. Everybody who was here yesterday knows that it was a wasted day. And everybody who was here knows precisely what happened at 11 o'clock. This was very familiar; it is House of Commons politics brought into your Lordships' House.
The point of substance is as follows, and I hope that I shall be forgiven if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already indirectly faced it. As the House knows, we on these Benches were at no time party to the negotiations which led to the Weatherill amendment. As the House also knows, we are against it in principle and we have been against it in detail.
But the realistic fact is that if the deal, however unacceptable to these Benches it may have been, got the business through, then there was an argument that it was worth doing. Plainly, on yesterday's experience it is not getting the business through. In those circumstances, although I would expect no reply from the Government today, I hope that they will consider between now and next Tuesday whether, when the time comes to consider in the House the question whether the clause should stand part, next Tuesday is the time to say "Enough is enough and the Weatherill amendment should stand no longer".

HFC Bank Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill
3.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Before turning to the main provisions of the Bill, I should like to outline why the Government are bringing forward this measure. The debates in the other place highlighted the sensitivities surrounding the Bill and the Government recognise fully that there are
154
concerns about some of its provisions. But there was total empathy with the families of the victims who have become known as "disappeared" arid this Bill is designed to help those families. Its sole purpose is to bring to an end the suffering they have endured for far too long. They simply want to know what has happened to their loved ones and to give them a decent burial.
This is a short Bill and it is designed to help a small number of families in Northern Ireland. It is right that we should concentrate our minds on those families, but I believe that the Bill has a wider importance. It is indicative of the numerous measures under way to help the victims of violence in Northern Ireland. Indeed, one aspect of the Belfast agreement is a recognition of the need to acknowledge and address the suffering of victims as essential to the process of reconciliation.
I suggest that the Bill is also indicative of the best traditions of this House and the other place as it shows our willingness to take compassionate steps to help a small minority of people when an overwhelming humanitarian issue comes before us.
We should not forget that we are talking about horrendous murders which in some cases took place as long as 30 years ago. As my right honourable friend the Minister of State said in the other place, the people listed in the IRA statement had not been charged with any crime, were not given the right to a fair trial and were probably beaten and tortured before they were killed. In short, they were denied their fundamental human rights.
I recognise that there are concerns that the Bill may never result in information about the disappeared coming forward, because there is no guarantee that those with the information will avail themselves of this opportunity.
The Government have received no guarantees and I can give none to your Lordships' House. But the Government, in bringing forward this Bill, are paving the way for information to be provided and the remains of the victims located. We are prepared to take the risk that it will come to nothing. The Bill is right in principle and it is for others to act on it and to meet their pledges to the nine families of the disappeared which appeared on the IRA list.
I also take this opportunity to call for those with information about the remaining victims to come forward. We should not forget in examining this Bill that there are families who still await news of their loved ones and I can assure them and your Lordships that the Bill is designed with all those victims in mind—not just the nine.
Before turning to the provisions of the Bill, I should just say that there are a number of things that the Bill does not do. It is not appeasement; it is not an amnesty; and it is not an immunity. It is none of those things.
The central core of the Bill is to facilitate the provision of information to an independent commission. The commission will be established by an agreement signed by the Government and the Government of Ireland on 27th April.

155
The Bill makes further provision about the commission and its commencement. The commission's function will be to facilitate the location of the remains of persons who were killed before the date of the Belfast agreement, on 10th April 1998, as a result of an unlawful act of violence committed on behalf of, or in connection with, a proscribed organisation; that is, a terrorist organisation.
The Bill then contains three provisions to ensure that information does indeed come forward. The starting point is that no one giving information to the commission should be disadvantaged by doing so.
The first of these provisions appears in Clause 3 and it ensures that information given to the commission and anything found as a result will be inadmissible in criminal proceedings.
The second provision, in Clause 4, ensures that forensic testing is not carried out unless it is for the purpose of an inquest or unless it is to establish whether the remains can be moved safely. Your Lordships will notice similarities between Clause 4 and the equivalent provision within the decommissioning legislation.
The third provision appears in Clause 5 and it ensures that the commission is not able to disclose information to persons who have no legitimate interest in finding the location of the remains. It may therefore pass information to the RUC to facilitate the location of the remains. The commission may also tell the families that it has received information and where the remains are thought to be located. That will, of course, require very sensitive handling and there may be families who prefer to have no such contact with the commission, but the Bill provides them and their representatives with an opportunity to engage with the commission if they so wish.
The Bill makes one further provision, in Clause 6, to enable the police to obtain a warrant authorising entry and search of private premises should that be necessary to locate the graves of the victims. On a number of occasions, my right honourable friend the Minister of State has met members of the families and their representatives. Of the families with whom we have had contact, we are not aware that any oppose the legislation.
Some of your Lordships have met some of the families concerned. I hope that your Lordships found that as enlightening as the families did helpful. I do not doubt that your Lordships have the best interests of the families in mind, but I am aware that some concerns have been raised about the Bill and it might be helpful if I try to deal with some of those.
First, the Bill does nothing to prevent a post mortem or an inquest from taking place. In fact, Clause 4(2) is on the face of the Bill to ensure that forensic testing can indeed take place if it is to enable an inquest to reach a view on the identity of a person, or how, when or where he died.
Secondly, I come back to the suggestion that this Bill is designed to appease or give concessions to the IRA. I repeat to your Lordships that the Bill has one sole
156
purpose. It is for the families and it is to ease their suffering. I would just ask any noble Lords who remain concerned to consider the question posed by my right honourable friend the Minister of State: if not by means of this Bill, what suggestion do they have to ensure that the families can give their loved ones a decent burial? I do accept that some of your Lordships have genuine concerns and the Government are acutely aware that this is not an easy, nor a straightforward, issue. It is a delicate balance, but one which I think we have got right.
I referred earlier to the similarities between this Bill and the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. The limited protections provided in Clauses 3 and 4 of this Bill, concerning inadmissibility of evidence and restrictions on forensic testing, are there to ensure that relevant information is forthcoming. Those provisions mirror Sections 5 and 6 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. That Act went further, in Section 4, in providing an amnesty for offences committed in respect of anything done in accordance with the decommissioning scheme. There is of course no equivalent amnesty in this Bill.
Parallels with the War Crimes Act have also been drawn. Those parallels appear to be based on the assumption that the Bill is an amnesty or an immunity from prosecution. That is simply not the case. Evidence found as a result of the giving of information to the commission will be inadmissible in criminal proceedings, but prosecutions can still be brought on the basis of other evidence should it be available.
I also ask noble Lords to remember that the purpose is to ensure that information comes forward. If the inadmissibility provision was not in the Bill, I think it most unlikely that any information about the location of the graves would ever see the light of day. For the families, every day of the past 30 years has been a nightmare. I can also tell your Lordships that, having been given a glimmer of hope by the IRA statement on 29th March, the prospect of waiting further has been almost more than some of them could bear.
I am aware that the timing of the various stages of the Bill has caused some concern. It might be argued that the families have already waited so long that allowing the Bill to proceed in the normal way would not make a difference. But I ask noble Lords to consider the compassionate aim of the Bill. The timetable for consideration by both Houses is in line with that aim. I do, of course, recognise the need for full and proper scrutiny by your Lordships' House and I have no wish to cut across that. I hope that the time available to us today and next week will be sufficient to ensure that noble Lords give their usual careful consideration to the provisions of the Bill. For their part, the Government are doing all that they can to ensure that the commission is operational as soon as possible after the legislation is passed. The Minister of State has convened an inter-agency group to examine every eventuality and to ensure co-ordination between the relevant agencies.

157
I turn now to some concerns about the Bill itself. In another place, there was concern that the Bill did not make explicit provision about what was to be done with information received by the commission. It may be helpful if I outline briefly how the scheme will operate.
We anticipate that the commission will receive information about the location of the remains of the disappeared. That information will be passed to the RUC in the north, and to the Garda in the south, if necessary, to enable the search to begin. Should the RUC be in possession of information, which could be helpful to a defendant in criminal proceedings, it is under the normal duty to bring that fact to the attention of the DPP. Disclosure to the defendant would take its normal course.
There was also concern that the Bill, while enabling a defendant to adduce evidence in criminal proceedings, does not allow the defendant to commission forensic testing in his defence. There are very good reasons for that. The ability to conduct forensic testing may throw up intelligence or information which would be disadvantageous to those giving information to the commission. Allowing forensic testing, other than for the inquest, runs the risk that no information will come forward. Further, there is nothing to prevent a defendant from using the publicly available results of the inquest process to assist his case. That is something that the prosecution will be barred from relying on in the case against him.
Suggestions have also been made about time-limiting the Bill. The aim is to put pressure on those with information about the disappeared to come forward as soon as possible. That is a commendable aim, but the Bill has no time-limiting provisions for very good reasons. First, it is the commission itself which can cease to exist by virtue of an order under Clause 2(6) of the Bill. The remaining provisions of the Bill have to be left in place as it is impossible to say at what point in the future the inadmissibility of provisions and the restrictions on forensic testing might cease to be needed.
Further, the Government intend to let the commission go out of existence after, of course, consultation with the Government of Ireland, as it is a joint international body, if it became clear that no information was likely to come forward. The tragedy is that only nine of the disappeared have been named to date. We urge those with information about the remaining victims to come forward.
The position of their families in unimaginable. As yet they have been given no hope of recovering their loved ones. I should also point out that there is no definitive list of the disappeared. Reports of between 14 and 20 have appeared in the press. The truth is that we do not know for certain. The fact that two of the nine named on 29th March had not been reported missing underpins the need to be flexible about timing. I accept the need to keep the existence of the commission under review, but no provision is needed for that.
Under the agreement with the Irish Government the commission is required to report to the two governments not later than at the end of its first year of operation and annually thereafter. That will be a key indicator of
158
whether further information is expected to be received. The two governments will consider carefully that report in deciding whether the commission should remain operational.
Finally, I come to the issue of assisting the families at a time when they will be making arrangements for the burial of their loved ones. I am very pleased to say that the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund has written to each of the families of the nine individuals whose graves have been identified by the IRA, offering each family a single payment of £4,000, not as compensation, but by way of assistance to them at a time when they will be making arrangements for the burial of their loved ones. This offer will be extended to all the families of the disappeared at such time as the whereabouts of the remains of their loved ones are identified.
The wider compensation issue is horrendously complex. On advice commissioned specifically by my right honourable friend the Minister of State, it is clear that the families would be time-barred from receiving compensation under the statutory compensation scheme. But in that respect they are not in a unique position. Other groups in society are equally outside the scheme for timing reasons. I take, for example, the case of victims of child sex abuse who do not make a claim until their majority. The courts have held that their claims are time-barred. The Minister of State made a very important point when he said that it would be wrong to take a piecemeal approach to an already complex compensation scheme while Sir Kenneth Bloomfield is conducting a review of the scheme and its fitness for purpose.
Before closing, I return to the families. Most of us cannot imagine what they have gone through, and what they will continue to go through until this episode is over. This Bill is our opportunity to bring that suffering to a close and I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Dubs.)
3.35 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, this Bill is probably one of the most delicate and distressing pieces of legislation that has come before your Lordships during my time as a Member of this House. I certainly pay tribute to the sensitivity with which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has always shown during the course of his distinguished tenure as a Northern Ireland Minister. Indeed, one of the factors that makes this Bill so distressing is the very matter to which the noble Lord has addressed himself during the course of his Second Reading introduction of the Bill. One of the most ghastly by-products of any terrorist conflict, as your Lordships know, is the cruelty inflicted by terrorists, all too often on innocent people or on people who are undertaking duties on our behalf and which the Government have asked them to do.
Such cruelty is not senseless, as it is so often described. It is rather the reverse. Some people enjoy inflicting it. It is carefully calculated. After all, the object of terrorism is substantially to terrorise. Terrorists

159
not only terrorise their opponents in order to try to obtain their way by non-parliamentary means, which is the way in which we like to do things in this country; they also terrorise their own supporters for, above all, they must maintain control over them if they are to maintain their authority. Therefore, I believe I am right in saying that it is no coincidence that the Provisional IRA has been responsible for murdering a greater number of its own supporters than it has members of the security forces.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made abundantly clear, there can be no one in this House who does not feel the agony of the families of the disappeared. To know that a close relation has been murdered, almost certainly under sadistic circumstances, is bad enough in all conscience. Not to know where the body is buried must, almost by definition, keep the wound permanently open.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for the next matter I set out. I believe that it is important in the context of what I wish to say in the remainder of my few remarks. Like very many Members of your Lordships' House, many of whom have a tradition of military service, a number of members of my immediate family have served in the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland. One in particular served in a capacity which probably exposed him to very high risk of capture, torture and death. As it happens, he escaped those dangers in Northern Ireland but was subsequently killed in another continent by another terrorist. We were fortunate in that we got his body back.
I say that because I wish to demonstrate that at least I have some immediate understanding, as do many of your Lordships who have suffered loss, particularly in the last war, of what the families have suffered. But in my case I believe that I have been fortunate that in the crucial respect I have mentioned I have been more fortunate by far than they. However, despite these ghastly matters, governments have to stand back and consider even broader and more compelling issues.
Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, says, as my right honourable friend Douglas Hogg pointed out on 12th May on consideration of the Bill in another place, this is perhaps not an amnesty in the fullest sense. But it is a partial amnesty. It is an amnesty which is granted at the Provisional IRA's request. That was clear from the debate in another place. And it was granted, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made abundantly clear, with no guarantee that the terrorist organisations would give up the bodies in return for this concession. The record in other closely allied contexts does not give me great cause for optimism. One has only to look at the organisation's record and its temporising over even a token surrender of weapons to see that it is all too much its habit to pocket a concession and give nothing in return; and then to yowl that it is the British Government who are being inflexible. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that this is not the way to peace. It is the way to further conflict—the worst reward for the families who are suffering.
160
There is, therefore, the danger that the Government will find they have played perhaps the cruellest trick on the families of the disappeared despite what we all know to be the manifest good intentions of the Government. They would have raised their hopes only to dash them when once again the Provisional IRA breaks its word.
I very much fear that there is a broader matter which your Lordships should consider when looking at the Bill with all the sympathy for which your Lordships are rightly famous. Dealing with terrorists in the way that we have increasingly done in the difficult circumstances of Northern Ireland is like becoming hooked on heroin. It is tough at first to take to appeasing them, but it gets easier and more pleasurable, and in the end you like it so much that you take a high moral tone with anyone who takes another view.
I have another difficulty over the Bill. The Minister rightly suggested that those who would benefit from this legislation were not confined to the nine names he mentioned. Others would benefit. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will understand that there is nothing in the least personal as regards himself or the Government in what I am about to say. It worries me that we tend by implication, by our actions—not by what we say because we constantly pay tribute—to take our own Armed Forces for granted. After all, they have been covered by the provisions of the Bill. The Minister included, for instance, the body of Robert Nirac, as one of the possible beneficiaries of this legislation. However, I venture to suggest that it would have been a tribute for the Government to make it plain that the bodies of the disappeared servants of us, people who put themselves in the front line against terrorism for us and for the people of both communities of Northern Ireland, had been given a rather more prominent part in the Government's rhetoric in discussion of the Bill.
It distresses me to say this. For all its good intentions, the Bill is all too likely to be yet another example of a great many concessions made by us towards the IRA in exchange for very little. It is a protection that has been asked for by the Provisional IRA as part of its successful tactic of getting the British and Irish Governments used to dealing with terrorists as equals. I am highly sceptical that it will lead to the return of any bodies. Like the release of prisoners, under the cover of sympathy which we all feel for the victims' families it takes another step towards the rehabilitation of murder as a weapon of politics without any sign that the murderers have any intention of mending their ways in exchange.
The Prime Minister's rhetoric over the Balkans displays a very different attitude of mind. I should be extremely interested to know why there is one rule for the Kosovars and another for our own fellow citizens in Northern Ireland. I know that this could so easily be taken amiss by the families concerned; and I am conscious of that, but for these reasons I personally want no part of the Bill. With the greatest distress, and with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I find myself wholly unable to support it.
3.46 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I refrained from intervening to ask whether he could give us guidance on the Salisbury document. Presumably this Bill was not even hinted at in the manifesto. Even if the spin doctors who drafted that manifesto over two years ago had been charged to do so, they would have exhibited rather better judgment and shied away from it.
The noble Viscount and I listened carefully to the speech of the Minister. However, on certain occasions such as this I wonder whether the two Governments are locked sometimes in a kind of death wish as regards the effect on the so-called peace process. At a time when desperate attempts are being made to conceal what some of us have been realistic enough to identify as fatal flaws in the Belfast agreement, the latest government blunders are certain to be very destructive.
It was always recognised that compromises would be required, and compromises have been given in large dollops but only by and on behalf of the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland and, to a great extent, the law-abiding citizens of the entire United Kingdom. Those concessions were given, sometimes freely and sometimes under duress in particular by the First Minister Mr. Trimble. It is no fault of his. One understands the pressures which can be applied in those kinds of circumstances. For example, last Friday he was betrayed when the two Governments decided to somersault on the principles contained in the recent Hillsborough declaration for the simple reason that such principles were not acceptable to IRA/Sinn Fein.
In an irresponsible fashion, the two Governments responded to terrorist threats and deliberately and shamefully depicted Mr. Trimble as the one who had shown no flexibility whatever, despite the obvious fact, which we must face, that he kept the show on the road for 15 months. In present circumstances, that should be recognised.
Four weeks ago, it was said that the Prime Ministers were frustrated. That was similar to what used to be said by a certain gentleman on the continent in 1939 in slightly different terminology; his patience was exhausted. Exhausted or not, there was talk of the need to bang two heads together, but now, quite unjustly, they have decided to bang only Mr. Trimble's head and crown Mr. Adams' with a halo. That is how all this is seen in Northern Ireland and, I suspect, in the United Kingdom, too.
Against that background, the Government have introduced this nasty, sordid little Bill. Its real objective is not to help the suffering families of the victims, but to grant permanent immunity to terrorists who have tortured, executed and disposed of those victims. Many came from or lived in the constituency of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. I wish to pay tribute to him for all he did to protect, in so far as it lay in his power, people who had elected him to this Parliament. I want also to pay tribute to him as a neighbour because there was a certain overlap between our two constituencies. I wish to thank him for the understanding and co-operation
162
which he showed during the time of what we call in Northern Ireland "the march hedge". I like to chink that. we co-operated to the common good of those in West Belfast.
Let me make it plain that I, like the noble Viscount. have the deepest sympathy for the relatives of he victims tortured and murdered. I have equally sincere: sympathy for the families of 3,000 other victims of terrorism during the past 30 years. How do I forget comrades killed beside me in Normandy in the heat of the battle, not identified, and they, too, have no known graves?
Today, we are being invited to bargain with terrorists to locate the bodies of a dozen people dragged before kangaroo courts, subjected to unspeakable torture and mutilated in the most obscene manner until they died hideous death. Let us remember that these butchers would have claimed to share the same religious faith as their victims.
On 29th March 1999, the IRA announced flat it had located the graves of nine people. Having thus raised the hopes of the families, the IRA heartlessly prolonged the anguish by demanding that the British and Irish Governments pass legislation granting immunity from prosecution before the IRA would begin to reveal any further information—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Would the noble Lord apply the same language to the Protestant terrorists who have killed rather more Catholics than the other way round?
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, in reply to the noble Earl, I thought I had made it clear chat when I referred to terrorism I was condemning terrorism of every kind, from whatever quarter it conies, just as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and I have done throughout our entire time in Parliament. I make no distinction; they are all equally evil men.
So, today we are doing the bidding of the terrorists. It should be remembered that the Bill extends to the whole of the United Kingdom. Those noble Lords learned in the law will be disturbed to see that the core of the Bill, Clauses 3, 4 and 5, totally ignore the grieving families, but concentrates on protection for the murderers, providing for amnesty, immunity from disclosure of facts likely to lead to criminal proceedings anywhere in the United Kingdom. It does the cause of truth no good for anyone to say that these are not amnesties, immunities from disclosures, because the general perception throughout the United Kingdom at all levels and in all classes of people of all political views is that the acts are exactly what those words mean.
Further protection is provided in the cover-up in Clause 3. It places an absolute ban on disclosure of information uncovered in locating the remains and evidence as to where, when and how the victims were executed. It should also be noted that under Clause 3(2), if any person has been charged with that or any other criminal offence the information can he disclosed in his defence. That latter provision illustrates the professionalism of the legal guidance available to

163
terrorists who set down their arrangements with such clarity that I suspect the parliamentary draftsmen found that their work had already been done for them.
The shear fiendishness of the terrorists of all classes and creeds has forced the two Governments into a high risk strategy of extracting yet another concession from the First Minister, Mr. Trimble. Her Majesty's Government are under no obligation to heed me, but I cannot believe that they will disregard all the assessments from the field of deep intelligence, despite the regrettable publication of the names of those who are now put at risk. Therefore, I conclude with a plea to the Government. Think again while there is yet time; time which may be measured in the interval between this Second Reading debate and the Committee stage next week.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the very title of the Bill fills me with great sadness. It is the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill. It is not about the former Soviet Union, or Rwanda or Indonesia, where terrible murders have taken place. This Bill relates to the United Kingdom. Of all the legislation that has passed through both Houses since I came here more than 30 years ago, I find this the most unacceptable. I cannot understand the two democratic Governments, the Irish and British Governments, freely elected on a democratic franchise; a Parliament in Dublin which has one Sinn Feiner and a British Parliament which has two Sinn Feiners who have never taken their seats. Those people are dictating what the two Governments should do in relation to those bodies.
When listening with great interest to my noble friend Lord Dubs, I had vivid recollections of my term as an MP in West Belfast, Northern Ireland, when people went missing and rumours circulated about their murder and abduction. Perhaps I may illustrate one case. A lady called Jean McConville lived in Divis flats. She was a widow with 10 children. Her husband had died four months previously. One evening a gun battle was taking place between the British Army and the IRA outside her home. Some people would say that she foolishly opened her door to see what was happening. She went outside to find a British soldier lying dying where he had been shot by the IRA. She cradled him in her arms until he died. For that act of humanity, the next day the IRA called and took her away. They murdered her. Devastation was brought to that family, where the father had died four months previously. Ten young orphans were then handed out to different charitable societies and homes and lost each other. Helen McKendry, her daughter, who has been so courageous over the past years, tried to bring up what was left of the family.
The IRA took that woman away, as they did so many other people. They not only took them away and murdered them, but they then intimidated their relatives: "Do not say anything or we will murder you." For many years the relatives were unable to speak, until the recent cease-fires. Helen McKendry found the courage, with her husband, Seamus, to speak out against what
164
happened to her when she was a very young girl. The whole of Northern Ireland then became aware of the situation.
I pay tribute to a brilliant young Belfast Telegraph reporter by the name of Gail Walker who wrote a very poignant profile of Helen McKendry. Then the people in Northern Ireland who had been school children when these things happened were able to read the awful circumstances in which those murders took place.
I was in Northern Ireland for the past three weekends, and I have spoken to Protestants and Catholics about the Bill since the announcement was made on 29th March. There is deep and bitter resentment among those who believe in democracy and believe that justice can be obtained through legislation, and that parliaments for which they have voted will take a stand against murderers and gunmen. The people in Northern Ireland are now aware of the awful anguish that was inflicted on those families for far too long.
The Bill has nothing to do with the Belfast agreement; it has nothing to do with the peace process; this Bill is about appeasing the IRA. I cannot anticipate what will be said by noble Lords who follow me, but I am certain that if they are from Northern Ireland they will express the same point of view as the one I am expressing.
I attended last week in the other place and then spent a most depressing weekend reading the reports of the Second Reading and Committee stages of the Bill. Ministers were doing their damnedest to justify having made this further appeasement to the IRA. I found it absolutely sickening. One speaker stated that those who had spoken on the Bill referred to it as being obnoxious, obscene, distasteful and disgusting. That is no exaggeration. I have mentally ransacked Roget's Thesaurus to find other words which convey my detestation of the Bill and its further surrender to demands of the IRA.
The background to the Bill should be understood in the context of the families that have suffered so grievously. I met some of them here last week. They were my constituents, and they told me of some of their experiences. Members of Sinn Fein, which has no connection with the IRA, went to some of those victims and said: "We have good news for you; you can now bank on getting your bodies back". Who gave that information to Sinn Fein? The Minister in the other place stated that there was no contact with the IRA and that it was done through an intermediary. There are intermediaries from Sinn Fein running in and out of Downing Street every day of the week, so they do not have to go very far to know who speaks for and who speaks against the IRA.
The Bill flies in the face of every concept of democracy as we know it in these islands. I repeat that two democratically elected parliaments are now bowing to a demand and a threat by the IRA. Some people in Northern Ireland have asked me whether this is all about keeping bombs out of England. Is that what this blackmail is all about?
My noble friends Lord Merlyn-Rees and Lord Janner and the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, fought tenaciously to ensure that the War Crimes Bill became law, and

165
I supported them because I could see its relevance to Northern Ireland. Two months ago a war criminal was brought before an Old Bailey court and sentenced to life imprisonment for murders he had committed fifty or sixty years ago in Belarus. That case would never have been heard, had it not been for those noble Lords. What is the difference? Why did the British Government go to such expense to bring that man here, to take the jury out to Belarus the place where the executions took place, and yet in Northern Ireland they do a shabby, underhand deal with the people who committed the same crimes?
On 29th March this year the IRA issued a statement, stating that they were prepared to identify the location of nine of the bodies. Some of the relatives contacted me that very evening and said: "Gerry, isn't it great, after all these years; we are going to get our loved ones back?". Within 48 hours the IRA had issued another statement, saying: "There is a pre-condition". This is the party that is always talking about pre-conditions, particularly in relation to decommissioning. They said: "Oh, no, we are not going to identify them until you give us an amnesty".
My noble friends will talk around the words of the Bill, but we all know that this is an amnesty. No-one will be brought before the courts for having committed these murders: otherwise, the IRA would never have agreed. The IRA will not make an agreement whereby their murderers will be brought before the court. They are now prolonging the agony. In answer to repeated questions in the other place, the Minister said he could give no guarantee that the bodies will ever be recovered.
I say with some degree of sadness that there were only two Government Back-Benchers in the other place when these issues were being debated. Roger Stott came in at a later stage for a few minutes. I would like to think that Members, by their absence, were indicating that they could not give wholehearted support to the Bill.
Those people from Northern Ireland feel the injustice of the Bill in their hones, as I do. The Minister asked why, as the Tories had granted some form of immunity on the decommissioning issue, we are so opposed to granting immunity. The two cases are entirely different. Anyone who is going to give information on where to find arms is in a totally different position from the person who is going to give information about a murder that has already been committed. Murder is the greatest crime in the English criminal calendar. It has absolutely nothing to do with decommissioning.
I have found it very difficult over the past two or three weeks to reply to people who have said: "Gerry, what would you do? You are only prolonging the agony of the people who want those bodies back. Please let it go through because the IRA will realise they have been appeased and they will release the bodies". I am not sure that they ever will do so. I want to place on record—although I probably do not need to—that my life in politics, from a Belfast city councillor to my arrival here, will show that I have the greatest and utmost sympathy in every fibre of my being with those who want the return of their loved ones so that they can give
166
them a burial with respect and dignity. In no way can anyone accuse me of trying to hold up the return of those bodies.
Last Friday evening, after a marathon session in Downing Street with the political parties, the Prime Minister issued a statement. He said that he was setting a deadline of 30th June for the culmination of the talks between the political parties in Northern Ireland in relation to the Belfast agreement. That is yet another deadline. However, he said that that deadline will be the final one and that agreement had to be found by 30th June.
If deadlines have to be met, and that is the final deadline, it is all right for the Prime Minister to lay down a deadline again to freely elected representatives from Northern Ireland, no matter how much they may disagree with each other. But he referred to 30th June, the date on which he demands that the political parties find agreement. Perhaps he could also say that those bodies must be returned on that date, so that we would have a date on which those bodies will be returned and that will prove the bona fides of both Governments.
I have spoken at some length and I could go on as this is an issue with which I feel personally involved. This Bill is a shabby deal, in violation of every concept of democracy and humanity as we know them. I could never support this Bill in the Lobbies if there were to be a vote.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I support the Bill for a number of reasons, but largely on the ground of the full support it was accorded in another place, the elected Chamber of the United Kingdom. At Second Reading on 10th May, after four hours of debate, the Bill was agreed on a Division by 289 votes to 10. Only three Northern Ireland Members of the House of Commons opposed the Bill. Two days later, following almost five hours of debate in Committee and on Third Reading, the Bill was approved by 324 votes to 5, only four Northern Ireland Members opposing the measure.
It is understandable, in the existing highly charged political situation in Northern Ireland, that the sensitive and difficult nature of the laws governing terrorism and murder are being challenged. However, issues arising from the experiences and suffering of families who have not been told where their loved ones have been buried must be addressed. In the interests of humanity, reason and justice—by all means let us uphold justice—we must be sensitive enough to distinguish between the vicious and the unfortunate, between the media hype and the real, meaningful, neighbourly actions concerning the families of the disappeared.
The heart-rending stories of the victims of sectarian, bigoted, terrorist actions are distressing and harrowing. That goes for those who received the dead, those who nursed the dying and those who mourn without the bodies. The agonising suffering of the families who have not been told where their loved ones are buried must be given our earnest compassion. We must distinguish between the vicious and the unfortunate.

167
Noble Lords will have received reading material from organisations representing the families of the disappeared in Northern Ireland. I know that some noble Lords have already promised to visit. Some of the organisations span the Falls Road and Shankill Road areas. Catholics, Protestants, nationalists and unionists are gathered together in the group, not only those who are residents of the Falls Road and Shankill Road areas. Noble Lords are looking forward to meeting some of them.
Perhaps it would be relevant and helpful if I read an extract from one of the group's papers. I shall paraphrase, as the style is different from that which I could use before your Lordships: "As a victims' group we would normally oppose such legislation, an Act that proposes forensic evidence may not be used in relation to a conviction of any terrorist. However, realising there is no other way to obtain the remains of our loved ones, we would plead, in this instance, to dismiss any thoughts for the actual perpetrators. We are acutely aware of our feelings concerning them. We invite noble Lords to concentrate on the loss, the grief and the deep and lasting feelings of the victims."
Another note states, and again I paraphrase: "In our Shankill Stress and Trauma Group we represent 90 per cent of victims where no known perpetrator has ever been brought to justice." I am referring to instances where bodies have already been buried, particularly in circumstances when there was no respectful burial. The note adds: "We all realise that we have gone beyond our sense of personal feelings for such perpetrators."
Such in-depth feelings go beyond the ordinary feelings of human beings who have suffered murder at the hands of terrorists. Those who cannot grieve and do not have a grave by which to remember the victims have an additional suffering. We know what that would mean to most of us in normal circumstances.
The note continues: "However, we have found some relief by bringing into force the special time of mourning with our families, friends and loved ones, the remedial, peaceable, simple act of remembrance." So they come together for an act of remembrance for those whose burial place they do not know.
The note adds: "We invite noble Lords to support the Bill. Focus your attention and sense of humanity on the grief and continuing agony of the families of the disappeared. They need to have the remains of their loved ones buried, not in mud and concrete, but in a consecrated place and a place of eternal rest."
I believe that the Bill, when enacted, will go a long way to meet the needs of the families of the disappeared. I am aware that it is difficult, but so are many acts of justice. We should recognise that justice must follow with a sense of mercy and, above all, those who preach it must walk honourably before God.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, this is a most unfortunate Bill. It has resurrected memories in many of us which we hoped to have forgotten. The disappeared to whom we refer are all victims of the most
168
ghastly crimes and they all occurred in the 1970s, in a particular way. Unfortunately, they were carried out by the provisional IRA.
The apparent object of this Bill is to facilitate the return of victims' remains to their families in order that they can arrange a Christian burial. But it is not as simple as that and it is important to understand the circumstances.
This was a group of murders that took place in the 1970s. At that time the provisional IRA was determined to control what it called "their areas" and no opposition was tolerated. If anyone was suspected of informing on or opposing the IRA in any way, they were abducted and never seen again. They were tortured and mutilated. If they survived the torture, they were taken in front of a kangaroo court, sentenced to death and shot. The bodies were disposed of, generally believed to be in the most convenient way such as being buried in concrete foundations or under roadworks. I shall be surprised if any of them were buried in a place where the remains can be recovered. With the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, I do not believe that any of them will be found.
All that must be recognised to realise that they were not ordinary murders—if there is such a thing as an "ordinary" murder. They were the vilest of crimes. The terrorists allowed some details of their horrific acts to leak out so that others would know what would happen to them if they did not accept IRA control.
The IRA policy remains in place in 1999 but the methods have changed. IRA/Sinn Fein has mounted a well orchestrated campaign to discredit the RUC and is attempting to ensure that the police service is rearranged in a way which will allow it to organise community policing. IRA/Sinn Fein will then remain in control of "their areas". But it has been embarrassed by the continuing pleas of the families of its victims of murder 20 or more years ago. The way it overcame that embarrassment was to request the Government to give it this amnesty; it will help it to get "Brownie" points from the families of victims, and it will be able to say what it persuaded governments in both parts of Ireland to do to locate victims' remains. It is significant that this Bill deals with location rather than return, which is most unlikely.
Governments are claiming that this Bill and the international agreements they signed are in response to the pleas from the families of the victims. I have no doubt that it is another example of the Government's desire to accede to every request from IRA/Sinn Fein. Why our Government with the Government of the Republic of Ireland signed this agreement in such haste speaks much for what they are doing. Now they seek power to tamper with the criminal law. That is very hard to understand and, like the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne—with my far less experience of Parliament than his—I never thought that I would be faced with a Bill which attempts to tamper with the criminal law to please terrorists.
I respect the wishes of the victims' families, with whom I have every possible sympathy. I remember at the time of these murders how much we felt for those families. They were in their own communities having

