Lords Sitting of 10 November 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 Lincoln.
The Earl of Shaftesbury—Took the Oath.

Geneva Conference on Disarmament
Lord Jenkins of Putneyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the cause of the failure to agree a work programme this year at the Geneva conference on disarmament; what has been the result; and what steps they are taking to resolve matters.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the cause of failure has been the lack of consensus on what the conference should do. The result has been that negotiations on a fissile material cut off treaty—the universally agreed next step towards nuclear disarmament—have yet to begin. We remain determined to get such negotiations started and will continue to press for a work programme with this as its centrepiece.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, what can my noble friend say about the situation in which a whole year has passed with discussions taking place only upon the nature of the discussions which are to take place? As my noble friend has just said, there have been no discussions at all on the subject for which the conference has been set up. What plans have the Government made to ensure that that process does not continue? We have processes in this Chamber which could be copied. Motions can be tabled. Will the Government table their own Motion and press for it to be accepted or amended? Is there some procedure which will enable the present impasse to be broken?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government are doing everything they can to unblock the process in the conference on disarmament. Contrary to what is thought, we are very keen to reach agreement on the work programme in the conference on disarmament so that negotiations can finally start on the fissile material cut off treaty. We have shown some flexibility and we hope that others will do likewise so that the conference can get down to work without further delay when it resumes in January. We are using our best endeavours to ensure that our partners are fully aware of the urgency with which we view the necessity of this treaty.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has said; namely, that there is a stupefying lack of
1344
movement on this whole matter? Does she not agree that it is high time that one or more of those who aspire to be described as "leaders of the world" should depart from their stupefying silence on the question of nuclear warheads, 40,000 of which are stockpiled around the world and threaten not merely the peace of the world but the existence of the planet?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, all we can do is to encourage all parties to take a view similar to that taken by Her Majesty's Government. Your Lordships will know that persuasion in this field will be of the utmost importance. We are using all the skills available to us to persuade the parties of the merits of dealing with this matter expeditiously. We can bring them to water; we cannot necessarily force them to drink it.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that there is a strong feeling among the non-nuclear powers that they are making all the concessions about non-proliferation with very little reciprocation from the nuclear powers? Is it not the case that a resolution from the United Nations first committee, tabled by the new agenda coalition and calling on the disarmament conference to proceed to a convention to reduce nuclear stocks, will be considered shortly by the General Assembly? Will the United Kingdom support that resolution and, if not, why not?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first, in response to the noble and learned Lord's question, great efforts have been made by Her Majesty's Government to lead by example. We have cut considerably our nuclear weapons and we hope that others will emulate us. Secondly, as happened last year, the Government have not felt able to support the New Agenda resolution. That resolution contained many proposals which we strongly support. We share the frustration of the countries which put it forward at the slow pace of progress towards nuclear disarmament. However, the resolution also included measures which we do not support, including some which were examined in detail in the Strategic Defence Review. It was concluded that they were incompatible with the maintenance of a credible minimum deterrent.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness wisely used the word "others". Does she agree that negotiations for disarmament cannot be effective unless they have the consent of those who have the physical control of nuclear warheads? In that context, do Her Majesty's Government know who has physical control of the nuclear warheads formerly belonging to the Soviet Union?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl that that is an important issue. We have information about the old Soviet position, now the Russian position. We are not able to give your Lordships specific details about those. All we can say

1345
is that we are working with our partners, including the Russians and Americans, in the hope that they will address the position with vigour.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, following the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, what steps have the Government taken to investigate the disturbing reports that Russia may be preparing to use nuclear weapons in Chechnya? Can the Minister say whether the Russian Government have offered or been asked for any guarantees that they will not do so, particularly in view of the fact that Russia is a member of the Conference on Disarmament?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have had no indication that Russia intends to use nuclear weapons in Chechnya. There is no evidence before this Government to indicate that that possibility is likely. As your Lordships' House will know, Her Majesty's Government have engaged in dialogue with the Russians in relation to Chechnya. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister, together with the Foreign Secretary, have had discussions with and written letters to their counterparts. There is a deal of information about the way the Russians are addressing that issue. There is nothing in any of the communiqués we have to date to indicate that the use of nuclear warheads or any missile of that nature is within the contemplation of the Russians.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, my noble friend will remember that before the Recess I suggested that the United Kingdom delegation to the Geneva conference might be assisted by the advice of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney. Bearing in mind the lack of success of the Geneva conference, would my noble friend reconsider the suggestion in the hope that the advice of those two eminent experts will be of use in furthering the cause that we all seek to achieve?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I would be the first to give full credit to the noble Lords who have been involved in these issues for many years—certainly many more than I have been privileged to even know about them. Her Majesty's Government are sensitive to the value of their advice and, I am sure, will give due consideration to the suggestion made by the noble Lord.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will my noble friend simply ask the Government whether they are prepared to table a Motion that the subject will be considered without first going through the formality of a work programme? If they once start discussing the issues, perhaps we will be able to proceed with the business in hand. As has been made clear in this House, it is not a party matter and is, indeed, more urgent than many of us may be aware. In the circumstances, will the Government consider making
1346
such an attempt at a breakthrough; that is, a simple, straightforward decision to proceed with the business without first bothering with the work programme?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, perhaps I may say straightaway that we understand and share the frustration expressed by the noble Lord. The Government are looking energetically at all possible ways of breaking the impasse and moving the agenda forward. However, we must have a level of realism. In order to move the agenda forward, the relevant participants must engage in the process with us.

Mice Infestation: Local Authority Duties
2.46 p.m.
Lord Kennetasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will require all local authorities to deal with infestations of mice and other vermin that cannot be dealt with by individual householders.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, under the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949, local authorities are required to keep their districts as far as possible free from rats and mice. They are also required to carry out such inspections as may be necessary for that purpose.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, do I understand from that Answer that there is the same degree of compulsion on all local authorities to take action? Are the Government aware, for instance, that if there is a street-long infestation of mice in Westminster, involving a number of houses, one cannot get the council to do anything about it? However, if such a problem occurs in Brent, one can. Is it not paradoxical that one of the richest boroughs should be unwilling or unable to help while one of the poorest is willing and able? Can the Government use their powers to even things out?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, all local authorities are under the same requirements. If householders singularly or collectively have a problem, the local authority should investigate it under the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act. If it is a public health problem, there are other provisions under the Environmental Protection Act. However, all local authorities should deal with the issue with the same degree of urgency. It is fully the responsibility of the local authority. I therefore concur with the noble Lord.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the City of Westminster the council provides a free service? I must declare an interest, having found a rat resident in my garden on my return from Australia. Westminster Council not only sent a person to deal with the problem; he came back to check several times afterwards. I was informed that the service was provided free to residents but not

1347
to businesses. Perhaps a full street should have acted through individual households applying to the council.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the responsibilities are the same under the statutes but the charging regime will differ from authority to authority. it is certainly the case that had those householders individually or collectively applied, the local authority was bound to respond. As I understand the noble Baroness, that would have been a free service in the case of Westminster and many other local authorities. However, the charging aspect is a matter for each local authority.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we should be cautious about imposing additional duties on local authorities, particularly a duty of mouse hunting? Should not more thought be given to whether we should be creating a power for local authorities better to promote the well-being of their areas?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. Nothing I have said suggests that we should impose any further duties on local authorities; they have those responsibilities already. As with other issues, it may be that local authorities, under the legislation we envisage, will find better ways of fulfilling their responsibilities. That may be business for your Lordships to consider during the next Session.
The Earl of Limerick: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—I am sure he is not—that recently I lost my telephone in central London for a week, that being the time it took engineers to discover that the guilty parties were rats which had eaten the cable under the pavement? Does the Minister share my surprise at the recent estimate that the rat population of Notting Hill may exceed the human population? Does he have any comparative statistics on the population of rats in other London boroughs, including Westminster?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was neither aware of the specific incident nor the population count in the area the noble Earl described. I assume there was no overlap between the two counts. There remains a large rodent population in the city and elsewhere. However, the last detailed survey on this matter did not suggest that in total there was a general increase in rats and mice. Another survey is being carried out, the results of which will be complete by the end of this year.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the responsibility on councils in relation to rats extends to "tree rats", which do so much damage? They are perhaps otherwise known as grey squirrels.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this House spent some hours debating grey squirrels, certainly in regard to their being vermin. Other measures are available to local authorities and landowners to try and limit the incursion of the grey squirrel. However, it is a slightly different topic to that raised by this Question.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, am I right in thinking that the Government still permit the use of mouse papers? For those noble Lords who do not know, they are sticky pads put out to catch mice. When a mouse puts its foot on it, it gets stuck. Frequently the mouse will tear itself free leaving a limb or some other body part behind or, if it remains stuck, will take many hours to die. Do not the Government feel that that is an unreasonable level of cruelty to impose on a pest species?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, all I can tell the House is that the normal method of tackling infestations of mice and rats nowadays is not as described by the noble Lord, nor indeed through traps. It is through the laying of bait and poison. Such practices therefore, would be extremely limited if they were still permitted. I shall need to write to the noble Lord on the precise point.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is there not a method whereby householders could deal with their own rats and mice?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am sure there is.

National Insurance Contributions
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburnasked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have for capping national insurance contributions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no national insurance contributions are paid by employees above the level of the upper earnings limit which will be set at £535 in 2000–01 and £575 in 2001–02. The upper profits limit which sets the point at which the self-employed cease to pay contributions will be comparable. From 2000 to 2001, there will be no national insurance contributions payable on earnings less than £76 a week, although deemed contributions will be credited for earnings over £67.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Is it not a fact that yesterday the Chancellor told us that the national insurance contribution of employers is to be cut by 0.3 per cent in order to placate the business community for the climate change levy? That will deplete the fund to the tune of £1.7 billion. Does not that compare unhappily with the £300 million, which is all the Government are prepared to pay to pensioners for the free TV licence, which we all welcome? Why should pensioners see their fund depleted in order to satisfy the Government's relationship with the business community? Is it not hypocritical for the Government to tell us, as they have done over the past few weeks, that they cannot afford to restore the earnings link—the one thing that pensioners want more than anything as of right in the