169
had their loved ones murdered by the people in those communities. They have suffered more than anyone else. But I cannot accept that it is thoughts for them that has brought about this Bill. The Government have done little for the families of thousands of other victims of terrorism. as was made clear in the excellent report recently made by Sir Kenneth Bloomfield.
I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and in a different way I am saying the same thing. I feel exactly as they do. This is not a Bill to which I can give my support.
4.25 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I do not need to come from Northern Ireland to share the feelings of horror and disgust expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. We are being asked to rush a hateful Bill through the House. The last time we had to rush a Bill through the House happened after Ornagh; it was the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill. The Prime Minister said,
"There are few more important challenges to democracy … than terrorism in all its forms. We must fight it vigorously wherever it appears".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/9/98; Col. 696.]
I find it difficult to reconcile the two Bills.
The story begins earlier than 20th March 1999. In September 1998 the IRA, after many years of ignoring the most moving pleas from the Families of the Disappeared, suddenly became a caring IRA. On the day that a list of no fewer than 14 of the missing were named by the Families of the Disappeared, the IRA spokesman said that it,
"sympathised greatly with the families of those whose loved ones disappeared in the course of the conflict",
adding that,
"twenty years ago the Army Council issued a directive that anyone executed by the IRA"—
note the effrontery of its word for murder—
"should he left for their families. Prior to this directive, in the 1970s, the IRA was responsible for the execution and burial of a small number of people".
The spokesman went on to say,
"Last autumn [1997] the IRA established a special unit under the command of one of our most senior officers to ascertain the whereabouts of those graves".
He added that the passage of time, changes in leadership and the deaths of some IRA members had made that difficult, but that the work of the unit would continue and when it had established as complete a picture as possible, the relevant families would 'be notified. That was said eight months ago when the unit had already been established for a year and no conditions were then set.
The IRA has had 30 years and more to behave like normal decent human beings, so far as murderers can. We are entitled therefore to ask: why now? What advantage does it see in this? What deal has been done? According to the Minister in another place,
"The British Government have had no contact with the IRA on this issue, which has been handled through an intermediary with the Irish Government [the Government of the Republic of Ireland]".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/5/99; col. 347.]
170
Who initiated that contact? Who negotiated the terms which were then embodied in a treaty and are now to be enshrined in legislation which ensure that any evidence which might emerge from the coroner's examination of whatever remains may he produced. may not be used in evidence except for the benefit of any future defence?
It may well be that some of the murderers are themselves dead and beyond the reach of any prosecution. It is certainly true that the families passionately wish nothing to prevent the restoration to them of those pitiful remains, and it is hard to oppose that. But we can and must ask the Government about the precedent that will be set, since we are told that there is no time limit and the provisions of the Bill are open-ended. What happens if others now disappear? The IRA is still violently attacking its own nationalist constituency; still sending families into exile. What if more are executed? British subjects have had to live for years under a regime of terror. The families have never dared to speak and when 10 children were left without their mother, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, told us, no one in the community dared to help them. They were eventually split up and taken into care by the social services. Those were their own people.
What guarantee is there that this legislation, which utterly flouts the rule of law, will not be used again? Ii is of course a matter of extreme concern that even when the legislation is passed and the murderers are safe, the IRA may decide for tactical reasons and in order to bring pressure to hear, not to find those bodies—and certainly not to find those of any family which talks too much or on whose individual behalf we say anything which the IRA does not want said. What guarantee do the Government have that, having secured this automatic amnesty for all its murderers—I beg your pardon, executioners—the IRA will not be stricken with collective amnesia and find itself unable to remember where the bodies are? What sort of freedom fighters, what kind of national patriots could coolly bargain over the bodies of the dead, and those dead their own people? I hope there will be no words of gratitude or praise for them and that this obscenity among laws will not be described as yet another "confidence-building" measure by our Secretary of State; and above all, that it will not constitute a precedent.
I should add that I found it particularly horrifying, though I realise that it is now a standard preface to all Bills, that the Secretary of State should declare the provisions of the Bill to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, when it is a mockery of the human rights of both the families and the victims that the murderers should be both appeased and protected, and the rule of law flouted and set aside.
It is all the more hateful and reprehensible that it. seems likely to allow the IRA to impose a double standard upon us in this most delicate area of justice On the same day as the Secretary of State signed the treaty which gives complete protection and complete anonymity to IRA murderers, the RUC asked for anonymity for police witnesses at the Bloody Sunday inquiry because of well-grounded fears for their personal safety. But the family of one of the Bloody Sunday victims said, through their barrister:

171
"It would negate the very purpose of the enquiry. At its roots, the purpose of the enquiry is to discover and to bring to light who killed their relatives and other citizens, in what circumstances they were killed, and why and how they were killed".
That was the nationalist view. I suggest that it would be monstrous for the state to afford the Army and the RUC witnesses (servants of the state who are not even on trial for any crime) less protection than this legislation will assure the IRA's acknowledged, though anonymous, killers. I hope that urgent consideration will be given to this issue.
An issue which greatly concerns many of us emerged in a brief, informal discussion with representatives of the families for which we are greatly indebted to the Minister. I am sad, indeed, to have to speak in these terms about this Bill when such a decent Minister is putting it through the House. It was also raised as a result of the same discussion in the other place last week. I refer to the question of compensation. I understand that applications are entertained only within three years of the report of a death. Of course, the families have never known a date of death. When we come to the Committee stage, I very much hope that it will prove possible for the Government to propose an amendment which would create a special exception to the law as it stands in these cases. If the state cannot give the families justice, it can at least accord them, as of right, a benefit which they have been unable to claim within the required time limit through no fault of their own. I hope, too, that it can be given in such a form as to make it difficult or even impossible for the IRA then to impound the money from them as a "voluntary contribution".
I was glad to hear the Minister speak of the Government's concern for victims. I give him warning that I intend to ask what the Government will now be doing for the many RUC officers and reservists who were blown up, killed or shot over the past years; and who, since their 20s, have been tetraplegics and paraplegics for no other reason than serving their country. They, too, have suffered severely from the present very strict application of the compensation laws. I shall be returning to this issue in the context of the inquiry of Sir Kenneth Bloomfield.
There is one more aspect of this hateful Bill and of the whole question of "The Disappeared". We all know that we cannot even enlarge on what little we know of what goes on behind the iron curtain of silence from the occasional very brave man or woman who speaks out in the nationalist community, without putting them at risk from such grinning hyenas as Gerry Adams. Fortunately there is unimpeachable evidence of what is happening in the Rowe Report on the operation in 1997 of the Northern Ireland Emergency Provisions Act; this was published in June 1998, after the Belfast agreement. It says:
"There is intimidation of communities, and this is one of the really significant signs that the paramilitary organisations are continuing a high level of activity. Great influence is exerted in this way. Ordinary people feel threatened, they are obliged by extortion to pay money, or they are obliged to close their shops on certain occasions; and they are fearful of giving evidence or serving on a jury".
172
Mr. Rowe then goes on to say:
"I agree that there is a reduced amount of terrorist activity, and of course there are ceasefires and the April agreement and a "Yes" vote in the referendum of 22 May. But I have heard and seen real evidence of intimidation exerted by paramilitaries and the fear caused by it. I refer to Chapter 3 above where I survey the facts about the present terrorist situation and in my view those facts demonstrate what is the influence, still, of the paramilitaries. Furthermore, where a jury was empanelled to try a case which had paramilitary connections, jurors reported incidents in which they were obviously intimidated and they were made apprehensive and the trial was therefore aborted; and there were several attempts to complete the trial but each failed, and for the same reason. To my mind the case is a clear illustration that juries cannot yet be asked to try cases where there is a paramilitary connection".
Isolated as the republican community is, and despite the strong culture of distrust and even hatred of the forces of law and order which has been inculcated in them, the existence of the rule of law remains a vital part of life in a free country. The IRA is waging a powerful and unrelenting campaign to have the RUC abolished as a result of the report of the Patten Commission, and replaced by a so-called "people's police" or "community police". We all know who they would be. It is, incidentally, difficult to conceive how such "police", who would themselves be dealing in drugs and violence and murdering any troublesome rivals, could co-operate with any international force or even with the forces in the rest of Great Britain or in the Irish Republic. If it cannot secure the outright abolition of the RUC, the IRA, in the name of normalisation. wants it disarmed.
The Bill before us sends a terrible message of appeasement, though we all understand the reasons why the Government so wish to help families. It will, in my view, cause a very great loss of confidence in the will of the state to maintain the rule of law, to protect the weak and the innocent. Many will find it difficult to understand that this is being done for a small group of families. However, having met some of them, I fear we all recognise that it may have to be. But we do not have to compromise justice for all, we do not have to allow the IRA to presume to equate their murderers with our policemen and soldiers. We certainly do not have to disarm the forces of law and order as yet another confidence-building measure to encourage the IRA, while it does not give up even an ounce of semtex.
I think that the Government must stop thinking about normalisation in IRA terms. They must recognise that they now need urgently, and have done for many months, to restore the confidence of the good, law abiding majority. If the Bill brings that about it may not have been wholly a disaster, though I have to say that I am not sure, even in the face of the grievous suffering of the families, that I can bring myself not to oppose it should it come to a vote.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, does she accept that this Bill applies only to murders committed before April 1998?
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, if that is so, I am extremely relieved to hear it. However, I shall be very interested to see whether the IRA does not in some way interpret the Bill in the way that I have interpreted it.
4.37 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, it is difficult for me to welcome this Bill—a Bill to enable the Government to circumvent the democratic judicial system in the United Kingdom. However, I have the greatest sympathy for the families and relatives of "The Disappeared". They have been through hell and anguish during the past 30 years. For that reason, if this Bill achieves the recovery of the bodies and a decent burial, then, I suppose, it must go through. No reasonable person could deny the families that. But, at the moment, I do not know that the Government can persuade me that that will actually occur.
However, there is another matter. As the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and others have said, this Bill is to appease the terrorists and to help the peace process go forward. I seriously doubt that it will. The Government have been bargaining and dealing with Sinn Fein/IRA for years. The Government think that this Bill is a good deal. If it is, it is the first one that there has ever been. Indeed, there have been no deals up until now and it takes two sides to make any deal. There is only one side giving concessions at present.
I, and the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland—and, perhaps, in the United Kingdom—have supported the peace process from the Belfast agreement, through the release of prisoners, the legislation for decommissioning, the elections, and so on, because we fervently hope that Sinn Fein/IRA will give something in return. Virtually everything that the latter has demanded has been granted or been surrendered by us for nothing. Not one weapon nor an ounce of explosives have been handed in. If this Bill is thought by some to be a little footbridge on the way to peace and compromise by Sinn Fein/IRA, I fear that they will be proved wrong.
The Minister may say that I am ignoring the humanitarian reasons for the Bill. Mr. Ingram said in another place,
"it is a wholly humanitarian gesture that has been made because the Government genuinely care about the families, who have borne so much grief and hurt over all those years with quiet dignity".".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/5/99; col. 41.]
I do not question the Government's intention or sympathy. I have already said that I am extremely sympathetic to that. However, to use the word "wholly" is a contradiction of what Mr. Ingram had said earlier, or it seems to me to be so. He said at col. 39 of Hansard,
"We have had to introduce a considerable amount of legislation as the peace process has developed, based en the circumstances prevailing at the time. It would have been better if we did not need legislation, but if that is the way in which we achieve the objective, the Government must introduce it".
I am sure that the objective was clear to everyone; namely, the future of the peace process. At that stage I do not believe he was talking about the humanitarian aspect.
'Therefore we must consider what the measure will achieve for the Government. Will it achieve a change of heart on the part of Sinn Fein/IRA? I doubt it. The Government are relying on our humanitarian instincts and sympathy for the families of the disappeared to ensure that this concession to terrorism goes through
174
against all democratic and judicial principles. The Government are right; namely, that we may have to swallow a bitter pill. Our dignity and democratic right to fair play are being traded away on the back of our sympathy and humanity.
Let us consider the reasoning of Sinn Fein/IRA on this issue. When it brutally murdered these people that was not enough; it had to hide and dispose of the bodies secretly. It had to add to the intimidation and fear felt among the community. In that it succeeded. It was a card to hold for another time. That card has now been. turned up when there is something to be gained by producing the bodies. In this Bill it is achieving an amnesty for the perpetrators who are perhaps senior members of Sinn Fein/IRA.
The Minister will say—as Mr. Ingram did in another place—that this is not an amnesty. However, the IRA believes that it is. Sunday Life of 11th April states,
"The revelation comes after the IRA leadership announced they will not reveal the location of the secret graves, until they receive an amnesty from prosecution".
This is an amnesty because if the security forces already had evidence there would have been a trial and perhaps a conviction. However, there is none. Therefore the only evidence, or the only evidence that is likely to lead to other evidence, that could be found will concern the locations of the bodies or the bodies themselves.
In addition the IRA is continuing to use the disappeared to further its own terrorist aims. First, it talks about only nine bodies. What about the remaining figure of anywhere between six and 11, including Captain Nairac? I suppose we shall have to await the IRA's "deal" on that one. The IRA also continues to heap misery and sorrow on the families of the disappeared. I again quote from a newspaper. The headline of the News Letter of 12th April states,
"Bury them in secret, IRA tells families".
The article continues,
"IRA godfathers have ordered nine families of the 'disappeared' to agree to burying their loved ones in secret before the heartless terrorists will reveal where the bodies are hidden. It is the second cruel pre-condition imposed on the families in as many weeks".
Another headline states,
"Provos final insult".
Yet another headline states,
"IRA bars press at victims' funerals".
That headline appeared in the Guardian which is not even a Northern Ireland newspaper. I mention that to show that these headlines do not emanate merely from Northern Ireland. These matters are picked up by numerous newspapers. Another headline appeared in the Sunday Life,
"IRA's final insult".
So it goes on. Is this the talk of people who wish to end the misery and who are likely to carry out their side of this bargain to hand over the bodies? I do not think so. That leads me to the ceasefire. How did the IRA wish to stop the families from holding the funerals in public'? As far as I am aware, there is only one way to achieve that; namely, through intimidation, fear, weapons and more shootings. One cannot say that this is a case of a renegade group carrying out a kneecapping last night,

175
tomorrow or any other time. We cannot any longer get away with saying, "This is not the real IRA". Who is giving up the bodies? It is the real IRA. Who has said that they should not be given a public funeral? It is the real IRA. Yet the Government expect the IRA to hand over the bodies. I am not convinced about that.
The terrorists will not produce the bodies out of sympathy. An amnesty is their target and in this Bill they achieve that. In County Fermanagh we have a saying, "I did not come out Lough Erne in a bubble". I and many others are not taken in by this. Are the attitudes of the terrorists changing? I do not think so. The weapons issue is one example and everyone in your Lordships' House knows that all too well. There are other examples. The headline of the News Letter of 15th May states,
"Every day, 20 people are abused in Ulster".
The article continues,
"Each day in Northern Ireland at least 20 men, women and children suffer one form or other of human rights abuse at the hands of the IRA and loyalist terrorists. These figures are not the rantings of a political propagandist but rather the figures confirmed by both voluntary and statutory agencies".
Those agencies have no axe to grind; in fact those victims are costing them money. Further, has the IRA stopped targeting? No, it has not. It has not stopped smuggling, money laundering and fraud. The godfather of them all—or so it is said—Martin McGuinness is about to receive an honest wage if he becomes a Minister. It will be about £70,000 a year. A journalist asked me the other day whether I thought this measure was a concession by Sinn Fein to walk into Stormont. The facts speak for themselves. They were hammering at the gates for a year trying to get in to get their hands on lucrative jobs. For most of the past year they have done that and now they have got there without a single concession being made. If anything, Sinn Fein is getting more ruthless. The headline of the News Letter of 15th May states,
"Out of bounds".
The article continues,
"Sinn Fein's anti-RUC campaign plumbed new depths yesterday, when it managed to prevent a handful of schoolgirls from enjoying a day's walking in the Mournes".
That walk was sponsored by the RUC.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I hope I may interrupt the noble Viscount. He referred to IRA and loyalist murders. Is he doing anything in his power to stop the loyalist murders?
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I hope that my 17 years of counter-terrorism service in Northern Ireland have achieved a fair amount to stop terrorism of all kinds wherever it comes from. The article continues,
"The trigger for the cancellation came in a statement from Belfast City Councillor Tom Hartley, who attacked the school for going along with what he called the RUC's 'latest charm offensive'".
The problem is that the Government and Sinn Fein have two entirely different goals: the Government believe that their goal satisfies something that Sinn Fein will be happy with; and Sinn Fein is absolutely sure that what is riding on the back of it is satisfactory.
176
I wish to make one more point. It is always dangerous to make comparisons with what happens in Great Britain. But if the Government have produced the Bill for wholly humanitarian reasons, as we have been told, perhaps I may ask the Minister what the Government are doing about missing murder victims in Great Britain. I do not know how many there are, but one name is familiar—Suzy Lamplugh. The anguish, misery and sorrow of her family can be no less than that of any one of the families of victims in Northern Ireland. Her murderer might perhaps reveal the whereabouts of her body if the Government were to produce yet another humanitarian Bill to protect him or her.
4.50 p.m.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, I shall not delay your Lordships long in making my contribution to the Second Reading debate on the rather sordid little Bill that is before us today. It has been said on behalf of the Government that the Bill is not appeasement. Anyone who believes that will believe anything. It is as blatant an example of appeasement as I have seen for some time—and we have seen some fairly flagrant examples, such as the release of condemned prisoners with blood on their hands, who were let out without showing any kind of repentance and without anything being done to ensure that they did not carry out any further activities.
I have the greatest sympathy with the families of the victims, as have other noble Lords, but I very much doubt whether they will gain much from the Bill. To say "We must trust the terrorists to carry out their part of the bargain" is not a strong hope to hand out to anyone. It is not justified by what the terrorists have done in the past.
I, too, have thought about non-terrorist criminals who have buried their victims. Some have killed children and buried them and have not said where they have buried them. If a Bill was brought forward which provided that if they said where their victims were buried they would be protected from prosecution, such a Bill would not stand up for very long in this House or anywhere else. It is only when murders are terrorist connected that one can do that kind of thing.
One other aspect of the Bill concerns me. The Government of the Irish Republic are referred to in Clause 1 as the Government of Ireland. Of course they do not have such a claim. That our Government should be colluding with another government who are making claims over a part of the United Kingdom—it is contrary to the spirit of the European Union for one country to start claiming the territory of another—and that the Government should be putting such matters into legislation, shows a lack of self-respect. I think that is the easiest way to put it.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, at this stage of the debate, I, too, will not detain your Lordships long. We have heard some very moving and excellent speeches against the Bill. I wish to associate myself with the speeches of, in particular, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble Lords, Lord Fitt, Lord

177
Molyneaux and Lord Cooke. I, too, was in Northern Ireland for the weekend—it was rather longer than that—where I was carrying out some millennium engagements. I had the opportunity to meet a number of members of the media, councillors, Assembly Members and so on. Knowing that the Bill was coming before the House, I questioned them about attitudes. I did not receive one answer that supported the Bill in any way; I had several answers that condemned it. I also learnt, at rather closer hand than I have in recent times, of the horrendous things that are happening even now, daily and weekly, in the communities and on the streets, in the way of terrorism, thuggery and so on.
In my opinion, the Bill is almost an insult to Parliament. I cannot believe the literature that I have seen on the Bill. It is an unpleasant and cynical little Bill. It undermines and cuts right across the fundamental laws of our society. I would go so far as to suggest that perhaps we have it only because of the Government's PR system. Quite rightly, they have been doing a certain amount to rehabilitate those murderers and terrorists who have been let out of prison. Money has been spent and care and effort has been put into it. But they have not done much for the victims of those terrorists. It became clear to the Government, by one means or another, that it was time they did something. Out of that, among other things, emerged this rather nasty little Bill.
Although I did not hear much of the debate on this matter in the other place, I have read virtually all of the Hansard report. I have to say than I was extremely disappointed that my party sat on its hands and did not go into the Lobby with the Ulster Unionists and the right honourable Mr. Hogg.
I have great respect and sympathy for all the families of the victims of the IRA's fiendish torture and sadism. As most people know, I spent about 12 years in Her Majesty's service and fought terrorism on three continents, sometimes in rather strange ways and remote places, which the noble Viscount will know. It happens in all walks of life—both in war and peace—that we lose our loved ones, either in unpleasant circumstances or even in accidents at sea, and the remains of our loved ones are never returned for burial. I am not condoning anything; I am just saying that it is not a situation in which these families are isolated. Although I have great feeling and sympathy for those who are bereaved and whose loved ones have not had a decent burial, I cannot and do not think that the Bill does anything for the greater good of mankind. I am fairly certain that most of those families would agree. The Bill condones torture and the desecration of human remains by creating a safe haven for those who have perpetrated these awful deeds and by guaranteeing them the right to remain at large.
I understand to some extent the Government's need to try to bring about the return of these remains. I would make one concession that was refused in the other place; namely, that the Government could be persuaded to place a time limit on the effect of the Bill.
If the Government are right and the terrorists are prepared to deliver in exchange for immunity from prosecution—which I doubt; as others have said, I doubt whether it is physically possible to return the remains of
178
most of those for whom we are looking—six months should be more than enough time for them to deliver. In that way, and in that way only, is the Bill plausible. I suggest that a short time limit would help to prevent: serious misuse of the Bill as a political negotiating tool and underline the Government's case that it a credible, humane gesture to help the bereaved.
5 p.m.
Lord Rathcavan: My Lords, I wish to add my voice to those of the majority of speakers in the debate in expressing deep concern about the Bill. No one could have expressed those views more movingly than the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, more eloquently than the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, or with deeper knowledge than the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough.
Many of us who live in Northern Ireland, and who support the Good Friday agreement and yearn for a return to peace and normal life, view the Bill with some nausea. It was rightly described in the other place as a grubby and obnoxious piece of legislation. It is yet another sop to the terrorists following the release of prisoners, the reduction of security forces, relaxations in security and turning a blind eye to punishment beatings. It is another instalment in an appeasement process—an amnesty, however the Minister may wish to phrase it. It is another twist to morality and justice in the cause of political expediency.
Of course, we all have deep sympathy with the families of the disappeared and can identify with the agony they have suffered. But, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, so accurately warned, the Bill may provide the cruellest touch of all: to raise their hopes and then dash them. There is no guarantee that the Bill will, or can, deliver what it sets out to do. The Bill's aims on admissibility of evidence and forensic testing are confused, as the Committee stage in another place clearly indicated. I therefore hope that the Minister will reflect deeply on the views expressed in this debate and take into account the strong and passionate feelings of those in this House who are closely involved in Northern Ireland affairs.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, during the Bill's passage in another place it was described as odious, nasty, obnoxious and outrageous, among other things. In that respect—and that small respect only—I disagree with those in another place and in this Chamber who say it. That is the only point on which I disagree in relation to today's debate. I read with great care the reasoning behind the Bill, given by Mr. Ingram in another place. And, as always, the Minister has introduced the Bill in this House today with the care, courtesy and consideration to which we are all accustomed. It is obvious that the motives behind the Bill are well intentioned and honourable.
However, the Bill is perhaps unfortunate. II: is certainly inopportune and most definitely inappropriate. Like all noble Lords and Members of another place, I totally empathise with the relatives of those who are

179
described as the "disappeared" or, more realistically, those who have lost relatives in the most savage and brutal circumstances as a result of the murderous activities of Sinn Fein/IRA. It is wholly understandable and legitimate that they should wish to recover the remains of their loved ones, to give them the basic and inalienable right to a Christian burial and to have a tangible memorial at which to confer their respects.
However, the concept of families not having a grave to which they can relate is hardly new. I doubt that there are more than a few Members of this House who did not lose relatives in the First World War and for whom there is no known grave. Agreed, there are memorials—headstones and graves known only unto God. Three years ago, I had the privilege of visiting the battlefields of northern France and seeing the memorial to the 36 Ulster Division at Thiepval. My own family was fortunate—if that is the right word. My grandfather's eldest brother was killed at Ypres while serving with the Irish Guards, but his grave is known to us and can be visited.
We then move to the Second World War and the number of allied sailors who were drowned as a result of U-boat attacks and naval warfare initiated by the Axis powers. Those men must have died in circumstances almost too harrowing to contemplate. Their relatives have no fixed point or remains on which to focus their grief. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, from his distinguished war service, could speak to that more eloquently than I ever could.
In the years since, in peacetime, the sea is no more a forgiving place. Every year, communities, and especially fishing ports, suffer tragedy and loss of life. Small and remote islands can lose most of a male generation.
Those are three examples of individuals or groups who do not have the remains of their relatives over which to grieve properly. There are obviously many, many more.
So the relatives of the "disappeared" are not a unique case. What is unique is that in this instance there are those in Northern Ireland who purport to be able to supply information to identify the location of nine of the 14 or 16 victims who have disappeared over the past 25 years. That responsibility lies fairly and squarely with Sinn Fein/IRA. Having ducked and evaded the issue for many years, Sinn Fein/IRA cynically announced that they would look into the whole issue of the location of these wretched victims' remains, having abducted, tortured and murdered those people in the first place. They then announced that they had discovered the locations of nine but would not reveal that information unless forensic evidence from the remains or their location was declared inadmissible as a tool in the prosecution's armoury.
It is most unfortunate that Her Majesty's Government have once again chosen to accept Sinn Fein/IRA's words at face value. Following on from the Belfast agreement, we have had prisoner releases, a commission of inquiry into the RUC, withdrawal of troops and dismantling of security installations among many other
180
concessions. In return, Sinn Fein/IRA has given precisely nothing—not one Armalite handed in; not a pound of semtex decommissioned; not one bullet destroyed. Why then expect it to be any different now? Why offer it further concessions?
The Bill sets dangerous precedents. It offers a form of immunity—I resist calling it a total amnesty—to terrorist murderers, and with no time limit.
As I said, Sinn Fein/IRA are cynical manipulators. With no time limit they can drip feed information on the location of the remains, one body at a time so to speak, and can clam up at any stage if they seek yet more concessions from Her Majesty's Government.
Surely the desire to locate the victims' remains should not in any way hamper the Royal Ulster Constabulary from using every scrap of evidence available to secure arrests and convictions against those responsible for these most ghastly of murders. It is sickening that the RUC, who have for so long and so courageously defended society in Northern Ireland, should now not only be subject to a systematic campaign to discredit them, but also not be allowed to carry out their duties to the full effect of what is the recognised rule of law.
I assume that even if anyone were arrested and convicted of these dreadful crimes, they would be released in short order—within two years perhaps—as the murders were committed before the date of the Good Friday agreement. I should be grateful for the Minister's confirmation of that. And if that is the case, is it not truly extraordinary that all these efforts have been made to safeguard the perpetrators of these crimes from a short sentence when they meted out the ultimate sentence to their victims?
To conclude, it is a matter of record that I have consistently supported Her Majesty's Government on the Belfast agreement and all the Bills that followed from it. I have no such commitment on this occasion. I am minded to oppose this Bill. I shall listen with great care to the Minister's reply.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I apologise for speaking in the gap, which is not a habit greatly to be encouraged. I do so as an English person who has been visiting Northern Ireland for more than the past 20 years fairly regularly, and who now happens to have a daughter working in Belfast.
I agree very strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Blease, said, and I therefore welcome and support the Bill. I do so for three reasons, principally. First, the Bill is yet another example of the two governments, our Government and the Government of the Irish Republic, acting in the closest possible agreement and concert. To my mind, that is essential if we are ever to emerge successfully from the present, I admit, very difficult situation. Some noble Lords have thought that the Bill implies an amnesty. I believe that that is something of an exaggeration.
My second reason for supporting the Bill is that I believe that it will help to break the cycle of violence, which has continued for far too long, over far too many generations. I think it will reduce the temptations to

181
revenge which may understandably be felt among the relatives of the victims. Here I beg to differ from the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I am delighted that an independent commission will be involved in receiving the information and passing it on to the security services.
My third reason for supporting the Bill is that I see it from the point of view of the bereaved relatives. The point has already been well made today that they have been prevented from grieving in the normal way and from burying their relatives and other loved ones. In my view, they would not agree with those who oppose the Bill. It so happens that the only communication that I have received from that direction came from an organisation whose office is on the Shankhill Road. That is perhaps a little surprising, in the context of this House, where the nationalist point of view is almost totally unrepresented. There is perhaps a certain degree of self-indulgence among those speakers who have denounced the outrages and violence of the IRA and other terrorist bodies from the safety of this House. I wish the Bill a smooth passage.
5.13 p.m.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for not being here at the start of his speech. I was unavoidably detained. I thank your Lordships for allowing me a few words in the gap.
Contrary to what has just been said, I find the word "Independent" in "Independent Commission" rather useful for two governments, the Irish Government and the British Government. If something goes wrong, they are not to blame; it is the independent commission. If the Government want to do something like this, they should grip the problem themselves and go forward.
The commission will win only by completely kowtowing to the IRA. There is no other way in which it will succeed, and all the fine words from here and another place do not really matter. I am not accusing the Minister, who, we know, works with great diligence, duty and honesty.
I should like to draw the noble Lord's attention to Clause 4, "Restrictions on forensic testing". Some of us know the IRA quite well. There is nothing in the Bill that says that one gets the body of one's family member. There is no mention of DNA testing. It is quite easy to manufacture old graves.
If one was a terrorist in the IRA, one does not want the bones made public. Torture is apparent to experts from remains. That is well known. I am rather nervous that each of the nine families concerned—lovely families, good families—will get a bag of bones. It is up to the Government to ensure that the testing is such that: they get the remains of the true member of their family.
I do not go along with the idea that with the Bill all will be rosy and lovely and everything will work out. To me, it is a shoddy little piece of legislation, and, like other noble Lords, I am amazed that a government of the day—from these Benches I do not mind which party is in power—can bring forward a Bill like this. It smells of appeasement and it does show amnesty.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, all noble Lords who have looked at the Bill will have had a problem with it. We on these Benches have certainly had a problem with it, because of the difficulty it imposes on justice and the rule of law.
I shall not use the terms of derision that many noble Lords have used about the Bill, not because I do not feel that they are appropriate, but because it would be unfair to the Minister. I believe that the Government have brought the Bill forward genuinely as a humanitarian Bill. That has to be respected. The families of the victims have a need to bury their dead and to put their suffering to an end.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said that if we asked the families we would find that they want justice. Some noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and I—have met members of the families, and we found that this was an issue that they wanted to be put to the House. They supported the Bill and wanted it passed.
A number of claims have been made. The first that I would like to address is the claim of amnesty made by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I do not believe that this is the case. The murderers—that is what they are—are still liable to prosecution. However, the reality is that without the bodies no murderers will be brought to justice anyway. With the bodies, at least the families can bury the dead, and the murderers' cases are still open. I do not believe there is an amnesty, although, of course, there are problems. Many noble Lords will be aware of the difficulties associated with not using such techniques as those involved in gathering forensic evidence.
The second argument is that of appeasement. When the Bill was first introduced, I believed that: it was a form of appeasement, because it has advantages for the IRA, and it is seen as a concession gained by the IRA. Having talked to the victims' families and to the groups supporting them, I have come to a very different conclusion. I believe that the IRA will find this issue very difficult in the months and years to come. It will be a thorn in the side of the IRA, which declared that it could identify nine of the 14 graves of the murdered bodies for which it claimed responsibility.
This has turned into a public relations disaster for the IRA because questions have to be asked, such as why the IRA did not come forward earlier with information about the location of the bodies. I refer also to some of the proclamations made by the press, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, drew the attention of the House, relating to the IRA's outrageous claims that the victims should be buried at night and without any press coverage. I believe that such statements will come back to haunt the IRA.
In a peace process which I believe will go forward such questions will be asked in the future. I do not believe that this subject will become a closed book. 'The culture of intimidation, which has guaranteed silence on

183
this issue, will come to an end. Indeed, I believe that the Bill will help to bring that about. That culture of silence really should be challenged.
It is always interesting to reply to such debates because that gives one the opportunity to listen to all the Back-Bench contributions. I try not to write speeches in advance of debates because it is difficult to stick to them given that points are often raised which cause one to think again. I was particularly interested by the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, talked about the IRA "claiming responsibility". That is a particularly apt term in this context because in the coming years the IRA will not only have to claim responsibility, but also to consider its guilt for these actions and to answer why it carried out some of the murders which, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, pointed out, were particularly barbaric and for which there was no justification.
This is a fairly short Bill and I do not plan to consider it in any great detail now. However, from these Benches I should like to refer to two issues which my honourable friends raised in another place. I refer to the families who have gone through a great deal of suffering because of the intimidation which still continues. My honourable friends referred to the issue of funeral expenses. I was gratified to hear the Minister say that that has been sorted out and that the victims' families are to be awarded grants of more than £4,000 to meet such expenses.
I refer now to compensation, a matter on which I was thinking of tabling an amendment. However, this is an extremely complex and difficult area. Given the amount of time that this Bill will be allowed in this House, an incredibly well drafted amendment would be needed to rewrite a section of the Criminal Injuries and Compensation Act.
I believe that there are several difficulties which will stop many of the victims' families being eligible for compensation, not least the time-barred limitation. I had planned to ask the Minister whether the fact that forensic evidence cannot be used may be applied to record the fact that the time of death has not been revealed, thus meaning that the time-barred limitation may not have effect. However, I believe that that would be open to challenge on a number of grounds.
Am I correct in understanding from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act that, under Article 9 of the appropriate order, the families will be eligible for bereavement provisions, which would give them a small amount of compensation? I believe that that too may be affected by the time bar. However, I hope that, considering their special situation, some form of compensation may be worked out for the families of the victims.
Many noble Lords have said that they should like to oppose the Bill's Second Reading and that they feel almost honour-bound to do so. However, perhaps I may point out that some cases are almost 30 years-old. I should like to stress the interests of the group to whose wishes we should listen most carefully. I refer to the victims' families and their support groups. They are
184
calling for this Bill to be passed. I believe that this is a humanitarian Bill. I do not have problems with it because I believe that either the bodies will be identified by the IRA or the IRA will have to answer many questions. It is paramount that we support the Bill.
5.25 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the background to the Bill and how it will work. I am equally grateful to other noble Lords who have contributed this afternoon. Like the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I have some sympathy for the Minister in his task of replying to the debate. We have heard many powerful and effective speeches this afternoon. It would be invidious to single out any particular contribution. Nevertheless, the view of this House is fairly consistent. However, both the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Blease, made speeches supporting the Bill in the measured and effective way that we have come to expect from them.
I am sure that all other noble Lords find the need for this Bill to be deeply distressing. We are well aware of the extreme ways in which the victims were violated and then disposed of; but so, too, are their relatives, many of whom hope that this Bill will enable them finally to lay their loved ones to rest. We also recognise that we may not be able to locate everyone, not least Captain Robert Nairac, GC.
We on these Benches believe this to be an odious Bill as it is offensive and repugnant. Moreover, the relatives themselves also appreciate the difficulty with this legislation, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Blease. However, they are also desperate to be able to bury their loved ones properly. There is an understandable concern on their part that this House might delay or stop the legislation. We on these Benches will not do so. My noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip and the usual channels have agreed that we should shorten the usual interval between Second Reading and Committee. In addition, all remaining stages will be taken next week. That is all, of course, subject to your Lordships' agreement. However, I should be surprised if amendments were not debated in Committee. I think that the Minister implied that he expected that to be the case.
The Minister has explained the background to the Bill and the way in which it will operate. Many noble Lords have voiced their strongly held views and given their wise counsel on the Bill. I believe that your Lordships are clear on one point: as the Minister rightly stated, it will still be possible to prosecute someone for these murders if evidence is forthcoming from an alternative source. However, we must be honest and accept that if a terrorist takes advantage of this Bill and gives the commission the information required, there is no realistic prospect of him ever being convicted of that murder.
I must take issue slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on this. There must always be a fear in the mind of a terrorist murderer that he may be exposed by an accomplice, that forensic evidence exists which will back up any allegation and that that evidence is