1349
uprating of their pensions—and at the same time to deplete the National Insurance Fund to the tune of £1.7 billion?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Chancellor made a number of announcements yesterday, one of which certainly was that in order to maintain and improve the effectiveness of the climate change levy there would be a small reduction in employers' national insurance contributions. But he also announced the total amount of benefits for pensioners over the period of this Parliament, which is a figure of £4 billion. That is a significant improvement in the standard of living of pensioners in this country. My noble friend is not right to say that it is simply the pensioners' money which goes into the National Insurance Fund. Retirement pensions account for 78 per cent of the benefits from the National Insurance Fund, but incapacity benefit accounts for 17 per cent; widows' pensions account for 2 per cent; JSA accounts for 1 per cent; and there are other smaller amounts.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, will the Minister accept that many people take precisely the opposite view to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Castle? They support a shift of taxation away from employment and on to non-renewable energy. We object to the announcement yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there would be a lower level of reduction in NICs than that originally proposed at 0.5 per cent and a lower level of energy tax.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, so far as it goes, I am grateful for what the noble Lord says. It has been agreed in all parts of the political spectrum that we must honour our legal obligations under the Kyoto agreements for the climate change levy. As to how that is achieved, the Chancellor announced yesterday that the reduction in employers' national insurance contributions was sufficient not only to maintain the targets previously set, but also to improve on them, together with taking the other measures that he announced.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether or not there are plans to introduce means testing in respect of other contributory benefits in addition to those already covered by the recently debated Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords my noble friend is asking me to speculate about future announcements. If announcements were to be made about benefits or taxes, they would be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not from this Dispatch Box.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, my heart goes out to the noble Baroness, Lady Castle. Is not her suggestion in relation to NICs just too straightforward, simple and
1350
transparent for this Government's liking? Do not this Government have the strategy of cutting visible taxes on voters and raising invisible taxes elsewhere? Does the Minister agree with a Labour MP's assessment of the Government's tax policy when he said:
"We haven't increased the top rate of tax and the standard rate of tax, but we have increased a lot of other taxes … we have done it with all these stealth taxes. I just think it would have been better to have honestly told people beforehand"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord pays more attention to the views of Mr Ken Livingstone than some of us do in government; or, indeed, on the rest of these Benches. We have a very good story to tell about national insurance contributions. Not only have we made announcements in the Finance Act this year about the upper earnings limit, which have been well publicised, but, also— I do not think that the noble Lord noticed the last part of my original Answer—there is the enormous benefit to lower earners as regards the lower limit of £76 a week, below which such workers will receive benefits without actually paying the national insurance contribution. I believe that to be a step in the right direction. It was part of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, which was passed by your Lordships' House last night.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, should we not note with some relief that the Government have taken steps that will safeguard a number of vital and strategically important industries, which would otherwise have faced very serious comparative disadvantage under the original proposals of the climate change levy? Let us hope that that concession from Her Majesty's Government yesterday will suffice to remove any comparative disadvantage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure that I would use the word "concession". We are as determined as we ever were to adhere to our obligations on the climate change levy. We have changed our assessment of what is necessary to achieve that aim. Naturally, we make the most advantageous changes for the benefit of British industry.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, if the noble Lord does not want to listen to Mr Ken Livingstone, will he at least listen to the views of independent energy economists who are at one in saying that the reason this Government are getting into such difficulties with the climate change levy—indeed, difficulties which were not dissipated by yesterday's announcement—is that they ran away from the logical response to Kyoto of a carbon tax because New Labour, like Old Labour, is still in thrall to the National Union of Mineworkers?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have great difficulty in listening to the views of independent energy economists when they have not been identified or named. If the noble Lord cares to open up a more extended debate on the subject in which he can name his sources, we shall be able to give him proper responses.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Is the Minister in fact saying that a national insurance fund is not the

1351
property of those who contribute to it? Why should any concessions to the business community, to which no one may object in principle, be financed by the pensioners? There are others in our society who are far better placed to meet that burden. If this kind of behaviour were practised in occupational pension schemes, would not the Government have a word or two to say about it? In fact, it is defrauding pensioners of what they have contributed to—not a means test of pensions, but a pension as of right. Does not this latest move show that the Government are planning a systematic destruction of the state insurance principle and a substitution of means tested benefits in its place?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend should find it necessary to use such words as "defrauding" and "systematic destruction". When I referred to the beneficiaries of the National Insurance Fund, I was very precise. I said that 78 per cent of the benefits from that fund do indeed go to retirement pensions. I merely pointed out that such pensioners are not the only beneficiaries and that there are others, such as those on incapacity benefit and widows, whose needs must also be considered. None of this is any indication of an extension of means-testing to state retirement pensions.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the whole problem surrounding this issue is the fact that there is no national insurance scheme? In fact, this scheme is unfunded and is topped up each year by the Treasury, if it is so needed. The Government—indeed, any government—retain the right to change the contribution level or the benefit level. When people have tried to do that sort of thing in the private sector, it is called "fraud", and they have gone to gaol.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is certainly true that the surplus or deficit in the National Insurance Fund is the difference between two very large figures. It is also certainly true that the Government retain the right, as all governments have, to make changes in the very wide range of benefits which are covered by the fund. However, there are very strict controls over the National Insurance Fund. The Government Actuary has to produce a report on each measure which affects the level of the fund, and the Government are obliged to pay heed to the views of the actuary and, indeed, those in the quinquennial review.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in 1993, in a context it would be wide of the Question to dwell on, Mr Peter Lilley remarked:
"This raises big questions about the future of the contributory principle, when we have not decided which way we want to go".
Can the Minister give me any reason to believe that those words are one whit less true than they were on the day Mr Lilley wrote them?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that this Government need be over-concerned with the past views of members of a government of another political colour; indeed, neither now nor for some years to come.

Business
3.5 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Message from the Commons on the Immigration and Asylum Bill has been received. It may be for the convenience of the House if the Message is dealt with after the Mental Health (Amendment) Scotland Bill. Therefore, after the Mental Health (Amendment) Scotland Bill, we will take the Commons Message on the Immigration and Asylum Bill. We will then complete all the orders that are on the Order Paper, followed by the Unstarred Question tabled in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I then hope to be able to inform the House of the progress of the House of Lords Bill in another place.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
3.6 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Fifth Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 116) be agreed to. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMITTEE
The Committee considered proposals for changes to the terms of reference and title of the European Communities Committee. The Committee also considered the need for the House to pass a formal Scrutiny Reserve Resolution similar to that of the House of Commons.1 The changes are necessary to reflect recent developments in the European Union, in particular the coming into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, and changes made by the House of Commons in relation to its select committee on European Legislation.
Terms of reference
The Committee recommends the following terms of reference for the select committee:
"That a Select Committee be appointed to consider European Union documents and other matters relating to the European Union.
The expression "European Union documents" shall include the following documents:

(i) Any proposal under the Community Treaties for legislation by the Council or the Council acting jointly with the European Parliament;

(ii) Any document which is published for submission to the European Council, the Council or the European Central Bank;

(iii) Any proposal for a common strategy, a joint action or a common position under Title V (provisions on a common foreign and security policy) of the Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council or to the European Council;

(iv) Any proposal for a common position, framework decision, decision or a convention under Title VI (provisions on

1353
police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters) of the Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council;

(v) Any document (not falling within (ii), (iii) or (iv) above) which is published by one Union institution for or with a view to submission to another Union institution and which does not relate exclusively to consideration of any proposal for legislation;

(vi) Any other document relating to European Union matters deposited in the House by a Minister of the Crown.

That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committee's any of the matters within the terms of reference of the Committee; that the Committee have power to appoint the Chairmen of Sub-Committees, but that such Sub-Committees have power to appoint their own Chairman for the purpose of particular inquiries; that two be the quorum of such Sub-Committees;
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on a Sub-Committee;
That the Committee have power to appoint Specialist Advisers;
That the Committee and any Sub-Committeee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Reports of the Select Committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the European Communities Committee or any Sub-Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee: and That the Committee do meet On……… at………"
The Committee's title
The Committee's title no longer accurately reflects the scope of its work. We recommend that the title should be "Select Committee on the European Union".
Scrutiny Reserve Resolution
The Commons Scrutiny Reserve Resolution has always been held to apply to the House of LordS. The procedures of the two Committees are now sufficiently different to make it desirable that the House of Lords adopt its own Scrutiny Reserve Resolution, as follows:
"That—
(1) No Minister of the Crown should give agreement in the Council to any proposal for European Community legislation or for a common strategy, joint action or common position under Title V or a common position, framework decision, decision or convention under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union—

(a) which is still subject to scrutiny (that is, on which the European Union Committee has not completed its scrutiny);

(b) on which the European Union Committee has made a report to the House for debate, but on which the debate has not yet taken place;

(2) In this Resolution, any reference to agreement to a proposal includes—

(a) agreement to a programme, plan or recommendation for European Community legislation;

(b) political agreement;

(c) in the case of a proposal on which the Council acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (codecision), agreement to a common position, to an act in the form of a common position incorporating amendments proposed by the European Parliament, and to a joint text; and

(d) in the case of a proposal on which the Council acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 252 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (cooperation), agreement to a common position.

(3) The Minister concerned may, however, give agreement to a proposal which is still subject to scrutiny or which is awaiting debate in the House—

(a) if he considers that it is confidential, routine or trivial or is substantially the same as a proposal on which scrutiny has been completed;

(b) if the European Union Committee has indicated that agreement need not be withheld pending completion of scrutiny or the holding of the debate.

(4) The Minister concerned may also give agreement to a proposal which is still subject to scrutiny or awaiting debate in the House if he decides that for special reasons agreement should be given; but he should explain his reasons—

(a) in every such case, to the European Union Committee at the first opportunity after reaching his decision; and

(b) in the case of a proposal awaiting debate in the House, to the House at the opening of the debate on the Committee's Report.

(5) In relation to any proposal which requires adoption by unanimity, abstention shall, for the purposes of paragraph (4), be treated as giving agreement."
Recommendation
Accordingly the Committee recommends:

—the terms of reference set out above

—the new title set out above

—the adoption of the above Scrutiny Reserve Resolution.

1The Lords Committee's work is underpinned by an undertaking given by the Government that they will not agree in the Council of Ministers to any proposal on which parliamentary scrutiny at Westminster has not been completed. This undertaking was formalised in a House of Commons resolution (the "Scrutiny Reserve Resolution") in 1980. The Resolution was most recently renewed by the Commons on 17 November 1998. There is at present no equivalent Lords resolution.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees a question of which I have given him notice. Under the revised terms of reference of the Select Committee on the European Union, can he say whether the committee will be able to consider the guidelines on the drafting of Community legislation, which are being produced under the Treaty of Amsterdam? Your Lordships may feel envious of some of these guidelines; for example, Community legislation should be,
"clear, simple … and readily understandable by the public".
Again, the guidelines state that,
"legislation should be drafted clearly, simply…Overly long sentences, unnecessarily convoluted wording…should be avoided".
I hope that I am not speaking out of order if I say that I look forward to the day when similar guidelines might apply to the drafting of our own legislation. None exists at the moment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, bearing in mind the widening of the powers of the European Union, especially following the Amsterdam Treaty, it is only right and proper that the European Communities Committee should in fact be renamed. I say that because the powers that have been extended to the European Union are very great indeed. It is right

1355
and proper that this Parliament should be able to examine the very wide range of issues which now come within the purview of the European Union—much to the regret, I might say, of some of us in this House and many people throughout the country.
Noble Lords should welcome the extension of the writ of the Select Committee. I am sure that it will do its job as thoroughly in the future as it has done in the past. I sincerely hope that the debates we shall have in this House will be well attended and that they will take place in prime time and not on Fridays or late at night. These are important matters. The Select Committee does a great deal of hard work which should be appreciated and discussed.
I am among those who believe that the membership of the European Communities Select Committee is too narrow and that it has been made up of people whom I would regard as being very favourably inclined towards the European Union. It is not sufficiently representative of those who are a little sceptical of the European Union, of what it does, of what powers it should have, and of whether those powers should be further extended. I hope therefore that when these matters are discussed and when the membership of the committee is discussed, the views not only of Members of this House and the make-up of Members of this House will be taken into consideration, but also the views of people in the country who are far more sceptical of the whole business than might be gathered from the views sometimes expressed here and in another place. If we are to have a proper debate about what is happening in Europe we need to have a much better balanced Select Committee. I hope that that will be addressed in the new Session.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I welcome the report of the proceedings of the Select Committee. I note in particular that they were ordered to be printed two days ago and that a very short time has elapsed for detailed consideration to be given to them.
At the risk of trying your Lordships' patience a little more, I should say that over the past two years it has been my personal function to make up for the lack of scrutiny that there has been of European legislation and proposals so far. The Select Committee of this House, which still exists to the end of the Session, has, together with its sub-committees, obviously done a good job. However, it has never been able to deal with the whole. Whole sheaves of legislation go onto the stature book without receiving any proper parliamentary scrutiny at all. It has been part of my personal function to carry out research from time to time and put myself in a position where I can venture to inform your Lordships about what exactly is happening.
These new proposals are quite unexceptionable; indeed, I welcome them. But there are certain queries that the Government will have to address. First, will the proposals in this report—in conjunction with, or in substitution for, as the case may be, deliberations and scrutiny in another place—be sufficient to achieve the necessary objectives? The proposals that emanate from the Commission, and the various items put
1356
forward in the terms of reference, do not number merely 10, 20, 30 or 40 that the Select Committee here has been able to deal with. They number literally hundreds.
From time to time in another place the scrutiny committee has been quite incapable of dealing with the stuff forwarded to it. I have lists of it. I know exactly what I am talking about, and I know exactly what the regulations comprise. Despite my relief at no longer having to do what the new committee is to do, I still have great reservations as to how effective it will be and how it will be able to cope in the best parliamentary traditions.
I refer to the scrutiny reserve resolution on page four of the report. Paragraph (3) states,
"The Minister concerned may, however, give agreement to a proposal which is still subject to scrutiny or which is awaiting debate in the House—
(a) if he considers that it is confidential, routine or trivial or is substantially the same as a proposal on which scrutiny has been completed".
That can always be subject to a wide governmental determination if I know my civil servants aright. The report continues,
"(b) if the European Union Committee has indicated that agreement need not be withheld pending completion of scrutiny or the holding of the debate".
I should have thought that that too gives an elasticity that needs to be far more comprehensively covered. The report continues at paragraph (4):
"The Minister concerned may also give agreement to a proposal which is still subject to scrutiny or awaiting debate in the House if he decides that for special reasons agreement should be given; but he should explain his reasons".
I ask noble Lords to note the word "should". This once again gives any government of the day a degree of elasticity that is not always consistent with good parliamentary government as distinct from government controlled policy.
The report says nothing about the attendance of the public as regards the deliberations of the committee, or any sub-committee. At the moment some indication is usually given in—I shall not call it the caprice, because that is too frivolous a term to use—the judgment of the chairman that the proceedings ought not to be held in public. No stipulation is given here as to whether the deliberations should be held in public or not. Perhaps your Lordships may come to the conclusion that I have been finicky in these matters. All I can say in answer to that is that I have tried my best to act consistently with good parliamentary democracy as I have always understood it, old Labour though I am and shall remain.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I too welcome the proposals for greater scrutiny and the possibility of wider debate principally because I believe that it would do something to dispel the obvious prejudices and hostilities to the European Union that are so frequently expressed by some speakers in your Lordships' House, as we have heard today.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, when he winds up I hope that the Chairman of Committees will touch

1357
on the fact that for the first time for a long time we have not had a House of Lords Offices report on the last day or so. Can it be because this deals with ancillary rights for departing hereditary Peers and he wishes to deprive them of any opportunity to make formal input on the Floor of the House?
Lord Peston: My Lords, I welcome the report which I think is a step forward. The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees will, I hope, remain his normal courteous self—as is generally the case with all your Lordships—and pay no attention whatever to what I regard as the insulting remarks of my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon on the membership of the European Communities Committee up to now. The implications of his remarks are that these people are biased and incapable of carrying out a dispassionate and objective scrutiny of European matters because they do not include people of a particular point of view. As I understand it, that has never been the policy of your Lordships' House. That policy has always been to choose the very best people from among those who say they are available. I hope that we stick to that tradition.
As someone who was many years ago involved with the committee and who reads the reports—and, when one can, other things—I have never noticed any bias in this matter against what are called the "Eurosceptics". This House has always maintained its traditions of appointing a wide range of people to these committees—but people who are able to do the job. I hope that we do not move from that now or at any time in future.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I wonder whether I should intervene at this stage. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Generally, I think that your Lordships will agree that the reports which come from your Lordships' Select Committee are as unbiased as they can be in the sense that at all times they are derived from the evidence which is put before it.
There is a wide spectrum of view in the subcommittees and in the Select Committee. I should say straightaway that the membership of the Select Committee is not my job—that is a matter for the usual channels—although I have a considerable input into the membership of sub-committees. When I look at the sub-committees and see the wide range of opinions, it is surprising to me that we come up with such unanimity in our reports. The reason that we come up with such unanimity is because Members of your Lordships' House who act in Select Committees and sub-committees consider the evidence and come to their conclusions on that basis.
I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said. He is quite right: there are large amounts of legislation coming out of the European Commission and the European Council which are not as well scrutinised as we would wish. But, bearing in mind that we have some 70 to 75 people working on a regular basis on the legislation that comes forward, the majority of the rest is what we in this House would
1358
describe as secondary legislation. I would that your Lordships' House considered secondary legislation coming from the Government in a proper way. When we are in a position to do that, perhaps then we are in a position to criticise those who do not scrutinise European legislation in the same way.
I believe that the Procedure Committee report which is before the House will be of considerable help. We have managed to bring ourselves into line with the rules and procedures of the House of Commons. At the same time, we have managed to maintain the degree of flexibility in the subjects we discuss that this House has always had. Therefore, I believe that we are in a much stronger position than another place to deal with this legislation.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, in supporting what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said about the difficulty, in practice, of holding Ministers to prior consultation, I wonder whether the problem which used to bedevil all committees—I refer to the delay in receiving documents from Brussels—has been solved. Very often the delay was because the documents were written first in Finnish and then had to be translated, and for all kinds of other practical reasons. I remember that a point was made of this when we discussed the Treaty of Amsterdam. I should like to be reassured in the Chairman of Committee's answer that that problem has been solved. Without a solution, it will be very difficult in any case to make the scrutiny effective.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff—who I know of old—did not intend any slur on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, of which, up to now, I have had the honour to be a member, appointed by your Lordships, for a number of years. I think he was probably complaining about the policy on statutory instruments, which is outwith the remit of the Joint Committee. I agree with him that that is something which must be changed, and changed soon.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, on the question of ancillary rights for those hereditary Peers who are departing this House. It is a great shame that the matter has not been discussed while they are still here in order that they may have an input into the discussion.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth.
Nothing is perfect in this world but, in recent times, the speed of transmission of documents from Brussels, through the Cabinet Office and other departments, has improved enormously. If the noble Baroness and others would care to read the correspondence with Ministers that we publish from time to time, they will find a section in the back—it might be described as the "black book"—which deals with those occasions when

1359
this has not been adhered to. We move fiercely against departments that do not transmit things rapidly enough.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word as a former member of the scrutiny committee, not a present one. I am very impressed by the tremendous efforts that the scrutiny committee has invariably made to ensure that there is sufficient time to look in detail at the proposals put forward by the European Commission before they get to the Council of Ministers for a final decision.
The work of the scrutiny committees is widely admired far outside this House and far outside this country. It is one of the jewels in the crown of this House, and we should say so clearly. Our scrutiny committees have brought about a remarkable achievement. I warmly welcome the new report because it will further strengthen the work of the scrutiny committees.
Perhaps I may add one other note. The problems of scrutiny which we face go much deeper even than the European scrutiny committee, which is crucial in observing and scrutinising European legislation. Last night in another place I had the pleasure of listening to a guillotined debate on the issue of the Immigration and Asylum Bill, which is shortly to come before us. In the course of that guillotined debate, approximately three-quarters of Lords amendments were not debated. The issue of proper scrutiny of legislation is at least as serious in terms of our own domestic procedures as it is with respect to European legislation. When the new Session begins, I very much hope that the House will be able to look seriously at the whole question of how we scrutinise domestic as well as European legislation.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, first of all, perhaps I can deal with a matter which has arisen but which does not arise out of the report. As your Lordships will, I hope, know, I am always anxious to be helpful to your Lordships. If I had been able to respond to what the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, said about the Offices Committee's consideration of ancillary rights, I would have reminded your Lordships that it had been agreed that no decisions should be taken about those matters in this Session of Parliament. Your Lordships will also know—perhaps your Lordships do not need to be reminded—that active consideration has been given to these matters. They have not been and will not be overlooked.
I am very grateful to all noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and others, who have given a welcome to the report. I am also very grateful to my noble friend the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, who chairs your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities, as it is at the moment, for his very helpful remarks.
Perhaps I may make this general point, briefly at first. Your Lordships will know that that is one of the committees that I do not have the privilege of chairing.
1360
I very much share what has been said, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about the fact that it has contributed as much as, if not more than, any other body to the reputation of your Lordships' House through its scrutiny work—not only here, not only in this country, but internationally, and not least in Brussels, where it perhaps matters a good deal.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, mentioned the question of membership and the spectrum of views being represented on the Select Committee. My noble friend Lord Tordoff has said something about that already. It is not an unfamiliar point to be made; your Lordships have heard this point before. The prime point is that the scrutiny work of this committee and its sub-committees is conducted on a non-partisan basis. However, it has been the case over the years that different strands of opinion have been represented on it and its sub-committees. As your Lordships will recall, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington—who is one of the supreme Members of your Lordships' House for the homework that he does—has made his contribution over the years as a member of that Select Committee. But I bear very much in mind what has been said about the nonpartisan nature of the important scrutiny work carried out by the committee and the sub-committees. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for his comments on this matter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, referred to delays in receiving documents. That has been a problem. Vigorous action has been taken, not least by my noble friend Lord Tordoff, and substantial improvements have been made. I regret that I cannot meet the noble Baroness's dearest wish. It is not possible and it would not be prudent for me to give an absolute guarantee that the important matter that she has raised has not been overlooked and, if necessary, will be pursued.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, among others, referred to the exceptions it is possible for Ministers on occasion to make. This is not a new provision. There has been provision for exceptions to be made on previous occasions, not least on the grounds of security, which is perhaps the most obvious case. I do not believe that such exceptions are made use of lightly by Ministers. If they were, those Ministers would be called to account by the Select Committee. That committee is sometimes a little tough with Ministers when the occasion demands. For that reason, I do not share the fears that have been expressed on this matter. If any undue use of such exceptions were to be made by Ministers, not only would they be called to account, but your Lordships would wish to consider any further measures that might be needed to tighten up on the matter. I believe that it can be dealt with in that way.
I hope that I have responded to many of the points raised on the general matters. I shall of course bear in mind the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. I regret that I did not know that the noble and learned Lord proposed to raise this matter today. It is an issue to which he has turned his attention in the past in your Lordships' House, and I believe that