185
located with the buried remains. That fear will disappear under the provisions of this Bill should the terrorist take advantage of it.
The Minister drew parallels between this Bill and the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. He is right in that they both work in similar ways, but there are significant differences. Arms, ammunition and explosives are by definition designed to kill people and are therefore dangers to society. A large number of people—that is to say, terrorists—may be involved with illegal arms holding. There is every risk of the arms falling into the wrong hands, as has already happened. It is shameful that these people, with one exception, have not even begun the process of decommissioning.
There is another difference in the need for this legislation. There is no doubt that arms will continue to be found for a very long time. Indeed, arms are still appearing from the Larne gun-running period before the First World War. But the need for this legislation arises from the desire to have some information that relates to about 14 victims of the Troubles. The relatives hope to have this information within two or three weeks. I sincerely hope that their aspirations are met. But many noble Lords are not confident.
The agreement between the two governments that underpins this Bill is not very reassuring. Article 3(2)(c) helpfully states that the commission is,
"to report its activities to both governments no later than one year after the establishment of the commission and annually thereafter".
My greatest fear with this Bill is that it will not have the desired effect and that the relatives will continue to be strung along by terrorists who have managed to persuade the Government to introduce this legislation. It is legislation which suits the terrorists, as has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Cranborne and others, as much as the relatives. But the terrorists either have this information or they do not, which was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I hope that the Minister can convince your Lordships of the desirability of such open-ended legislation.
I accept his view that many of the clauses must remain extant indefinitely. However, an interesting amendment was moved in the other place which well addressed that issue. No doubt something similar will be debated in your Lordships' House in Committee. I also note that the Bill does not create any new offence. So what happens if a terrorist organisation or individual deliberately and inaccurately tells the commission that the remains of a victim are located at a certain point, which happens to be underneath a building or within some item of infrastructure? The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, touched on that possibility. It may be an item that is not so big that it cannot be moved, but big enough to cause major destruction if it were. I stand to be corrected, but as I read the Bill the commission cannot reveal who gave it the maliciously incorrect information. The Bill may even protect the terrorists or troublemakers from prosecution in that case. That may not be a problem now, but it may be later due to the open-endedness of the Bill. I hope that the Minister can allay my fears on that point.
186
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, raised the issue of conditions being made by terrorist organisations as regards funeral arrangements. Can the Minister assure the House that those fears are completely groundless and that no Minister or official has agreed on any restrictions on the funeral arrangements?
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I did not say that the Government were party to that at all, but that it was purely a threat made by the terrorists to the families of the disappeared.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention. I hope that the Minister can still reassure us on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, raised the issue of compensation and funeral costs. That is yet another sensitive issue. I do not find the compensation culture that is developing in society very appealing. However, a burial grant cheque can sometimes be so pitifully small and impersonal that it can actually insult the value and the dignity of the human life to which it relates. I am sure that many will welcome the availability of grants from the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund to which the Minister referred.
We on these Benches have no intention of delaying this Bill any more than proper parliamentary scrutiny requires. I hope for the families that this Bill will be passed next week. I have already pointed out that we have agreed to shorten the time scale for the proceedings. I hope—and I have been expressing a great deal of it this afternoon—that the relatives' long wait to bury their loved ones will soon be over and that they will not be subject to further anguish and the cruellest of tricks from their tormentors.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to those who have taken part in this debate. It has been a sombre and very serious debate. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Blease, Lord Hylton and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for their strong support for this particular measure. I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for agreeing to the timetable for this Bill, which means that we shall be able to dispose of it rather more quickly than our normal procedures would suggest. On one of the many debates when we discussed matters in Northern Ireland, I remember my noble friend Lord Fitt speaking very passionately about the appalling situation for families whose loved ones had disappeared, the bodies never having been recovered. I believe that he made the whole House aware, if it was not aware before, of the enormity of the issue, the terrible situation for the families and the urgent need for the IRA to reveal where the bodies were. I am sure that the noble Lord will remember very well how the House listened to him with enormous attention.
I am also grateful for the support for the Good Friday agreement given by those noble Lords who perhaps have doubts about this particular legislation. We all agree that terrorism is vile, cruel and absolutely barbaric. Therefore, our concern is properly with the victims. I

187
was asked what the Government had done for them. I believe that they have done quite a lot for the victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland. We have established a new family trauma unit for young people and their families affected by the Troubles. We have supported a fund for community groups and voluntary organisations. We have developed an educational bursary scheme for children and adults whose education has been affected through the Troubles.
I have made reference to the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund established to help victims in a practical and meaningful way. Sir Kenneth Bloomfield initiated a review, which is an important document for victims. He is also reviewing fitness for the purpose of the criminal injuries compensation scheme. Grants have been given to the community and the voluntary sector. We have supported the commissioning of a survey of organisations supporting the bereaved or injured to assist in the development of government policy in that area. We have helped in the establishment of a Touchstone group to facilitate discussions between the Government and the victims in the community. We have tried to do a lot. Of course, one can never do enough for the victims of the Troubles, but certainly as a Government we have taken this matter as a very important responsibility. I believe that we have demonstrated our commitment by what we have done.
I repeat that there is one motive only for this Bill; namely, to help the families of those people whose bodies have never been found. The Bill is to support those families. We have no other agenda and there is no other motive. The Bill is simply and solely for that purpose.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I criticised the Government's motive. I would like to put on record that I accept entirely the Minister's explanation.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comment. A question was asked about funerals. When the remains of a victim have been revealed it is for the family to decide what sort of funeral it wishes to have. There is not, and should not be, any pressure on the families to have any specific funeral. If they wish to have one which is high profile that is up to them. If they wish to keep it quiet and discreet for their own reasons, that is up to them. There is no question of the Government conceding to any pressure from outside. I hope that none of the families will feel under pressure to do other than what is best for their loved ones if and when the bodies are revealed.
It has been suggested by many noble Lords and, I regret to say, by my noble friend Lord Fitt that this is a matter of appeasement, that it is a sort of amnesty for the IRA. I should like to ask your Lordships what benefits there are to the IRA in what the Government are doing. Surely this debate can be of no benefit to the IRA. I have said that the Government are not in a position to give guarantees. After the raising of consciousness in particular of the families concerned that the bodies may be revealed, everyone would know
188
what the IRA had done if, having announced the names of some people whose bodies it might reveal it were not to do so. If bodies are revealed, that is no help to the IRA or any other terrorist organisation. If bodies are revealed it simply confirms the tragedy that the families have suffered and shows the enormity of the wrong that the IRA has done to those families and the wider community. I suggest that there is no question of appeasement here; and there is no sense of an amnesty.
If the IRA does not reveal the location of the remains of a body, none of the provisions of the Bill applies. The only way in which the provisions of the Bill apply is if indication is given as to where the body or the remains happen to be. So I do not think that it is possible to argue that on the one hand this is a concession and an amnesty for the IRA, and on the other that the IRA will not reveal the bodies. It seems to me that either one or the other will happen.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I was not accusing the Government of intentionally appeasing the IRA. I think that many of us talk of it as a by-product, that the Government do not seem to realise the dangers. If the terrorists do not reveal where the bodies are and there is no Bill such as this, they live continuously in the fear that in the future someone who has an idea of where those bodies are—in the new climate he decides to come clean or pillow-talk, or whatever—might lead the security forces to the bodies and the forensic evidence. The Bill refers to forensic evidence because that is the problem for the organisations. We would not refer to it if it were not a fact that might lead to conviction. Therefore the terrorists have something to gain. Quite simply they are taking that threat out of the book. They are clearing the decks. Provided they can find the body, they have got clean away with it. It will only be the threat of someone breaking his silence in the future that will bring the terrorists to justice.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, it is almost certain that these bodies have been hidden for 10, 15, 20 or 25 years and although in theory it is possible that at some point in the future the bodies might be discovered, I am bound to say that on the face of it that is rather unlikely. Therefore the only way in which the families can have access to the bodies is through this measure. I do not believe that there is any other way in which the family can have any sense that the body may be discovered.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the advantage to the IRA is that it has demonstrated to its people that it is so strong that it can cause two governments to give what amounts to an amnesty to the people among them who have murdered. That is a message to its whole community of how powerful it continues to be.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I understand the point, but I doubt that the majority of people in Northern Ireland will take it that way. The families do not take it that way. There is a sense on the part of the community in Northern Ireland that it wants the agony of the families

189
to be lessened. It will be lessened only if they can give their loved ones a decent burial. It is a matter of judgment. The noble Baroness may believe that it works one way. I am satisfied that the outcome is more likely to be as I have suggested.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, referred to the fact that it was an amnesty. That is simply not the case. The Bill provides some limited protection in cases where bodies are revealed. But I would not have thought that it is an amnesty because proceedings can still be brought if other evidence is available to the prosecution. It does not let the perpetrators of these murders off the hook. It simply means that the one piece of evidence that is revealed when the location of the body is identified cannot be used. But in all other respects the individuals who committed the murder are liable to proceedings.
I have mentioned the situation as regards funerals. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, raised the issue of compensation. He also asked about time limits. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having drawn to my attention in advance the fact that he would raise the issue. I have told him what is to be made available to the families of the victims.
If there is any doubt as to whether a family is within or outside the time limit for claiming compensation, they can claim for compensation. They probably will not succeed unless they can demonstrate that the claim is within the time limits. It does not stop them claiming, but it is unlikely that it will have a successful outcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked whether the Government could put a time limit on the Bill. I think that I mentioned that in my speech. It is important to understand that the main provisions of the Bill must stay in place. It is impossible to say when those provisions might cease to be needed. I stress this again. We need to be flexible on timing as we hope that those with information about the remaining victims will come forward. I have already said that we shall keep the operation of the commission under review.
One question has not been answered. I throw it open to every Member of the House who spoke in the debate. What would you do? Not a single speech of those critical of the Bill has any solution. The only suggestion is that we do not have the Bill; let the bodies not be found and somehow or other we shall just have to forget the agony of the families. I wait here. Would any one of your Lordships care to suggest what you would do if you were in the Government's place?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with all the caveats surrounding the sympathy that all of us feel for the victims, which the Minister amply demonstrated in the course of both his speeches, there is an alternative for the reasons that a number of us have suggested: that we do not introduce the Bill, and we do nothing.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, there you have it. Because of the agony of the families, the Government are not prepared to do nothing. It is as simple as that. Our motive for bringing forward the Bill is the agony of the families. It is to lessen that agony so that they can give their loved ones a decent burial.
190
I appreciate the honesty of the noble Viscount. He said that the alternative is to do nothing. I think that that is the position in which the Government put the House. Having considered the arguments, I hope that the House will support the Bill. I commend it.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I listened with great care to what he said. I asked one question to which I do not think he gave an answer. If he can do so I should be grateful. If these people are caught and convicted of these crimes which occurred before the Good Friday agreement, what is the situation with regard to their sentences? Are they eligible for early release? I understand that they are. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, that is not within the Bill, but I understand that the crucial date is 10th April 1998. If they committed offences before that date, they would come within the scope of the legislation. If they committed the offences after that date, they would not come within the scope of the legislation.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, will the Minister answer the question that I raised about what happens if the commission receives a malicious notification of remains?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, it is an independent commission set up to make decisions on the basis of information. If it decides to take action, it will decide how to do so sensitively. Each case must be decided on the basis of the information. The independent commission will decide how to tackle that. I believe that the position is clear and I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

House of Lords Bill
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 4 [Commencement and transitional provision]:
[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 1, line 13, after ("shall") insert ("not")
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 116, I shall speak also to Amendments No. 117, 118, 119 and 121. Earlier in the Committee stage, we considered a number of so-called "sunset" amendments suggesting what might happen if the Government's proposed stage

191
two to the reform of your Lordships' House had not come to pass within various times. A number of suggestions were made, none of which found favour with the Committee.
Amendment No. 116 makes a slightly different suggestion and relates to what might happen in any event. We suggest that the words on the Marshalled List, particularly in Amendment No. 117, might well be included in the Bill. It proposes that by 1st September 2001, or earlier on the dissolution of the Parliament in which the Act is passed, the House of Lords Act will come into force.
Amendment No. 118 makes a similar proposition, but is related to the work of the Royal Commission.
I do not wish to speak at length on these matters because they have been touched upon in earlier debates. I hope that the Committee believes that the concept is worth consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Waddington: I did not expect to be able to speak so soon, but I wish to preface my remarks by saying that I was deeply shocked by what I considered to be the intemperate and undignified remarks made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor this afternoon. I believe that he will regret having spoken in that way. He is not supposed to be just another knock-about politician; he holds a very high office. I am a life Peer and I very much resent the idea that hereditary Peers come here to look after their own interests and that no one, apart from hereditary Peers, is interested in the Bill. That is complete nonsense.
I believe that the Bill is a constitutional enormity and I believe as strongly as any hereditary Peer here that it is entirely wrong that we should be required to debate it late at night. We are entitled to have our views considered with care and we should be entitled to be respected for our opposition to a Bill which anyone should recognise is of immense importance. Any Bill which drastically changes the composition of one of the two House of Parliament must be important.
There can be no guarantee that any second stage reform will get through the other place. I have made my views on that known on many occasions. I fear that there may not be a second stage. I remember vividly, as will many former Members of the other place, the experience of 1968. I know what Members on the Front Bench know; that the whole idea of a two-stage process was born of the fear that there might be a repeat of what happened in 1968. No one has made a secret of that. There was the fear that if one bundled together in one Bill both the abolition of hereditary Peers and an involved scheme for a reformed House of Lords the debate might go on interminably. It might become apparent, as was the case in 1968, that there were as many opinions about what should be the shape of the new House as there were Members of the other place. There was the fear that any such comprehensive Bill would run into the sand in exactly the same way as the 1968 Bill. That was the thinking behind the Government's decision to have a two-stage reform.
192
However, once this Bill is enacted the Government have nothing to fear. The hereditary Peers will be going and nothing will be able to change that. The advantage of at least some of these amendments is that the Bill would not come into effect until a little later. Those who are now Members of this place would be able to have a say in the debates on the Royal Commission's proposals. I believe that that would be highly beneficial because we have a great deal of wisdom and experience in this place. I believe that they should be entitled to express their views on any reform which is proposed by the Royal Commission. But even if I am wrong on that, what do the Government have to lose in delaying implementation? They will know that the Bill has been passed and that hereditary Peers will be going in due course. They will be able to tell the country that they have not been asking people to buy a pig in a poke. That is why I object so much to the measure.
We are told that we should, with dignity, give our approval, or at least be muted in our opposition to the Bill, because in due course there will be a second-stage reform. But we are not told what that second-stage reform will be. I do not believe that that is treating the House with respect. I believe that the least the Government can do in such circumstances is to delay the coming into force of the Bill so that those who are now Members of this place will be able to take part in the debates on the Royal Commission's report. All of us will then know what will take the place of this Chamber.
The Earl of Dundee: I support my noble friend's amendment. The arguments for taking stages one and two together are very sound and well known and I shall not rehearse them. However, today it might be helpful to address two different if related aspects of the question. First, to what extent does the incorporation of the Weatherill amendment within the Bill enable stages one and two to be considered together? Secondly, what is the best way now of redirecting the Bill to that end?
As we have heard, one argument which has been adduced for creating two stages is the difficulty hitherto of succeeding in carrying out reform of the House of Lords at all. The last serious attempt floundered in another place in 1969. For that failure we share no blame whatever. This House strongly backed the Labour government's Lords reform proposals in 1968. During the debate on this Bill, if there is one single point which should be repeated several times a day, perhaps rather loudly, it is that one.
The fact remains that in spite of solid support here, that Bill floundered in the other place and, therefore, not without justification, the architects of this Bill have felt "once bitten, twice shy". To make sure that this time the reform goes ahead, the Government have put in place two stages which, otherwise, would appear to be illogical and unnecessary.
Nevertheless, the Weatherill amendment has altered the position. It addresses the two main issues of Lords reform: approximate voting parity between the main political parties, and restriction of the parliamentary rights of hereditary Peers. However much fine-tuning it

193
may require—and many of us may believe that it requires quite a lot—that is not to under-estimate the achievement of the Weatherill amendment.
Nevertheless, in terms of the proposal of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, the point about the Weatherill amendment is that it can cause to relax those who until now have been anxious that yet again Lords reform would not go through. For there was nothing shy or diffident about the vote in its favour. Nor, as a result, cart the implementation of stage one be delayed for very long.
That brings me to the paradox of this matter. If the only sensible argument in favour of stage one has been to propel Lords reform once reform has become duly launched and inevitable, then there is no longer any point in stage one. That position, if nothing else, has been brought about by the Weatherill amendment. And once we have acknowledged that fact, it becomes clear that if only for the peace of mind and good health of my noble friend Lord Wakeham, let alone the best solution for Lords reform, stage one and stage two ought to be taken together.
If we agree with that proposition, the question then is: how do we direct the Bill to that effect? There are two constructive ways of so doing. The first opportunity is at the next stage of the Bill when, on recommitment, amendments to the Weatherill amendment are considered. A number of these amendments are useful and, by improving the Weatherill amendment, will also improve the Bill. Thereafter and secondly, if the Bill is withdrawn until the Royal Commission has reported, then, in the light of its advice, stage one and stage two can be considered together within the appropriate legislation.
The Earl of Northesk: I am mindful of the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, yesterday, and I cannot resist quoting it:
"I think it is fair to say, without discourtesy, that we have rehearsed, re-rehearsed, reviewed and re-examined these arguments on a number of occasions. — [Official Report, 17/5/99; col. 114.]
That said, the amendments in this group are concerned with the distinct issue of commencement of the Bill. My opinion is that, viewed objectively, Amendments Nos. 116 and 118 are reasonable and could even assist the Government in so far as it is wholly credible that, notwithstanding the Labour Party's submission, from which we are advised we should not deduce too much about current government thinking, the report of the Royal Commission will undermine and make redundant most of the intellectual objections that so many noble Lords have to their current strategy.
What all the commencement amendments offer in their varying ways, had the Government thought it through, is the best of all worlds. Acceptance of any one of the alternatives would get their Bill enacted at the same time as maintaining the manifesto commitment intact and unpolluted. The price to pay would be to endure the presence of the hereditary peerage for, at best, a few more months and, at worst, a little over three years. Instead, the Government have set out their stall for the new Clause 2, the duration of which, whatever may be said about it from the Government Front Bench,
194
is a matter for speculation. This situation confuses me. It is a curious case for the Government to argue. However, they have committed themselves to their abandonment of the manifesto commitment. That being so, I do not suppose for a moment that any of our attempts at helpfulness will inspire any sympathy in the mind of the Minister.
Lord Elton: My noble friend Lord Waddington put his finger on the problem when he pointed to the concern of some noble Lords that there should be a voice from the hereditary Benches on the arrangements which are to follow phase one. Both the tone and the content of what the noble and learned Lord said last night from beside the Woolsack and not, thank goodness, from the Woolsack, casts some doubt as to how that is now to be treated. The Weatherill amendment secures a voice for a small proportion of the hereditary Members of your Lordships' House on proceedings into phase two. If that can be withdrawn, then clearly Amendment No. 118 would be of 'very much more interest than at present. It may be useful in eliciting a statement of opinion as to where we stand on the issue.
Lord Gisborough: I would have thought that the Government would welcome the amendment or one of the other sunset amendments. Stage two must either have hereditary Peers or it must have elected Peers who would be competing with the House of Commons and would therefore be totally unacceptable, as in 1968. If Peers are to be appointed, there is the quango problem. I do not see any chance of stage two coming about. The great advantage to the Government would be that they could bring pressure on the other place to accept some form of stage two, whatever that might be. If there is not strong pressure on the other place to accept something, they will not accept anything.
Earl Ferrers: I wish to refer to Amendments Nos. 119 and 121, to which I have put my name and which are part of this group of amendments. The name of the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, is also attached to the amendments. He asks me to tell noble Lords that he is indisposed today and unable to attend.
These are important amendments. Amendment No. 119, proposes that the Act should come into force at the end of the Parliament and not at the end of the Session. That may seem a trivial point, but I recall the peerage renunciation Bill in 1958 when an individual by the name of Anthony Wedgwood Benn did not want to become Lord Stansgate and a Bill was produced allowing him and others who were already Members of your Lordships' House to renounce their peerages. The Conservative government of the day brought forward the Bill which stated that it should operate to the end of the Parliament, and there was then an amendment saying that it should come into effect at the end of the Session. The point was argued backwards and forwards, with all the possibilities and peculiarities that could arise, but it never occurred to anyone that, once the amendment had been accepted and within two months of it having been brought into existence at the end of the session, Prime

195
Minister Macmillan would become ill and would have to give up. That gave the opportunity to my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and also Lord Home to renounce their titles and go to another place. The whole of history may have been changed as a result of such a small event.
It is therefore important whether the Bill should come into operation at the end of the Session or the end of the Parliament. Despite what has been said to date, I hope that the Government will consider bringing it into operation at the end of the Parliament for the reason contained in Amendment No. 121. The amendment proposes leaving out subsection (2), which states that,
"any writ of summons issued for the present Parliament in right of a hereditary peerage shall not have effect after that Session."
I turn to the point made earlier which is fundamental to the Bill. As the Committee will remember, in Clause 1 the Bill refers to the fact that no one shall be a Member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage. As was stated very early on, we are all here not by virtue of a hereditary or life peerage but by virtue of a Writ of Summons. That is what brings us all here. Once the Writ of Summons has been obeyed and your Lordships, individually, have appeared, then the Writ ceases to have any effect; it is spent; and it is done.
I cannot see how a government can then say that for some people, the Writ will last for a Session and for others, it will last for a Parliament. If we are to follow that line, we shall be entering the deep, muddy waters of hybridity. The Government would be extremely vulnerable if that issue were to be taken to a court with the Bill as it is drafted at present.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor says that everyone knows perfectly well what is meant. But the great legal issues are never decided on the major scheme; they are decided on the minutiae and the detail. I suspect that the Bill is likely to prove hybrid and the Government would find themselves in jeopardy in relation to that.
If the Government will agree that the provision of the Bill should be brought into force at the end of the Parliament as opposed to the end of the Session, there would be no difficulty. There would be no doubt and everyone would be in the clear. It would also resolve the problem which we discussed yesterday to which the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, referred, in relation to disenfranchisement. If hereditary Peers can no longer be Members of the House of Lords and cannot vote for Members of another place, then they are disenfranchised. But if these provisions are brought into force, in the common jargon—which I hate—there would be a seamless transition. That is what would happen. I hope that the Government will consider the amendments.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, the minutiae are extremely important. They are more important to some Members of your Lordships' House than they are to others. I do not object at all to those who are affected deeply by the loss of
196
their hereditary title using every opportunity which can be devised to try to ameliorate what the Government intend to do. There is no objection to that and no personal animosity at all. In other circumstances and on other Bills, I have been involved in attempting to thwart the will of the Government in one way or another.
But there persists the argument that the Government started off on the wrong foot by having a two-stage scheme and that all matters should be dealt with in one stage. My experience is that if one stage had been proposed, those very same people would have argued that there should be two stages. That is the politics of the matter.
I understand that people speak with sincerity about why they are here; what drives them; what reward they receive. All of us who sit here share one bond; that is, that we are politicians. At the end of the day, we are motivated by decisions as to how we believe our political choices are best served.
The Government went to the country on 1st May and said that as a first, self-contained stage, they intended to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House. Some Members of the Committee opposite seem to believe that somehow, that is negotiable. It is not. It was thought out very carefully. Members of the Committee may have heard my noble friend Lord Callaghan refer to his experience in 1968. He had a powerful position then. He explained why he had reached the conclusion that the stages had to be separated. There can be no doubt that from a practical political point of view, we are going about this reform in the right way.
Members of the Committee opposite persist in trying to devise delaying tactics. They are entitled to do that. But Members of the Committee on this side remember that for two or three years before the last election, the Labour Party made it quite plain what its intentions were. Members of the Committee opposite—for example, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne—made notable contributions by addressing conferences before the last election. We are now being invited to consider devices which will help to delay the implementation of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that the hereditary Peers would be denied a voice after the passage of the Bill. He corrected himself later, but he started by saying that the whole basis of the Weatherill amendment is to take account of the fact that in order to make progress with the Bill, it would be helpful to have the hereditary Peers here when those matters were being resolved.
I do not speak at all for the Government but it is in our interests, as a Government, to proceed as quickly as possible to demonstrate to the doubters not only that we mean business in relation to the first stage but also in relation to the second stage.
Lord Trefgarne: The noble Lord explained the importance of the measure; how rapidly it needs to be taken into law; and how important it is that the

197
overwhelmiong Conservative majority in this House should be removed. Why then was this Bill not included in the Government's first Session?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I cannot speak for the Government but there are priorities and matters which need to he dealt with. If this matter had been dealt with in the first Session, the Government would have been criticised for doing so. Whatever the Government do, there is a counter-argument. I accept that. But as a business manager, I can well understand the priorities. Members of the Committee opposite who have served in Cabinet and on committees will realise the impossible job faced by business managers when priorities are being decided. I have no objection whatever to my Government deciding that there were priorities more important than the passage of this Bill in the first or second Session. But we have now reached it. We have now reached the third Session.
I am puzzled by the lack of confidence which Members of the Committee opposite have in a two-stage process. The first stage is the Royal Commission which is to be headed by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and peopled by men and women of some experience. We do not know what they will propose and we may or may not like what they propose. But that has been built into the procedure. The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, has pointed out the difficulties, which I accept, of sticking to a 31st December timetable. But eventually, we shall have the product of their considerations. The members of the Royal Commission are not untutored and unaided. They are experienced people. Everyone in this House has had the opportunity to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, how they see matters for the future.
When the Royal Commission makes its recommendations, it has been agreed that there should be established a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider those recommendations. I have more faith than Members opposite in the sagacity of their colleagues who sit in the House of Commons. The Joint Committee—comprising Members from both sides of this Chamber and the other place—will have the benefit of the Royal Commission's findings when it meets. Without interference from the Government, the committee will make proposals to the Government. After the proposals have been made, the Government will react by making their proposals, which will comprise the next stage.
At every stage Members of the Committee are trying to avoid, at all costs, the implementation of the first stage. I believe that the Minister who replies will be well advised to stick to his or her brief and to recognise that people in the country voted for a manifesto which the Government are trying to carry out. As far as I am concerned, the people of this country deserve the best.
Lord Waddington: I take it that the noble Lord is not arguing that a delay in implementation until a fixed date would be a breach of the manifesto undertaking, particularly when one has to bear in mind that there is
198
the new factor of the Royal Commission, which was not in the manifesto and the setting up of which, in theory, was a breach of the manifesto commitment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am not arguing that at all. I understand the amendment and I said that as far as I am concerned this is part of the delaying tactics of the Opposition to avoid the implementation of the first stage.
Lord Waddington: Surely the noble Lord realises that at least one of the amendments proposes the postponement to a fixed date. Therefore, there cart be no question, if that amendment is accepted, of indefinite postponement of the operation of the Bill.
Lord Harding of Petherton: I recognise the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, but I do not believe it is a valid argument. He says that the Bill was forecast in the manifesto and, therefore, it should be implemented. However, in the country people do not recognise that that is the correct way to proceed. Whatever was in the manifesto, as other noble Lords have said, people do not read the minutiae of a manifesto and they believe that the opinion polls have been held. The public believe that a second stage should be outlined before the first stage is implemented. These amendments go some way towards that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The argument is put that people who vote in general elections not only do not always agree with what they have voted for, but they also have ideas of how such matters should be implemented.
Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord of the situation in 1983, when he no doubt supported his party at the polls. The Conservative Party manifesto deals with local government saving ratepayers' money. His colleagues used that argument in the House when they abolished the GLC. The manifesto states:
"The Metropolitan Councils and the Greater London Council have been shown to be a wasteful and unnecessary tier of government. We shall abolish them".
It could also be argued that the people of this country did not understand what they were doing, yet that was the mandate upon which, in my view, the greatest example of municipal vandalism was perpetrated on the people of London.
Lord Harding of Petherton: I understand that argument, but I am not a politician. I do not look at such matters in the same way perhaps as noble Lords who were previously Members of the other place. I look at them as a member of the public. I do not accept the issue of the manifesto. I am interested only in the fact that a second stage should be a proper second Chamber. I am not here to speak or to vote just so that myself and other hereditary Peers will continue to have the right to sit and vote in the House.
I do not speak for other hereditary Peers on these Benches; I speak purely for myself. I accept that hereditary Peers should not be legislators, as do other Members of my party and some other Members on these

199
Benches. Therefore, I do not accept the argument that we are just trying to delay matters to save our own skins. Some noble Lords may be doing that. I do not know.
Lord Newby: Our approach to the Bill has two principal strands. First, we believe that the time has long passed when hereditary Peers should have a legislative role. Secondly, we believe that the House of Lords should be reconstituted on a more democratic basis. Noble Lords will recall that those are the two principal strands in the Preamble to the Parliament Act 1911. Therefore, we believe that the time has long passed for both strands to be implemented.
As my noble colleague Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank explained several days ago, we are concerned that events may mean that stage two is delayed. In our view, that is absolutely no reason to suggest that the implementation of stage one should be delayed for a minute longer than necessary.
We have waited 88 years for the implementation of the Preamble to the Parliament Act 1911. There can be no argument, in our view, for delaying—
Lord Waddington: Surely, the noble Lord is not suggesting that by passing this Bill we shall be implementing the Preamble to the Parliament Act. We are doing precisely the opposite.
Lord Newby: My understanding of the Preamble of the Parliament Act 1911 is that this Chamber should be reconstituted as soon as practicable on a more democratic basis. In the 110 times that I have heard it quoted and the number of times that I have read it myself, I may have mistaken what the words say and mean. However, my understanding of the Preamble and the intention of those who passed the Parliament Act was that within a reasonable amount of time this Chamber would be reconstituted on a more democratic basis.
That Act was passed 88 years ago and I believe that this series of amendments would have the effect of delaying further the implementation of part of what lies behind the Preamble to the Parliament Act 1911. Therefore, I believe that we should get on with it, and that any amendment that delays further the implementation of what lies behind that piece of legislation passed 88 years ago should be rejected.
Lord Waddington: The noble Lord is getting himself into a terrible tangle. A few moments ago the noble Lord was saying that by passing this Bill we would implement the Preamble to the Parliament Act 1911. He went on to put his gloss on the wording of the Preamble and he got it more or less right. The words refer to the House being reconstituted on a more popular basis. Surely, he is not suggesting that the passage of this Bill will have the effect of reconstituting this House on a more popular basis.
Lord Newby: I am afraid that that is what I am suggesting, in part at least. To reconstitute this House on a more popular basis requires two stages: first, that
200
the hereditary Peers should no longer be Members of the House and, secondly, that there would be a more popular basis for selecting Members. We would prefer to move more quickly. In my mind at least, there is no doubt that this Bill goes some way to implementing what was in the minds of those who passed the Parliament Act 1911.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord said that this Bill would reconstitute the House on a more democratic basis. How can an appointed House be more democratic?
Lord Strathclyde: As we must wait for the noble Lord, Lord Newby, to think up a reply to that question—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My noble friend Lord Newby does not want to waste any more time.
Earl Ferrers: One wonders why he started wasting time with a red herring—first, using the word "democratic" and then reverting to "popular".
6.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My noble friend Lord Ferrers rests his case. But it was an interesting example of the development of Liberal Democrat policy that the hopes encompassed in the 1911 Act will be breached by the passage of this Bill. That was the impression that I and many of my noble friends gained from what the noble Lord said.
It is also a pleasure to join in a debate where we heard the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, make an important intervention, as he normally does when he intervenes in these debates. There is no doubt on these Benches what the Labour Party manifesto said or what the Labour Party is now trying to achieve. However, where I part company from him is in the idea that we simply have to accept that without any debate or scrutiny at all. I understand that the noble Lord was not intending to say that.
When the noble Lord, Lord Graham, was Opposition Chief Whip he ran an extremely effective operation of scrutiny, harrying and occasionally of delaying. He was most successful in doing so. It was not a waste of time; it was not needless delay. He achieved some notable changes to the effects of government policy at that time and it was almost certainly right that he did so. Anything that we are doing is no more and no less than he achieved during his time in opposition.
As has already been said, the purpose of this group of amendments is to delay implementation of the legislation. I remind the Committee of where we stand. We wish to seek to amend this Bill, but the amendments we seek should be practical improvements to the Bill on matters of principle; changes that the country can understand as being within our rights and on which we would be prudent to insist. However, simply to delay the Bill—desirable though that might be—when the Government are not minded to do so, would bring this House into an open and direct conflict with the Government; it would not prevent the passage of the

201
Bill. That is why, while I understand the principle behind the amendment and in an ideal world would sympathise with it, it is not the best place in which to expend our power. There are more fruitful areas for us so to do.
Of the choices that are practically available surrounding the birth, life and eventual death of the transitional House, I prefer the concept of a sunset clause. In that regard I add that I am not seeking to open the debate on the sunset clause; the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, dealt comprehensively with that yesterday afternoon. But as the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, said in his wise words yesterday, a sunset clause would give us time to search for the kind of consensus which is necessary if we are to reach long-term reform of this House.
I know that my noble friend Lord Ferrers was seeking to be helpful in his Amendment No. 121. There is a logic in delaying the removal of hereditary Peers until the end of this Parliament. It is another example of the Weatherill principle working; that is. if the hereditary peerage is so abhorrent to the Government, it makes stage two more likely. Of course, that does not obstruct the Government; it urges them on constructively. Given the choice between the two, I prefer the sunset route or the pressure of the Weatherill amendment to the blocking route of commencement. I am therefore in the unhappy position of not being able to support my noble friend Lord Trefgarne in his amendments.
Amendment No. 121 also raised the effectiveness of the ability to override the Writ in the light of the opinion which has already been mentioned, that of Mr. Lofthouse. I do not wish to go down this route again, but perhaps I might add this point. In the past few weeks the High Court offered a judgment in the case of Miss Jones, the Member of Parliament for Newark, which determined that she could return to another place because no successor had been elected and no Writ returned. It was remarked that, had another Member been elected for Newark and that Member had presented a Writ and the Writ had been returned, then that successor could not have been unseated in that Parliament.
I have drawn that to the attention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who says that he remains unpersuaded. But is that not at least prima facie evidence that a Writ returned may not be overridden? It would be helpful if the Government could explain why, in the light of all the evidence, they are ready to risk reference to the courts or the Committee for Privileges rather than amend this Bill. At least the Government cannot say that they have not been repeatedly warned as to the risk they may be running of passing ineffective law, and they may well find it challenged in a suitable place.
I look forward to listening to the response of the Government on the principles behind the amendments of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was kind enough to say that I dealt with the principles behind these amendments comprehensively
202
yesterday. This was the group which was spoken to fully by, among others, the noble Lords, Lord Peyton of Yeovil and Lord Elton. The amendments were Amendments Nos. 110F, 110G, 110H, 115, 120, 135A and 135B. It is fair to say therefore that these issues have been ventilated.
In response to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, if there is a court challenge, I am satisfied that we can overcome it.
This group consists of Amendments Nos. 116 to 119 and 121. Amendments Nos. 116 and 118 provide for the Bill to come into force after the House has accepted the report of the Royal Commission. Of course, it does not follow that the report will be accepted, and if so the Bi11 would never come into force.
Amendment No. 117 asks that we wait until 2001 or the dissolution of this Parliament whichever is the earlier. I dealt with that I hope—to use the noble Lord's phrase—comprehensively yesterday. It perhaps bears repetition, I cannot say for the last time. Our objective and our commitment are clear: we have already delayed too long.
Amendments Nos. 119 and 121 are also in this group. If accepted, it would mean that all hereditary Peers could remain in the second Chamber as of right until after the end of the Parliament in which the Bill was passed. They would be able to sit and vote in the Chamber during the discussion on the second stage of reform and any other government legislation. They are not acceptable and I invite the Committee, if any of the amendments are pressed, not to accept them.
Earl Ferrers: I wonder whether the Minister could expand a little more; he was marginally peremptory. In response to the suggestion that there may be a challenge in the courts, the noble Lord said that he is satisfied that the Government will win. That is not much of an argument when one hopes that we put forward substantial arguments as to the difficulties. Can the noble Lord say why he believes there are no such difficulties?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes. It is the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament. I am convinced that if there were a challenge by the holder of a Writ in contradistinction to the sovereignty of Parliament. the sovereignty of Parliament would inevitably be upheld.
Lord Trefgarne: I must confess that I am a little disappointed with the reply of the noble Lord which was rather short, even peremptory as my noble friend Lord Ferrers suggested. But the Minister is right; we have discussed this matter before. I will not detain the Committee further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 117 to 120 not moved.]
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 120A:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1), this Act shall come into force only to the extent that it is in full compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights and the precedents established by the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.")
The noble Lord said: The human rights problems with this Bill loom larger by the day. This amendment ensures the Bill's full compliance with the human rights clause, both European and British. I understand that the Government are advised that it would be impractical to implement fully the Human Rights Act 1998 before mid-2001 due to many practices and policies deep in our legal and administrative systems which are regarded as discriminatory and contrary to European human rights. Even the honours system is so affected.
Minorities such as hereditary Peers are classified by this Government as an "embedded Conservative majority". I refer to that phrase, as used by the Prime Minister in another place. I also refer to the labelling of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, of hereditary Peers in this House on 27th April as,
"an enormous in-built Conservative majority".—[Official Report, 27/4/99; col. 212.]
With this political labelling, hereditary Peers must be removed completely from this House. It seems so easily forgotten that, for many generations, hereditary Peers have been excluded; first, from the democratic process in being disenfranchised from election to the House of Commons; also, from voting in general elections, at least so long as they do not renounce their titles and rights.
Now we are offered compensation with a granting of those rights. Human rights cannot be granted. They exist because we are human, and not because those rights are a gift of government or a state. But hereditary Peers do not have to wait until 2001 to enforce their human rights. The removal of a political group—the hereditary Peers, as an embedded Conservative majority—is a violation of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There is no doubt, according to the Court in Strasbourg, that political groups are within the scope of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In particular, an "association" of Conservative Peers is a political group, and, therefore, would not be denied the protection of the human rights convention, merely because its activities are regarded by national authorities as undermining the democratic structures of the state.
Indeed, other areas of vulnerability include the very process of awarding Honours. These may fail under this ruling because they are discriminatory. The Court's ruling embraces a non-competitive process whereby all Peers are appointed. I hope that that may help my noble friend Lord Montgomery with his question in the debate on 27th April at col. 262 of Hansard.
However, for the present, we may be willing to trust, but not blindly, that the Government know what they are doing with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights, and its effect on the Weatherill amendment. That, too, appears to rely on a non-competitive process of selection and that would
204
render it open to reversal under European human rights laws. Can the Minister say whether that has been considered and whether that amendment would render the Bill contrary to European human rights laws? I believe that it would and that the Government have not considered such a scenario in their haste to get this Bill through quickly.
I referred to the case of the Turkish Communist Party in the European Court of Human Rights in 1996 in my previous speeches to this Bill. It proposes the abolition of the hereditary rights of a defined political group, simply because it is regarded by the Government as undermining, or contrary to, the democratic structures of this country.
It is clear that the Government will consider no amendments to the Bill, even to avoid human rights violations and even to comply with European laws. That posture does not sit credibly with the endorsement of this Bill as being compliant with human rights laws, as provided by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House.
Any British government that endorses a Bill as being compliant with the Human Rights Act must have been well aware of rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. This House has the right to know the detailed basis and reasoning for this endorsement, in light of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, stated in the debate on 27th April 1999 (at col. 252 of Hansard) that the Government were not, by this Bill, excluding a group from participating in the legislative process. He explained this by saying the Government were giving the hereditary Peers, who have been deprived politically and legally, their full entitlement to participate in parliamentary elections. This was the benign face of motherhood socialism talking.
Voting in general elections is not normally regarded as a legislative process. With the greatest respect, I believe that the noble Lord has confused the making of governments with the making of laws. He then admits to taking with one hand and giving with another. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, is a truly generous soul, but I think that he is playing at magician. How can one give what one does not have the right to give?
My right to vote as a citizen has always existed since I came of age. It is my human right in a modern democracy. My right to vote is not for a government or any party to give. It is for a Parliament to enact. Hereditary Peers have always had the right to vote. It is a human right. Governments have refused to enact that right in our domestic laws.
This Government are giving nothing that is not already possessed by human rights. If that is not well understood and accepted, then we all have a much deeper political and constitutional problem than just this Bill. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: No doubt whoever is to reply for the Government will be reminding the noble Lord. Lord Norrie, that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has stated on the face of the Bill that, in her

205
opinion, the provisions of this Bill are indeed compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Obviously the Government will have sought the very best and most expensive legal opinion on this question. Therefore, they can at least be 99 per cent. certain that they are correct in their assumption. The trouble is that where the law is concerned, no one, whatever their degree of expertise, can ever be 100 per cent. certain. So it would surely be prudent to accept this amendment by way of a safeguard. Indeed, one might describe it as a belt-and-braces safeguard. There could be no harm in so doing.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may intervene briefly. I believe that my noble friend Lord Norrie has raised interesting points about the European convention. What I find particularly interesting is that an Act in this respect, which was passed with much trumpeting and one about which I know the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, feels proud, will not actually come into effect, as I understand it, for some time to come—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may assist the noble Lord. I signed a parliamentary Answer today indicating that the Bill will not be delayed until 2001 and that it will come into effect on 2nd October in the year 2000.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That is still a year and a few months ahead. So it is a little ahead of right now. I suppose that making sure legislation comes into effect quite quickly is a good thing, but a delay of well over a year before this one comes into effect is quite interesting.
It is true, as my noble friend said, that the European Convention on Human Rights impinges on people's electoral rights. Indeed, I was reminded of a Gibraltar case, which one of its citizens—I believe it was a woman—brought, and won, against the British Government stating that it was against the convention to deny her the right to vote in European parliamentary elections. The Government are persisting with that denial of human rights, despite the efforts of my noble friend Lord Bethell to help them get within the law.
When Mr. Tommy Sheridan of the Scottish Socialist Party was threatened with non-registration by the registrar, the very threat of taking that case to the European Court of Human Rights appears to have persuaded the registrar that he should register Mr. Sheridan. The latter eventually proved that he had political support by winning one of the seats in the City of Glasgow for the Scottish Parliament. I do not actually think that he will win for the European Parliament, because I believe that is rather too big a hurdle for him to negotiate.
There are some points here that are worth the Government's attention. My noble friend has already raised them, but perhaps I may restate them. First, is it the Government's view that an hereditary peerage creates a right or an interest in property? If that is not so, can the Minister tell us what is the Government's
206
view in that respect? Secondly, can the Minister set out the arguments against the latter? After all, it is the desire of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to remove all dubiety from this Bill and to make it beyond doubt that all hereditary Peers will be removed in totality from the House. Therefore, it would be quite useful if the Government were to explain, even briefly, why they are confident—I am sure they must be—that their Bill is safe from the European Convention.
Lord Northbrook: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may make two points to add to my noble friend's recent comments. First, if indeed hereditary Peers do have property rights in this House, is there scope to claim compensation if their human rights are breached? Secondly, there may be a gap between hereditary Peers losing their voting rights here and being able to vote in a parliamentary election. That gap, however small it may be, seems to me to be a loss of human rights.
The Earl of Northesk: To endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Mackay I refer to the response of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne last night. In addressing the concern that Clause 4(3) in the Bill may offend against the ECHR, the noble and learned Lord gave a seven word reply. He said,
"The answer is no, it does not".
I gently suggest that your Lordships deserve a fuller answer than that. I have every respect for the legal expertise and acumen of the noble and learned Lord and I respect his opinion. However, in this matter do we not deserve a fuller explanation of why the noble and learned Lord's and the Government's opinion is as it is? Perhaps the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal will also elaborate on that point.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, who introduced the amendment we are discussing has neither apologised nor withdrawn the extremely unfortunate remarks that he made about me yesterday. I have now of course had the opportunity to read his remarks in Hansard. As regards Amendment No. 120A, I simply say to the noble Lord and to those who have spoken to the amendment that I was not—to use the unfortunate language of yesterday of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie—dissembling, deliberately or otherwise when I signed the declaration stating that this Bill is fully compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. As regards the other points raised about elections and property, my noble friends have replied fully to the relevant amendments on the third day of the Committee stage. This amendment is irrelevant.
Lord Norrie: I am grateful for the noble Baroness's reply. I mention in passing the recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights and the case of Mr. Demicoli and the Parliament of Malta. Further to the advice provided to the Joint Committee on privileges stated in its report dated 30th March 1999, page 76, paragraph 284, the several witnesses before the committee included the Lord Chief Justice who drew

207
the committee's attention to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights concerning proceedings of the British Parliament.
These developments clearly indicate that parliamentary sovereignty in this country is reduced in its scope and power. Specific actions by parliaments are appealable to the human rights court. The abolition of hereditary and property rights, especially those of a minority group, are rights protected by the European Court. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 121A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: We now come to Amendment No. 123 and also to Nos. 124, 125, 126 and 127 which have already been debated.
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 1, line 19, leave out ("or the European Parliament")
The noble Earl said: I indicated last night that I would return to Amendment No. 127 and I shall do so briefly. It is a modest affair but it is no less important for that.
Earl Ferrers: I hope I may interrupt. Amendment No. 123 may have been debated but I do not think that it has been called. My noble friend is discussing Amendment No. 127.
Lord Trefgarne: I hope I may assist the noble Lord in the Chair. I do not intend to move Amendments Nos. 123 and 124. The other amendments in the group stand in the names of other noble Lords who will decide for themselves what to do. As I understand it, my noble friend Lord Northesk intends to speak to Amendment No. 127.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I understand that Amendment No. 123 is not moved.
[Amendments Nos. 123 to 126 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: We now return to Amendment No. 127.
The Earl of Northesk: I apologise for that little hiccup. As I said, Amendment No. 127 is a modest affair but it is no less important for that. The fact of the matter is that hereditary Peers are not disqualified from voting in elections to the European Parliament. Our debate last night on Amendment No. 114 demonstrated that quite palpably. I know that I have not inadvertently broken an electoral rule by voting in European elections. What, then, is the purpose of making provision for this existing right to be transferred, however temporarily, into the hands of the Secretary of State? As my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish inquired last night,
208
"Are those words unnecessary?" The answer is, yes. I invite the Minister to accept the amendment and to remove them. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: Before the noble and learned Lord replies I hope I may say that I share the mystification of my noble friend Lord Northesk as to why these words are included in the Bill. Noble Lords already have the right to vote in European parliamentary elections. I myself have exercised that right in the past. I hope therefore that the Government will accept the amendment.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): The power in Clause 4(3) of the Bill, as the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, rightly points out, allows the Secretary of State to make transitional provision in respect of the entitlement of holders of hereditary peerages in relation to European parliamentary elections. As he rightly says, Peers are currently able to vote in European parliamentary elections. Neither the Bill nor any order made under it will affect that position. Why is the provision there? It is intended to use the power so as to allow a holder of a hereditary peerage who is resident overseas and who benefits from the transitional provisions in relation to UK parliamentary elections to be able to vote in European parliamentary elections on the basis of his or her entitlement to vote in UK parliamentary elections, without the need to show entitlement under Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1985 which makes provision in relation to Peers resident overseas and European parliamentary elections. The power has been taken merely to relieve hereditary Peers of the burden of going through two administrative processes. Those immortal words I uttered in identical form yesterday.
The Earl of Northesk: I apologise to the noble and learned Lord for my inattention last night; it was an interesting night. Nonetheless I am perfectly happy with his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 127A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 1, line 19, leave out ("as he considers appropriate")
The noble Earl said: This is a modest little probing amendment. I fear the noble and learned Lord may say that he will utter the identical words that he uttered last night. The only trouble was that I was so excited by the fact that he was replying to an amendment of mine that I had not put down that I did not hear what he said.
Clause 4(3) of the Bill states that,
"The Secretary of State may by order make such transitional provision about the entitlement of holders of hereditary peerages to vote at elections to the House of Commons…as he considers appropriate".
Therefore the Secretary of State may make such orders as he considers appropriate. What kind of things might the Secretary of State consider appropriate in the making of these orders? I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yesterday in relation to other amendments I set out the circumstances in which

209
the Secretary of State would be minded to exercise the power under Clause 4(3). I made the point—I think moderately clearly—that the purpose of doing this through orders rather than on the face of the Bill was to obtain the maximum flexibility to ensure that hereditary Peers obtained the right to vote as quickly as is reasonably possible. I believe that the views of Members of the Committee and the intentions of the Government are identical; namely, to ensure as soon as is reasonably practicable that hereditary Peers obtain the right to vote.
Why are the words "as he considers appropriate" included in Clause 4(3)? The reason is that it may not be necessary to make any order under Clause 4(3). The example I gave yesterday was as follows. Let us suppose that this Bill becomes an Act and then becomes law before 10th October 1999, which is the date by which you have to put your name on the electoral register. The effect would be that hereditary Peers could get their names on the electoral register which would come into effect in February 2000. Let us suppose as well that no general election took place between 10th October 1999 and February 2000. which I regard as a not unreasonable assumption. There would be no need to make any special order in that respect. In those circumstances, hereditary Peers would be on the register for the purposes of parliamentary elections as soon as reasonably practicable and they would not at any stage have been deprived of a vote.
I recognise that an unlikely situation may arise where a hereditary Peer finds himself in a constituency where there is a by-election. But we are proposing the most sensible and practical way of dealing with the matter. We recognise that there might be one or two hereditary Peers who, in the circumstances envisaged, would be unable to vote for that short period. We think that that is not an unreasonable price to pay for ensuring that there is a reasonable means of getting people on the register.
Perhaps I should deal with a point raised yesterday. Some noble Lords asked why, as they were already on the electoral register for the purposes of local elections, we do not deem those on the register as available to vote in parliamentary elections. There are three reasons why we cannot do that. First, it might not be necessary for the reasons I have just indicated. Secondly, it would not be possible to do it that way. I am told that what you have against your name is not "P", as the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, said, but "L". "L" stands not for "Life Peer" but for "Local". The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, prompted me in relation to that. If one simply deemed everyone with an "L" against their name as able to vote in parliamentary elections, that would enfranchise noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, which would be not at all what we had in mind. It would also not deal with the position of those who are hereditary Peers but disqualified for other reasons from voting in parliamentary elections.
Thirdly, we would still need to make provision in relation to the entitlement of Peers resident overseas at parliamentary elections, which could not be done by the same deeming provision. Equally, we would need to make separate provision in relation to European
210
parliamentary elections. For all those reasons, to take the course suggested by noble Lords yesterday would not be an appropriate or indeed the most effective method of ensuring quickly the ability to vote in general elections.
7 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: That is all very well. The noble and learned Lord says that one or two Peers might be inconvenienced if there were to be a by-election in their constituency. However, I am told that at least a dozen noble Lords live in the London constituency of Fulham. Is the Minister happy that as many as a dozen hereditary Peers should be disenfranchised?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We have put forward a sensible proposal. We have to balance proportionality against common sense. It is possible there will be a by-election in Fulham. I have no idea how many hereditary Peers live in Fulham but, in my view, the balance we seek is sensible.
Earl Ferrers: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for explaining so carefully the answer to my amendment. I am particularly grateful for the last part of his explanation about hereditary Peers who thought they were already on the electoral roll and how it was merely a question of removing the "L" or the "P". Listening to the debate yesterday, I thought that the noble and learned Lord was in error. Mostly, the noble and learned Lord is not in error over legal details, although he sometimes may be over political details. I am very grateful to the Minister for explaining the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 129 and 129A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 130 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 131 to 134 not moved.]
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 135:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LIFE PEERAGES
(" .—(1) During the period while the Act remains in force, recommendations by the Prime Minister to Her Majesty for the conferment of life peerages under the Life Peerages Act 1951 shall be made in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
(2) Not more than twenty recommendations shall be made during any period of one year.
(3) Not more than fifteen of the recommendations referred to in subsection (2) shall be for the conferment of a life peerage on a person who is a member of a registered party; and such recommendations shall be made in proportion to the respective number of votes cast for registered political parties at the previous general election.")
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment to explore briefly the reaction of the Government to the idea of a limit on the exercise of patronage. The proposal is related to the idea that there should be safeguards in the interim House. It would prevent any government, of whatever colour, flooding the House to

211
support a programme that was being amended by a House in which they did not have a majority. I appreciate that it is not the Government's stated aim to seek a majority in the House. The Opposition have the same view. But we would be wise to avoid any government in the future coming into temptation in that way. The amendment proposes putting a cap on the number of creations in any year which would apply to all parties.
It may be helpful to examine briefly the historical precedents of the annual creations made by recent governments. My source is an excellent paper produced by the Library of the House. The Macmillan government created an average of 16 new Peers per year; the first Wilson government created 25 per year; the Heath government, 12 per year; the second Wilson government, 38 per year; the government of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, 19 per year. The government of my noble friend Lady Thatcher created 18 per year, and Mr. Major's government created 25 Peers per year. Mr. Blair's Government—and I do not wish to make any political point—created 67 per year. At least that was the figure at the time of the Library paper. I understand some of the reasons for the high number of creations of the present Prime Minister. A further rash may be on the way in pursuit of the Government's stated intention to achieve broad parity between the parties. We do not dispute that aim.
What will happen during the rest of the life of the interim House, to which this amendment applies? Has any limit been considered? Will a limit be considered? Given the practice of Prime Ministers who have been in office for 23 of the past 40 years, do the Government agree that there is nothing in the figure of 20 that could not be adhered to? I know that there is increasing fear that the exercise of patronage may well get out of hand in the interim House. This is one way of preventing it.
I am also conscious that on 13th May 1999 (at col. 1419 of the Official Report) the Leader of the House made a generous offer to my noble friend Lord Lucas to enter into discussions between the Committee and Report stages on the question of how an appointments commission and similar potential safeguards might work. I welcome that proposal. I wonder whether the amendment might form part of that meeting. Perhaps not, but whoever is to respond to the amendment may wish to deal with the matter. I assure the Leader of the House that we on the Opposition Front Bench will readily take part in such talks to see whether a consensus on an appointments commission can be reached. I beg to move.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, says that this is a probing amendment. I certainly do not want to delay the Committee but the amendment raises a number of interesting issues that go beyond the points made by the noble Lord. Subsection (2) of Amendment No. 135 states:
"Not more than twenty recommendations shall be made during any period of one year".
212
I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, mentioned that in the period 1992–96 the average loss through death of life Peers was 19. So it must be noted that, give or take one or two, the noble Lord is proposing that there should be no more recommendations in a year than there is likely to be wastage through death. In other words, the Chamber will continue with a constant number.
It has been widely agreed in the terms of the Government's White Paper that there must be a balancing of the numbers on a political basis. Even were there to be no more nominations of Conservative Peers during the life of the new Chamber, it would still not be possible to redress the balance given the disproportionate numbers at present.
Paragraph 19 of Chapter 3 of the Government's White Paper and paragraph 7 of Chapter 6 set out the Government's understanding of the present position and also their intention for the future. The White Paper indicates the balance since the last election between the three principal parties. The figures are plain for everyone to see.
I seek to draw to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that there is no possibility, even if the new House survives a great deal longer than most noble Lords would wish it to do, in balancing the new Chamber, given the figures for votes cast in the last election on the basis of no change whatever in the numbers. That is the simple arithmetic which everyone must recognise.
It depends on when the figures are taken, but in broad terms 46 party life Peers are Conservatives, 42 are Labour, and 12 per cent are Liberal Democrats. So there must be some "coming down" in the number of Conservative life Peers. We all understand that there has to be an increase in the number of Labour life Peers. And there must be, to use the words in the White Paper, considerable proportionate creations of Liberal Democrats to obtain what would properly be our share of political life Peers.
So when we look at a figure of 20, and then allow, as I understand it, five for the Cross-Benches, it is plainly nonsense to believe that, were an amendment of this kind to be carried, it would contribute in any way at all to what I should like to believe would be the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, as well as those expressed by the Government—and which I am sure are shared by the whole Committee.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I suppose that we should be grateful in debating this amendment that the Opposition Front Bench officially recognises that some sort of proper balance of forces within this House is desirable. It has never seemed particularly to worry them in the past. Even last evening we were told by the Opposition Chief Whip that it is really this side that has the majority, and that is perhaps because we work harder.
There are two problems with this amendment. The first is that it is unnecessary. We have repeatedly made it clear that we do not intend to flood the House with new Labour Peers. We have committed ourselves, as the

213
noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, just said, to seeking only broad parity with the main Opposition party, to maintaining proportionate creations and to maintaining a Cross-Bench presence.
The second problem is slightly different. What the amendment does not do is enable any serious rebalancing of the relative party strengths in the House to take place because it deals only with new creations and not with existing numbers—what might be called the stock of Members. So although there is provision for new creations to be proportioned, the formula ignores both current disproportions and vacancies in the total existing membership created by death—as I said, the stock of existing Peers.
Would it, for example, under this amendment be open to the Prime Minister not to offer the Conservatives any new peerages on the grounds that they had suffered no deaths, but to appoint the seven new life Peers to which he was entitled, since Labour has suffered more than seven deaths, and to offer the Liberal Democrats their two; or would all batches of creations need to be in strict proportion regardless of the underlying circumstances?
I also remind the Committee that there are many more than three registered political parties. There are a dozen represented in the other place alone. Presumably they would have to share one, or sometimes two, appointments a year. Is that, for example, to be done on the basis of strict rotation, or on the basis of which party can put forward the most deserving candidate?
As I said, the Government's White Paper addressed the question of the stock of membership of the House, since it is that which determines relative party strengths and which in turn ought to reflect the outcome of a general election. A proposal which applies shares of the popular vote only to the flow of new creations, or seeks to put a ceiling on new creations alone does not take account of those realities. Therefore, this amendment is irrelevant politically and would not work in practice. However, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is anxious to join in the conversations that I have agreed to have with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on the basis of his previous amendments. I should obviously be very happy if he would do so.
Lord Elton: Will the noble Baroness tell the Committee, as this is a probing amendment, whether the Government have in mind any optimum number for the total membership of this House? What is the proposed best size for doing the work that the Government have in mind for it?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am sure that the noble Lord can do the arithmetic in relation to the subsequent House, which involves the 500-odd life Peers and other creations on whatever formulas achieve that. The longer-term arrangements would obviously be appropriate for discussion by the Royal Commission.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: I was only trying to get to the principle; namely, the question put by my noble friend Lord Elton as to whether or not the noble Baroness felt
214
that it would ever be right to impose an annual cap, barring some of the difficulties that she raised. Obviously the answer is no, there should not be a cap; there should be complete freedom for the Prime Minister to choose as many as he wants. The intention of this debate was not to give the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, the opportunity to make the case for more Liberal Democrat Peers, although I am glad that he did not miss that opportunity.
Is it the Government's intention to move to the composition of this House reflecting votes in a general election in the interim House, or is it to wait until we arrive at the longer-term, stage two reforms?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am sure the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has read the very precise comments on this matter in the White Paper referring to the transitional House.
Lord Strathclyde: So there is no further thinking on that! Well, this has been a useful debate, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 135A and 135B not moved.]
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 135C:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—

ATTENDANCE AT STATE OPENING OF PARLIAMENT
(" . Peers who are disqualified from attending the House of Lords by virtue of section 1 shall nevertheless remain entitled to attend State Openings of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 135D. Earlier in proceedings on the Bill there was some discussion about the so-called club rights. This amendment is not about those rights, but about a much narrower point; namely, the possibility—the desirability as I see it—of hereditary Peers attending the State Opening of Parliament, as I propose in this amendment. Amendment No. 135D raises an even more important point; namely, sitting on the steps of the Throne.
At an earlier stage I asked whether, for example, Privy Counsellors who were hereditary Peers would be allowed to sit on the steps of the Throne. At present, Privy Counsellors from the other place., from this House, or from neither House, may come and sit on the steps of the Throne. Indeed, I have discovered that one or two other slightly unexpected people are entitled to sit on the steps of the Throne. For example, I understand that the Dean of Westminster possesses those rights, and noble Lords may say that that is quite right too.
I should like to hear what the Government have in mind with regard to these particular matters. I believe that it would be appropriate for hereditary Peers to continue to attend the State Opening of Parliament. Of course, the hereditary Peers will not remain in the same numbers as now. I imagine that no new hereditary Peers are likely to be created in the foreseeable future; thus the number of hereditary Peers will decline. Indeed, I do not imagine that every hereditary Peer would want to attend anyway. I should also like to hear about the question of sitting on the steps of the Throne. and also

215
possibly about the question of access to this House by those who presently have access by virtue of their relationship to a hereditary Peer. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Amendment No. 135C would provide the entitlement as of right to continue to attend the State openings of Parliament. We do not see that there is any purpose, because after the passage of the Bill hereditary Peers will no longer be Members of the House of Lords. As noble Lords know, it is a matter for Standing Orders.
Amendment No. 135D, which is grouped with Amendment No. 135C, has to do with sitting on the steps of the Throne. This would also be a matter for Standing Orders in the context of Privy Counsellors. I thought I might have misread the amendment, because what is suggested is that all hereditary Peers—and their sons, and their daughters, and their grandsons and their granddaughters—will be able to sit on the steps of the Throne. Assuming that they are even modestly prolific, and giving them 10 a go, that means 7,000 people. There ought to be a law against it.
Lord Trefgarne: The plain fact is that a number of the people that I set out in my amendment are already entitled to sit on the steps of the Throne. I am not saying that they all are, but a number are.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that it is a matter for Standing Orders. But will the Government support the necessary Standing Orders? Is the Minister right to say that it is only a matter for Standing Orders? And if Standing Orders are the right vehicle, why should it not, in certain circumstances anyway, be right to put this on the face of the Bill?
We discussed the question of Privy Counsellors earlier. When the noble Lord says it is a matter for Standing Orders, is it a matter for Standing Orders, too, that Members of the other place who are Privy Counsellors may sit on the steps of the Throne, or are they here as of right? I am not sure that the noble Lord is entirely correct.
Nevertheless, it is not a matter that I shall pursue at this time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 135D not moved.]
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux Lord Randall of St. Budeaux moved Amendment No. 135E:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—

COMMISSION ON THE VOTING SYSTEM IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS
(" .—(1) There shall be a Commission on the Voting System in the House of Lords.
(2) The Commission shall make recommendations on a system of weighted voting to be introduced into the House to ensure that the total number of votes eligible to be cast by members of that House belonging to the party or parties forming the Government shall be greater than the total number of votes eligible to be cast by members of that House belonging to the official opposition party.
(3) The Commission shall report its recommendations before the start of the session of Parliament in which this Act is passed.
(4) Standing Orders of the House shall be made to give effect to the Commission's recommendations, and may provide that any vote cast by a member belonging to the party or parties forming the Government shall have a greater value than any vote cast by another member.")
The noble Lord said: The amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook.
I appreciate that we are under pressure to get the business through tonight, so I shall be as brief as possible.
My purpose in moving the amendment is to inform the Committee that at Report stage I shall move an additional amendment calling for the establishment of a commission on weighted voting. This amendment will support the other two amendments which have already been debated in principle but not in detail. Briefly, they were, first, that the House of Lords should remain the same but on death hereditaries would not be succeeded by their heirs, and, secondly, that there should be a weighted voting system. All that one would need to do in this whole business of Lords reform would be to multiply the number of Labour Peers voting by 2.7. That would meet all the strategic objectives of reform. I will not go into the details any further; they are in the Library.
I should like to explain the rationale for introducing this new amendment. It is based on the fact that I have serious reservations about the reform process that we are going through. I believe that there has not been the openness that there should have been. Certainly, there has not been a consensus, which I believe could have been achieved. The timetabling has caused difficulties; we have only just learnt that there will be no elected Members, according to my party's submission. We have also learnt only recently that there will be a retention of hereditaries. The main cause of confusion is that there have been no strategic objectives. Reading last Tuesday's Hansard shows that there is a considerable level of disillusionment about the reform process.
How might we proceed with this reform? Because of the flaws in the reform procedure that I have described, I strongly believe that the House of Lords should be presented with more than one option, and the other options should be sensible and practical. The Committee has already approved the Weatherill proposal, with a huge majority. That was the will of the Committee, and I have no intention of challenging the will of the Committee.
However, my view is that we can have other options too. To me, that seems very reasonable. I have sought advice from the authorities of the House, and I have been told that this would be perfectly in order. I also believe that to have one option presented as a fait accompli is not acceptable, particularly when there is not the confidence of the Committee in that proposal.
I hope to be able to present at the Report stage a realistic alternative to the Weatherill proposal. If my alternative was supported, we should have two proposals in the Bill, and therefore the Bill would be in a mess. Therefore I propose—and I think there are precedents—that at Third Reading the House would make its own choice as to how it should proceed. This is a fair and reasonable approach to reform and is in the interests of

217
the House. In particular, it would show that there was a consensus in the House for the reform chosen, because there would be choice. The Bill would then proceed to the House of Commons in the usual way.
I return to the details of the amendment. Why do we need the proposed commission? First, the complete package suggests that we have a weighted voting system. The concept is new. For the House to have confidence in something new like that we need to move away from the idea of one Peer making a proposal as an individual. I do not think that that is acceptable, so, for the sake of the confidence of the House, there should be an independent assessment. That is what the proposed commission is all about.
The commission would be established by the Government. It would have to be politically independent, and the Standing Orders of the House of Lords would have to be adapted to give effect to recommendations made by the commission.
That is the essence of my case. I would appreciate it very much if my noble friend would accept in principle, in the interests of the House of Lords, the notion of having a multi-option approach to the reform process.
Lord Northbrook: I am extremely glad to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux. In the rising temperature of the Committee stage in recent days, I am very glad that two Peers on opposite sides of the Committee are putting forward the amendment.
It may appear surprising to the Committee that the amendment is tabled by a Labour life Peer and a Conservative hereditary Peer. I believe that it is a great virtue of the House of Lords that that sort of thing can happen here, compared with the other place.
I came across the noble Lord's paper in the Library, and I met him shortly afterwards. I had been very impressed by the paper, and decided to give the amendment my support. The appointment of an independent commission to study the mechanics of the weighted voting system would be useful, and I hope that the Committee finds the timescale of its reporting acceptable.
As the noble Lord states, to have an alternative to the Weatherill amendment considered before the Bill comes back on recommitment is important. I shall not discuss the mechanics of the amendment on weighted voting, which can be easily understood from reading the paper of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, in the Library. Suffice it to say that the improvements that he has made since he originally conceived the scheme are substantial, because the weighted voting system gives the Cross-Benchers a crucial say in determining the result of a Division.
Furthermore, it is highly likely that under the Weatherill amendment we shall have a caucus of hereditary Peers for many years to come. I believe that an alternative amendment, which also allows some hereditary Peers to remain in this House for a limited period, is not incompatible with what the Government have conceded under the Weatherill amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: If I were to stretch my generosity considerably, I could say that my noble friend's amendment is well meaning. However, the consequences of the amendment have not been thoroughly thought out. Its first subsection calls for a commission to examine a voting system for the House of Lords. Even if I were persuaded to support the establishment of such a commission—that is very unlikely—that provision is undone by the second subsection where the devil is concealed—or perhaps not really concealed—in the detail. I need. not go into the question of any possible criticism for reintroducing a novel form of block voting. However, the amendment could also be criticised because it does not refer to the means of weighting the voting of Cross-Bench Members. Even more importantly, if we were to have a weighted system which produced fewer votes for members of the Opposition than for members of the Government, we must ask how such a system could be regulated when Members from either side of the House break ranks with their Whips and vote on certain matters in opposition to their own party. It would be an absolutely horrendous system. Consequently, it seems to me that the amendment should be opposed.
Earl Ferrers: I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Randall, speak to his amendment because he tabled it as an alternative way of trying to think through this matter. I was interested in what he said almost sotto voce. I do not know whether his Front Bench heard him say that some noble Lords on his side of the House were disillusioned with the reform process—
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: On both sides!
Earl Ferrers: Yes, on both sides. I was anxious to ensure that the noble Lord's Front Bench heard that. I was seeking to remind the noble Lord's noble friends of what he had said. Some noble Lords are, indeed, disillusioned.
I should be interested to hear again how the noble Lord proposes that his system should work. However, he is a mathematician and finds all these things dead easy. I had the privilege outside the Chamber of the noble Lord explaining to me how his system would work. It was so unbelievably complicated that I could not understand it at all. I am quite prepared to accept that my IQ is very much lower than that of most people, but once one starts in the Division Lobby clocking in 1.5 votes for one Peer and 2.3 votes for another, that seems to make an absolute mockery of the whole thing. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, asked what happens when a Peer votes in the wrong Lobby, as happens periodically on both sides of the Chamber. Would such a Peer carry with him a 1.5 weighting or a 2.3 weighting? It really is too complicated.
We have had many electoral changes in the country from a first-past-the-post system to proportional representation and even to the curious system in Scotland where the two systems are used at once. We

219
are now suggesting that your Lordships' House should have weighted voting. The whole thing would be unbelievably complicated.
Lord Crickhowell: I am sorry to have to disagree with the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, because I greatly respect the stand that he has bravely taken on this Bill. In addition, I share many of his reservations and concerns, particularly in the light of the notable contribution last night from the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, who made it absolutely and unmistakably clear that there can be no certainty of a second stage and who said that there are huge problems in getting to that stage. Indeed, last night we had an acknowledgement from the Government Front Bench—from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn—that the Government were coming forward only with proposals and not with a guarantee that they would be carried through. We are dealing with a proposal for an interim House that may last a long time.
My objections to the proposal are not simply those of complication, as voiced by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, but also of principle. First, one of the great strengths of our parliamentary democracy is that individual votes and the decisions of individuals actually count. I see my noble friend Lord Jopling on the Benches behind me. As a former Chief Whip of my party, he will recall some crucial votes when we were deciding questions relating to Europe. He will remember, as I do, the agonising decisions that had to be taken by individual Members in deciding whether to break with their own party on a great decision of principle which was of immense importance for the country. Their votes were important because they were taken individually. However, they were also important because the vote of any one Member was equal to the vote of any other, whatever their position in government. That must be right. It is an extraordinary concept that, for example, apparently because one is a member of the governing party, one's votes might weigh more heavily irrespective of whether one is in the "Content" or "Not-content" Lobby, or for or against the Government. That is implicit in the wording of the amendment.
That brings me to my second objection to the amendment. It seems extraordinary that if it is proposed that there should be a commission on the voting system in the House of Lords, so many of the apparent decisions of the commission should have been pre-empted in the wording of the amendment. I see no purpose in, for example, the provision relating to the Standing Orders—partly because they clearly pre-empt the decision of the commission, but also because, as we have heard on previous occasions, there is no need to include in the Bill provisions relating to the Standing Orders of the House.
Although no doubt moved for all sorts of good intentions, this new clause must be objected to. I hope that we shall not, in last night's memorable phrase from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, turn this House into a "genetically modified House of Commons". The noble Lord suggested that that might
220
happen if we had an elected rather than a nominated House. I have considerable sympathy with those arguments.
There is a great danger in the noble Lord's amendment in that we would, indeed, be turning this House into a genetically modified House of Commons because we would be making it a House in which membership of a political party weighed more heavily than the judgment of an individual. That is a wholly unacceptable proposition and I hope that the Committee will have nothing at all to do with it.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I think that my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Ferrers are being a little hard on the amendment, which I find refreshing, if only because it liberates us from the almost blind commitment which many Members feel that they have to the Weatherill amendment. It was certainly supported by a very large majority, but a number of us felt that it was only one solution and perhaps only one step on the way to a final solution. As I understand Amendment No. 135E, the commission would report to the House and the House would be required to agree Standing Orders. That might easily overcome many of the difficulties raised by my noble friends.
Another attractive feature of the amendment is that its intention is to ensure that the government of the day—or the governing parties of the day in the other place—can outvote the party of the Official Opposition. I am now seeking clarification from the noble Lord, Lord Randall. Under the present circumstances that would mean that the Labour votes would be weighted in such a way as to outweigh the Conservative votes on this side of the House. The Government of the day could easily lose an amendment to votes cast by the Liberal Democrats and, most important of all, by the Cross Benches. I certainly would not want to be as negative at this stage as regards this amendment as my noble friends. I would like to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has to say. I repeat that the great attraction of the amendment is that it liberates us from the Weatherill amendment which has many defects, as we witnessed yesterday.
Lord Jopling: I was half-tempted to make a contribution to this debate before my noble friend Lord Crickhowell referred to my previous incarnation as a Chief Whip in another place. I dislike this amendment for two reasons. One has already been explained by my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Ferrers. It is much too complicated. I do not believe that it is within the traditions of our parliamentary democracy. All kinds of strange anomalies could arise.
My noble Friend Lord Ferrers referred to the possibility of someone voting in another Lobby. I vividly remember an occasion in the other place when one of my honourable friends, who had done himself rather well during the evening, voted in the Opposition Lobby by mistake in a very difficult vote for the Government. He went to cancel his vote in the Government Lobby, which one is entitled to do. He came to apologise to me. I was extremely angry and used words which I shall not repeat to the Committee