1361
his comments on clear language drew sympathetic echoes all around the Chamber. I would not be averse to joining in with those remarks. The noble and learned Lord made his points well and they shall be borne in mind. Whatever can be done by noble Lords to encourage clear language will be appreciated by us all. I hope that those comments deal with the various points which have been made.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, perhaps I may apologise to the noble Lord. It is clear that he has not received the letter that I sent to him yesterday, together with a copy of the draft guidelines for Community legislation. I do not understand how the letter failed to reach him because it was posted before midday yesterday.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for that explanation. As soon as the noble and learned Lord indicated that he had given notice of the points he wished to raise, I had assumed that something of that nature must have happened and that the missive went astray. However, it has not gone amiss because the noble and learned Lord has made his point very well this afternoon. I hope that I have gone some way to satisfying his worry.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

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

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill 118 as first printed for the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 6, page 5, line 4, after ("2") insert ("or 3")
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. This technical amendment adds Part B of Schedule 3 to the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967 to the list of international transport conventions in subsection (8) of Clause 6. Contracts which are subject to the rules of the conventions in this list are excluded from the effects of the Bill. We do not believe that the Bill should interfere where other legislation already deals with the question of third party rights. This schedule is concerned with the regulation of the international carriage of cargo by air. It was inserted after the Law
1362
Commission had published its report, Privity of Contract: Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties, on which this Bill is based. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we are entirely happy not only with the amendment before us but also with the other proposed amendments. The Bill corrects a longstanding defect in English law. I hope that the Government will proceed with their consideration of a more rapid procedure for dealing with non-controversial Law Commission Bills so that we can get more of them on to the statute book.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the Official Opposition are also content with all the amendments before noble Lords on the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 7, page 5, line 18, leave out subsection (4)
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I welcome the intimations of support from the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Kingsland, for the amendments with which we have yet to deal. I yield to no one in my desire to find fast-track means of ensuring that Law Commission reports which are truly non-controversial are put on the statute book as speedily as possible.
I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 3.
Amendment No. 3 deals with arbitration and ensures that, where appropriate, the Arbitration Act 1996 applies to the enforcement of third party rights under the Bill. There is no dispute—as has been indicated by noble Lords—that this is the right policy. But it is a technical subject and we have responded to concerns raised during the Recess to clarify the Bill.
Subsection (1) of the new clause brings in the provisions of the Arbitration Act where the third party's right to enforce a substantive term in his favour is subject to a term providing for the submission of disputes to arbitration. In such a case the third party has what is called a "conditional benefit"; that is, he can take the benefits of the term on condition that he enforces it by arbitration. This subsection will ensure that, when a third party whose right of enforcement is subject to the dispute being referred to arbitration seeks to enforce his right by litigation, the promisor will be able to seek a stay of the proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. The Bill as currently drafted would not allow the promisor to be able to do this. Those of your Lordships who are familiar with arbitration and the 1996 Act will agree, I am sure, that it would not be safe to rely on the court using its inherent power to stay proceedings that have been brought by a third party in such circumstances.
Subsection (2) of the clause is concerned with the less common situations where the "conditional benefit" approach will not apply. Subsection (2) would

1363
apply where the contracting parties give the third party a right to arbitrate a dispute other than one concerning a right conferred on the third party under Clause 1, such as a claim in tort made by the promisor against the third party. To require the third party to arbitrate, where he is given no other benefit, would be to impose a pure burden on him. That would be contrary to the policy of the Bill. Subsection (2) of the new clause therefore brings in the Arbitration Act only where the third party has chosen to exercise the right to arbitrate.
Amendment No. 2 deletes subsection (4) of Clause 7, which is being replaced by Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for bringing this Commons amendment before your Lordships' House. For the reasons that he has given, it is clearly desirable that we should look again at subsection (4), which was introduced by the noble and learned Lord on Report. I am more than happy with the amendment that he has placed before the House. Although I should have liked, as the noble and learned Lord knows, the scope of arbitration in the Bill to have been greater, for reasons which I advanced while the Bill was passing through the House, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord that the third party has been given the right, and the mechanisms for it, to use the arbitration clause in the contract between the promisor and the promisee. Therefore, I wholeheartedly agree that we should accept this amendment and indeed all the other amendments which the noble and learned Lord has brought before the House.
This is positively my last speech as a hereditary Peer in your Lordships' House, a place which I have enjoyed and from which I have learnt much during the past 25 years. Therefore, perhaps I may say, as a departing hereditary Peer, that your Lordships' House does an enormous amount of useful work in the nonpolitical area on technical Bills such as this and on technical aspects of political Bills. I very much hope and expect that your Lordships' House will continue with that good work.
Finally, some noble Lords have noticed that I am sporting an enormous black eye. As no one appears to have accepted my domestic explanation for it, and as a number of theories have been developed among noble Lords to whom I have spoken, perhaps I may put on record that I have not been whopped by an angry hereditary Peer who failed in the ballot! On the contrary, I believe that all hereditary Peers are seeking to leave this House with great dignity, and I am sorry that my own appearance is a little undignified.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, following, with great sadness, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, whom we shall be very sorry not to see on the Government Back Benches in the future, I wish to make one remark about the two amendments. Since the Bill was last before the House, I have had some doubts as to whether it was really wise to deal in the
1364
Bill, which tackles the well-known problem of the enforcement of contracts by third parties, with the very special case of arbitration agreements, which is rather a labyrinth, a mire and a difficult subject. My doubts have not been assuaged by the new amendments. To that extent I would have been happier with Amendment No. 2, which simply deletes subsection(4) of Clause 7, and leave it at that. But given that the noble and learned Lord wishes and thinks it right to deal with arbitration agreements in the Bill, I wholly agree that the new clause to be inserted after Clause 7 is an improvement on the old and will probably work quite well. I just wish to express that reservation about the inclusion at all of arbitration agreements in this Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—

ARBITRATION PROVISIONS
(" .—(1) Where—

(a) a right under section 1 to enforce a term ("the substantive term") is subject to a term providing for the submission of disputes to arbitration ("the arbitration agreement"), and

(b) the arbitration agreement is an agreement in writing for the purposes of Part I of the Arbitration Act 1996, the third party shall be treated for the purposes of that Act as a party to the arbitration agreement as regards disputes between himself and the promisor relating to the enforcement of the substantive term by the third party.

(2) Where—

(a) a third party has a right under section 1 to enforce a term providing for one or more descriptions of dispute between the third party and the promisor to be submitted to arbitration ("the arbitration agreement"),

(b) the arbitration agreement is an agreement in writing for the purposes of Part I of the Arbitration Act 1996, and

(c) the third party does not fall to be treated under subsection (1) as a party to the arbitration agreement, the third party shall, if he exercises the right, be treated for the purposes of that Act as a party to the arbitration agreement in relation to the matter with respect to which the right is exercised, and be treated as having been so immediately before the exercise of the right.")

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 2.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—

NORTHERN IRELAND
(" .—(1) In its application to Northern Ireland, this Act has effect with the modifications specified in subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In section 6(2), for "section 14 of the Companies Act 1985" there is substituted "Article 25 of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986".
(3) In section 7, for subsection (3) there is substituted—
"(3) In Articles 4(a) and 15 of the Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, the references to an action founded on a simple contract and an action upon an instrument under seal shall respectively include references to an action brought in reliance on section 1 relating to a simple contract and an action brought in reliance on that section relating to a contract under seal.".
(4) In the Law Reform (Husband and Wife) (Northern Ireland) Act 1964, the following provisions are hereby repealed—

(a) section 5, and

(b) in section 6, in subsection (1)(a), the words "in the case of section 4" and "in the case of section 5 the contracting party" and, in subsection (3), the words "or section 5".")

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. In moving this amendment, I desire to speak also to Amendment No. 5.
In 1998 the Law Reform Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland issued a report which recommended for Northern Ireland reforms similar to those which are contained in the Bill. The recommendations were based on a consultation process which had attracted almost unanimous support. As contract law in Northern Ireland has traditionally run in parallel with contract law in England and Wales, it was originally our intention to implement the Law Reform Advisory Committee's recommendations by extending this Bill directly to Northern Ireland. It was then thought that, as contract law will fall within the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly's transferred area of competence, the reforms should be a matter for decision by them. Regretfully, however, as your Lordships know, the Assembly is not yet fully in place, and the Government have decided that the people and businesses of Northern Ireland should have immediate access to this valuable piece of law reform.
Amendment No. 5 directly extends the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland, subject to the consequential amendments in the new clause which is inserted by Amendment No. 4. Subsections (1), (2) and (3) of the new clause make minor consequential amendments to Clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill, so that references to legislation will apply to the equivalent statutory provisions in Northern Ireland. Subsection (4) of the new clause repeals Section 5 of the Law Reform (Husband and Wife) (Northern Ireland) Act 1964, which has no direct equivalent in England and Wales. This section modifies the rule of privity of contract in respect of contracts which expressly confer a right on a spouse or child of the contracting parties. Since this Bill makes comprehensive provision for third party beneficiaries under a contract, there will no longer be any need for Section 5 of the 1964 Act. I commend the amendments to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
5 Clause 8, page 5, line 41, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) This Act extends as follows—

(a) section (Northern Ireland) extends to Northern Ireland only;

1366

(b) the remaining provisions extend to England and Wales and Northern Ireland only.")

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 4.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Immigration and Asylum Bill
3.46 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reason and amendment be considered forthwith.
Moved, That the Commons reason and amendment be considered forthwith.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MOTION TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON AND AMENDMENT
[The page and line refer to HL Bill 71 as first printed for the Lords.]
LORDS AMENDMENT
135 After Clause 84, insert the following new clause-

ELIGIBILITY FOR SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS.
(". An asylum-seeker, and his dependants (if any), shall be eligible for any social security benefits to which they would have been entitled if neither Part VI of this Act or Schedule 1 to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 had been in force, until such time as the Secretary of State has placed a report in the Library of the House of Commons giving details of the average process times in the determination of—

(a) initial asylum decisions.; and

(b) appeals to adjudicators against initial asylum decisions, and certifying that the average time from the lodging of the application for asylum to the determination of an adjudicator of the appeal against the, initial asylum decisions is less than six months.")