221
tonight. As a consequence he wrote me a letter which was on my desk when I returned to my room. It is framed in my lavatory at home to this day. It concludes with the immortal phrase, "If you wish for my support in future you had better mind your manners." That is the kind of situation which one could get into with this type of weighted voting.
I dislike the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for a rather different reason which I tried to explain when we debated the White Paper some weeks ago. I took a view with which I believe many Members of the Committee will agree; namely, that after this Bill eventually passes into law this House will become infinitely more political and far more like the other place. I speak from memory as a former Chief Whip with a duty to get government business through. I am very dubious about whether it is fair to successive governments in this House to have an arrangement whereby the votes of the government party are equal only to those of the main opposition party. It was in the White Paper. I criticised that. It is in this amendment, and I criticise it for the second time. I do not believe that that would be fair on successive government parties having to get business through the House.
Whether we begin by having parity between the Government and the main opposition party, I believe that that will have to change eventually because the Government need to have parity with all the opposition parties. Even if one does that one s still putting the Government at risk of being overturned by the votes of the Cross Benches. It would be the wild card in this House as regards voting. I strongly object to the proposal that the Government have made and which this amendment repeats; namely, to have parity only between the Government and the main opposition party. It should include all the opposition parties.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not normally find myself in much agreement with my noble friend Lord Pearson, but I agree with some of what he says. The noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux, has tried to tackle the problem of the interim House by a slightly different route from the Weatherill amendment which the Committee has accepted. He looks not to the whole future, but to that of the interim House. We are continually told by the Government that that will not last very long. We should find a way to deal with the issue without the sudden death of the abolition of all but 92 of the hereditary Peers. The Government object to the hereditary principle. But, as I teased them recently, if more of the hereditary Peers were Labour Peers rather than Conservative Peers I am not quite so sure that their objection would be so deep-rooted. Their objection has a great deal to do with numbers. As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said earlier, we understand that.
I make no complaint about the number of Labour life Peers who have come to this House since the election. I understand why that has been done. As my noble friend Lord Jopling said, I understand that the Government must get their business. By and large your Lordships' House accepts that proposition. Therefore we are sparing with our use of the sort of Gatling gun that
222
we undoubtedly have although the other place has a form of Gatling gun by return in the form of the Parliament Act. I have to make a little caveat. By and large that is not a sensible way to do business. All of us know exactly what our position is vis-à-vis the other place.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, has brought forward this proposal which addresses immediately the problem of the number imbalance in an interim House where the hereditary Peers remain without the Prime Minister having to create any more Peers. For the balance game he may wish to create more Peers for other reasons. But he does not have to do so just for the sake of balance. The noble Lord's amendment is ingenious and addresses at least some of the problems of the Government associated with the composition of the House. His suggestion of a commission is a way of avoiding the need to find solutions simply by sending the matter to some of the great and the good, preferably being mathematically literate.
I reminded the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, earlier that the block vote was not entirely unknown in his party. It is not much of a block vote having 1.5 votes instead of only one. The Government may not like ingenious ideas. I find that strange coming from a Government who have just inflicted on Scotland and Wales and are about to inflict on the European elections the complicated calculations of the Belgian mathematician, M. d'Hondt. I was going ':o say the famous Belgian mathematician, but in all truth he is only famous for that formula. He is only now famous because we in this country have adopted it. Unfortunately, I do not believe that he is still alive; otherwise I would nominate him immediately for the commission of the noble Lord, Lord Randall. I cannot do that. I humbly suggest that I might be a suitable replacement to M. d'Hondt as I have had to study this issue in three different Bills. I do not believe that there is a problem here as regards some form of weighted voting.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, seems very concerned about rebels. I risk incurring the ire of my noble friend Lord Henley and also my noble friend Lord Jopling whom I still remember for the nice, cheery way he kept us in order in the 1979 Parliament. I suggest that any Member who wishes to vote against his party should receive double points for courage. I have been the recipient of some serious rebellions. Members of this House should be just a little freer than those in the other place as regards voting.
The noble Lord's proposal deserves serious consideration. It deals with the problem of the balance of numbers immediately the Bill is passed. That should be attractive to the Government. Other issues will have to be addressed. When looking at the balance in the House there need to be some Peers representing the Scottish National Party. I am not particularly keen on the idea but, if one is having fairness, it is fair to say that that party received a few more votes in Scotland than the Conservatives. For the record, we gained a few more votes than the Liberal Democrats. The SNP got many more votes than the Liberal Democrats. It is a little unfair that the SNP is not represented at all. Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Baroness the Leader

223
of the House that she talk to her right honourable friend the Prime Minister about the need for one or two—I would not go further—Members from the Scottish National Party. We have one Plaid Cymru Member. I am not sure that we shall see much of him; he has been elected as the Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly. The same argument applies.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux, invites serious discussion. It is a serious effort to address the problems which I know the Government see in the current composition of the House.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: First, my noble friend Lord Randall of St. Budeaux described the process in relation to Lords reform as not being sufficiently transparent. We have always made clear our position. Stage one is the removal of hereditary Peers, a Royal Commission, and then stage two. It is hard to be clearer. The chairman of the Royal Commission is a Conservative Member of this House. Anyone can submit evidence in relation to it. I cannot think of a clearer way in which to have a debate.
Secondly, my noble friend asked whether the Government thought it appropriate for a number of options to be presented to the Chamber. The Government do not think that appropriate. The Government have a clear policy in relation to reform of this House, in particular stage one. The Government also think that the composition of this Chamber is not just a matter for this House. There are wider considerations beyond the wishes of this House, in particular the wishes of another place and of the people. The future of this House is not a matter to be decided simply by the Members of this House determining a menu for the other place. We do not think that that is an appropriate way to proceed.
Thirdly, my noble friend said that there were two prongs to his proposal: first, that hereditary Peers should survive until they die; and, secondly, that there should be weighted voting. He put that two-pronged proposal forward at an earlier stage of the Committee. At that stage it was not put forward for the interim House but as a long-term solution. He said fairly in the course of his speech on the previous occasion that he believed the general view in this House was that the time for a hereditary legislature was gone. With respect, we agree with him.
The proposal he makes in relation to hereditary Peers staying until they die means that after two parliaments the figure will be 50 per cent of their number. They would survive for about 60 years on the basis of actuarial tables. While I am glad that many of them will survive for a long time, that does not meet in any shape or form our manifesto commitment to remove the hereditary Peers. So we cannot accept the first part of his proposal.
The second part of the noble Lord's proposal is put forward on the basis that it helps the Government meet their proposal to have parity in relation to this House. The effect of Clause 1 to which this House has agreed
224
is that if all hereditary Peers were removed there would be a difference of approximately 13 between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party in relation to the number of hereditary Peers. We believe that it is better to address that disparity by creations to achieve parity rather than a process of weighted voting in relation to Members of the Government and members of the Conservative Party. The way we suggest is more straightforward. It matches the tradition of Parliament in this country: that each person has one vote. It does not fall foul of the problems to which the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Jopling, referred; namely, what happens when advertently or inadvertently a member of one party votes in the opposite Lobby.
With the greatest respect to my noble friend, we do not think that his amendment is appropriate as regards the whole scheme, or is the right solution.
The effect of the Weatherill amendment is that there will be a slightly greater disparity because there are more Conservative than Labour hereditary Peers. But it does not make the disparity so great that it cannot appropriately be dealt with by the direct method that I suggest. We believe that there is no need for a weighted system to achieve parity between the two main parties in the House.
I turn to the detail of the amendment. There is nothing in the proposals about the composition of the commission or its status. Is it to be connected with the House, or right outside it? Nor is there anything about the considerations which the commission has to take into account in formulating its recommendations. I can see considerable dangers in a number of schemes. How does one fix the ratios to take account of the changing membership of the House? Is it to be entirely a matter for the commission to determine how great the Government's advantage over the main Opposition party should be? Is any consideration to be given as to how likely people are to vote in drawing up the weightings? What weight does a vote carry when a Peer votes against his own party?
Finally, I must point out the logical flaw in this amendment. It requires the commission to report before the Session in which the Bill is passed. As I understand it, therefore, the commission has already reported on the basis of these proposals.
The proposals do not stand up either in detail or in principle. I hope that my noble friend will note that with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, there was essentially no support in the Chamber for his proposal. I hope that he will bear that in mind when he considers what to do at Report stage.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before the noble Lord, Lord Randall, replies, has the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, forgotten my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is much too clever to support the amendment.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: I refer to the motive underlying the proposal. It is to prevent a massive,

225
instantaneous removal of a huge percentage of the Members of this House. In principle that is the problem. It is the Big Bang approach. I put forward the amendment independently. I have no axe to grind other than to pursue the matter as a Member of this House. If one does not want an instantaneous removal of hundreds of Members of this House one needs a system of weighting in practice.
The Minister stated that he could not support the idea of options. That is a pity. I realise that both Front Benches have made a deal. I am aware that 80 or 90 Peers will have seats. However, I still believe that the House should decide on this issue.
I refer to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity. The issue has nothing to do with block voting. The point was raised that someone from this side of the Chamber might vote in the other Lobby. In that case, the weighted voting goes through. The situation is very easy.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, mentioned the confusion. We discussed it over dinner in the Home Room one evening. Perhaps I may put it in practical terms. The position is simple. One would move the column one inch in the printed form which the Clerks fill in. Then one adds up the list in the same way as now. There is then a little "look-up table" because we do not want to do multiplication; and that is it. There is nothing complicated.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that the issue is so simple. I can only say that his idea of simplicity and mine are totally different.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: We beg to differ on that. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said that we seek to make this Chamber like the House of Commons. That is the last thing we want to do. We are trying to get a House which is independent and has maintained its level of expertise and overall parliamentary system. As regards the "contents" or "not contents", it does not matter which Lobby one goes through because the weighted voting system is exactly the same.
8 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: I respect the noble Lord for the argument he has advanced about the Bill, but I do not understand why, if we go into the Division Lobbies, he should have two-and-a-half times my vote on any issue about which we might happen to differ.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: There is an arrangement in this House under which there is a much greater proportion of Conservative Peers than Labour Peers. I have been through the figures of every government defeat since 1997 and I believe that there is total inequity. I believe that the Government are having a rough deal. Therefore, the purpose of the amendment is to try to achieve equity in the voting, but, at the same time, to maintain the independence of the House.
My solution of "even Stephens" is equality for Conservative and Labour—the Government and the Opposition—and I have assumed that the independents
226
would come from the Cross-Benchers and the Liberal Democrats and others. That means that there is a great deal of independence, but at the same time the Government would be able to get their business through in a much better way than has been the case.
These views are debatable and the whole point of the Royal Commission is to confirm that situation. 'The commission will probably need to meet only on two days in order to discuss the matter. It would he extraordinarily simple.
Lord Crickhowell: The commission can decide on the technical details, but it cannot decide on the principle. Perhaps I may give an example of a particular issue which arose under the previous Conservative Government; the War Crimes Bill. I, with a string of Cabinet colleagues in the Conservative Government, went through the Lobby against that Government and against the majority in the House of Commons. It is not the kind of issue on which the membership of a political party should decide that one vote is greater than another. That above all was the kind of issue in respect of which individual Members of this House decided on the merits. I was in the Lobby not only with a number of former Conservative Cabinet Ministers but a large number of Labour Members who took the same view. I believe that all our votes should count as equal.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: That is the balance of argument between removing a large membership of this House instantaneously and having some other arrangement. That is the balance which must be struck. I have covered the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, in some of my other answers and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for his kind comment. The balance is very important.
Lord Elton: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should not like him to withdraw his amendment without realising that the work he has done on it is greatly appreciated by Members of the Committee, even though it has not been successful. It has been done with great courage because any deviation from strict protocol is obviously not welcome on his Front Bench. On this occasion, when they are anxious to move on fast, one wonders whether one hears the grinding of teeth from in front of him. He has shown great courage.
I say to my noble friend Lord Ferrers that the system is not that complicated. A minority government is being given 1.7 votes per Member and one defector is worth 1.7 defections. That seems to me to provide a certain amount of equity. I do not want to hold things up, merely to say that the noble Lord has done a good job and I hope that he will not abandon it half-way through.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for those kind words. Perhaps I may say that there has been no grinding of teeth. The Chief Whip has been marvellous to me; he has not raised the issue and has been very kind. I am an ultra Blair moderniser in a House which may be having difficulty. Change is complicated and never as simple as one wishes. I believe that the benefits which can accrue from

227
going down this route are worthwhile and therefore it is my intention to bring an amendment before the House at Report stage. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Interpretation and short title]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): I must advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 136 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 137 to 139C inclusive.
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 2, line 4, leave out subsection (1)
The noble Earl said: In addressing Amendment No. 136, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 139 to 139C.
Lord Strathclyde: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend. I see from the groupings list that Amendment No. 137, which stands in my name, has been included. It deals with a different point and therefore we shall be removing it from the grouping and speaking to it separately.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am sorry to say that the same applies to Amendment No. 138, which also deals with a slightly different aspect.
The Earl of Northesk: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is adamant that Clause 1 is wholly effective. Therefore, the purpose of the amendments is to attempt to tease out why the Government have felt it necessary to specify in the Bill any, let alone only two, of the dignities of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales on the face of the Bill. It seems to me that that creates unnecessary confusion and obscures the Government's attempts to achieve exquisite simplicity.
My preference would be the solution offered by Amendment No. 136, but the fundamental point remains. If the Bill is as watertight as the noble and learned Lord maintains, surely there is no need to make any reference to any individual titles or dignities, to whomsoever they may belong. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: I wish to speak in support of my noble friend Lord Northesk and to Amendments Nos. 139 to 139C. The Government propose, as the Explanatory Memorandum makes clear, that the Royal Members of this House shall cease to be Members of this House in the same way as the other hereditary Peers. Indeed, two of the Royal titles are referred to in the Bill. However, I am not certain or clear that the Government have got it quite right. For example, as suggested in Amendment No. 139, the Dukedom of Cornwall and the Dukedom of Rothesay, both held by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, may not be hereditary peerages. Indeed, in the view of some experts they are most certainly not. For example, if His Royal Highness were to die in the lifetime of his mother his title would not necessarily descend to His Royal
228
Highness Prince William. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has thought this matter through and will be able to reassure us.
Similar considerations apply with regard to the Dukedom of Rothesay. I understand that it was conferred on the original holders in the 14th century and that it is roughly equivalent to the Dukedom of Cornwall. However, there is doubt about it because the Letters Patent have been lost. No doubt the researches of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, have clarified this matter and I look forward to hearing his reply in that regard. Can he also deal with the Barony of Renfrew, the Earldom of Carrick and the so-called Lordship of the Isles that are referred to in my subsequent amendments, which are also held by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.
Lord Gray: I do not presume to know whether or not the Dukedom of Rothesay was a hereditary title, but it may be of historical interest that it once had an indirect effect upon your Lordships' House because the future King George II, when he was Duke of Rothesay, voted twice in elections for representative Peers for Scotland, and, again the future George IV similarly voted in nine elections between 1787 and 1807. Whether it is a hereditary peerage or not, it obviously held rights with regard to your Lordships' House and membership of your Lordships' House.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am most grateful for the courteous way in which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, invited me to deal with his specific points, and to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk's, reference to a potential problem.
I am only dealing, because of the requests made, with Amendments Nos.136, 139, 139A, 139B and 139C.
As regards Amendment No. 136, the root of the problem is that there is some uncertainty as to whether the Principality of Wales and the Earldom of Chester are hereditary peerages. We wanted to make the position clear, and that is why those two hereditary peerages that are presently occupied by the Prince of Wales are specified.
Lord Trefgarne: Did the noble Lord say that the Principality of Wales is a hereditary peerage?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: There is some uncertainty as to whether the Principality of Wales and the Earldom of Chester are hereditary peerages. That is why I should like to remove the ambiguity.
The same point is raised in Amendments Nos. 139 and those following. The same authorities which raised questions as to the Principality of Wales and the Earldom of Chester are unanimous that the Dukedom of Cornwall, the Dukedom of Rothesay, the Earldom of Carrick and the Lordship of the Isles are to be counted as hereditary, and that is why they do not need to be specifically dealt with. The Barony of Renfrew is not a peerage dignity at all; it is a feudal or minor barony of Scotland. That is why the Bill is drafted in this way.
Lord Trefgarne: I am troubled by the noble Lord's reply in respect of the Dukedom of Cornwall. I am told

229
that it is held by respectable opinion not to be a hereditary peerage for the reasons to which I have referred, among others. I accept that there is less certainty about the Dukedom of Rothesay.
However, the noble Lord has said his piece. He has access to at least as good professional advice as the rest of us and I do not propose to pursue that point and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 2, line 4, after ("peerage"") insert—
("means members of the peerages of Scotland, England, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom other than those created under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 or the Life Peerages Act 1958, and")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No.137 which concerns a rather different point. The Bill presents a very odd state of affairs in which the targets of the Bill—hereditary Peers—are not defined. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when pressed on the Lofthouse amendment, said that the man in the street would know a Lord when he saw one. I have not always noticed that, and in any event this is not a safe case for legislation.
Time and again during the passage of the Bill doubt has crept in, although during the debate on the last amendment the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, went out of his way to explain why he was taking certain actions in order to remove doubt. That is what the amendment is proposing. What could be an easier way of dispelling doubt but to include that bog-standard element of any Bill, the definition? The amendment provides such a definition and therefore should be more helpful to the Government in the face of any real challenge than the obiter dicta of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
I wonder whether the Government will find something attractive in the amendment. I think it would remove some of the doubt hanging over the Bill. If they cannot accept it, perhaps they can explain why. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The amendment is technically defective because it would insert the words "means members of the peerages of Scotland, England, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom". A peerage cannot mean a member of the peerage. It should, if that is the desired effect, refer to the peerages themselves.
The essential point is that the amendment is not necessary. It is quite clear what a hereditary peerage is and, more importantly, for the reasons I have specified on earlier occasions, what "by virtue of a hereditary peerage" means.
The words used by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, were: "We are looking for the bog-standard element of any Bill and interpretation clause." As noble Lords who have sat here for a while will recall, many Bills do not
230
have interpretation clauses where there is no possibility of doubt. That is why we have not thought it necessary to go down the route indicated by the noble Lord.
Lord Strathclyde: I thank the noble Lord for his reply, but there is a doubt that has crept in. For obvious reasons, that doubt is not conceded by the Government. There is a doubt about the effectiveness of the words in Clause 1, "by virtue of hereditary peerage". There is doubt about the overriding of the Writ of the Summons; there is doubt about whether all Peers are included and there is still some doubt about the position of Scottish Peers brought in in 1963, or of Peeresses in their own right.
I am certain that the amendment is technically deficient, so I will withdraw it and re-examine the position. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 2, line 4, leave out from ("peerage."") to end of line 5 arid insert ("does not include any of the peers of Blood Royal")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 138 touches upon delicate ground because it proposes that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and their Royal Highnesses the Peers of the Blood Royal should be invited to stay on in your Lordships' House at least for the duration of the interim House.
Part of the reason for this was very well and very briefly stated by my noble kinsman Lord Charteris of Amisfield at Second Reading. He said:
"If all rights of hereditary peers to sit, speak and vote in the House are abolished, I believe that will expose the Monarchy. It will be the only establishment based on heredity".—[Official Report, 30/3/99; cols. 307–308.]
My noble kinsman went on to say that he was not worried for the immediate future of the monarchy with which, as noble Lords will be aware, he has a certain familiarity, but that he hoped that the Royal Commission would try to keep some element of the hereditary peerage in the long-term House so that the monarchy would be less exposed.
There has already been some discussion as to whether removing the hereditary Peers from your Lordships' House does indeed begin to undermine the Throne, but in all conscience many of us believe that it must. The principle of heredity is certainly weakened in your Lordships' Chamber, and the Throne is not very far away.
There is another reason for inviting the Peers of the Blood Royal to retain a seat and a voice in your Lordships' House, at least for the interim chamber. The reason is quite simply that although they have not been in the habit of attending much at all recently, which is perhaps a pity in itself, I cannot help feeling that were they to attend and contribute more frequently to our

231
debates in future, those contributions would be of enormous value to the House and to Parliament as a whole. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I need to take my cue from the noble Lord who moved the amendment in relation to the delicate area that we are getting to. I am grateful that he cautioned us all about that.
Perhaps I may say generally that this matter was raised on Second Reading. But on other occasions, the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, who is not in his place at present, has urged us not to confuse the question of the hereditary monarchy with the reform of this Chamber. I believe that he was right to give us that advice. I reiterate that there is no prospect whatever of any derogation from the status of the monarchy and the Royal Family.
I repeat what other noble Lords have said on earlier occasions. We know perfectly well of examples in continental Europe where the hereditary monarchy coexists amicably, fruitfully and happily with a second Chamber which has no element of the hereditary principle about it.
As regards the particular points, and treading with extreme caution, this amendment refers to Peers of the Blood Royal only. That means, if I have it correctly, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of York, the Duke of Kent and the Duke of Gloucester. It would not include Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. That is the status of the amendment.
The best that I can do is simply to draw the attention of the Committee to the words at paragraph 5.16 on page 30 of the White Paper. Having reassured the Committee, if the noble Lord is prepared to withdraw the amendment and reconsider the matter, I suggest that he should consider with care the views of those who may be affected. I do not believe that I can go further into that rather delicate area.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Certainly I will take away his words and, together with others, consider them. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 139 to 140 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("House of Lords") and insert ("Appointed Chamber")
The noble Earl said: This is an amendment to make clear what is being done. We all know what is happening; that is, the hereditary Peers are being removed and instead there is to be an appointed Chamber. Therefore, I suggest that the Title of the Bill should refer to the "Appointed Chamber" and not to the "House of Lords". That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I wish to speak to my Amendment No. 142, which is an easy and simple amendment. It follows a precedent. It draws attention to a fact which
232
should be obvious and common ground. It is simple. We are witnessing a major change to this House. This is the most dramatic break in the continuity of this House in its history and it cannot be introduced without affecting the other place.
The Government used to say that their objective was to create a more democratic House of Lords—although that has been air-brushed out of the Labour Party evidence to the Royal Commission—and to increase the power of this House relative to another place. For that reason, and for many others, I wonder why this Bill is not called a Parliament Bill and, after Royal Assent, a Parliament Act. Perhaps when he winds up the noble Lord will say why the Royal Commission is denied the right to look at the working of Parliament as a whole.
It is striking what else the Government did not call this Bill. They did not call it a House of Lords reform Bill. They know, as well as we do, that it does not begin to pass muster as a genuine reform of this House. It will do nothing to make it more democratic, more representative or more legitimate. It will do nothing to make it more modern because a Chamber of appointees is a throw-back to the selection methods of ancient times.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is to reply. I welcome him to our debates. I hope that he will take the amendments seriously. I very much look forward to listening to his reply. I should be interested to hear also what justification the Government have for choosing such a limited and misleading name.
Viscount Trenchard: The Committee may wonder why I have introduced further amendments concerning the name of the House of Lords Act in my Amendment No. 142A. I have great sympathy with the views of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, which make perfect sense. However, in previous debates, unfortunately, I have not noticed much enthusiasm from the Benches opposite for the proposal that your Lordships' House should be renamed the "House of the Appointed". Therefore, I fear that there may not be enough support for my noble friend's Amendment No. 141.
The amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde is, at first sight, a very logical choice and I should be happy with that. I hesitate to propose a view different from that of my noble friend but there is one reason that I prefer my amendment.
The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 deal with the powers of your Lordships' House. This Bill purports to deal only with its composition. My noble friend may well be right that the Bill alters the composition of the House so radically that it affects the House's ability to exercise its powers, the nature of the House itself and its relationship with another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and other noble Lords have drawn your Lordships' attention to the politicisation of the House which will result from the passage of the Bill which, it has become clear, is regretted by many noble Lords. However, this Bill is supposed to deal only with composition. "House of Lords Composition Act" sounds rather unattractive and so I propose "House of Lords Membership Act". I know

233
that some Members of the Committee may not like it because the concept of membership of your Lordships' House has not been used much in the past. However, with the passage of the Bill, it will be altered and defined. Indeed, it is used in the Title of the Bill and in the Bill itself. I look forward to hearing the views of the noble Lord on that matter.
Lord Monson: Any of these amendments would be an improvement upon the wording of the Bill as it stands because they describe accurately what is happening. Being aware that governments of all political persuasions always opt for brevity in the Titles of Bills, I favour the amendment spoken to by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I calculate that I have spent 46 hours, 28 minutes happily listening to our debates in Committee. My reward is to answer this group of amendments.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, returns to a consistent theme of his; that is, the name of the House of Lords. In Committee we have heard different suggestions for names—Appointed Chamber, Half House of Lords, Transitional House, a Chamber of Peers, Upper House, Second Chamber, Senate and House of Peers, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, suggested yesterday in adding a Gilbertian touch to our proceedings. He did not get it quite right since the long title of "Iolanthe" was "The House of the Peer and Peri". As every schoolchild knows, penis appeared originally in Persian mythology and came to be used as a term for women generally. I can only suppose that W.S. Gilbert anticipated the remarks of my noble friend Lady Castle yesterday in calling for a non-sexist title for your Lordships' House.
What does that indicate? I suggest that it indicates little consensus and many different opinions about what the House should be called in its second stage. Those remaining in the transitional stage will be Lords. There will be no change in the function of the House. As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said yesterday, it would be confusing if the House changed its name during the interim stage.
Surely, this is a matter for the Royal Commission. As I understand, the Royal Commission has said that it would welcome suggestions for a possible new name for your Lordships' House to reflect the changing role, functions and composition of the Second Chamber. I do not believe that this is a matter for us, nor should it be so.
I turn to Amendment No. 142 and the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, which seeks to change the title of the Bill to the "Parliament Act 1999". The Bill deals with the first step in a long overdue reform of your Lordships' House, the House of Lords. That is why the Bill is known as the "House of Lords Bill" and that is why we consider it more accurate to call it the "House of Lords Bill".
The noble Lord mentioned the Parliament Act. It is certainly true that the reform Bill in 1968 was called the Parliament No. 2 Bill, but the Bill dealt with the
234
composition and the powers of the House of Lords and, in particular, replaced Section 2 of the Parliament Act 1911.
I turn to Amendment No. 142A tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. We believe that this amendment is unnecessary. The Committee's acceptance of the Weatherill amendment ensures that alongside the substantial reduction in the number of hereditary Peers in membership of your Lordships' House in the interim phase, the broad categories of Members remain the same. We shall still have life Peers, the Bishops and the Law Lords and a proportion of hereditary Peers. However, the size of one element of the membership, the hereditary Peers, will change.
As we discussed earlier, the Bill also provides provisions about the disqualification from voting at elections to and from membership of the House of Commons. So the Bill is not just about membership of the House of Lords. I hope that I have satisfactorily answered the points raised and that noble Lords will withdraw their amendments.
8.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: When the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said that he had been waiting for 48 hours and 36 seconds, or whatever, I thought that he was about to please your Lordships by accepting one amendment. Alas! that was not to be.
The noble Lord made one mistake. He said that this is a matter for the Royal Commission, but it is not. We are dealing with the interim Chamber and the Royal Commission will deal with the subsequent Chamber. Therefore, I believe it is a matter for this House to decide what it should be called. I thought 'Appointed Chamber" would be an excellent name as the Bill would read "This Act may be cited as the Appointed Chamber Act 1999". That is what it is. However, I knew I would not get very far. I am happy to withdraw the amendment, with deep gratitude to the noble Lord for having spent so much time here and for putting so much thought into answering the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 142 and 142A not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 144A not moved.]
Schedule [Repeals]:
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 145.
Page 3, line 3, at end insert—

("15Edw. 2.

Revocation of the New Ordinances 1322.

The word "earls" in the last place where it occurs.

31 Henry 8.

The House of Lords Precedence Act 1539.

In section 4 the words from "above all dukes " to the end. section 7.")

The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 145 is intended to clarify the effect of the Bill. I hope that the Government will accept the spirit in which it is offered.
The first part of the amendment is to an ancient ordinance of Edward II and seeks to repeal the reference to "earls", appropriately, in the last section of the ordinance. The side note to the section states:
"Ordinances or provisions concerning the King and the realm made by subjects shall be void and none such shall be made except by the King, Lords and Commons in Parliament".
I feel that that is a fundamental constitutional document of our parliamentary democracy. It establishes for all time that the only legislative authority in the country is the sovereign in Parliament which is the Lords and Commons. In the text of the ordinance we find the words:
"By our Lord King and by the assent of the Prelates, Earls and Barons and the commonality of the realm".
At that time there were no Dukes, Marquesses or Viscounts, only Earls and Barons. Now we are contemplating changing the composition of the Lords Temporal who may assent to laws so as to validate them. They are no longer to include Earls, Dukes, Marquesses or Viscounts, but only Barons.
Therefore, it seems necessary to amend that ancient ordinance, to delete the reference to Earls so that it will state the position correctly for the future. I believe that there is no need to state expressly that the repeal is not to be retrospective. It is not, and Section 16 of the Interpretation Act 1978 would remove any doubts.
The second part of the amendment repeals some provisions of the Act of Henry VIII which determines the precedence in which Lords may take their places in this House. Perhaps it is not surprising that the other place has not concerned itself with this matter. The words in Section 4 of that Act which are to be repealed are those that provide that,
"The great office holders of state, the Lord Chancellor being the premier, shall sit and be placed as well in this present Parliament as in all other parliaments hereafter to be beholden on the left side of the said Parliament Chamber on the higher part of the form on the same side, above all Dukes, except only such as shall happen to be the King's son or the King's brother, the King's uncle, the King's nephew or the King's brothers' or sisters' sons".
As Dukes will not be allowed in the Chamber once the Bill is enacted, no matter whose son or uncle they may be, it seems appropriate that the references to Dukes and the King's relations should be repealed.
It is also proposed to repeal Section 7 of this old Act as that provides:
"That all Dukes not aforementioned, Marquises, Earls, Viscounts and Barons, not having any of the offices aforesaid shall sit and be placed after their ancienty as it has been the custom".
As in future there will be only Barons, this setting of precedence becomes unnecessary and accordingly needs to be repealed. I beg to move.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: The noble Earl has raised two interesting new points. To that extent, this is a refreshing amendment. I congratulate him and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne—who is not in his place—on finding another issue for the Committee to debate. Today we are invited to consider the particular position of 168 Earls. Perhaps that is an improvement on the one or two noble Lords whom we were asked to consider in
236
relation to by-elections which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and others, discussed so animatedly earlier today and yesterday.
As the noble Earl has pointed out to the Committee, the amendment proposes deleting the references to "earls" in the final part of—I apologise for my inaccurate classical pronunciation, if it is so—the Revocatio Novarum Ordinationum 1322.
In considering the provision, my expert advisers, in preparing the Bill, concluded that there was no need to exclude those references from the Bill and that they took precise notice of the terms of that arrangement. They decided that was not relevant to the Bill because the Bill before your Lordships will, impliedly, amend that Act of 1322 and, therefore, it will not be open to the courts to find a construction that is inconsistent with the Bill.
My expert advisers were conscious that it may be argued that the reference to "earls" required that some Earls be Members of the House of Lords, or that it required that Earls be voting for a measure before it can be passed. However, that argument was not considered valid.
Secondly, we were supported in our approach not to amend the 1322 Act by the Parliament Act 1911 which envisages the passing of Acts of Parliament without the assent of this House at all. The Parliament Act, as perhaps the noble Earl is aware because he is well versed in these matters, did not explicitly modify the 1322 Act. Thirdly, it is worth noting that neither of the two Houses of Parliament is giving consent according to the custom existing in 1322.
The second amendment to which the noble Earl spoke proposed to repeal a large part of the House of Lords Precedence Act of 1539. We also considered that Act in preparing the Bill and decided against repealing any of it, in particular because in practice the Act only has an effect on three relatively minor aspects. The noble Earl mentioned some of them. The matters on which it has an effect are the question of the Lord Chancellor moving to the left when he speaks; that the Bishops sit on the side of the House designated for them; and that the Crown Office follows the order of precedence for officers in drawing up certain documents.
Without wishing to minimise or underrate the concerns which these matters reflect, we took the view that significant changes in these areas might be more appropriately dealt with in the long-term reform of the House. Therefore, I hope that I have convinced the noble Earl both that the Government were aware of, and also took cognisance of, the points he raised. We did not believe them to be immediately relevant and felt that those matters which might become relevant in the long term could be dealt with in the long term. I hope that the noble Earl will not seek to press his amendment.
The Earl of Northesk: I am grateful for the response of the noble Baroness. I am also gratified that she congratulated me on introducing a new, if old, topic. Nonetheless, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 146 to 147 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 148 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
[Amendment No. 148A not moved.]
The schedule, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 149 and 150 not moved.]
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 151 not moved.]
Lord Weatherill Lord Weatherill moved Amendment No. 152:
Line 1, leave out ("End") and insert ("Restrict")
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on the agreement of the Committee to the amendment in the name of my noble friends Lord Carnarvon and Lord Marsh and myself which was agreed on Tuesday of last week. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 153 to 160 not moved.]
House resumed; Bill reported with amendments.