COMMONS REASON
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
135A Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark 135B The Lord Bishop of Southwark rose to move, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 135 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 135A, but do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
135C Insert the following new clause—

ELIGIBILITY FOR SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS.
(".—(1) If an asylum-seeker's household includes a child who is under 18 and dependant on him, the asylum-seeker and his dependants shall be eligible for any social security benefits or support under the child welfare provisions to which they would have been entitled if Part VI of this Act had not come into force, until such time as the Secretary of State has placed a report in the Library of the House of Commons giving details of the support to be provided to the children of asylum-seekers under Part VI and certifying that the value of this support is not less than the value of the support to which the child would have been entitled if neither Part VI of this Act nor Schedule 1 to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 had been in force.
(2) For the purposes of this Part, "child welfare provisions" has the same meaning as in section 113.")
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I am naturally disappointed that Amendment No. 135 did not survive the machinations of debate in the other place. Amendment No. 135C focuses purely on the narrower but vital question of the care of children and ensures that families with children do not come into the new support system until arrangements have been made to make certain that children receive support at 100 per cent of income support.
In the debate in the other place the Secretary of State reiterated the Government's belief that shorter decision-making times were at the heart of the reform of the system. It was good to hear of the efforts being made to enable that to happen, particularly where families with children are concerned. Welcome assurances were also given concerning the effect of the support system on the care of children.
Amendment No. 135C would provide the opportunity for Ministers, Parliament and other interested parties to examine in detail the support that is to be provided and to scrutinise the means by which the pledge to support children at 100 per cent of income support is being fulfilled. For example, vouchers may have the same face value as their cash equivalent, but may in practice be worth less.
There remains the issue of the interim period. Again, a number of welcome commitments have been given in respect of families with children, including a firm pledge that they will not come under the terms of the new support system until time targets are met. However, the content of the pledge remains vague. During the debate in the other place, the Secretary of State made clear that he would not demand that local authorities pay only £10 in cash to children, the rest being provided in vouchers. Neither, however, would he dictate how local authorities were to provide support to families. They would be free to choose.
It seems there will continue to be a variety of practice during the interim period, some local authorities supporting families with cash and others not. There is a danger that during the interim period local authorities may compete to appear to be the least attractive destination for asylum seekers. One way of avoiding that downward spiral would be for the Secretary of State to make regulations under the new schedule to the effect that families must receive support through cash, not vouchers, in the interim period. Amendment No. 135C does not go that far. It
1368
does, however, ensure that a watch is kept on the care provided for children. I believe that such provision is prudent and necessary. I commend the proposal to the House.
Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 135 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 135A, but do propose Amendment No. 135C in lieu thereof.—(The Lord Bishop of Southwark.)
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly address Amendment No. 135C. I hope that the House will bear with me if I say a preliminary word or two in thanks. It would be churlish not to thank Ministers for the patience they have shown and for their willingness to listen to, if not always to hear, the many submissions made to them during the passage of the Bill. I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and to his colleague, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for the way they have so carefully taken into account the arguments we have advanced.
Perhaps I may also say how delighted I am that three of those who have been most engaged with this amendment, and the long debates that led to it, particularly regard to the children of asylum seekers— namely, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Hylton—have been elected to remain in this House. I place on record my great gratitude for all the work they have done so carefully and thoroughly on the Bill.
Before addressing the amendment, I do not hide from the House my belief that the Bill is a profoundly troubling one. It carries with it huge powers which presently apply to asylum seekers but which could extend more widely to the liberties and well-being of our own citizens. Therefore, it is vital that this House carries out its duty, following the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, to examine carefully the regulations that will come before it, including those relating to the support system, as a result of the adoption of affirmative procedures.
I turn to the amendment. The right reverend Prelate referred to some of the pledges made by Ministers, one of which I shall quote. It is plain that for several months the Government have been aware of their pledge that children should not suffer as a result of the change in these important arrangements. If they meant those pledges—and I do not doubt that they did—they must have taken into account any financial consequences that may flow from them. Therefore, whatever objection there might be to the original amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate, it cannot possibly apply to this amendment; otherwise, it would indicate that Ministers did not recognise the consequences of their own promises.
One promise was made in specific terms by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. He said:
"We have decided, after listening carefully over a period of weeks, that the provision of spending power in respect of children under the age of 18 should be set at a level that is the current equivalent of income support personal allowance for children".—[Official Report, 21/7/99; col. 1037.]

1369
In the other place last night, the Home Secretary repeated that pledge in a slightly different form, saying that,
"support for children will be equivalent to 100 per cent. of child benefit levels".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/11/99; col. 982.]
As long ago as last July, as the right reverend Prelate indicated, a similar pledge was given by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General.
Why then is it necessary to have this amendment at all? It is necessary because there is no such reference in the primary legislation. There are many pledges by Ministers, and in the next few weeks the Home Office will lay detailed regulations which the House has not had an opportunity to see regarding support arrangements for the families, including children, of asylum seekers. The intention of the amendment is therefore to elicit from the Government a clear statement that the commitment made repeatedly by Ministers through the course of discussion on the Bill will be embodied in regulations so that it has the force of law.
The proposal is the more important because, in giving evidence recently to the Home Affairs Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, with his usual candour, made clear that he rather doubted that the targets that the Government had set themselves would be reached. I do not criticise the Government for that. We understand that they are facing an increase in applications, and we understand the difficulties involved in dealing with them. However, we underline once again the implications that families may have to live not merely for weeks but for months on a level of income support which, for single refugees, amounts to between 70 and 80 per cent of the minimum income support level. The figure depends on how one rates, for example, the provision of household utensils, sheets, utility bills, and so on.
There is genuine substantial confusion about the role of the interim arrangements. In the other place last night the Home Secretary said that,
"before the new national system comes into force on 1 April [2000], local authorities should be able to give all support to families in cash for their living needs, as they choose. Some local authorities operate in that way under the current arrangements, whereas others do not".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/11/99; col. 981.]
In short, during the interim period a local authority that is well disposed towards asylum seekers will provide its support in cash, and another, as the right reverend Prelate indicated, may provide most of its support in vouchers. The matter has been left open, whereas previously the Home Secretary indicated that £10 would be the absolute maximum in cash that could be provided for a child in an asylum seeker's family. So some clarification is needed.
Is it the case that under the interim support arrangements children will be supported in line with the pledges of Ministers? Will local authorities be encouraged to maintain the best practice in respect of that support? Finally, in April 2000, when the long-term support arrangements come in, will children be protected in the way that the right reverend Prelate
1370
requested? I repeat that Ministers indicated—but not on the face of the Bill—that they regard themselves as pledged to it.
In concluding, I make no apology for having explained matters at a little length because we are talking about the most vulnerable people in our country, the test by which the quality of our civilised standards and generosity are now to be judged. I am honoured to support the right reverend Prelate's Motion.
4 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, at the outset I should repeat my declaration of interest. I was a former chairman of the Refugee Council and I have kept in touch with it, not only on these salient issues but also on many other matters. My noble friend Lord Dubs, now a Minister, was the executive director when I served in the capacity to which I have just referred.
I have lingering doubts about the way in which the Bill (and the Act) will work in practice. For that reason, I believe that the points made by the right reverend Prelate—I have been here a long time and I hope that I have the nomenclature right—are good ones. He served an important and distinctive role in addressing many important issues which affect the way in which the legislation will operate in practice. He and the noble Baroness illustrated that again today.
However, while paying that sincere tribute to them, I believe that the issues raised today will have to be observed in practice. The Government are on notice: they must work out regulations to cover the issues. I hope that my noble friend who will reply to this debate will indicate how the Government propose to go about the process of consultation on the regulations with interested organisations. I fully support the plea made by the noble Baroness, subject only to the caveat which I have just registered.
In a number of debates, the right reverend Prelate made it clear that he and his colleagues look with considerable anxiety at the way in which all the legislation will develop. I do too.
I declare another interest: a number of my relatives were refugees. My grandparents were refugees from oppression at the beginning of the century. There were refugees in my family from Nazism. So it is no accident that I came to be involved with the Refugee Council and the invaluable work which it and like-minded organisations undertake.
It is right that we should scrutinise the practice, the evolution of the legislation. I know that the noble Baroness and others will do so, as I shall. However, I hope that the Motion will not be pressed to a Division today. I am assured that the Government have given, and will continue to give, careful consideration to the representations that have been made from many sides of the House.
I do not like certain aspects of the Bill and I do not hide that from the House today; but I believe that Ministers have listened carefully to the concerns and anxieties which have been expressed. I have confidence

1371
in that and, knowing them personally, I believe that they will take the representations strongly to heart. That is their duty.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I strongly support the right reverend Prelate's Motion. I shall try not to show too much grief at this late stage about the losses suffered during the passage of the Bill. The grief will be borne by thousands of people not in this Chamber. However, those of us who have supported or moved amendments over the past few months have had backing from all sides of the House. We were dismayed to see the degeneration last night in another place of the all-party support. I thank the noble Baroness for her kind remarks and all my peers who supported me.
Having been reprieved at the 11th hour last week as a Member of this House, it is perhaps churlish to complain about the system in Parliament. However, Front-Benchers in another place were reduced to pointing fingers at one another. The spirit of compromise which we saw again today in the right reverend Prelate's final Motion has all but vanished. Perhaps it is inevitable that at this stage the only amendment before us is based on the Minister's promises to the children of asylum seekers. If that cannot carry, I am not sure what will. It is imperative that the target for families with children is met before April, if the Home Secretary is not to go back on his own commitment in the summer to maintain the present support arrangements for them during the interim period, as well as in future.
The right reverend Prelate's amendment in lieu no longer makes the link with targets but simply asks for a continuation of support, as if the new Act had not come into force. I am nearly sure that the Minister will have no quarrel with that. I go away unhappy with many aspects of the Bill and am unsure whether asylum seekers will benefit from it. They certainly will not under Part VI.
It remains, however, only to say "Thank you" to the Government for the amendments which have been genuinely accepted and to hope, without too much lamentation, that the right reverend Prelate's Motion today will not have been in vain. We all want to see the computers working and the backlog reduced but equally none of us wants to see competition between local authorities for fewer asylum seekers in the interim period, or a bogus reduction of the numbers through over-hasty decisions.
Finally, I ask the Minister for that reassurance. The best way forward is surely to improve the quality of processing in the earlier stages of a claim, rather than speeding it up simply to ensure a superficial reduction of the numbers. I support the right reverend Prelate's Motion.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Sandwich and the Motion proposed this afternoon by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. During our Second Reading debate, raised the issue of how we treat children. The Minister's predecessor, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, was good enough
1372
to meet my noble friend Lord Hylton and me at the Home Office, with representatives from the Refugee Council. We discussed with them the level of support that would be provided for children under this legislation.
I was appreciative, and expressed my gratitude in Committee and again on Report for the way in which Ministers tried to respond in a practical way with regard to this vulnerable group. There is widespread agreement in the House that, regardless of what we think about other provisions in the Bill, we recognise that these are children first and asylum seekers second. Therefore, children are a special category and we must treat them properly as the vulnerable individuals that they are.
I was grateful for the assurances which the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General and the present Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, gave the House during the course of our deliberations. My disappointment has, nevertheless, been tinged by the failure to provide on the face of the Bill the kind of security for which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, my noble friend Lord Sandwich and the right reverend Prelate asked this afternoon. That sadness has been underlined by the way in which, as my noble friend mentioned, the matter was dealt with in another place.
I am sorry that this has become yet another ping-pong battle. This is a very modest, belt-and-braces amendment which simply asks that the assurances that have been given for the interim period should be written on the face of the Bill. Certainly, if the Secretary of State were to make regulations under the new schedule to the effect that families should receive support in cash during the interim period, it would go a long way to reduce the concerns. When the legislation was introduced, Ministers themselves, not least the noble and learned Lord, made it clear they understood that some of the measures were harsh.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, who spoke about the extraordinary accretion and consolidation of powers within the scope of the legislation. We all understand the reasons for that. Some people have arrived in the United Kingdom to seek asylum status without legitimate reason. We also realise that there is a backlog, part of it inherited, with which the Government have had to deal and that real problems must be addressed. But in the accretion and consolidation of those powers, we also lose some of our liberties, rights and opportunities to question the way in which the system operates. Is it not always the case that, because of abuses that occur, the criminal law is changed to diminish the rights of the rest of us? I fear that in part we have witnessed that in the course of this legislation.
One of the assurances given was that the quid pro quo for the harshness of the legislation would be its short duration and that, in future, asylum cases would be dealt with so much more efficiently and effectively that there would not be the spectacle of people lingering, often for years on end, in many of our detention centres. Noble Lords will recall that at Third Reading

1373
I gave details of the cases of some genuine asylum seekers who had been tortured. Those details had been provided by the medical foundation which deals with victims of torture. Clearly, those individuals, who had already been in detention for over a year, were not bogus but genuine asylum seekers in every sense. I do not believe that anyone in your Lordships' House disagrees with that.
All of us want to see more expeditious arrangements and an end to lingering periods in detention. We recognise that there is some harshness in the new arrangements, but they should be mitigated by a willingness on the part of Ministers at least to recognise the special category of children. That is precisely what the right reverend Prelate has invited us to do in this Motion and in the amendment that he tabled previously. Your Lordships supported him on that earlier occasion and I hope that if he decides to press this matter to a Division this evening, he will continue to have that support.
4.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I join my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby in expressions of thanks for the courtesy and consideration with which we have been heard in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and the two noble and learned Lords, Lord Williams of Mostyn and Lord Falconer of Thoroton.
I am also aware that a claim of financial privilege by another place is one which we may under no circumstances resist or dispute. Nevertheless, the Commons reason on this amendment is something of a procedural curiosity. They have claimed financial privilege for an amendment which, as we understand it, would have had the effect of reducing, not increasing, public expenditure.
In the brief time available I took the advice of the Table on this matter. I was referred to page 798 of Erskine May from which it appears that it is perfectly in order for another place to insist on their right to spend more public money than we thought necessary or wise. However, only one of the precedents quoted by Erskine May has arisen since the Second World War; namely, that relating to the Water Bill. That Bill was so long that I hope I can be forgiven for not remembering every amendment made thereto.
I do not really believe that the concern of another place was simply with its right to spend more public money than we thought it should. I cannot help wondering whether this is something to do with the decline in the quality of Commons reasons to which I have previously referred and to which I alluded in passing last night. I was further taken aback when I read the remarks made by the Home Secretary in another place last night. In the short time available we have been unable to scrutinise those remarks with as much care as we might otherwise. The Home Secretary, to my intense surprise, claimed that the cost of the right reverend Prelate's amendment could be up to £500 million. He also claimed that the reasoning on
1374
which that was based had not been challenged. That reasoning rested on the alleged deterrent effect of the Bill on asylum seekers.
My honourable friend Mr Allan, who has had a very good Bill, immediately took up the point and brought a large number of witnesses to support his challenge. I should like to add more one. I refer to my own speech at Second Reading in which I queried at some length whether the alleged deterrent effect on asylum seekers—to make their conditions harsher when they arrived—was genuine or existed only in the Home Office's imagination. I am not for a moment so stupid as to suppose that the Home Secretary might have been persuaded by a single word of my Second Reading speech, but I should have liked to think that he was aware that it existed.
When we turn to the next page of the Home Secretary's speech, we see that his logic becomes interesting. He moves on from the hypothesis with which he began his speech to say:
"there is no question that the costs would run to £400 million or £500 million".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/11/99; col. 979.]
Of course there is a question; I am asking one. In the next column, he says:
"Implicit in amendment No. 135 is an assumption that the new support arrangements will be in some way inferior to the current arrangements; I do not accept that".
I simply do not understand how the Home Secretary can have both arguments. On the one hand, he insists on the virtue of his arrangements to deter and, on the other hand, he asserts that they are in no way inferior to the present arrangements. If they are in no way inferior to the present arrangements, why does the Home Secretary suppose that they will deter so many asylum seekers from coming to this country? That is a point to which I very much hope to receive an answer. I am tempted to ask him what one of my pupils once put to me: where are you right? It was a question to which I could not put up any credible resistance.
The Home Office's own asylum support document of last March said that the proposed provision was intended to be a safety net arrangement on a short-term basis and that it should be possible to live on these amounts for short periods only. The last three words are crucial to the department's case. We expressed scepticism about those targets the last time that the Bill was before this House. They are further off now than they were then. Even in the short period the Bill has been out of this House, the backlog has increased and the targets have receded. I believe that that justifies just a small amount of scepticism.
Some noble Lords may remember that Matthew Parris when an MP set out to live for a week on income support and reported that it was possible to do so but that because of the wearing out of durables—shoes and coats, for example—with every week that passed, the task was likely to become harder. As far as I am aware, Matthew Parris's observation has not been contradicted; indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, explicitly accepted it in this House. Therefore, for an arrangement which is justified because it may deter applicants, it is vital that it should

1375
be in place for a short time only and that nobody should have to live under it for too long, which I believe was the central point of the amendment. I do not see the Home Office going any distance to meet that.
There is also a good deal of misgiving about the arrangements for interim support. The Local Government Association and the Association of London Government were quoted last month in Housing Today as believing that, because of the increase in the number of applicants, the sum of money made available by the Home Office for the system of support is approximately £100 million too small. If that has happened it will not be for the first time in government arrangements for financial support. It could have the effect of making government arrangements a great deal harsher than was intended.
I turn to the right reverend Prelate's Motion. It is a good convention in British politics that, when we can avoid it, we do not penalise children for the action of their parents. For example, I remember that when, under the administration of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, strikers were restricted in their right to draw social security benefits, it was decided that the arrangements should not apply to the strikers' children. That was good reason. The right reverend Prelate will confirm that the text that the sins of the fathers are visited on the children was not intended as an instruction to politicians. If it is so used, it is contrary to its intention; it is contrary to normal practice.
In another place my former honourable friend Mr Parris once argued that he thought it impossible for a child to be a bogus asylum seeker. Without going into an argument about doli incapax—we have heard it exhaustively in this Chamber—I believe that children cannot be held morally responsible and penalised for the decisions of their parents, over which they have no control. Let us suppose for the sake of argument that the parent is a bogus asylum seeker—we on these Benches have never denied that such exist—that is no fault of the child. The child should not be reduced to a low level of support for that reason. The child has a right to a future and not to be penalised for its parents' actions. That is the central purpose underlying the right reverend Prelate's amendment. I hope that the Government will listen to it. We were all children once.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, as noble Lords know, my primary concern about Part VI of the Bill has been and remains the administrative problems of the system of support for asylum seekers proposed in the Bill. However, I believe that it is now dawning on the Home Office exactly what it is taking upon itself. Lords Amendment No. 135—a similar amendment was proposed on Report by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark—has helped to lead them to the light, at least in some respects.
My evidence for that proposition is that the Home Office slipped out last Friday a Written Answer saying that the number of staff required for the support system was now estimated at 512—it compares with an estimate earlier in the year of 100 to 200 staff—and is,
1376
I think, more realistic, although I have no doubt that it will be exceeded, in particular if one takes into account the contractors who are to be involved as well as the government employees.
However, there has been another change since we discussed the amendment. The Home Secretary has agreed to a modest recognition of those who find themselves on the new support system for longer than six months. Yesterday in another place it was confirmed that that recognition will occur for each six months that they are on the new support system.
We all want a system which admits genuine asylum seekers. Both compassion and our longstanding international obligations require that we should do so. In addition, our country has benefited immeasurably over many years from the contribution of immigrants and their families and continues to do so. But the system is under severe strain because of bogus asylum seekers and the problems of sorting out the genuine from the bogus. The right honourable Gerald Kaufman spoke yesterday in another place of how the system is even now clogged with bogus asylum seekers, and he was quite right.
The Government made the situation worse by their early actions and they are now trying to claw it back. We are anxious that they should succeed in mastering the problem, but the first essential is that they should recognise it. The amendment has helped them to do that.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke of the Commons reasons and the introduction of the financial aspect in discussion on Lords Amendment No. 135. I believe that the figures used yesterday by Ministers in another place were wildly exaggerated. They rest on the proposition that cash benefits by comparison with vouchers described by the Home Secretary as of equivalent value would cause an extra 40,000 applications a year. The noble Earl made a strong case that there would be no increase in applications as a result of the temporary change proposed in the amendment. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that argument, the estimates given by Ministers are simply not believable. It is not without interest to recall that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General did not use such figures, or any figure approaching them, in his efforts to dissuade your Lordships from passing such an amendment on Report.
On the question of whether the estimate has been challenged in the past, if I recall correctly, it was mentioned briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, on Third Reading. I challenged the estimate he quoted and poured doubt on it within a few minutes of his doing so. I agree that that was not in detail because it was entirely out of order to refer to it! Nevertheless, I challenged the estimates at that time.
However, today the right reverend Prelate has again done us a service by highlighting the pledges made by Ministers on a number of occasions in respect of support of children. No doubt the Minister will reaffirm the pledges today and add his own authority to those of the other more senior Ministers who have