Tax Credits Bill
8.44 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Report be now received, to leave out ("now") and at end insert ("only after Her Majesty's Government have announced their intentions in respect of passported benefits").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment, for which there appears to be ample precedent in Erskine May, is, first, to register some protest at the way in which the Government have dealt with the House in regard to the question of passported benefits; secondly, to relate specifically to that issue; and, thirdly, to ask the Minister to state the Government's present position.
There has been some concern about the way in which the preparation of this Bill has been made. The child benefit clauses were not produced until the last day of the proceedings in the other place, thereby not allowing any discussion other than the last day of Report stage. We therefore find ourselves in a situation where an important issue arising from the changes which the Government are proposing to make in the social security arrangements has not been clarified.
The House may recall that I raised this issue in Committee. The noble Baroness responded at cols. 641 and 643 of the Official Report of 4th May. I urged the noble Baroness that a decision should be reached before Report stage with regard to the Government's intentions in relation to passported benefits. In the subsequent columns the Minister repeated time and again that we would return to the issue before the Bill left Parliament.
It seemed a formula somehow ingrained in her thinking, but clearly it is not satisfactory, as I pointed out at the time. The reality is that the Government have had many months to work out the position in relation to passported benefits.
The change from family credit to the working families' tax credit creates a situation where entitlement to various passported benefits does not necessarily transfer from those entitled to one specific benefit to those entitled to the other. For that reason it is a matter of considerable importance. It covers a whole range of individual benefits; for example, prescription charges, exemption from the cost of dentures and dental treatment; free eye tests; vouchers for glasses, fares to and from hospitals; and much more. For that reason it is important that we know what the Government's position is. We ought to have known far earlier. If we wait until the period about which the noble Baroness is so concerned—before the Bill leaves Parliament—then this House will not have an opportunity of expressing a view on the way in which the new structure under the working families' tax credit should operate. Indeed, it is the case that unless we were to move an amendment to the Bill which covered this point, the House of Commons would have no opportunity to amend whatever the Government eventually propose.
The noble Baroness raised a number of reasons in Committee as to why it was difficult for the Government to reach a decision. In particular, she mentioned that seven or eight different government departments were involved. It is not acceptable that the House should be left in the dark and that Parliament should be prevented from considering the matter altogether because Ministers from seven or eight government departments have not managed to get together and decide an appropriate way of dealing with the problem.
Having said that, the noble Baroness will know that we are concerned about the way in which the Department of Social Security is being taken over—I believe that that is the right expression—more and more by the Treasury. Indeed, not only is the Contributions Agency being transferred, but there are also a number of other important proposals in relation to this Bill. I believe it is true to say that the department is virtually being dismembered.
My own feeling is that it is very dangerous when the Treasury gets too much control over a particular government department. The system relies intrinsically on there being a conflict between the spending department and the Treasury. I well recollect many years ago when Sir Keith Joseph was responsible for social security. He thought that he was on the side of the Treasury, so instead of there being a balance between those conflicting forces the whole thing became unbalanced and the department's interests were not protected.
With the growing influence of the Treasury in all the social security matters, one fears that the tendency is for benefits not to be dealt with in the way in which the department itself would normally wish to deal with them. That applies especially as regards these passported benefits. The events during the past few days

239
in the other place certainly suggest that it is not only the case in relation to this Bill, but also in relation to another Bill which is being dealt with in the other place at present and will no doubt arrive here soon.
There are many areas, especially with regard to the disabled, where we find that the tendency is for the influence of the Treasury to be more and more prevalent. For that reason it seemed to me that it might be helpful to the Minister, because we all recognise the deep concern that she has for the disabled, and others, to table such a Motion so as to put some pressure on the Government between the Committee and the Report stages to sort out the matter. It should have been sorted out months ago. The noble Baroness has had another two weeks in which to try to knock ministerial heads together. One very much hopes that she will be able to tell us this evening what progress has been made in that respect.
As I say, there are two aspects involved. First, we should know what the Government's intentions are; and, secondly, we should be in a position to decide whether or not this House, with its responsibility for examining the implications of legislation, does or does not wish to amend those particular proposals. In Committee, the noble Baroness pointed out that, at present, such matters are dealt with in regulations and that a series of different regulations operated to bring about the passporting of benefits across a series of departments. None the less, it is certainly not impossible to draft amendments to the Bill—or, more accurately, it is not impossible for the Government to put forward proposals in the Bill. That is their responsibility. That would enable the House to consider what they propose. Indeed, there is no reason why they should not put forward such proposals so that the House can consider them on their merits.
I see that the noble Baroness is shaking her head. If the Government are bringing forward legislation of the kind that we have in this Bill, the implications of which are very serious for the disabled and other groups, they have the responsibility to ensure that the House has an opportunity to express a view as to how such matters should be dealt with. We well know from our earlier debates that there are problems because the Government have extended the working families' tax credit up to levels of income way over £25,000 a year in some cases. We can understand that perhaps the Government do not feel it appropriate that those people should, for example, get free prescriptions. But that is a problem which the Government have created, unnecessarily in our view. Therefore, having created it, they ought to say what they intend to do to solve it. We can then consider whether or not we consider their solution to be appropriate.
However, as the matter stands, we do not even know whether they are proposing to have some arrangement whereby those receiving working families' tax credit, or the disabled allowance, will receive these passported benefits automatically, as is the case at present, or whether they will only receive them subject to a means test, which is certainly something that the Government have extended time and again. Indeed, they attempted to do so last night and have done so in many other ways. The extension of means testing is certainly something
240
which gives us cause for concern. If the passported benefits, which are extremely important, are to be means tested in future rather than being given automatically, we ought to know. But up until now the noble Baroness has given us no indication of how she proposes to deal with the matter; indeed, she has given us no indication as to the way in which we can amend what the Government eventually propose.
In fact, to say that we shall return to the issue before the Bill leaves Parliament—indeed, I am not clear why the noble Baroness did not simply say before it receives Royal Assent—is not satisfactory. We gave her ample notice in Committee that we thought we ought to know about this before we proceeded to the Report stage. As I said, I have tabled my Motion in the hope that the noble Baroness will be able to reassure us this evening that the Government have finally got their act together and that the government departments have finally managed to spare the time on this issue to reach agreement among themselves. We will then be able to consider what the Government propose and, if necessary, debate and amend such proposals.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, does not intend to divide the House on his Motion. If he does, I have to say that I will be unable to follow him. However, from the way in which the noble Lord introduced his Motion, I rather suspect that he does not actually intend to do so.
Having said that, in our view the complaint which the noble Lord makes is entirely justified. We quite understand the Government's difficulties, which result from the fact that the increased generosity of the working families' tax credit may lead to families with well over average incomes receiving the tax credit. Therefore, the Government may well feel that it is inappropriate for everyone who receives the tax credit to receive passported benefits in the way that those who received family credit were entitled to do. We also understand that this will involve the decision being taken by a number of different departments and that that will take some time.
Nevertheless, the fact that we have now reached the Report stage in this House without yet knowing what the Government plan to do about passported benefits, shows a very depressing lack of a sense of urgency. We realise that the right to passported benefits is something which, in the normal course of events, would be dealt with in regulations. The Government have very rightly and properly produced draft regulations as regards all other aspects of the Bill; for example, we have seen the draft regulations which fall under Clause 6 and those which come under Clause 15. We have also seen the draft regulations which amend the existing regulations governing family credit. However, we have still not seen anything that tells us what will happen about passported benefits.
I hope that the Government will be able to bring forward information, if not tonight then at least before Third Reading, which will tell us their decision about

241
passported benefits. Therefore, before the Bill leaves this House for what will no doubt be the last time, we will he able to see what the Government intend to do.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment to the Motion because I am extremely disappointed that so far we do not appear to have had the slightest indication of what the position might be. I of course understand the difficulty of involving a number of different departments but it was surely this Government who were going to pride themselves upon joined up government. What does that mean if not getting various government departments to act together where it is appropriate to do so? I am not impressed if it is the case that that difficulty is preventing the Government from making any decisions so far.
I ask your Lordships to look at this matter from the point of view of the individual and of individual families. The question of free prescriptions or other free provision is extremely important to people who have small incomes. Obviously the whole point of this exercise is that money will be paid to encourage people into work even when perhaps they cannot earn much when they first enter work. These are matters of great importance to individuals and to families. Therefore it is high time that the Government gave us some information as to whether they will allow passporting, or if that is not to be done as a whole as it was done previously, whether at least certain benefits may be passported. even if not all of them. At least that would give us something to work on. I beg the Minister to try to give us some indication of that.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, this is a most unusual Motion and one that I do not recall previously in my 22 years in this House. However, it is quite right that the Motion has been put down. This House would be failing in its duty if it did not inquire into the position of passported benefits. I believe the Government have been lax in not coming forward with their suggestions at least by this stage of the Bill, bearing in mind that it has gone through the other place. We are now just about to start on the Report stage. We have Report stage to come and Third Reading only. This position may have arisen because the tax credits are being moved from one ministry to another. However, joined up government means that ministries talk to each other, or should do so. I am certain that if the Minister was sitting on the Front Bench on this side of the House and another party was in power she would be doing something similar to my noble friend Lord Higgins. She shakes her head. She may not have done it in the same way but she would still want the information that is required.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the amendment to this Motion would stop the House moving to Report stage of this Bill until the Government had stated what they proposed to do about prescription charges for those who from October will be on WFTC or DPTC. At the moment those on family credit and disability working allowance are passported on to free prescriptions. Their benefits act as proxy indicators of low income households. However, as your Lordships
242
have identified, WFTC and DPTC will target a much larger group of households and this raises the question of whether the tax credits will continue to be an appropriate means of automatically identifying the target group for the benefits provided by the NHS and other departments. The issue is a complex one, particularly given that there are half-a-dozen other government departments involved. The Government have been giving careful consideration as to how to provide help to those who need it through a scheme which is fair and simple to operate. It is not a question of whether but of how to provide help to those who need it through a scheme which is fair and simple to operate.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes., said, we are all agreed that this is an important issue. It is therefore entirely proper that this issue should be debated at Report stage. I do not disagree with those noble Lords who wish to debate it. I entirely take the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. The matter should he debated at Report stage as it was at Committee stage; that is, it should be debated around an amendment in the Bill rather than an amendment to a Motion; namely, that the Report stage be deferred. I made it clear at Committee stage that the Government would make their position clear before the Bill left Parliament. I was in no position to commit us to a faster timetable than that. However, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has now moved that we do not proceed to the Report stage of this Bill; in other words, that we abandon today's and next week's business until the Government have made a statement on passporting.
As I say, I believe that this is an issue that matters. However, it is not central to this Bill. It is one of several issues such as childcare proposals and the maintenance disregard which are affected by this Bill, which are consequential on this Bill but which are not central to this Bill. The issue does not require primary legislation and it requires no changes to this Bill. Indeed this Bill builds on family credit and DWA to create WFTC arid DPTC by renaming the benefits and then building on those foundations. Other departments—not the Inland Revenue, not the Treasury, not the DSS—notably the Department of Health, name the benefit recipients in their rules and regulations in order correctly to identify recipients. It will in particular be for the DoH to determine eligibility for its low income scheme.
Therefore when the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said this issue was a matter for this Bill, I am afraid he was wrong. It is not a matter for this Bill. This Bill is about eligibility for tax credits and how they will be determined. It is for the separate departments to legislate in their regulations if they do or do not want to passport WFTC or DPTC as if those same recipients were still on family credit or DWA. As I say, like several other issues—childcare is one and maintenance is another—NHS charges, while properly of concern, are side aspects of this Bill. Therefore in my view it is wrong to seek to delay the entire Report stage of this Bill and to stop the Government getting their business through on a matter which is not central to this Bill and which requires no action in this Bill.

243
As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, to force a Division to defer Report stage is without precedent in this House to the best of my knowledge. I do not think any of us can recall a Report stage being deferred in this way, let alone on something not even central to the policy of the Bill and not even part of the Bill's legislation. The resulting dislocation to government business would inevitably be taken seriously. I regret this method of proceeding. As I say, I think it is entirely proper to discuss this issue around an amendment later in the Report stage. However, I regret this method of proceeding even more because the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, gave me no warning either in person or by letter that he intended to take this action.
Following the Committee stage a number of your Lordships around the Chamber wrote to me following up issues of concern. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, wrote on issues of care and maintenance; the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen, and Lord Rix, on issues of the disabled person's tax credit; my noble friend Lord Haskel on the issue of affirmative regulations for childcare. In all of the cases where people wrote to me I did my best, as I always do, to respond as positively as I could. Where it seemed that there were points of substance that we could and should take on board I would seek to bring forward either government amendments or to give assurances. As I have said, the style of the House is not confrontational. We take points on board and if we can and should address them we seek to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, did not choose to act as his colleagues did by writing to me to see whether we could clear up the matter, which would have been courteous and appropriate. That would have given me the opportunity of setting out a possible timetable by correspondence and clearing up the matter that way, rather than seeking to disrupt the entire Bill. I do not know why the noble Lord should choose the path of confrontation rather than that of discussion, as his noble friends and other noble Lords have done. I regret that he has done so. It is not appropriate to the style of the House.
We are giving careful consideration as to how to strike the right balance between protecting low income recipients of WFTC who would have been eligible while on family credit—a point made so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes—while not at the same time giving free prescriptions to those with much higher incomes.
I have already given a commitment that the Government will state their intentions before the Bill leaves Parliament. I have every expectation that I will be able to set out our intentions at Third Reading. That will give the House the opportunity to discuss the proposals. That would have been clear when we came to discuss the appropriate amendments either tonight or next week. Indeed, I could have made that clear to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, had he chosen to write to me on the issue, as his noble colleagues did, after the Committee stage. Then perhaps the Motion might not have been necessary.
244
For all those reasons and the fact that I will be able to give a statement to your Lordships at Third Reading—as I have always hoped I would—I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Motion tonight.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response. Let me say right away that it was certainly not my intention to be in any way discourteous to the noble Baroness. But I could not have made it clearer at the Committee stage that we did not believe the situation which she described was satisfactory. I said:
"I therefore urge the noble Baroness as strongly as I can that a decision should be reached on this matter before we come to Report stage".— [Official Report, 4/5/99; col. 641.]
Had I written to the noble Baroness she would simply have written back, as I understand it, and said, "I am very sorry, I am not in a position to say". That is not satisfactory.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord is in no position to anticipate what I would have replied in a letter as he did not choose to send me one. It was a hypothetical statement.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, had I done so I would clearly have received the same answer we have received this evening. It is not a satisfactory answer. The noble Baroness has again come to the House and said that she is not in a position this evening to say what is the Government position. The Government have had months to get together the various government departments in order to reach a decision. They are treating the House with contempt—I overstate it perhaps. They are not enabling the House to do its job of examining these issues, which are very important to a number of disabled and other individuals outside, if we do not know what is the position of the Government.
The noble Baroness has said that we can debate the matter on amendments. We need to know what is the position of the Government before we know whether we need amendments. For us to table amendments and then for the noble Baroness simply to stand up and say, "We do not know what the answer is yet", is not satisfactory.
I simply do not understand why the Government have been unable to reach a decision on this matter. None of us disputes that it is a difficult issue—it involves a number of departments and so on—but as far as concerns timing it is simply a matter of the Government taking all the various issues into account and making a decision.
Having said that, it does not seem to me that this is an inappropriate way of proceeding. As far as concerns Erskine May, perhaps the noble Baroness would care to look at page 479 of the current issue. There the point is made very clearly that this procedure in one form or another has been used on a number of previous occasions. It seemed to me a matter of urgency to bring the issue to the House. It seems to me that the Government are not giving the House a fair opportunity to consider these issues.

245
The noble Baroness said, "This matter is not central to the Bill; it is a consequence of the Bill". Before we pass legislation that will affect a large number of disabled and other disadvantaged people, we have to consider what the implications are. It is not satisfactory to say that that is not central to the Bill. The fact that there can be serious consequences as a result of the Bill should be taken into account when we consider the specific measures which the Government have proposed. Those consequences follow from the actions which the Government are taking in the Bill. Therefore, to say that it is not central is to ignore the repercussions of the Bill. To argue that when considering a Bill one should not take into account its repercussions or ask the Government what they expect to do about the repercussions and, if necessary, have an opportunity to amend the Government's proposals about those repercussions is to take an extraordinarily narrow view of legislation and does not enable—
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, has not the noble Lord tabled an amendment, Amendment No. 15, which deals with passported benefits? Why is it necessary to move this Motion now?
9.15 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, for the reasons I have mentioned, we should have known long since what the position is. We have tabled an amendment. But our tabling an amendment is not the way in which this should be done. The Government should put forward their proposals and we can then consider whether they are appropriate. If I understand correctly what the noble Baroness has said—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the point is that there is nothing the Government can put down because what the noble Lord is concerned about is not part of the Bill. It is not primary legislation; it belongs to the regulations of another department. All the Government can do in due course is make a statement of their proposals. As my noble friend said, an amendment gives the opportunity for debate—precisely what we are doing now, and apparently we are to do it twice over—but there can be no consequences for this Bill. It is not part of the framework of this Bill and cannot be because it belongs to the regulations of another department. I am sorry that the noble Lord does not understand that point. That is not to say that this is not an important issue and cannot be debated. But the Government cannot bring forward amendments because it is not part of this Bill in terms of going from family credit to working families' tax credit. That is why there cannot be government amendments and therefore opposition amendments to amend the Government's position.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, that is not truly the position. If we can put down an amendment, so can the Government. It may be that such an amendment will require careful drafting, but there is no reason why one should not incorporate into the Bill an amendment to deal with this issue.
246
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made an alternative suggestion. In a number of respects the Government have been extremely good—I give them all credit—in putting forward draft regulations concerning both the Bill itself and the repercussions of the Bill. Therefore, it would have been possible for the Government to have done the same in this case. They could have put forward draft statutory instruments, although we would not have been able to amend them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may, with the deepest respect, suggest to the noble Lord that there is a difference between government amendments and opposition amendments. Opposition amendments can be probing amendments. They can be defective but still have a value to the House in enabling it to debate the issues before Parliament. A government amendment has to be necessary; it has to be perfect; and it has to be relevant to the subject matter of the Bill. My noble friend Lady Hollis has made it clear that any decision about passporting would not require primary legislation and the regulations that would be necessary for it would not form part of the regulations dependent on this Bill. Under those circumstances, the noble Lord's suggestion that the Government should put down an amendment to the Bill on passporting simply does not stand up.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, these are technical matters.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, they are not technical matters; they are essential to the way in which we deal with government business in this House.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the reality is that this is a matter on which the House should be able to express a view; and not only express a view but carry a view.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that surely is the purpose of Amendment No. 15, to which my noble friend Lady Turner referred. That is the appropriate point for this discussion—not now and riot on this Motion.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am not proposing to discuss the specific point on this Motion. We shall come to it, as the noble Baroness rightly said, on a later amendment. But, given the repercussions of what the Government are doing, we ought to have an opportunity to amend whatever the Government have in mind. At the very least we ought to know what the Government intend. That is why the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to publish draft regulations would be a way of doing it, albeit that we could not then actually amend them. It would perhaps be a second best solution. Otherwise, the Bill will disappear into the public domain with our having had no opportunity of discussing the substance of what the Government ultimately have in mind. The crux of the matter is that they have failed to consider this issue in time to give the House an opportunity of discussing and, it is to he hoped, amending their proposals.

247
That said, as I say, there is certainly ample precedent for this procedure, but I do not wish for one moment at this stage to push the matter to a Division. However, I hope that the noble Baroness will take back the message to her ministerial colleagues that they have been appallingly slow and negligent in not sorting out this matter before now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Report received.
Clause 2 [Transfer of functions relating to tax credits]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) The Social Security Advisory Committee constituted under section 170 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 shall be renamed the Social Security and Tax Credits Advisory Committee.
( ) Part XIII of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 shall have effect, in relation to working families' tax credit or disabled person's tax credit, as if references to the Secretary of State were references to the Treasury or the Board, as may be appropriate.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is a redrafted and, I hope, improved version of an amendment that I moved in Committee. The substantive part of the amendment is the second subsection. Its purpose is to ensure that the advice of the Social Security Advisory Committee continues to be available to whichever government department is administering tax credits.
At present. the Social Security Advisory Committee is governed by Part XIII of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. It has a number of statutory functions. Under Section 170 of the Act it has a duty,
"to give … advice and assistance to the Secretary of State in connection with the discharge of his functions under the relevant enactments".
Also under Section 170, the Secretary of State,
"may from time to time refer to the Committee for consideration and advice such questions relating to the operation of any of the relevant enactments as he thinks fit (including questions as to the advisability of amending any of them)".
Under Section 172,
"where the Secretary of State proposes to make regulations under any of the relevant enactments, he shall refer the proposals, in the form of draft regulations or otherwise, to the Committee".
Under Section 174, the committee considers proposals submitted to it under Section 172 and makes a report on them with recommendations to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is then required, when laying any regulations before Parliament, to lay also a copy of the committee's report.
The relevant enactments are defined in the 1992 Act as including the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992; the Social Security Administration Act 1992 itself; and parts of the Social Security Act 1998. There are also corresponding provisions relating to Northern Ireland. I have not attempted to cover them in this amendment, but if it is accepted similar amendments would obviously have to be made for Northern Ireland. "
The effect of the Bill on the role of the Social Security Advisory Committee in relation to tax credits is unclear. Under Clause 2(1)(c) and Part III of Schedule 2 to this Bill, the functions of the Secretary of State under the relevant enactments in relation to tax credits, so far as they are not transferred to the Treasury or to officers of the Board of the Inland Revenue, are transferred to the board itself.
No alteration is made by this Bill to the functions of the Social Security Advisory Committee. One of the functions of the Secretary of State is, for example, to refer any proposals for new regulations which he proposes to make to the Social Security Advisory Committee under Section 172 of the 1992 Act. Arguably, therefore, in relation to tax credit regulations, this is a function—that of referring proposals—which is transferred to the board, although not, it would seem, to the Treasury in cases where the regulation-making power is transferred to the Treasury under Part I of Schedule 2. But the Social Security Administration Act gives the advisory committee no power to advise anyone other than the Secretary of State or his Northern Ireland equivalent, and that power is not extended by the Bill so as to authorise the advisory committee to give advice to the board.
It seems to me, therefore, to be—if I may use an oxymoron—a plain ambiguity. It would seem absurd to say that one of the functions of the board is to refer draft regulations to the advisory committee, but the advisory committee has no power to comment on them. So does the board, by implication, have no power or duty to refer matters to the advisory committee, despite the general transfer of the functions of the Secretary of State to the board under the Bill, or does the advisory council, again by implication, have power to respond to references by the board, despite the absence from the Bill of any extension of the functions of the advisory committee?
In Committee I assumed that the board would have no powers or functions under Part XIII of the Social Security Administration Act, and the noble Baroness replied to my amendment on the same assumption. I apologise for not warning the noble Baroness that I was going to raise a new point on the construction of the Bill. I would have done so, but it was only when I was preparing this morning for the debate that I realised that the assumption on which we had proceeded in Committee might not be correct. Obviously, she will need time to consider the position, and to provide for that it is my intention to seek to withdraw the amendment today, but it may be necessary to bring it back at Third Reading to consider the legal position.
Whatever the position may be under the Bill as it now stands, it is important that the advisory committee should have a continuing role. In Committee the noble Baroness acknowledged the valuable work which the advisory committee carries out. There are many matters covered by the regulations which will apply to tax credit in the same way as they apply to other benefits. These include how claims are to be made; how decisions are to be taken; how decisions are to be revised; how decisions are to be appealed against; and how payments are to be made where they are not paid through the

249
employer. The advisory committee has great experience in dealing with these matters, and it would be a terrible mistake to abandon this resource.
The noble Baroness said in Committee:
"I recognise the concern of noble Lords that draft regulations on tax credits should be exposed to interested and expert parties for comments, as happens with SSAC. However, I can provide a response in that respect. The normal practice of the Inland Revenue is to publish all major regulations in draft for comment. In practice, they are reaching a much wider audience than would be the case with SSAC".—[Official Report, col. 657, 4/5/99.]
With great respect, that is not an adequate answer. Of course, I welcome the fact that the Inland Revenue proposes a wide consultation. But, however wide that consultation goes, clearly the advisory committee should be one of the bodies consulted by the Inland Revenue. Of course, it should not be the only body that the Inland Revenue consults, but it should certainly be one of them.
should say that the amendment does not propose to include the Bill as one of the relevant enactments. Regulations under Clause 6 for payment through employers are different from the kind of regulation which is considered by the advisory committee, and I do not think that the advisory committee needs to be consulted on those particular regulations. Possibly the regulations under Clause 15 should be included, but that would have made the amendment complicated, and therefore I have not pressed for it.
Finally, I have not yet mentioned the first subsection, which relates to the renaming of the advisory committee. I have included that as what might be described as a "sop" to the Government. The Government are convinced that by changing the name "family credit" to "working families' tax credit", people's perception of family credit will be changed. That may be true. Many Members of your Lordships' House have had experience of changing their names and many have found that, on doing so, other people's perceptions of them changed, even if their own perception of themselves did not. If it will help the Government to accept the principle of consultation with the committee, I am more than happy to propose a change in its name from the "Social Security Advisory Committee" to the "Social Security and Tax Credits Advisory Committee".
Be that as it may, the important feature is that this valuable source of advice on the sort of regulations that will have to be made to the administration of working families' tax credits should be made available to the Board of Inland Revenue in the same way as such advice has been available in the past to the Secretary of State and the Department of Social Security. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, spelled out the points relating to his amendment in great depth and with considerable analysis. I do not want to add anything further, other than to say that it is right that he should raise such issues and to ask one very simple-minded question: Is there
250
any problem with the advisory committee advising a government department rather than a government Minister?
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, in Committee the Minister confirmed that there would be no Minister in the Cabinet fighting to improve the tax credits where necessary, and said that the only Minister in the Cabinet dealing with this would be the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, as is generally realised, always attempts to cut expenditure. The amendment is extremely useful and should be given serious consideration by the Government.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this proposed amendment seeks to provide that the provisions in Part XIII of the Social Security Administration Act shall apply to tax credits, and that the Social Security Advisory Committee be renamed the "Social Security and Tax Credits Advisory Committee''". So far, we are agreed.
We had some discussion of this issue in Committee. I explained then that, as it stands, the role of the SSAC is to provide advice to the Secretary of State for Social Security in relation to the carrying out of his or her functions. We greatly value such advice, of which I have first-hand experience.
The position of the Board of Inland Revenue is different from that of the DSS. Noble Lords expressed some concerns in Committee to the effect that the Revenue would need advice on the issues raised by the tax credits because this is a new area of work for it.
The Inland Revenue may not have a formal advisory body, but as the noble Lord, Lord Good hart, acknowledged—in a back-handed if not a fore-handed way—it has a good record on consultation. Indeed, specifically on tax credits, there is a standing consultative committee of representatives from businesses large and small, payroll managers, and software providers. This committee has been meeting to discuss the scheme for the tax credits for over a year. The Revenue has also held regular discussions with other groups representing lone parents and people with disabilities and families on low incomes.
The Revenue regularly publishes regulations in draft for comment. For the DSS, that task is often carried out by the SSAC. As I said in Committee—the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, recycled my words earlier—it thereby reaches a wider audience.
However, a similar situation arose recently as a result of the transfer of NIC issues to the Revenue, with the merger of the Contributions Agency, where the formal role of the SSAC has changed. That area of formal responsibility has moved away from the SSAC. Here, the Inland Revenue is currently discussing with the SSAC how best to establish appropriate arrangements for informal consultation on NICs regulations and is continuing to tap into its extensive expertise on social policy. As the recent 12th report of the SSAC states,
"We look forward to being kept in touch with relevant developments within the NICs system".

251
I am confident that similar, informal arrangements drawing on SSAC expertise will be developed for tax credits as for NICs which will prove satisfactory both to the Inland Revenue and the SSAC. Discussions to that effect are currently under way with the committee and the committee's chairman, Sir Thomas Boyd-Carpenter. I shall be happy to write to noble Lords explaining the arrangements when the discussions have been concluded. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the substantive points of his amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, also raised points about the interpretation of the legal constraints under which the Act works. The advice I have been given is that it is also a new point for us. We appreciate it and accept that it was put very clearly. As we were invited to do, we shall write to the noble Lord with our considered response. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as I indicated earlier, I propose to withdraw the amendment, but before I formally ask leave to do so, may I say that I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having indicated that the situation will not be quite as bad as I had feared in that it is expected that the informal consultation with the advisory committee will continue. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that formal role of the advisory committee is not to be continued. The advisory committee is a useful link between the normal tax collecting functions of the Inland Revenue and the new functions it will have under the Bill. Whether or not one describes tax credits as a benefit, the new functions will certainly be much closer to benefits than anything that the Inland Revenue has dealt with in the past. Therefore, it would be very appropriate for the formal role of the advisory committee to be continued. Nevertheless, I suppose that half a loaf is better than no bread. I am grateful for that.
As regards the point of interpretation which I raised, it is a matter which needs to be brought forward again at Third Reading for clarification. By that time I hope that it will be possible, whether by correspondence or otherwise, to make a clearer statement of what is intended to be the continuing role of the advisory committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) The Treasury, in making regulations under any functions transferred to it under subsection (1) above, shall ensure that payments of the tax credit are not made to individuals who have an income, or to couples who have a joint income, in excess of the income at which the higher rate of tax would be payable by an individual.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I hope that it is convenient also to consider Amendment No. 3 because they are variations on the same theme. We discussed these matters in Committee. The amendments reflect the concerns we have expressed about the way in which the Government propose to change to a working families' tax credit, which means
252
that benefits will become payable to those receiving what might be regarded as very high incomes. The first amendment seeks to deal with the matter by capping—the expression I believe we normally use—at a level where a higher rate of tax is payable. Alternatively, there is a tapered cap which in some ways has an advantage inasmuch as it increases the withdrawal rate of the working families' tax credit from 55 per cent. to 75 per cent. for families with incomes over £25,000. That figure has been calculated as probably being high enough for the majority of people to be above housing benefit and council tax benefit tapers. Thus the increase in the working families' tax credit taper would not compound with other benefits to produce high withdrawal rates.
We believe that this amendment is worthy of consideration. I raised the issue at Question Time today with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. He is not present. At some stage we must consider the way in which we are beginning to pay benefits to people with high levels of income of something over £25,000 a year, yet with other benefits, for example, income support, we are reducing benefits to those who may have a relatively small amount of capital. I may be somewhat out of date; no doubt the noble Baroness will remind me of the figures. Benefits used to be reduced if one had capital of more than £3,000. People used to say to me on interview nights, "I am in a bad way, but I do not wish to give up my last bit of capital which gives me a feeling of security".
We need to consider whether the balance is right. In the one situation it concerns income, and in the other capital. It seems strange if the taxpayer is paying out benefits to people with income of £25,000 a year but is taking away benefits from people because they have capital of only £3,000, or whatever the amount may be. We need to look at the system as a whole. I suspect that the measure the Government are now introducing does not take sufficient account of the overall structure of social security benefits. We should be grateful if the noble Baroness could respond.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we are sympathetic to the spirit underlying the amendment. The reduction in the taper rate and the more generous childcare benefit, as well as the increased generosity of the other benefits, mean that tax credits are payable to some people who have well above average incomes.
I believe that this Government or one of their successors will have to deal with the problem sooner or later perhaps by tapering off the benefit more sharply when income rises above levels where other benefits such as housing benefit are payable.
I am somewhat doubtful whether it is a problem that should be dealt with in primary legislation. However, it is an issue that the Government should take on board. I shall be interested to hear the noble Baroness's reply.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, my noble friend raises an interesting issue. Have the Government estimates of how many people would be affected by the overlap? Can that information be made available?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, on a more general point, it is increasingly realised that a large

253
expenditure is incurred by the state in transferring money from the same households within the tax and benefits systems. Households receive money in benefit and pay tax. The cost probably amounts to billions of pounds. The cost will need to be addressed and reduced. That is an undisputed fact.
In making the WFTC available to people on the higher rate and on an income of up to £35,000 a year, the Government are exacerbating the problem. More people will experience the receiving of the benefits and the paying of tax within the same household, adding to the expenditure of the nation. Do the Government consider that when they extend the dependency of people on benefit? It is a separate point, but I wonder whether the Minister is able to comment on it.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I should love to, but I am not sure whether this is the time to do so in the detail required. The amendments seek to restrict the amount of tax credit available to households with relatively high incomes. In moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, spoke about savings. I take his point, but given that Amendment No. 9 deals specifically with that issue perhaps he would allow me to deal with it separately.
The noble Lord raised some interesting points of a Second Reading nature which were followed up by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. Without trying to recycle what I said in Committee, there is an interesting, difficult and decent problem about the shallowness of tapers so that as low a deduction rate as possible is gained. For every pound earned, people should receive enough of it to make it worthwhile to seek to increase their hours or earnings. The price of that is that they remain on those benefits for longer, at higher public cost.
The alternative route is to have a much sharper withdrawal rate, which gets them off benefits sooner. That is cheaper, but it also produces a strong disincentive to increase hours and earnings. We discussed that in Committee, but I do not believe that at this time of night your Lordships would wish me to repeat the argument. The debate has exercised all parties and all social policy commentators for a long time.
The Government believe that a 55 per cent taper, compared with the old tapers, has reduced the minimum deduction rates, particularly for those living in rented housing who might therefore be eligible for housing benefit, to a more acceptable figure. But for some people, the MDRs are still very high and to reduce them would require an even more shallow taper, going further up the income levels with greater public cost.
We believe that we have struck the balance right, but we must return to the issue whenever we are considering the integration of tax and benefits., or looking at the scope of the benefit or at what happens when a benefit becomes a tax credit, because they are proper and decent
254
issues to raise. We believe that we have got it right, but that is not to say that a 55 per cent taper, for example, is right for all benefits or all tax credits in future.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the noble Baroness rightly says that Amendment No. 9 deals 'with savings in relation to WFCs. I was seeking to make a wider point which I made to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, at Question Time. We are now extending the payment of these new benefits to people on what would normally be regarded as relatively high incomes while at the same time taking away benefits from people on, say, income support simply because they have a small amount of capital—10 per cent or so—of this amount of income. At some stage, one needs to sit back and look at the structure as a whole in order to see whether it is sensible.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I take the wider issue, but we are not paying benefits to people on higher earnings. We are offering tax credits as incentives for the most part to people on low to middle incomes to go back to work and to hold down a job. The reason it goes so high is the cost of childcare. That would normally apply where a couple is working and therefore it would be rare that one of them would be a high-rate tax earner. If one of them were a high-rate tax earner, almost by definition the other person is likely to be at home because of the way the sums work. Therefore, the tax credit would not arise and would not go up that income scale. The noble Lord is correct in saying that in regard to savings the figure begins to be reduced at £3,000 and tapers out at £8,000. We shall return to this issue when we consider Amendment No. 9.
Amendment No. 2 would stop tax credits going to families with a joint income equal to the higher rate threshold.
As I said in Committee in response to Amendment No. 12, I do not think that the amendment would work, even if I agreed with its basic premise. I do not want to overdo the point about technicalities, but it is worth saying that because the amendment appears in the same format for a second time, even though I pointed out its defects at Committee stage, it appears to limit the opportunities to pay applicants WFTC. It would mean that families above the threshold given in the amendment that met all the conditions for eligibility would remain entitled to an award that they could not be paid. That would obviously be inappropriate.
According to the amendment, you could be entitled to some WFTC each week, but the Inland Revenue could not pay it because the family had a joint income above the limit. That would mean applying an additional and overriding income limit on top of the normal threshold and taper which would act to target awards of WFTC.
That is not all that I believe is wrong with the amendment. As I said in Committee, the amendment links the award, which is based on a snapshot of current circumstances, to a ceiling, the higher rate threshold. The threshold can only be set by reference to an individual circumstance of the whole tax year and it cannot finally be known until the end of the tax year.