1377
given pledges: and that, I suppose, will have to suffice, at least for the time being. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that this House will need to scrutinise most carefully the enormous amount of secondary legislation which will flow from the Bill.
Having reflected on the position and, judging by the new figure of civil servants required, having taken some administrative actions, the Government will no doubt wish to stick to their course. I do not think that it would be wise for us to stand in their way today. However, the right reverend Prelate has concentrated the minds of the Home Office on the problems that it is creating, and we must now all hope that it succeeds in solving them.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, before replying in detail, it would be churlish of me not to pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark for the way in which he has conducted the debate and to other noble Lords for the sincerity with which the provisions have been spoken to. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for her kind comments and the warmth with which she has approached the matter. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for the plain-speaking way in which he has dealt with an extremely complicated set of provisions, a difficult piece of legislation and hard-fought arguments. Many noble Lords have played a very important part in the debate by reminding us of the difficulties with which the legislation attempts to wrestle, including difficult personal circumstances and the situation of staff in the Immigration Service who have to deal with the problems presented by immigration and asylum matters.
I fully recognise the concerns behind the right reverend Prelate's amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, reminded us of the value and importance that we should place on families and children, a sentiment that was echoed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
It is only proper that families should receive the proper level of support to enable them to maintain their children. That is why in Committee we confirmed that we would be increasing the allowance made available in respect of children to a sum equivalent to the full rate of income support payable for children. This is fully in line with what is currently payable for the children of asylum seekers by way of social security benefits.
Equally, we have made it clear that our support arrangements for families will be subject to the scrutiny of the Social Services Inspectorate and that there will be 24-hour emergency cover.
We have said on a number of occasions that there is not a direct equivalence between social security benefits and the kind of support we were providing under Part VI. I remind noble Lords that under Part VI, we shall be providing as part of the accommodation package certain facilities that an asylum seeker on social security would have to finance out of the benefits available to him. In particular, we
1378
shall be meeting utility bills centrally, which are typically worth at least £14 per week. We are also providing the full range of domestic equipment; for example, cooking utensils and bed linen, which, again, a household in receipt of social security would need to find for itself. In many ways, the accommodation we are providing is more akin to what one might expect to find in accommodation let on a casual, short-term basis.
All of these items add up. Although we can put a notional cost on them, there is no direct cash equivalence, and it would be exceedingly difficult to provide the kind of certification suggested in the amendment of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. There would always be grounds for contesting how the assessment of a particular set of items has been constructed.
The amendment proposes that a comparison should be made of all the components of the Part IV support package and social security benefits. That is deeply problematic: although levels of support for essential living needs are set nationally, rent levels vary very widely on a local basis. If there were to be a higher proportion of such families in the North, the costs of accommodation may be lower, even though the accommodation would generally be better. Comparisons of that kind do not stand up.
We believe that we are providing a decent level of support for families in what we are committed to making a short-term stay in our accommodation. We have already made the commitment that families with children will not be brought into the new support system if their initial claims cannot be resolved within an average of two months and any appeal within a further four months. Those are average times and clearly they will be longer in some cases. In such instances, we are providing for a grant of £50 per person for anyone who, through no fault of their own, has remained on the support system for more than six months. This will allow for the replacement of items that wear out in the medium term. It will take the form of a cash-back voucher.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I did not understand the argument about average times. Either we are saying that there should be no further extension than that contemplated, or otherwise it is meaningless. How does one introduce average times into the situation?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that point, but we clearly have to consider average times. We make evaluations based on average times, but we are committed to having targets because we believe that people should be able clearly to understand how long the process will take.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I should like to follow up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. If a group of cases was dealt with very quickly, within eight weeks, but another group of cases, with the average still at six months, took 10 months to deal with, the average would still be met,

1379
but the latter group would enter a situation of very great hardship. They would be relying on the support system for much longer than the Home Office ever intended.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is for that reason that we have suggested a cash-back voucher. I should be happy to enter into correspondence on that matter.
I do not think the certification proposed in the amendment is the right way forward. In Committee my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General made a commitment to the effect that the level of support for children from April 2000 will be equivalent to the level available by way of child benefit and therefore we have effectively discharged the obligation that the amendment seeks to impose.
We shall be reviewing the level of support available to asylum seekers annually. This will allow us to take account, as necessary, of changes to the prices of goods that asylum seekers require. I should expect these levels of support to be set out in the regulations governing the support scheme that we shall be making early next year. That being the case, they will need to be amended on a regular basis following the outcome of any review. That will provide Parliament with the ability to monitor the level of support we are giving to children on a continuing basis.
I understand that in some instances the level of support families receive from local authorities is significantly less than the amount we are proposing to provide under the new support scheme. Those who are currently on social security benefits tend to congregate in London and the south-east and therefore impose a wholly unsustainable burden on the host local authorities. I do not think that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark would want to see families continue in those circumstances. We shall be providing something that is better and more effective.
I believe that the commitment given in Committee by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General in regard to the level of support for the children of asylum seekers effectively delivers what the right reverend Prelate is seeking. To that extent, we could make the certification shortly after Royal Assent. However, to the extent that the right reverend Prelate believes that we are not in a position to do that, the effect of the amendment would be to delay the commencement of the new support arrangements for families.
We are committed to removing the magnet that the current social security benefits appear to provide for certain groups of rather doubtful asylum seekers. Continuing to make social security available for families would lease that incentive in place, thereby increasing yet further the number of people using asylum as a vehicle for gaining entry to, and remaining in, this country. For those reasons, I ask the right reverend Prelate not to press the Motion.
During the debate a number of points have been raised by noble Lords, and I should like to turn to some of those, if I may. The right reverend Prelate and
1380
the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, raised the important issue of scrutiny. I can confirm that the content of the regulations setting out the details of the support scheme will be the subject of a consultation paper later this month. That will provide Members of your Lordships' House with the opportunity to comment on the way in which they are framed and phrased and the way in which they will work. I know that that is a broad concern and it will be open to the House fully to debate those regulations if they are prayed against.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. I apologise for intervening again, but it is an important matter. The consultation may be difficult because of the forthcoming Christmas period and Recess. What will be the period within which the consultation will take place? Will it be extended appropriately into January or perhaps February in order to take account of the break? I do not expect my noble friend necessarily to reply immediately, but it would be helpful to the various organisations to know that fairly soon.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his question. He is right in saying that I cannot give him an off-the-cuff answer; it would be wrong of me to do so. I am happy to write to him, placing a copy in the Library in the usual way and distributing it widely to Members who express an interest.
However, I am told that we expect that the consultation will run to a minimum of six to eight weeks, probably from the middle of November. I trust that that answer is helpful and I am happy to confirm it in writing.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will take into account the fact that the period we are approaching is most unusual in terms of people being able to begin work on the issue. Perhaps the department would be a little more generous in allocating time for a response.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, again, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comment I shall reflect further upon it and we shall be as helpful as possible in seeking to maximise the time available for consultation. I recognise that this is a complex area. We shall take full account of my noble friend's comments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked about the quality of the support available under the interim arrangements. It is open to local authorities to continue their current practice of providing support. There may well be cases in which support in kind is needed in order to ensure that support reaches the children. That is an important point. Many Members of your Lordships' House have said that we must ensure that children fully receive the benefit that is intended for them. We give an important pledge in that respect.

1381
Therefore, we shall not prescribe how local authorities deliver support or how much, but they will be under a duty to meet essential living needs. Again, that is important. I reaffirm the commitment which we made in Committee that the level of support for children in the first year of the new scheme will be equivalent to the level of income support in respect of children—
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting, but the Minister is dealing with an important point. Will he say that although local authorities may deal differently with children, during the interim period the Social Services Inspectorate will ensure that no local authority will be allowed to go below the equivalence of 100 per cent support?
4.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for asking that question. It is one on which I should like to reflect. However, she raises an important issue to which we would expect the inspectorate to have due regard. I should like to address the point at some length, but I cannot give an absolute commitment to the House today. It is an important and valid question and I shall undertake to write to the noble Baroness about the arrangements which will be made. Primarily, they will be at the discretion of local authorities, but we have expressed concern about the different levels of support. We recognise that they must be more than adequate for the purpose.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark also asked about the interim arrangements. I can only repeat that at present a choice is open to local authorities. We are not aware that they are failing to provide adequate support, but, clearly, we must monitor that. We must ensure that we and they get it right.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about cash for families during the interim period. I am happy to confirm that the regulations relating to the interim arrangements will allow local authorities to support the living needs of families wholly by way of cash, if that is their policy. Flexibility is important and we believe that that will preserve the current position under the Children Act 1989.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked how the new scheme can be no worse without increasing incentives. That is an interesting point and our response is straightforward and simple. The difference is the way in which support is to be delivered. The quality of accommodation and other support will be broadly equivalent, but we believe that the fact that it will involve limited use of cash payments will help to reduce the incentive effect. There was evidence, particularly after the previous legislation in 1996, that the removal of the cash incentive will have a depressing
1382
effect on the number of those coming into the system who are economic migrants and who may well be abusing the asylum process.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should be grateful if the Minister would quote the evidence for the statement he has made about the deterrent effect of the 1996 legislation.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am happy to rely on the statistics which were produced as a byproduct of the change in the legislation. I am happy to provide those figures to the noble Earl by way of correspondence.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the figures are in my Second Reading speech.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his reminder.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, will the Minister also recognise that the 1996 legislation did a great deal more than create the change at issue? Therefore, the change in the number of asylum seekers after that was the result of a whole series of different factors.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am happy to acknowledge that that is the case and I am sure that the legislation made a valid contribution. However, in this piece of legislation we are seeking to strengthen and improve the quality of the regulatory framework surrounding immigration and asylum. That has been widely acknowledged from all quarters of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked about the number of staff and the fact that figures have varied. Simply, the number of staff needed for the Part VI purposes has risen as our prediction for the number of asylum seekers has risen. It is simply a reflection of that. We want to ensure that we get it right; that we reduce waiting times; and that we deal effectively with the caseload. I am confident that all Members of your Lordships' House will want to support that overall aim.
This has been a long debate. The discussions and reasonings on the legislation have taken place over many months. The arguments have been well researched, rehearsed and argued throughout, and have benefited greatly from the scrutinising nature of your Lordships' House. At times, the message that we are seeking to get across is hard, but it is important. We seek to strike the right balance using firmness, fairness and a fast-tracking processes. That is the right objective for this difficult piece of legislation which, in broad terms, your Lordships want to see on the statute book.
I ask the right reverend Prelate not to press his Motion. I believe that we have addressed his issues of concern and those expressed by other Members of your Lordships' House tonight.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, perhaps the House will forgive me if I first make one or two