255
There is clearly a mis-match and it is not clear how it would work. It could in practice mean that the Revenue would need to hold that payment until after the end of the tax year, when the figure could finally be worked out, and in some cases until after submission of the individual's tax return. The ceiling that the amendment uses, the higher rate threshold, is not a set figure but will differ from person to person and from year to year, depending on a number of factors.
In addition, the amendment would introduce an undesirable and harmful cliff edge. A family below the limit would get help; a family that earned £1 more a week above that limit would lose perhaps £10 or £20 of WFTC to which it would otherwise be entitled.
I understand the concern that money is going to those on higher incomes; however, WFTC tailors the amount of the tax credit to family circumstances, with the threshold and the taper ensuring that the amount they receive is gradually reduced as they earn more. It avoids a situation where it is a positive disadvantage, because of the high marginal tax rates, to earn more.
Amendment No. 3 seeks to steepen the taper to 75 per cent where family income rises above 25,000. Again, the change from 55 per cent to 75 per cent at that income point will provide, if not a cliff edge, then a steep slope, which is a better situation than the previous amendment but still damaging in terms of encouraging people to earn more.
In the few cases where large income families would get some help when earning relatively high incomes because of their high childcare costs, the proposal is to introduce a complex second taper for this group only which increases the reduction rate and current withdrawal rate of 70 per cent in family credit to 55 per cent in WFTC. It takes it back up to 70 per cent as family credit and then, for good measure, adds another 5 per cent on top.
I believe that the single taper is easy to understand. It will allow applicants to see the rewards of work more clearly. Multiple tapers and special rules would bury the clear effects of what we are trying to achieve in a mathematical fog. I would not wish to go down that route simply because of the few numbers of people involved with large families that get help through family credit for their children and childcare.
The issue is how many would gain and what the numbers are of those on high earnings. There is a strict trade-off between incentive, the pitch of the taper and the scope of the help. A simple, single, shallow taper applied to all people is easier to understand and will send a positive message about working longer hours and getting better jobs, but it does mean that a few large families with children, where both parents are in work, will get help they would not have got under the preceding benefits. We accept that.
Perhaps I may give some examples as an instance of the figures for which the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, asked. We calculate that only about 80,000 families—that is, about 5 per cent—of the 1.5 million eligible families have a household income of more than £17,000 per year. We calculate that about 5,000 families of the
256
1.5 million will be eligible for WFTC with household earnings of over £25,000. That is less than half of 1 per cent of the total for which one would introduce that extremely complicated second taper.
There is a balance, and the truthful answer is that we do not believe that it is worth it. The proposals to do away with that small number of gainers—less than half of 1 per cent for those earning more than £25,000 and less than 5 per cent for those earning more than £17,000—are not worth the complexity and the blurring of the message that that would cause.
I understand the concerns but I honestly believe that it would be a case of—I use a clumsy metaphor—the tail wagging the dog. We should lose so much in simplicity for very little clawback from a very few relatively comfortably off families, with large numbers of children, entitled to help with their children's care. Therefore, under the circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the noble Baroness was in sparkling form in knocking down that amendment. I find her arguments very largely convincing and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 4
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

Tax Credits Bill

  WORKING FAMILIES' TAX CREDIT TO BE PAID TO PRINCIPAL CARER
  (" . Regulations made by the Board under section 2(1)(c) shall provide that where a couple is entitled to working families' tax credit the credit shall be paid to the principal carer.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish also to support Amendment No. 6 which is grouped with it.
  Amendment No. 4 is designed to protect the family by ensuring that payment is received by the primary care giver. The Labour Party manifesto stated:
  "We will uphold family life as the most secure means of bringing up our children. Families are the core of society".
  This amendment addresses closely the arguments put forward by organisations across the spectrum—from the TUC and the Low Pay Unit to the Institute of Directors and the CBI.
  The assumption of the Department of Social Security has always been that the best way to get money to the children is to pay the mother. After all, why pay child benefit to the mother if it is not the best way to ensure that it is spent on the children? Those concerns should not be readily dismissed by the Government. I urge them seriously to consider their approach. I beg to move.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 6 which is the second of a pair of amendments in this group, both of which cover the purse-to-wallet issue. I should say that until now the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Astor, and I have largely agreed with each other and supported each other's amendments. However, on this occasion. I am

  257
  unable to support Amendment No. 4 because, although there is a good deal to be said for it in principle, I must regard it as a wrecking amendment. It would mean the automatic payment of the tax credit to the non-working parent of a couple even though the couple wished the payment to go to the working parent. I recognise that that is what happens in respect of family credit at present but the main purpose of the Bill is to change that situation. Therefore, it seems to me that this is a wrecking amendment and like it or not—and I do not like the Bill very much on this point—I feel unable to support Amendment No. 4.
  Therefore, I turn to Amendment No. 6. The background is that the Government have not accepted the principle that in cases of disputes between parents as to which of them should receive the working families' tax credit, it should normally go to the caring parent rather than through the pay packet.
  The Inland Revenue stated that in a memorandum published in March, and that was strongly emphasised as being the Government's intention by the noble Baroness in Committee when the amendment was debated. However, the draft regulations said only that the working families' tax credit in the case of a couple should go to whichever of them they agreed, and the draft regulations said nothing about what happened in the event of a disagreement.
  Apparently, the Government are anxious to keep any references to disagreement or the consequences of disagreement between a couple off the face of the regulations. The result of that appears to me to be that the regulations give no authority to the Inland Revenue to pay working families' tax credit to either member of the couple in the absence of an agreement between them as to which of them is to receive the tax credit.
  The noble Baroness said that the Inland Revenue proposed to deal with that matter under its statutory powers of care and management. In Committee, I expressed doubts as to whether that power could be used to authorise payment to a person not entitled to it on the face of the statute or on the face of regulations made under that statute.
  The Inland Revenue have taken advice and, as I understand it, they have concluded that whether or not they agree with my arguments, there is at least enough force in them to make it advisable to give the Inland Revenue a discretion under the regulations to decide who is to receive the payment in the case of disagreement. That provides a legal basis of payment to the carer parent. Therefore, we are prepared to accept the Government's undertaking as to the way in which the discretion is intended to be exercised, subject only to one outstanding point.
  That point concerns the application forms and the explanatory notes. The drafts which the department produced and which I saw said nothing whatever about the procedure if a couple were unable to agree which of them should claim. The remarks of the noble Baroness on the 26th April at col. 114 of Hansard gave some degree of comfort, but not enough. On that occasion she said:
  258
  "As consultees have suggested. the form and guidance notes set out what needs to be considered by a couple when making the choice. More recent comments have suggested further changes which refer specifically to what happens in the case of a dispute or tell applicants where to go for help. We are looking for these. We very much hope that we shall he able to embody them to the satisfaction of all concerned in the forms that go out as of next April. In addition, the working families' tax credit helpline is always available and our guidance will be made public.
  We would like an undertaking that either the form or the notes, or preferably both, should contain information about the procedure if the parties are unable to agree. If not, a woman may come under pressure to agree to payment to her husband simply because of a belief that if she does not agree to that there will be no money. Now that the Government have agreed to extend the regulations to cover situations where there is no agreement, can the noble Baroness undertake that the forms given to the applicants will explain what happens if there is no agreement?
  10 p.m.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the new clauses introduced by Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 bring us back to the subject, first, of whether couples be given the choice of who should be paid and, secondly, whether the safeguards we described in Committee are sufficient. They deal with choice and the disputes procedure which are made clear to potential applicants.
  Amendment No. 4 seeks to replace the Government's approach with a rule which would result in the addition that WFTC provides going to the principal carer. Not only do we believe that this is the wrong way in which to approach the issue, but even if we were to subscribe to the sentiments behind it, that would not be the way in which to put it into practice.
  The second amendment would support the Government's approach of giving the couple a choice, but seeks to ensure that legislation deals with the situation where a couple cannot come to an agreement.
  Let me return to Amendment No. 4. I shall seek to show why the new clause would be unworkable and say something about why the Government's approach is preferable. In the light of that I shall seek to address the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
  The new clause introduced by Amendment No. 4 looks deceptively simple. It says that if a couple is entitled to WFTC, then make payment to the principal carer. But there are problems with both of those statements. The technical problem and the reason why that new clause would not work is that there needs to be an applicant. That is the core of the application procedure where the applicant fills in the left-hand side of the form—I have copies here should your Lordships wish to see them—and the partner fills in or supplies details for the right-hand side. Together the two sides of the application form comprise the family circumstances. So the new clause is defective.
  The amendment seeks to resolve the problem of what to do where couples may disagree by providing a statutory rule, and I sympathise with that purpose. But as I said in relation to defining principal care, there are difficulties in that regard. The clause, even if it worked,

  259
  would simply shift the issue of who is to be the applicant, which is what it is now and therefore the forms set it out, to who would be the principal carer. Therefore the tax credit would not necessarily be paid to the applicant, but to whoever was determined to be the principal carer.
  Let us think about that. Given that three-quarters of married women work, how would we determine who was the principal carer? Would the test be the hours that each party worked? Would it be the earnings, who did the school run, who went to the parents' evening or who did the dentist visits? Or if she were in waged work and he was self-employed at home, would the presumption be that he was paid because he was self-employed and working from home? Deciding who the applicant is on the basis of the choice that the couple have made is simple; deciding who the principal carer is when both of them may well be in work or have a complexity of family arrangements is much harder and much more intrusive. Therefore, we believe as a matter of principle that the way we have set out the provisions, to pay the tax credit to the applicant rather than to the principal carer though the applicant may well be the principal carer, is the right way to proceed.
  WFTC is a work incentive measure designed to help families; it is not a family support benefit paid to families; it is not child benefit paid to families. It is paid to someone in work. The way we dealt with it is for couples to have a free choice as to which of them is to receive the money. It is not a choice about how they are to be paid. If they choose for it to be paid to him and he is in work, it must be paid through the pay packet. If the choice is to pay it to her and she is in work, it must be paid through her pay packet. If the choice is to him and he is at home, it will be paid to him directly. If the choice is to her and she is at home, it will be paid to her directly. But it is their choice as to whom it is paid and following what their circumstances are—whether they are in work or at home—will follow a decision as to how it is paid. We do not expect that to be a problem in the vast majority of families. I hope that explanation is reasonably clear. It can go to either him or her, but according to whether he is or is not in work or she is or is not in work, so the payment will follow.
  Viscount Astor of Hever: My Lords, in principle, would not the Government rather see the payment going to the wife?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, no. It is not a principle about it going to the wife. It is not child benefit. It is not support for the wife. It is not support for the children. I want it to go to the family, but I want it to go to the family in such a way that it is a work incentive. If it is detached from the pay packet, as the noble Viscount's amendment would make it, then we address the issue of family support—I give the noble Viscount all credit for seeking to preserve that—but it does not perform the function of being a work incentive.
  Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, if the Government care as much as they say they do about the family, is
  260
  not the idea that this should eventually go to the children in the family and that, therefore, the wife is the best route to use to enable that to happen?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we have two separate arguments going here. We agree that we want to support families. We are seeking to do so with increased child benefit. I do not need to go into the statistics but we are increasing it by £15 for the first child and £10 for the second child from this year. We are improving working families' tax credit and the array of in-work support that goes to families, as compared with family credit. There is no dispute between us. Above all, we want to lift children out of poverty. As we know, the best way to do so is not by payments of income support but by helping families into work and ensuring that they have a working member in the household.
  The reason children are poor and the reason poor children need our support as taxpayers is precisely that they live in households in which there is no adult in work. The best way to springboard those children out of poverty is to help one of their parents into work. The best way to do so is to increase the work incentives to go into work. Therefore, in my view, the noble Lord's amendment would not achieve what he seeks. If he wants to help children, the best way to help them out of poverty is to ensure that we make work as attractive and as feasible as possible for one of the parents. That will spring the children out of poverty. The best way of doing that is through the working families' tax credit and not through a disguised form of income support.
  Therefore, I am sure that we do not disagree about our philosophic objectives, but we do disagree as to what is the most effective way of achieving them. If we believe that the best way to help children out of poverty is to get one of the parents into work, I hope that the noble Lord also accepts that anything which strengthens the work incentive while also supporting the family—in other words, anything that gives you two gains rather than just one—must add to the public good.
  However, we recognise that there is considerable concern about how we handle the cases where couples cannot agree, for whatever reason, on who should apply for the tax credit and how it should be paid. My noble friends Lady Turner and Lady Lockwood also raised such concerns and, indeed, they have been raised again tonight. I hope that the explanations given in the other place set out clearly what we want to achieve. Again, we hope that we have got the balance right.
  I now turn to the amendment moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the concerns that he expressed at that time. We accept entirely the principle and the spirit of Amendment No. 6. We all want disputes to be underpinned by the best legislative framework. We want to make clear that it will be paid to him in work if both agree; but, if there is a dispute between the couple, then, by default—and this is a dispute as opposed to a technical mistake—it will go to the woman. Therefore, having reflected on what The noble Lord said both in debate and in the subsequent letter that he was kind enough to write to me after the Committee stage, I hope that we can see a way forward

  261
  that will address his concerns and put what we want to achieve and what my noble friends are both anxious to achieve on as secure a footing as possible.
  The board's powers of care and management are used to deal with rare cases at the margins of a system that it administers. While we believe that disputes will only happen in exceptional cases, doubts have been raised about their frequency. I agree that we can only know that after the event. Therefore, to ensure that we can apply the procedure we want, however frequent the disputes turn out to be in practice, we see the advantage of putting the necessary powers into regulations. I believe that that will address the noble Lord's concerns.
  The regulations would still give couples a choice upon which they must agree. They would then provide that, where couples cannot agree, the board will have the necessary discretion to pay WFTC to the partner it determines to be the main carer. Moreover, in those cases, the board would have the discretion to accept an application which would otherwise be defective only because it lacked a partner's signature. Noble Lords will appreciate that this must be a discretionary power because without the involvement of the dissenting partner the application may simply have been mechanically incorrect—some mistake made. To give couples the right to make single signature applications and have them paid automatically to the carer would be to invite such applications with obvious risks for the Exchequer.
  However, I hope that the noble Lord feels that we have met his concern, which was most thoughtfully expressed in Committee. As I tried to say earlier, we have taken the matter away. The noble Lord has a point. We hope that he is not right in thinking that the number of disputes will be higher than we anticipate. But if he is right, then, in the light of what he said, we believe that it will be only right and proper to put the procedure in place. That means that if there is any risk to the woman by default in such a dispute, the payment would go to her. Therefore, we think it right to accept the noble Lord's proposition that we should put the matter on a secure footing by having it covered in regulations.
  We want to retain choice for couples and we want to insist that the best way to address child poverty—which we are all concerned about—is to get one of the parents into work. The most appropriate way of doing that is through the working families' tax credit. However, we recognise that disputes could arise. In that situation we certainly want to protect the principal carer who is likely to be the mother. We propose therefore to put that on the footing of regulations. I hope that with those comments both noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
  10.15 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, before the Minister sits clown, I hope I may say that I am most grateful to her for what she has said. That satisfies my concerns about the legality of the proposal—which, of course, I support—to ensure that in the case of a dispute the payment goes to the principal caring parent. However,
  262
  the noble Baroness said nothing about the final point I raised; namely, whether the draft forms—the application form and the guidance notes—will be amended so as to give some explanation of what the position will be if there is a dispute between partners.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Baroness finally sits down—
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are at Report stage. I think it is legitimate for those who have already had an intervention to be reminded that we are at Report stage.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Baroness has not finally sat down.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has spoken. We are at Report stage.
  Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I was, of course, heartened to hear that she sympathised with our amendment. I shall want to read Hansard carefully and discuss the matter with the many organisations who have been in contact with us on this point. They feel strongly that the implication of "purse to wallet" is that the mother should receive the credit. I understood that that is what the Minister said. We shall probably return to this matter on Third Reading, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 5:
  After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

  CHILD CARE ELEMENT
  (" . Regulations made by the Board under section 2(1)(e) shall provide that, in the case of a claim for working families' tax credit, where a married or unmarried couple is included in the family and one member is in employment and the other member is receiving education or training of a specified kind and fix a specified period. the tax credit may include such credit for child care as may be specified.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was discussed at Committee stage and it raises a short point to which I received a disappointing answer from the Government. The childcare credit is not available under the regulations unless both parents are working for at least 16 hours a week. In general there are obvious reasons for that which I can perfectly well understand, but it means that childcare credit is not available where a woman wants to get trained for a job. I am assuming here, of course, that it is the woman who has been looking after the children.
  There are a great many women who want to look after their children when they are small but who want to go back to work at some stage, most commonly when their youngest child reaches school age. The woman may have been out of the labour market for 10 years. If she did a skilled job before then she may need retraining. Anyone who was trained in information technology 10 years ago and has not done any since is likely to need retraining. The woman may have started her family

  263
  when she was young and not had time to acquire a skill before she did so. In that case she may need training if she is to get a decent job.
  Surely it makes sense—both economic and social—to make it possible for such women to train or retrain for jobs. That can be done only if the childcare credit is available. I do not propose that there should be a general right for a woman to attend whatever course she wants. It would be reasonable for the Government to say that childcare credit should be available only where a woman is taking a course which improves her job prospects. I am not suggesting that childcare credit should be extended to purely academic or recreational courses. The amendment leaves it to the Government to specify what kind of courses should qualify for childcare credit and to specify such matters as the minimum period per week that a trainee must attend a course.
  I believe that this is an eminently desirable amendment and I hope that the Government will be a little more receptive to it this time than they were on the previous occasion.
  Lord Astor of Hever: I support Amendment No. 5 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I wish to be a little more charitable to his amendment than he was to our last one.
  One of the many criticisms of the Bill expressed by many informed parties is that it removes potentially the main carer's guarantee to receipt of payment under the WFTC. The TUC—with whom I believe the Government are on good terms—stated in its 1999 budget submission that it was concerned that the WFTC might be diverted away from the family's primary care giver. There are currently 300,000 couples in which the man is the principal wage earner. Under the WFTC it could mean £900 million going to the man rather than to the mother. The wallet versus purse argument has been well documented and yet the Government have failed adequately to address it.
  Lord Swinfen: I also support the amendment. We should bear in mind that many people change careers today whereas some 30 years ago they were likely to go into a career and stay there for the rest of their lives. That is not the case today. It is not only women who need to retrain; men need to as well. Some of the retraining may be on a part-time basis as well as on a full-time basis, and I hope that that will be taken into consideration.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was disappointed with what we said at the Committee stage. I fear I may again disappoint him, but I hope that he will accept the substance of our argument in such a way that he will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
  As I understand it, the aim of the amendment is to enable families whose income comes within WFTC limits, with one partner in work and another in education and training, to receive the kind of help with childcare costs which will enable the non-employed partner to study.
  264
  As to the narrow point of whether the amendment is strictly necessary, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked at the Committee stage for an explanation of how the regulations could be amended to provide for what the new clause aims at. All of the detail will be in regulations, as it is for family credit. With family credit, the rules for the childcare disregard are in Regulation 13(a) of the Family Credit (General Regulations) 1987. It is there that one will find the current condition that a lone parent or both members of a couple must be working 16 hours or more a week, or that one member works 16 hours or more a week and the other is incapacitated. The rules in Regulation 13(a) will be the basis for the childcare tax credit; in other words, WFTC takes over the FC regulations. Regulation 46(a) will set out the rules for childcare tax credit, as our draft amending regulations clearly show. An amendment to new Regulation 46(a) will be used to alter the qualifications for getting help through the childcare tax credit. Primary legislation of the kind put forward by this amendment to the Bill is not necessary. I hope that clarifies the points raised on this issue by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in Committee.
  To return to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and to the wider issue of whether it is a desirable thing to do, we have to look at the arguments for use of WFTC as a vehicle. The first issue is who it would help. First, the amendment would limit the credit to couples where one is working; it would do nothing to help lone parents get back into the labour market as there is no suggestion that they would get WFTC childcare credit while in education; and it would do nothing for families where both parties wanted to retrain.
  The purpose of the amendment is laudable. It seeks to ensure better educated and trained second earners. Of course that is a good thing, whether they are part time or full time. I entirely accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, that people no longer have 40 year careers and very often need retraining several times through their lives. But the social security system is not designed to support the education system; that is, students in education are not eligible for JSA, they are not eligible for housing benefit, and they are not eligible for a range of benefits of that kind. Neither will they be eligible for tax credits.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am thinking of the case where someone is made redundant and therefore needs to retrain, possibly because the whole industry in which he had been working had been running down. It is a matter of helping him get back into work. Very often the wife is working only part-time and drawing in a low income. That should be covered by this amendment.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I certainly recognise what the noble Lord is describing. But there is no difference in principle between whether she is in work and he is not or whether he is in work and she is not. The same principle applies. We do not believe it is appropriate to use the social security system to support students through education. We do not believe in building WFTC on family credit. We believe that

  265
  training, further education and so on are entirely laudable. But it is not the job of this benefit to do it. Working families' tax credit is a work incentive. Giving help to those with working partners who want to study is not a work incentive; it is an education incentive, the recipient of which may, but not necessarily will, subsequently return to work. The Government's priority is to give help to those who face the greatest barriers in returning to work, such as lone parents. Therefore, through the New Deal, the Government are providing help to lone parents in educational training with childcare costs, course fees, fares and finding childcare and are giving support, for example, where they are taking NVQ qualifications, either to Level 2 or, exceptionally, to Level 3, over courses lasting a year. All lone parents on income support are eligible for the New Deal though the programme is targeted specifically at those with children of school age. They are given support for their childcare costs in the New Deal.
  In Committee, noble Lords asked what other grants were available for childcare costs; in other words, if we were not willing to support students with childcare costs through the social security system and, building on that, through the tax system, what support was available for students through the education system—the alternative? Some grants are specifically available for childcare costs. Lone parents and students with dependants as well as the partners of those in low paid work are eligible for additional grants which are to help with the extra costs that those students incur—part-time students, full-time students, mature students or non-mature students.
  Educational establishments have discretionary funds in the form of access funds to help those who need extra help, such as childcare costs, to get proper access to education. It is for the educational establishments themselves to decide on their priorities in using those funds. I am sure that they will use them wisely to meet the kinds of need that have been described and to help those who would most benefit from education and training. From September these access funds will have £42 million available to them for HE. That will increase to £48 million in 2000–01. The kinds of student we have been talking about, with a partner in low earning work, would not be disqualified from those access funds any more than other students in potential hardship.
  Around £10 million will be available through the FE system as opposed to the HE system—through the Further Education Funding Council—to compensate further education colleges offering free or subsidised childcare places. At the moment it receives £4.5 million which helps some 18,000 students and 22,000 children. That £4.5 million will increase to £10 million. Again, the student partners of men or women who are in low paying work will also be eligible for those awards, which are discretionary. But many establishments already provide good quality subsidised childcare places for their students. The extra money will help to provide more places and, as I have said, students with working partners would be eligible.
  I hope the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will accept that it is not appropriate in our view to give additional support to student partners for childcare through WFTC. That has read-across implications for the whole field of
  266
  eligibility of students for social security benefits. It is appropriate to help them through the educational support system. They are not excluded from the discretionary schemes run by HE and FE establishments which could meet hardship, possibly incurred by childcare costs. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  10.30 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I think that she has to a considerable extent mistaken the reasoning behind this amendment. She suggested that we proposed to provide support for a student in education. That is not the purpose of the amendment at all. Its purpose, which is very much in line with the Government's intention for tax credits, is to provide not the student partner but the claimant working partner with a childcare credit where the other partner has a good reason for not being available to provide the care.
  Under the present system there are two reasons why a working claimant might be able to claim childcare credit. One of those, no doubt the commonest, is that the other partner is also in work. The second possible reason is that the partner is disabled. On the basis of exactly the same principle, this amendment seeks to add a third reason why the partner is not available to provide the care; that is, that she (as will usually be the case) is undergoing retraining. I do not think that that is any different in principle from the other two cases. One is looking not at the subsidy to the student but the subsidy to the working partner, which is the whole purpose of the Bill.
  I understand the Government's views on this matter. They have pointed out the various sources of help that are available to mothers who are seeking retraining. However, I regret that the Government have not been able to be more generous on this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
  Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 7:
  After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

  CALCULATION OF TAX CREDIT FOR PARENTS IN RECEIPT OR NOT OF MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS
  (" . No schemes for working families' tax credit or disabled person's tax credit shall be prescribed under functicns transferred under section 2(1)(a) until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid before both Houses of Parliament a statement showing the calculation of the tax credit for lone parents who receive maintenance payments and the calculation of the tax credit for parents who do not receive maintenance payments.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment introduces a new clause to place an obligation on the Government to lay before both Houses of Parliament a detailed statement explaining how maintenance payments will be calculated under the working families' tax credit and the disabled person's tax credit before any regulations are made under the powers transferred to the Treasury under Clause 2. The new clause would require that statement to contain figures indicating how much credit a family would receive if they do not receive

  267
  maintenance payments—for example, a lone parent who fails to receive maintenance because the payer is in default—compared with that which would be paid to families who do receive maintenance payments.
  As the Committee stage debates indicated, the treatment of maintenance payments is both important and complex. The first indication that the Government were considering a change from the family credit treatment was given by the Paymaster General in an intervention in Committee in another place. In Committee in this place, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, gave an insight into the Government's thinking. But before either House is asked to pass affirmative resolutions approving these two tax credit schemes there is the need for a full statement supported by examples which show the amount of credit that would be payable to families in different circumstances. That would seem to be a reasonable request, given that the issue was not discussed in the Treasury's consultative document or by the House of Commons Social Security Committee.
  I am concerned that, without such a statement, serious anomalies may be created which would become difficult to correct and families with the same income would not be treated equitably.
  In Committee, the Minister said that one of the Government's reasons for changing the treatment of maintenance payments was that it would make, "a significant contribution to tackling child poverty". We all want to relieve child poverty. The maintenance payment proposals will increase a lone parent's disposable income and therefore make these families, many of whom are certainly not well off, better off. But the question that needs to be asked is whether the beneficiaries will be moved from below the poverty line to above it by these proposals.
  The poverty line is commonly taken to be half average household income. This is the measure of poverty used by the Treasury in Tackling Poverty and Extending Opportunity. According to the latest statistics published by the Department of Social Security, this means living on a weekly equivalised income of less than £125 a week. As the Minister will know, but others of your Lordships may not, and I certainly did not before I received the briefing, "equivalised income" means an income which has been adjusted, either up or down, by comparison with a childless couple to take account of family structure, size and ages. I understand that very few, if any, lone parents who will benefit from the 100 per cent disregard proposal would have an income below half the national average under the original WFTC rules.
  If I have correctly understood the Government's new proposals for maintenance payments—and no official examples, so far as I am aware, have been published—a lone parent with a net income of £90 or less will not benefit from the maintenance payment disregard, as they will already get the full working families' tax credit. I am told that a lone parent with one or two young
  268
  children, with net income before working families' tax credit of £90 a week, would already have an equivalised income of more than £120 a week.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it may help the noble Lord if I try to clear up the previous point that he made. He may be misunderstanding the difference between the proposals that my honourable friend the Paymaster General described in the House of Commons and the existing family credit arrangements for childcare. He is absolutely right in terms of those arrangements, that if one is at maximum family credit level one gets no benefit, not from child maintenance, but from childcare credit, because one is already receiving the maximum family credit and therefore it cannot be extended by having an increased disregard for childcare.
  We are not talking about childcare; we are talking about maintenance payments from the non-resident parent. What will happen under these proposals, as outlined by my honourable friend, is that when it comes to calculating the lone parent eligibility for WFTC, if she is in work for more than 16 hours a week, whatever moneys she may get coming in from maintenance from the non-resident parent for her child will simply not be put into the calculation.
  Therefore, one lone parent getting no maintenance and another lone parent getting the average assessed maintenance of £28 a week will receive the same working families' tax credit assessment income, children for children, whatever. But the difference in the maintenance will not be brought into account. It is simply not calculated; it is totally disregarded.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Baroness's intervention is necessarily all that helpful. I shall have to read what she said. I must admit that I have quite a lot of difficulty in understanding the matter, being a bear of very little brain.
  The other question I would like to raise is whether the proposals as I understand them—and, in the absence of official guidance, I may well not understand them correctly, as I have said—will be fair to all families.
  If I do understand the proposals correctly, the credit payable to families with the same amount coming in each week will differ significantly, depending on whether or not they receive part of their income in maintenance payments. I have written to the noble Baroness. I have not had a reply. It may be that she has sent one but that it has not reached me. A reply might have helped me. It may well be that I should leave the matter now and come back to it at Third Reading, if I need to, when I have read the noble Baroness's reply. In the meantime, I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not quite sure what the noble Lord is inviting me to do. I am happy to try to give a detailed reply to the amendment as drafted, but if it is based on a misunderstanding—that would be understandable because much of the explanation has been given verbally rather than in writing—of how the maintenance disregard will work, and if he would therefore find it

  269
  helpful if I wrote to him very fully on this point, and if that would allow him to withdraw his amendment at this stage, I shall not trouble the House by giving a full reply tonight to his amendment. I shall do whatever the noble Lord would like. I can either give him a full reply now or, if there is some misunderstanding between us, I can write to him and allow him to return with a further amendment at Third Reading, if that is his preference.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should be delighted if the Minister would write to me and perhaps copy the letter to other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I say that particularly as I have not had a reply to my original letter to the noble Baroness. It may well be in the pipeline somewhere. Indeed, I am sure that it is because the noble Baroness is a very courteous person. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 8:
  Alter Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

  ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS OF WORKING FAMILIES' TAX CREDIT IN CERTAIN CASES
  (" . Under any schemes for working families' tax credit prescribed under functions transferred under section 2(1)(a) —

  (a) comparable to the treatment of families under the disabled person's tax credit, families headed by a couple shall receive a basic tax credit, to take into account the second adult, between 55 per cent and 60 per cent greater than that received by families headed by a lone parent; and

  (b) families with a disabled child shall receive an additional credit comparable with that paid under the disabled person's tax credit.")

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment also refers back to our debates in Committee and seeks to clarify further the basis on which the working families' tax credit has been drawn up. However, unlike my previous new clause it refers to the WFTC only because it seeks to draw on the principles which the Government have accepted for the disabled person's tax credit.
  This new clause is in two parts. Paragraph (a) is concerned with couples who, according to the information so far provided by the Inland Revenue, will he treated illogically and unfairly. The point was first raised by Professor Steven Webb on Third Reading of the Bill in another place. It was subsequently raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, and myself on Second Reading and then again by my noble friend Lord Astor and myself in Committee, but so far we have had no response.
  Under the treatment which the Government propose for both WFTC and DPTC, the income and savings of a husband and wife, or of a couple who are living together, will be aggregated and added together. In many cases, that will restrict the tax credit which would otherwise be due. In no circumstances, as I see it, will it be to their advantage.
  At this point, the two credits take a different approach. Under the DPTC, a couple gets a higher basic tax credit than a single person. That takes account of the fact that the second adult, who will usually be the able-bodied person—we are not talking here of the
  270
  disabled person—has to eat, be clothed and incur other expenses of life. Under the WFTC, by contrast, a couple gets the same basic tax credit as a single person.
  Having restricted the credit due by aggregating the couple's income and savings, the second adult is then ignored. So far as the Revenue is concerned, that person can starve, go around without clothes and cannot satisfy any of the needs of life. In practice, of course, it will not happen quite like that. The family as a whole will go short and the children will be more likely to remain in poverty.
  Indeed, leaving to one side the treatment of maintenance payments, at any given level of net income the children in a family headed by a couple are more likely to be in poverty than the children in a family headed by a lone parent. In the consultative document Supporting Families, the Government showed themselves to be fully aware of the advantages to children if they are brought up in families headed by a married couple, yet the arrangements which the Government are currently proposing for the WFTC will give parents a financial incentive to separate or, if they are apart, a disincentive to come together again.
  There are two ways in which this illogicality and unfairness might be sorted out. One would be to follow through the implications of what the noble Baroness has told us many times, which is that WFTC is not part of the benefits system but part of the tax system. Under the tax system the incomes of husband and wife are not aggregated, but taxed quite independently. So the aggregation of income and savings of husband and wife for WFTC could be dropped. That would remove the inconsistency between the WFTC and the tax system. It would also then be consistent to give an additional basic tax credit to the couple in order to take account of the second adult.
  This new clause takes the alternative and more comprehensive way of sorting out this muddle. It accepts that, despite the claims of the noble Baroness, the working families' tax credit is essentially a benefit and not a tax. It accepts that the basic unit is for all intents and purposes usually the family and not the individual and the aggregation of the couple's income and savings is appropriate. It then provides for a higher basic credit for a couple than for a single person to take account of the additional cost of food, clothing and so on.
  This is not a radical proposal. It follows the practice in income support, the job seeker's allowance, housing benefit, council tax benefit and so on. In these benefits, as in the DPTC, the couple's benefit or credit is between 55 per cent. and 60 per cent. higher than that of a single person. That is the figure adopted in the new clause. I accept that a couple does not get a higher credit than a single person does in family credit, but that benefit is the odd one out.
  This amendment is in two parts. The grouping also brings in Amendment No. 10, which was drafted for me by a different organisation. I believe that is better than the second part, paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 8. I shall not press that amendment and, because of the lateness of the hour, I shall not press Amendment

  271
  No. 10. As regards that amendment, the disability working allowance allows for a disabled child allowance, currently worth £21.90, when a disabled person also has a disabled child. That will be extended to the disabled person's tax credit when it is introduced in October. The calculation for a maximum family credit and its replacement does not include the disabled child allowance.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 10 is to provide parity for those eligible for the new working families' tax credit who have a disabled child, by extending the disabled child allowance to the new tax credit. The disabled child allowance was introduced as the disability working allowance in 1995 as part of a package to improve the benefit. The government at the time saw it as a substantial boost to the income of families in receipt of the benefit who have a dependant disabled child. The aim of the package was to improve the take up of DWA. The inclusion of the disabled child premium actually recognised the extra needs of working families with disabled children. There is little reason, therefore, for excluding the disabled child allowance from WFTC. The allowance reflects the additional costs and support needs of the family with a disabled child regardless of whether or not the working parent is disabled. I beg to move.
  10.45 p.m.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, my noble friend has moved two specific amendments. They raise some fairly complex issues. I believe that he is right in saying that perhaps the most relevant is Amendment No. 10, which seems to be in a more coherent form in some ways than paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 8. The crucial point is whether or not there should be parity as regards a family with a disabled child. If I understand the situation correctly, there appears to be some anomaly between disabled parents with a disabled child and parents who are not disabled but who have a disabled child. The purpose of Amendment No. 10 is to ensure parity between the two groups, as my noble friend has just said. In that context it seems that there is an argument for parity to be established.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, Amendment No. 8 attempts to align the structure of WFTC with that of DPTC. It focuses on two things: the two different basic tax credits in DPTC compared with the single basic tax credit in WFTC; and the presence of an additional disabled child tax credit in DPTC. I shall deal with them separately.
  On the first issue—that in DPTC there are two levels of family tax credit and only one in WFTC—the amendment calls for WFTC to have two types of basic tax credit: one for families headed by a couple; one for families, presumably a lower one, headed by a lone parent; and requires there to be a differential between the two types of credit on the ground that a second adult requires more food, clothes, and so on, as the noble Lord argued. I presume that the noble Lord is working by analogy with DPTC which has a basic family tax credit and a lower single person's tax credit. I hope to
  272
  persuade him today, as I clearly failed to do in Committee, that these are conceptually two totally different benefits; and it does no one any kindness to try to read across by saying that because there are two tiers in DPTC there should be two in WFTC, which is to add on beyond what a lone parent household would receive for a couple family. The noble Lord does neither disabled people nor lone parents any kindness in pursuing that argument.
  DPTC, like DWA before it, has one rate for couples or lone parents—just like WFTC—and a different lower rate for single people who are not responsible for children but who are disabled. There is no analogy between that single rate and the WFTC. The higher rate of DPTC is exactly the same as the single rate in WFTC. The higher rate of DPTC is for couples or a lone parent household where one is disabled. The difference is that DPTC has a lower rate which cannot exist for WFTC because it is for single disabled people by virtue of their disability, and by definition the WFTC is not a single person's benefit. It is a family, household benefit.
  I emphasise that lone parents are eligible for the higher family rate in DPTC. They do not receive the single person rate. Already the two benefits are aligned, just as the noble Lord argued. There is, therefore, no need for a single person's lower rate in DPTC if one wishes to align the two tax credits because WFTC applicants never qualified because that benefit is for single people.
  The first part of the clause would not be about aligning the two tax credits because they are already aligned. It would make them different. If the noble Lord wishes to do as he suggests, he can do so in only one of two ways. He must either make WFTC less generous for lone parents and align it with that of single disabled people; or he must make WFTC more generous for couples in order to produce a differential at considerable public cost.
  Which of those two does the noble Lord want? If he seeks to treat lone parents less favourably by giving them a new lower rate analogous to the single individual's rate in DPTC, even though it is a household, it would save the Government, the taxpayer. money. It would take something like £550 million, over half a billion pounds, out of the pockets of 600,000 lone parents and their children; that is, nearly £20 a week. I cannot believe that he wants that. I think that he made that clear.
  His only other option is to increase the couple's allowance for WFTC to maintain a differential. On his account, that would cost an additional £1.25 billion to create a new higher couple's credit. I cannot believe that he and his party want that either. We need to focus help where it is needed. We do not think that increasing the basic generosity of the tax credit by about 60 per cent would be one option.
  Nor is it true, as the noble Lord argued, that there would be an incentive to separate. I do not know from where he gets these figures. If a couple separated, she would receive what the couple would get in tax credit, earnings for earnings, because they would remain the same household. If they were separated, he would be a

  273
  single man and as long as he is not disabled he would receiving nothing. The amount paid, earnings for earnings, would be exactly the same. I do not know from where the noble Lord received his briefing.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the noble Baroness has made my point. A single adult with children receives more than a couple with children. The noble Baroness said that if the couple separated the mother would still receive the same. There is no provision for the second adult. The family of two children with a second adult means that there are four people in the family; not three as with a single adult and two children. That second adult needs to be fed and clothed, too.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I dealt with that argument at some length earlier. I am happy to go over it again but, given the lateness of the hour, the noble Lord might prefer to read what I have said in order to decide whether there is confusion or misunderstanding. If so, we can follow it up in correspondence or at Third Reading.
  The point the noble Lord made, which I was addressing, was that, given this, there would be a positive incentive for couples to split up because they would both be better off. That was what he said—I wrote his words down. It is not true, because the lone parent who would be left with the children would receive exactly the same. His argument would apply only if the lone parent received the same and the other parent received something, too. Therefore, it would be financially sensible to separate. But the father would receive nothing because he would be a single person; and the mother, as head of the household, would receive the same as if they were together. The point the noble Lord sought to make, that there was an built-in incentive to separate, cannot be true.
  It is of course the case that all families are treated in the same way, whether they are headed by a lone parent or by a couple. That is what we were seeking to establish and therefore WFTC and DPTC are already allowed. I hope that the noble Lord, when he follows this up through reading or correspondence, will accept that.
  I turn to Amendment No. 10 in which the noble Lord suggests that DPTC has an additional tax credit for disabled children that is absent front WFTC. As I said in Committee, the disabled child credit in DWA was introduced by the previous government after discussions with disability groups during its development and it has never made its way into family credit. When we debated the point in Committee, I said that the Government would reflect on the matter. It is an anomaly. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that it is not a justifiable anomaly. Therefore, I am delighted to repeat what my honourable friend the Paymaster General said yesterday on this Bill: that the Government will be correcting this anomaly by extending the disabled child tax credit to WFTC families from October 2000. That means that extra help will be available not just to a disabled child living in a disabled family, but to a disabled child living in a non-disabled family. In other words, it means that if a WFTC family has a disabled
  274
  child, that child will not only receive, as now, the child tax credit worth £15 if the child is under the age of 11 or £20 if the child is between 11 and 16, but he will receive an additional £21.90, more than doubling the value of that tax credit.
  I am extremely pleased about that; I am absolutely delighted. I believe that it will help low earning families with a disabled child and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has their interests very much at heart. I hope that the House will welcome that very good news and that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Higgins: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I am not sure I understood correctly what she said a moment ago, although I congratulate her on her virtuoso performance on the previous amendment. which is linked with this one. She said that yesterday the Paymaster General said in relation to this Bill that the concession would be made. I am increasingly worried about the Treasury taking these things over. Surely, it would be more appropriate for the noble Baroness to have announced the change tonight. I believe that she is right to take credit for what is happening, but am I right in believing that she is therefore proposing to accept the amendment?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not personally taking credit for what has been achieved because it is to the credit of my honourable friend the Paymaster General. It is her Bill on behalf of the Government. As this is not part of the legislation, it cannot be done by way of amendment. It will be done by way of statement and then subsequently by regulation, as appropriate.
  My honourable friend issued the press release and statement yesterday, perfectly properly. It is her measure and it is to her credit. I shall convey all the thanks and appreciation of noble Lords to my honourable friend. The amendment rectifies an anomaly. It will help low-earning parents with a disabled child for whom life can be extremely difficult. It produces another £22 a week for that disabled child before the taper begins to take any money away. I am sure that the measure will be very well received. I have a copy of the press release if noble Lords wish to circulate it. Please join with me in welcoming it.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I apologise for asking the question again because I missed the beginning of the latest part of the Minister's peroration. Is she proposing to bring forward an amendment to put this into effect at Third Reading, or can it be done purely by regulations?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is like the situation with NHS prescription charges, childcare or maintenance; it does not need to be on the face of the Bill and therefore does not need a government amendment. It will be done either by regulations or by guidance. The Paymaster General announced her intent, and that is therefore what will happen. From October

  275
  2000 a child who is disabled and living within a WFTC family will get the additional premium that they have not so far received.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that, and therefore I shall not move Amendment No. 10. I shall read with care what the noble Baroness said in regard to Amendment No. 8. I reserve my right to come back at Third Reading, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 9:
  After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

  PROVISION FOR MINIMUM INCOME
  (" . Any schemes for working families' tax credit or disabled person's tax credit prescribed under functions transferred under section 2(1)(a) shall provide that, regardless of any savings, all families with children and with an adult in full time work shall receive a minimum income of £200 per week.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that this amendment will not take quite so long. It is designed to get confirmation of various statements made by the Government.
  The new clause follows the debate that the noble Lord, Lord Astor, and I initiated in Committee. I am not sure that the Minister fully grasped the point at which we were aiming. As a result we may have been speaking at cross-purposes. I hope, therefore, that on this occasion we will be able to establish the position more clearly.
  In his Budget speech in March the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
  "Every working family will be guaranteed a minimum income. It will be introduced in October, not at the previously announced rate of £190 per week but at £200 a week, more than £10,000 a year. No income tax will be paid until earnings reach £235 a week."
  Similar statements were made in the Red Book, which gives the background to the Chancellor's Budget proposals. When the new 10 pence rate of income tax is introduced in October the minimum income guaranteed for families with someone in full-time work will be £200 a week or £10,400 a year.
  Similar statements have been made by a number of Ministers on a number of occasions, and particularly by the Paymaster General in another place and also by the noble Baroness. They were given without equivocation, exception or qualification.
  However, let us imagine an individual, either a lone parent or someone with a partner, who stays at home to look after the child or an elderly or dependent relative. Let us assume for the moment that that individual has one child under 11 and works 40 hours per week at the minimum wage of £3.60 per hour. He will earn £144 per week, of which he will pay income tax of £6.32 and national insurance contributions of £7.80 to give a net income of £129.88 per week. He will then be entitled to working families' tax credit of £61.27 which, together with child benefit of £14.40, will give the family £205.55 per week. So far, so good.
  But now let us assume that an individual, either on his own or in conjunction with his partner, has savings of £8,000. That may come from a redundancy payment received when a previous job folded. Then he will not be entitled at all to working families' tax credit. At current rates of interest, he might, if he were lucky, earn interest on savings of £5 per week after tax, to give a total income of £149.28 per week. That is much less than the guarantee of £200 which the Chancellor gave.
  Equally, that individual will be paying tax on both his earnings and interest, even though the income is even further below the figure of £235 which the Chancellor promised. I should add that a disabled person with savings faces a broadly similar picture of broken promises. The figures are slightly different, but the story of unfulfilled commitment is the same.
  So how is the position to be resolved? One possibility would be for the noble Baroness to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go to the other place and to correct clearly and unambiguously the guarantees and promises that he had given with as much publicity for the correction as the Budget Statement received. However, although that would set the record straight, it would leave the highly unsatisfactory position that the individual would have a very strong incentive to spend his savings until they were reduced to £3,000. when the individual could draw working families' tax credit in full.
  The alternative is to follow the route taken in the amendment which gives effect to what the Chancellor guaranteed. The amount of working families' tax credit would not be restricted because of the family's savings if that would leave the family with an income of less than £200 or if it would mean that income tax were being paid on income of less than £235. There would still be exclusions because someone with a large amount of capital would be able to receive interest equivalent to the amount of the tax credit which was being lost so that the total income would be above £200 in any event.
  I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on these proposals. However, bearing in mind my difficulty at school of taking down maths sums in a hurry late in the afternoon, it may be that the noble Baroness would prefer to write to me on that point. That may be easier. I beg to move.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, from time to time, I am suspicious about matters being dealt with in writing when they really should be on the record; for example, in relation to the position of the Chancellor. If, as my noble friend seemed to suggest, rather a lot of small print was left out of the Chancellor's Statement, we should be clear about that on the record.
  Nevertheless, my noble friend raises an important point with regard to savings. We need clarification after the success of the previous amendment in producing results, for which the noble Baroness is altogether too modest. If the Paymaster General had wanted to do it, he could have done it when the Bill was going through the other place.
  Perhaps the noble Baroness, even at this late hour, will clarify the position with regard to savings. If the

  277
  position on savings, as far as working families' tax credit was concerned, were not in line with the harsh regime that exists for those on income support, or in relation to pensioners and others who are not in the situation of getting working families' tax credit, that would be of concern.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we assumed, correctly, that the amendment probes the background to the announcement by the Chancellor in his Budget that the minimum income guarantee of £190 a week for working families would rise to £200 a week as a result of the changes introduced by the Budget.
  The £200 minimum income guarantee to which the Chancellor referred, is income for a household, whether a couple or a lone parent, with a child under the age of 11., where the adult, who works 35 hours a week, is working at the national minimum wage. As The noble Lord said, that £200 is made up of his net earnings, WFTC and child benefit. Therefore, it provides a minimum income guarantee. That is extended to everyone whether or not they currently qualify for a WFTC.
  All income-related benefits—of course, the tax credit builds on the benefits—have a capital test. People with capital of less than £3,000 and who receive income support, JSA and WFTC are unaffected by the test. People with more than £8,000 do not qualify for WFTC. Capital of between £3,000 and £8,000 is taken into account in calculating the amount due. We think that is fair. You cannot hand out tax credits without having regard to the applicant's capital.
  Perhaps I may step sideways for a moment. We wondered why so many pensioners were living below income support levels—for example, not drawing down income support—and we found that it was because they had capital. Nearly half of those who were not claiming that income support had capital of over £20,000. We cannot say that we should be handing out taxpayers' money as income support on top of an old age pension because pensioners choose not to use their savings or their capital which has been designed for that purpose. That is the position.
  If we were to do as the noble Lord suggested—to disregard savings for this purpose—that could not be restricted to WFTC. It would have to be extended to other income-related benefits, such as income support, JSA and the like.
  We estimate that abolishing capital limits would cost, for those income-related benefits, between £0.75 billion and £1 billion. That is the cost of abolishing all capital limits. If there were to be more generous capital limits, and we did not abolish them in total, but for example, we raised the lower limit from £3,00 to £5,000 and raised the upper limit from £8,000 to £10,000, the cost would be about £110 million.
  To disregard all capital, as the noble Lord suggests in his amendment, so that those with an income of £200 a week, regardless of whatever capital they may have, may receive benefits and to apply that across to other income related benefits on which the WFTC has
  278
  been modelled, would cost in the order of £0.75 billion to £1 billion. That would be public money from other taxpayers, who may have a slightly higher income, but often much less capital than those who would receive that credit or that income-related benefit.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, I have two questions. First, did the Chancellor make clear what the position was on savings in the course of his Budget speech, when he announced the guarantee? Secondly, I am somewhat astonished at how little the cost is. If I understood it correctly, the noble Baroness said that to raise the limit would cost £110 million and to abolish all capital restraints would cost £1 billion. From a personal point of view, I am rather surprised that that is so. One knows what frightful anguish there is, particularly among pensioners, who find that their last bit of capital has to be run down before they can receive any benefits.
  11.15 p.m.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords. the noble Lord asks whether the Chancellor made it clear in his Budget speech. He made it clear to me. I am sorry if the noble Lord did not get the same understanding, but I was perfectly well aware that a minimum income guarantee, a disablement income guarantee or a pensioner's income guarantee was subject to the capital rules. That has always been the case. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had meant to say, "Irrespective of the capital they may have in this, and only in this, case", he would have said so. He did not. Therefore the existing framework of capital rules applies as elsewhere. That is perfectly unambiguous.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, did the Chancellor make it clear to the public at large, who may riot necessarily be aware of this point?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, in all fairness, the Chancellor of the Exchequer can hardly read out the Social Security Rule Book or the way he is building on WFTC. He made it clear, as the DSS in its turn made clear with the minimum income guarantee, that this is subject to the capital rules. The reason for that is a perfectly proper one. People who might have quite low incomes—say, a pension—who are in their sixties, and then their elderly parents die and they inherit a substantial sum of money from a property ;say, £50,000, £100,000 or £150,000), cannot reasonably still expect to enjoy income support corning from other taxpayers who may have fractionally higher earnings but no capital at all. That is the reason for the capital rules. It is not unreasonable that people should draw clown their capital.
  I said to the noble Lord that if we were to raise the capital ceilings from £3,000 to £5,000 and from £5,000 to £10,000—these figures came out in discussions with the honourable Member in the other place, Mr. Webb, of the Liberal Democrat Party—the cost would be £110 million; if we were to abolish the ceiling altogether, as a ballpark figure the cost would be £0.75 billion to £1 billion. Those are very large sums

  279
  going to people who have a generous amount of capital. That cannot be reasonable and I hope the noble Lord will therefore feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I shall withdraw the amendment. But I shall read with interest what has been said by all who have taken part in the debate and may possibly come back at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
  Clause 3 [Transfer of associated property, rights and liabilities etc.]:
  [Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
  Clause 5 [General functions of Board]:
  Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 12:
  Page 2, line 45, at end insert—
  ("( ) The Board shall take reasonable steps to ensure that a person applying for working families' tax credit is aware that if she fears domestic violence from her partner she may submit the claim form without the signature of her partner.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 12 seeks to ensure that a woman fearing domestic violence from her partner should be able to apply for WFTC without first obtaining his signature. Writing this on to the face of the Bill would ensure that this option was made plain in all WFTC forms and leaflets.
  The proposed legislation assumes that couples are able to discuss together who should receive the payment. Indeed, the WFTC explanatory leaflet advises a couple to think how they budget and who organises the family's money in deciding who should receive the payments. But the CAB tells me that it sees many clients who are not in a position to reach agreement with their partners. In particular, women living in violent relationships may be afraid to assert their wish to receive WFTC.
  Many women seeking CAB help because of domestic violence are short of money and cannot meet the needs of their children. It is likely that those most in need of exercising the choice for WFTC payments will be those least able to exercise it. The CAB told me of a typical case in the south of England of a woman with one daughter whose husband was both an alcoholic and violent. He spent all their benefit income on drink and she had no money at all. She and her daughter were afraid to live at home.
  According to a women's unit fact sheet—Better for women, better for all—the Government are making violence against women a priority, as women themselves are telling them that it is one of their biggest concerns. Indeed, the Women's Unit commissioned a package of research into the accommodation support services for households experiencing domestic violence.
  The noble Baroness, the Lord Privy Seal, is the Minister for Women. Indeed, according to this fact sheet, she is a member of the ministerial committee overseeing the Violence Against Women crime reduction programme. When the Minister responds,
  280
  perhaps she can tell me whether she has discussed this amendment with her noble friend the Lord Privy Seal and whether or not she welcomes it.
  At present, family credit must be paid to the female partner. Under WFTC, it is proposed that the couple will decide who is to claim. We wish to ensure that a woman, fearing domestic violence from a partner, should be able to submit a claim for WFTC on her own, without the signature of her partner. We believe that that should be stated in the WFTC claim pack and contained in primary legislation so that it cannot be ignored in the future. I beg to move.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I certainly support the spirit behind these amendments. As far as concerns Amendment No. 12, I believe that what the noble Baroness said in response to Amendment No. 6 makes it clear that the Government have already gone some way towards this position. In the event of the couple failing to reach an agreement as to which of them is to receive the tax credit, it is now clear that the Government are prepared to authorise the Inland Revenue to accept applications submitted by the caring parent herself, without the signature of her partner. The only practical question is whether the parties need to have made an attempt to agree; in other words, the right of the caring partner to submit an application without the partner's signature can only be done if there has been discussion about it. At any rate, in exceptional circumstances, it would mean that the caring partner could do it without reference to the working partner.
  It is desirable, in general, that this should only be done where there has at least been a discussion on the subject. If Amendment No. 12 were adopted, there would obviously be the risk that it could merely postpone rather than avoid the incidents of violence which will happen, not when there is discussion about who is to receive the tax credit but when the man, whom we assume to be the violent working partner, discovers that his non-working partner has already claimed for credit. Of course, that would be an unfortunate situation. Nevertheless, it seems to me that there may be exceptional cases where it would be desirable to have the possibility of applying, even if a previous attempt has not been made to reach an agreement.
  I strongly support Amendment No. 13. Indeed, it merely raises again the point I made on Amendment No. 6. At that stage, the noble Baroness's reply was cut off by circumstances before she could make it. Although she indicated by sign language that she would write to me, perhaps this would be an opportunity to put a statement on the record about what the Government intend as regards providing information on this issue in the claim pack.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should also like to express my support for Amendment No. 12. However, we have been given an example of a situation where the husband drinks. I just wonder what the position would

  281
  be where the wife drinks. There is no provision for that and I am not sure that such a situation would be covered by Amendment No. 6.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, with all due respect, I do not think that in this Bill we can sort out all the problems of drinking partners. Other agencies such as Alcoholics Anonymous, or even the police where the situation has escalated into violence, may be more appropriate agencies to deal with the matter.
  As regards Amendment No. 12, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, for raising the issue of domestic violence. It becomes your Lordships to discuss this matter even though the hour is late. The noble Lord asked about the work of my noble friend Lady Jay in this respect. She chairs a women's committee which considers violence, among other issues. I represent the DSS on that committee and I 'work closely with my noble friend, as with other Ministers, both male and female, across government to ensure that issues such as domestic violence are reviewed across the waterfront of government, if I may put it that way.
  The noble Lord is quite right in assuming that the Government regard this issue with great concern. Under the guidance of my noble friend we are doing our best to respond to it. We know of some of the circumstances that trigger domestic violence, such as drink and drugs. We are studying anger management. We are also considering issues such as child contact and family contact centres. We recognise that domestic violence occurs but we do what we can to ensure that children at any rate are protected and enjoy a decent quality of family life in so far as the state, in its limited capacity, can ensure that. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Jay will be willing to write to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, if he wishes to know more about our initiatives on this front. I am happy to send him literature, if he wishes.
  There is a difference between whether the presumption in a situation of domestic violence is that the couple are still together or whether they are separated. Clearly, if they are together, if she fails to sign his form, or he fails to sign her application form, the money goes to her as the applicant. This position will now he protected—as we said earlier on Amendment No. 6—by regulations to that effect. If they remain as a couple despite domestic violence, the regulations are in place to ensure that she will get the. money. If he knocks her around subsequent to that, I am afraid that her recourse then is to the police, women's aid and the like. If the violence has resulted in the couple separating, at that point she becomes, for our purposes, a lone parent. If she is in work, she will qualify for WFTC on her own. If she is not in work, she will not qualify for WFTC; she will be eligible for income support and related benefits. He, as effectively a single, separated man, will qualify for nothing at all. That is the situation as regards domestic violence. I am happy to try to enlarge on any of the wider issues of domestic violence through correspondence or literature, if the noble Lord wishes.
  282
  The second amendment in the group—
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, I believe there has been some misunderstanding. The two amendments raise quite different issues. I had understood that they were to be taken separately but the initial typing went wrong. I was told that the typing would not be corrected but we would take the amendments separately. I think that would be more convenient.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thought the second amendment in the group had already been moved and spoken to. Am I incorrect in that belief? I think the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, thought that too.
  Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I was just speaking to Amendment No. 12.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I was under the same misapprehension. I had not realised that the amendments had been degrouped. I simply assumed that because they appeared in the same group on the Marshalled List I should speak to both of them simultaneously.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, given the lateness of the hour I wonder whether it would help your Lordships if I said that all the points that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—that I am sure would have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Astor—sought to make it clear that the couple have a choice as to whom the money is paid and payment is made to that person. Page 6 of the guidance notes points out the things a couple should bear in mind in making that choice and emphasises,
  "that the person receiving the payment does not have to be the person working".
  The substance of the amendment is that it should be made clear that the choice may be made in that way to that person. I agree with that. If the noble Lord has any worries or concerns about the forms, I am happy to discuss that with him.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, if the noble Baroness does not mind—I do not think this will greatly inconvenience the House—there are one or two points on the second amendment in the group I should like to have raised, but perhaps the noble Baroness would like to end her discussion on the provision we are discussing and then tackle the next one.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, had hoped I had done that. I hope that in that context the noble Lord, Lord Astor, will withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. She offered to ask her noble friend the Lord Privy Seal to write to me. I would be grateful if she would do so as it is an important point. We wish to consider the matter carefully and may return to it at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  11.30 p.m.
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 13:
  Page 2, line 45, at end insert—
  ("( ) The Board shall take reasonable steps to ensure that a couple applying for working families' tax credit is aware that it may be paid to either partner, and that it may be paid by the Board direct to a partner not in employment.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are one or two points which we have not covered for the reasons we have just mentioned. There are very strong feelings, particularly among the Citizens Advice Bureaux, that it is extremely important that the points covered by Amendment No. 13 are accepted by the Government. The CAB have described it as vital that it should be made clear to people that they have the option and the choice. They even recommend that it should be made clear in statute that that is so. Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness whether the Government accept that point completely? What steps are they taking to ensure that the parties concerned are aware of the choices in this matter?
  At the risk of trespassing on the noble Baroness's generosity, perhaps I might add one other point. In the earlier discussion about whether the credit should go to the carer and so on, the CAB has also in the context of this amendment raised the whole question of purse to wallet. As we are a little uncertain at the moment, it would be helpful to know before Third Reading where the noble Baroness stands with regard to the credit being paid to the mother, which is currently the situation under family credit. Does she have a view on whether it should be paid to the mother rather than to others? The CAB stress very strongly that they have a number of specific cases where that would have been helpful.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, what should be provided by way of information in the forms and the guidance notes is not merely the options that are open to the parties if they agree, but also guidance as to what will happen in the event of their failing to agree. That is the last point where I believe that the present information provided is seriously defective. I am hoping for some indication that clearer information will be given when the forms are produced.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, three points have been raised: first, what information do we give; secondly, whether we believe that essentially the mother should be the recipient of WFTC; and thirdly, the guidance to be given if the parties do not agree.
  I do not know if the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has seen the draft of the October form. I am not sure that I am allowed to do this in your Lordships' House, but perhaps I may point it out.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness is not.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If the noble Lord, Lord Henley, from a sedentary position, wishes to assist the House, he will allow me to read the words that clearly
  284
  cannot be seen from across the Dispatch Box by the noble Lords opposite. It says in bold type:
  "Please read this note before"—
  and the word "before" is in heavy capitals; it is the biggest word apart from "Revenue" on the entire form—
  "you complete the form".
  It goes on:
  "If you are a married couple (or a man and woman who live together as if you are married) you must decide who is going to apply for and receive the payments. That person completes the form as the applicant and the payments will be made to her or him. Once we receive your application, you cannot change this decision. You do not have to be working to receive payments as long as you have a partner who works".
  That is written in bold type; it asks people to read the form before they fill it in; I do not think it can be made more visually prominent typographically than it is—even if your Lordships cannot see it across the Dispatch Box. I think your Lordships will agree that the forms are as unambiguous as they can be. These are the October forms; they will be revised again from the following April.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am most grateful for that helpful intervention. Does the form also make it clear that it may be paid by the board direct to the partner not in employment?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that was the point I was making, perhaps slightly opaquely, by saying that I have the October form, under which it would be paid directly at home, whereas from April it will be paid through the pay packet to the partner who chooses to receive it if that partner is in work. At that point the form will be changed to reflect that additional information. That takes place from April, not from October. I made the point that the form will need to be changed in April.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, when reading from the form the noble Baroness said that once an option had been taken by the couple as to who was to receive the credit, it could not be changed. What would be the position if the person who was receiving the credit was involved in an accident or was taken ill so that he could not handle the credit? Is there a method for dealing with emergencies such as that?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if I may, I will follow up that point in writing. What is certainly the case is that the decision cannot be changed within the six-month period. A WFTC claim runs for six months. The couple could choose to make a different decision at the renewal of the claim after six months. Their circumstances may very well have altered, as they usually do, in that situation. However, the presumption is that, to make it easier for employers and also for the couple concerned, a claim runs for six months. If there were an emergency such as he was no longer in work, it would depend on whether he was still on the employer's payroll on statutory sick pay and therefore whether it could be paid through that if he so wished or whether he was no longer employed at all. In that case, the WFTC

  285
  payment would run and be paid by the board and the couple's income would be topped up by JSA or income support, as appropriate, for the remainder of that six-month period.
  The noble Lord raised a specific point about a sudden emergency. It may be helpful if I simply write to him on that point. But normally those circumstances would prevail.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I thank the noble Baroness. I was thinking of the case of an injury that prevented the person actually dealing with the money, particularly if it was paid into a bank account. Sometimes salaries are paid directly into an account and the other party to the partnership may not have access to that account. That is not at all unusual.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am happy to give the noble Lord the assurance for which he asks. I do not need to write to him. I can allay his concerns. Under emergency procedures, the partner is the alternative payee. So if someone was incapacitated, the other partner could be authorised to receive the payment. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that point and for allowing me to clarify the position.
  The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked whether I agreed in principle that it was right for the payment to go to the mother. I have said it so many times that your Lordships must be tired of hearing me say it—this is a working families' tax credit. It is not income support. It is designed to do two things. It is designed to give families support but it is designed to do that by encouraging parents into work. It is a work incentive. We believe that the best way of helping families and children out of poverty is to see one of those parents in work. We believe that the best way of ensuring that one of those parents is in work is to pay the entry wage if they are going back into work, or the minimum wage, so to speak, if they are already in work but their income has fallen by virtue of shorter hours, loss of bonus or loss of commission through the wage packet. But at the end of the day we respect the fact that this is a couple's choice. If they prefer for it to be paid direct to a mother who is not working for waged work at home, that is their choice. That is the Government's view. It is intended to be a work incentive. We believe that that is the best way to alleviate family poverty. But if the couple so choose for it to be paid to the mother, that is their choice. It would not be my preference but it is their choice. That choice is being fully respected.
  Finally, the noble Lord asked about guidance if they did not agree. This point was also raised by my noble friend Lady Lockwood during the Second Reading debate. We gave an assurance that we shall seek to amend subsequent forms to cover that point.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for taking the two matters separately. Even at this late hour the debate covered points which would otherwise not have been clarified. In the light of her helpful remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Freeman Lord Freeman moved Amendment No. 14:
  Page 2, line 45, at end insert—
  ("( ) The Board shall issue a code of practice as to the operation of both credits, after consultation with interested parties.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be brief. I am grateful to the House for agreeing to take this amendment before the House rises. It is a further probing amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for his very helpful responses in Committee, in particular the agreement to change the nature of the claimant's declaration on. all the forms, which was most welcome, and for promising a rolling programme of review of the tax credit forms, in particular WFTC501. The noble Baroness referred to that or a similar form.
  I readily appreciate that no fundamental changes can be made to the forms because they are geared in to existing computer systems and procedures in departments. But the commitment to that rolling programme of review, subject to one point that I wish to make, is accepted and welcomed. I am grateful to the Minister for also ensuring that there will be reporting to Parliament by the Board of the Inland Revenue on the operation of the tax credit scheme.
  Clause 5 gives to the Inland Revenue the normal care and management responsibilities that we find in much tax legislation. It gives the Revenue broad discretion to operate the system and gives it non-legislative powers. But in this kind of legislation the devil is in the detail. It is important to continue probing some of the unanswered questions.
  The issue I want to address is the normal Inland Revenue practice of issuing a code of conduct for the operation of a scheme such as the tax credit scheme. The code of conduct, which has not yet been issued, is separate from the explanatory booklet which is available in this House. Many noble Lords will have already read the draft that has been circulated.
  I say to the noble Lord at the outset that, because I am dealing with practice, not policy—and I hope my noble friend Lord Higgins will agree with me—a reply in writing will be perfectly acceptable. I should not expect the noble Lord to go into detail as I did not give him notice of the points that I wished to raise.
  My first point is: when will the code of conduct be issued? I assume that it will be as soon as possible, and well before the commencement date in. October. Secondly, will the noble Lord confirm that there will be proper consultation on the code of conduct before it is put into its final form?
  I wish to make four specific points on what could, in my judgment, be included in the code. First, we need to be clear as to when formal entitlement starts. Is it when an application is received, or when it is validated? 'That is an important point, simply because the practice of the Inland Revenue is very different from that of the Department of Social Security. Noble Lords will recall that the department's procedure regarding the payment of benefits is to receive, process, pay and then sample check at a later date. The practice of the Revenue, certainly when it comes to tax repayments, is to make sure that a particular claim is validated before payment

  287
  is made. Therefore, if there is to be any significant gap between receipt of an application and payment, it is perfectly appropriate to raise the issue of back-dating to the date when the application was received.
  The second point relates to the need for exemption of small self-employed applicants from having to file complete accounts and answer the detailed questions in WFTC501 and instead use the present system operated by the Inland Revenue for the small self-employed; that is to say, a simplified system, a simplified application form dealing with turnover, expenses and profits.
  I am well aware of the argument that the Department of Social Security's system is being inherited by the Inland Revenue, but the Inland Revenue may well in week one be dealing with the small self-employed, using the simplified form of reporting, and in week two, unless there are changes, being asked to administer the working families' tax credit scheme, asking for a complete set of accounts. That will be confusing to perhaps 10 per cent of the total applicants for this credit. We should address this. There is plenty of time for the Inland Revenue by a code of conduct, a code of practice, or by amending its procedure, to simplify the reporting, to simplify the claim for the self-employed where turnover is beneath £15,000 per annum.
  Last year the President of the Chartered Institute of Taxation said that he thought it unlikely that the existing form—in its new form WFTC501—could be completed correctly by more than one in five inspectors of taxes. Having read the form, I must say that if I were in the position of a small self-employed individual I would find it very difficult to complete it. Please may we have an assurance that this will be put right before April 2000?
  Thirdly, a small point perhaps to your Lordships, but significant to many claimants, under the old DSS system one could send one's application form in using a post-paid envelope. The Inland Revenue, I think I am right in saying, withdrew that procedure some eight years ago, and it is now seeking to employ the same principle: that is, as far as I can see from the forms lodged in your Lordships' House for perusal, no envelope and no postage paid.
  Finally, it is important to apply the principle of the helplines for both credits being at local phone charge rates. The Inland Revenue gives this benefit not only during weekdays in normal working hours, but also in the evenings and at weekends, for income tax self-assessment. I beg to move.
  11.45 p.m.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Freeman for his comments in an area where he has very considerable expertise. I am sure that the Government will wish to take his views into account.
  As to the form of response, I have a slight feeling that we are in danger of becoming a correspondence college rather than a debating chamber, and that would be dangerous. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, will not think me discourteous in making
  288
  that point. None the less, I hope that we shall get a response one way or another from the Minister concerned.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when people ask us to write to them I am reminded of "Yes, Minister", when Jim Hacker asked "How can I write letters?" and Sir Humphrey replied "But, Minister, you don't write letters; you sign them." We should always bear that in mind.
  The simple answer to the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, when he said in the amendment that there should be a code of practice, is that there will be. I have to say a little more, because he asked some very precise questions.
  In the Inland Revenue, as the noble Lord well knows, there are always codes of practice to explain the administrative procedures and how they will operate in practice. That is the way it has always worked, particularly in those parts of the tax system which relate to compliance, where codes of practice help ensure that customers know their rights and know that they are being treated fairly and reasonably, in the way in which all customers in their position would be treated.
  For example, the Inland Revenue has codes of practice on investigations, on reviews of employers' and contractors' records, on inspection of schemes operated by financial intermediaries, on inspection of charities' records and on investigations by the specialist investigation branch where fraud is suspected and in cases of other suspected irregularities. There are also codes of practice covering the Revenue's policy on giving advice and on dealing with any serious or persistent mistakes that might occur.
  Clearly, the payment of tax credits is a new line of business for the Inland Revenue, but it will be conducted in the Revenue's usual effective and efficient manner. Tax credits will need to be looked at with the same critical eye that secures tax revenue, and many of the same sort of skills will be brought to bear to combat fraud.
  The Revenue will, after consultation and by October 1999, be issuing a code of practice about how it will handle inquiries into tax credit applications. This will be in addition to the existing codes of practice about inquiries into taxpayer's tax affairs. As the amendment suggests, consultation on the code will be essential to ensure that it commands broad acceptance by applicants and that they can be certain of fair and appropriate treatment by the Inland Revenue. This consultation will begin shortly.
  Finally, from April 2000 employers will also have responsibilities to administer tax credits—much in the same way they already administer PAYE and NICs. Because the handling of tax credits will be part of their PAYE and NICs systems, the guidance for employers about how the Inland Revenue will handle examination of these records will be included within the current code of practice on review of employers and contractors' records. The additional material will be developed in consultation with employer representatives, as has been the Revenue's normal practice.

  289
  The noble Lord asked me four specific questions. The first was whether the code of practice will cover the start of formal entitlement. He asked that it should be backdated to the date of receipt of the form. We can do better than that. It will be backdated to the date of the intent to claim. If necessary, that can be made clear.
  Secondly, the noble Lord asked about a simplified form of accounts for exemptions for those self-employed with small businesses. We need to stay within the current system of reporting, which is not unlike the current standardised accounting information within self-assessment. The form for the self-employed will be kept under special review to keep it as simple as possible.
  The noble Lord also asked about post-paid envelopes. They will continue.
  The noble Lord asked finally about the availability of helplines with local call charges on a seven-day basis. I do not appear to have an answer to that so I shall have
  290
  to sign a letter to him—which somebody will write! On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Freeman: My Lords, I have learnt a lesson. Some 30 years ago, the training for accountants in this country was entirely by correspondence course. I have learnt that that is not really appropriate in your Lordships' House and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at eight minutes before midnight.