1383
general points before focusing on the Bill. I believe that your Lordships' House has done itself credit in seeking to lift the debate about asylum seekers above the sometimes mean-spirited and often hostile attitudes whipped up by some sources outside the House.
Noble Lords have tried in a compassionate, yet realistic, way to ensure that the claims of people seeking asylum on these shores are not prejudiced, but are considered fairy and that, while their claims are being considered, their needs are met in a humane way. Although several of the practical proposals put forward by noble Lords and actively supported from this Bench have been accepted by the Government, for which we are grateful, sadly, many have not.
We have been given assurances that special care will be taken to assure the welfare of children as well as of adults who may be particularly vulnerable. Time will tell whether those assurances will prove to be adequate. As the Bill's implementation will begin as early as 6th December, the test of its justice will not be long in coming. Meanwhile, the most useful comment I can make is to signal to the Government a few of the areas in which I am informed that church groups working with asylum seekers have major worries.
First, there is utter disbelief that the Government's targets of processing initial applications within two months and appeals within six months can possibly be met for the foreseeable future. The far from generous provisions of the Bill, both those relating to accommodation and those relating to the level of cash and vouchers, have been justified to us again and again by Ministers on the basis that people will be affected by them only for a short period of time. For tens of thousands of people that justification simply will not stand. I am aware that the Government have conceded that in cases unresolved after six months, claimants will be given a £50 grant for replacement of basic necessities, but most people will see that as little more than a token.
Secondly, there is concern that even the inadequate assistance offered by the Bill will not extend to large numbers of asylum seekers. That is likely for various reasons. For some asylum seekers, the prospect of being shipped out with no regard for their own wishes to other parts of the UK where there may be high unemployment, poor housing, lack of educational and legal support, and, conceivably, resentment and outright abuse from local residents, may be so alarming that they may choose to stay in areas where they have friends or relatives, even if that means forgoing their entitlement to any state support.
Other asylum seekers whose perceived legitimate claims have been refused at an earlier stage will be told that the price of their wish to seek judicial review will be the loss of entitlement to state support. The only provision made for people in such situations by the Bill is the possibility of applying for charitable aid in so-called "hard cases". However, that approach has proved so distasteful that many of the most respectable voluntary organisations working with refugees have made it clear that they do not want to be part of any such system.
1384
That issue brings me to my third point. Given the number of asylum seekers who will simply not qualify for assistance under the new system and the inadequacy of the assistance available to those who do, it is inevitable that more and more asylum seekers, even in London, will be turning to voluntary agencies, including churches, for material, emotional and spiritual help simply to survive.
Many fine words have been said during the course of these debates about the invaluable contribution of the voluntary sector and the faith communities. However, unless realistic account is taken of what they are not able to do, unless their role is properly evaluated, and unless they are provided with much more secure and adequate funding than they currently enjoy, their good will will simply be exploited, and asylum seekers will be given shabby services. I refer not so much to the larger well-known refugee organisations which are quite skilled in negotiating with governments and other funding bodies, but to local community groups, particularly churches, which quite literally currently provide a lifeline for thousands of asylum seekers. I cannot believe that your Lordships—or, indeed, the Government—would want to countenance, much less encourage, such an abuse of so valuable a resource as the care and the commitment of those small local initiatives.
I am grateful to those who have spoken in support of my Motion during this short debate. I am grateful also to the Minister for his kind words. We shall, of course, have to examine carefully what he has told us this afternoon, but I am afraid that we have not heard any further assurances, and, if anything, I am rather more anxious about the interim arrangements than I was at the beginning of our short debate.
The request of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, that the Minister's pledges should be embodied in the regulations so that they have the force of law seems to me to be reasonable. We have not been given such an assurance, but we have been promised consultation on those regulations. We are all of a mind that the care of children, whether of British nationals or of asylum seekers, must be of supreme concern. I should like to have seen further assurances on the face of the Bill, but I accept that we have taken this matter as far as is practicably possible in your Lordships' House. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion 135B.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 135 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason No. 135A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 135 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 135A—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
139 Clause86, page 56, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) to enable dependants of the asylum-seeker to attend bail proceedings in connection with his detention under any provision of the immigration Acts; or
( ) to enable the asylum-seeker and his dependants to attend bail proceedings in connection with the detention of a dependant of his under any such provision.")

COMMONS AMENDMENT
The Commons agreed to this amendment and proposed the following amendment thereto—
139A Line 2, leave out ("dependants of the asylum-seeker) and insert ("the asylum-seeker and his dependants")
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 139A to Lords' Amendment No. 139.
Amendment No. 139, which was made in this House, provides for the Secretary of State to meet costs incurred by the asylum seeker's dependants to allow them to attend the asylum seeker's bail hearing in the event that the asylum seeker was detained under the Immigration Acts. The reason is that, if bail was granted, the asylum seeker and his dependants would be ordered to move directly to the dispersal accommodation on release. Therefore, we wish the dependants to be able to be present at the bail hearing, so that they may travel as a group to the accommodation provided by the asylum support directorate.
Amendment No. 139A modifies Amendment No. 139 so that we can pay the expenses of an asylum seeker travelling to attend his own bail hearing. Clearly, a detainee will be taken to his bail hearing from the detention centre by the private company contracted to provide escort services for that purpose. However, it is true that the Bill allows for a person granted bail to apply to the court to have the conditions attached to the grant of bail to be varied, or for the Secretary of State to make such an application. In such cases, I should hope that the application might be decided on the papers. But we accept that there could be occasions, albeit rare, where an asylum seeker already on bail needs to attend a further hearing; for example, if the court requires attendance to discuss an application to vary the conditions of bail.
We should not want an asylum seeker's attendance to be compromised by our relocating him away from the place of the hearing. On that basis, the Government accept that Commons Amendment No. 139A is justified. I beg to move.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 139A to Lords Amendment No. 139.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, on the basis that if one cannot have a loaf of bread, a crust is better than nothing, I thank the Minister for his acceptance of this amendment. It is an important amendment in its own way because, as he rightly said, it means that an asylum seeker out on bail who had to
1386
attend a hearing subsequently would be able to do so. In the light of our pressure throughout the debates for a presumption in favour of bail, we should like to thank the Minister and the Government for conceding this amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I also support the amendment and the acceptance of the Commons amendment to it. I wish to draw attention to the fact that 367 Lords amendments have been accepted by the Commons, but this one is even now, at this late stage of the Bill, having to be amended. One or two other amendments proposed from this Bench were also accepted by the Commons. This Bill has been so altered as to be in many respects almost a different Bill from the one which started life some months ago. I read recently of a boast in another place that more Bills were being published in draft as a result of the so-called modernisation proposals. However, this Bill was not just published in draft; it arrived from the Commons at the Lords in draft and has since been heavily amended. That is not a good way in which to legislate.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, while we are discussing this amendment, perhaps I may use the opportunity briefly to pursue a matter which I raised with the Minister at Third Reading. He may not want to answer my question here and now, but I should be grateful if he were able to write to me. The matter concerns how the devolution arrangements are working in the case of Bills such as this one. Immigration and asylum matters are reserved for Westminster. This is a United Kingdom Bill and it applies, entirely appropriately, to Scotland. However, various provisions in the Bill affect areas of government which are devolved. Clearly, this amendment concerns a bail matter and therefore it affects the Scottish courts. Scottish court matters are devolved. The Bill affects the Scottish Prison Service, social services and school meals.
At Third Reading we discussed an amendment on the school meals provision. I then asked the Minister whether the Scots Parliament had considered this matter. He gave me the soothing reply that the Ministers of the Scottish Executive had asked for the amendment. Subsequently, I read in the press of a discussion at the Scots Parliament, of which the Minister may be aware, in which Members of that Parliament queried how it could be that legislation which involved various of their responsibilities was being dealt with at Westminster but that they were not being consulted about the consequent effect upon those responsibilities. That is an issue which will arise in relation not just to this Bill but to future Bills. We all want devolution to work smoothly and well.
Perhaps the Minister will write to tell me precisely how the consultation with the Scottish Executive took place; whether there was time for consultation with the Parliament; and whether the Government are satisfied that the present arrangements are the best ones. This issue and the way that the Scottish Executive consults the Parliament within itself may be matters for the Scots Parliament. But it is important that the

1387
Government in this Parliament make proper arrangements and allow proper time so that there can be satisfaction in Scotland that matters affecting the Scots Parliament are not adversely affected when Members of the Scots Parliament are not consulted. I should be grateful if the Minister would help me on these points.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the last point first. I am content to write to the noble Baroness. While this Bill amends Scots legislation on devolved matters, it deals with immigration and asylum, which are themselves reserved matters. Scottish Ministers have apparently reported the Bill to the Scottish Parliament and we shall have concordats in place on those matters, particularly in relation to the operation of support arrangements. I trust that those points help the noble Baroness, and I shall be happy to write to her with further clarification.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for her kind comment on loaves, halves of loaves, and so on. That was very generous of her. I am somewhat chastened by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. However, I simply remind your Lordships that, while there have been 367 amendments, they are in part and in some measure a reflection of the efforts made by the Government to improve the quality of the legislation and also the product of the efforts of Members of your Lordships' House to do so. For that, I believe your Lordships should all take. credit.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Maximum Number of Judges Order 1999
5.5 p.m.
Lord Bach Lord Bach rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st November be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order is made under Section 4(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. The statutory ceiling for High Court judges in England and Wales was last increased from 85 to 98 by the Maximum Number of Judges Order 1993. This order will further increase that number to 106.
The High Court will face additional challenges over the coming years. Broadly speaking, they will arise from the implementation of the Human Rights Act and the Immigration and Asylum Bill, shortly to become an Act. It has become clear that, in the face of those challenges and even with the relief afforded by the implementation of the civil justice reforms in April this year, the High Court Bench will be under severe pressure unless additional judge power can be brought onstream as and when required.
The Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division and the Crown Office list will receive a significant increase in workload on implementation of the Human Rights Act. Those courts are the places for challenging, through judicial review, the actions or decision of any person or body charged with the
1388
performance of public acts and duties. The Human Rights Act will impose a duty on all public authorities to act in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights. Consequently, implementation of the Act will have a significant impact on the Crown Office list and the Divisional Court.
The assessment of the Lord Chancellor's Department is that applications for leave to move for judicial review in criminal cases may well double from the 300 received last year to 600 per year. It is anticipated that the vast majority will require a hearing for leave before a single judge. It is further thought that as many as one-quarter of the applications may be allowed and will then proceed to the full Divisional Court for determination.
It is estimated that 1,000 to 2,000 additional applications for leave to move may be made in immigration cases after implementation of the Human Rights Act. Even if only one-quarter receives leave to move for judicial review, that would lead to an increase of 65 per cent—about 250 cases—in the Crown Office list.
Appeals from magistrates' courts by way of cases stated may also increase by as much as 70 per cent, particularly in the early years—the first two years after implementation of the Human Rights Act. Virtually all those appeals would require to be heard by the Divisional Court, rather than a single judge. Other non-criminal applications for judicial review may also increase by up to 20 per cent. The majority of those applications for leave will be taken by a single judge and one-third may proceed to hearing before the Divisional Court.
In the Family Division it is anticipated that human rights points will be taken in anything up to 50 per cent of cases. The division has already determined that all cases raising these points should be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice, placing additional pressures upon the High Court Bench in London.
In the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal, implementation of the Human Rights Act is expected to lead to an increase of one-third in the cases coming to the court on points of law relating to the convention. In the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal, pressure on judge power is expected to arise both from the Human Rights Act and, this year, from appeals testing the civil justice reforms to which I have referred. The Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal and the Queen's Bench Divisional Court will require additional sittings both by the High Court bench and by Lords Justices in order to handle the expected influx of human rights and immigration work. The latter requirement will be met by diverting the time of some Lords Justices from the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal. That will, however, require that deficit to be made good by a commensurate increase in High Court judges.
It is essential that the courts are well prepared to meet additional pressures. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has judged that some increases to the High Court bench need to be made by

1389
the beginning of next year, leaving headroom within the new ceiling for further appointments as need arises. I beg to move.
Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 1st November be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bach.)
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. Following the passage of the Access to Justice Act, what effect does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor expect these measures to have on the efficiency with which the High Court undertakes its daily work?
I understand that the passage of the Human Rights Act will introduce new pressures. However, at the same time the Woolf reforms are supposed to increase the efficacy of the work of the High Court bench. Can the Minister give your Lordships an estimate of what the Lord Chancellor's Department expects will be the saving in judicial time from the introduction of the Woolf reforms?
Can the noble Lord the Minister also give some estimate at this juncture of the extent to which he expects the increased pressures on the Court of Appeal, to which he referred in his remarks, will lead to an increased requirement for Court of Appeal judges?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for his remarks. I am not in a position to be able to give any real estimate as to the number of Court of Appeal judges that may be required as a consequence of the extra work involved. However, I promise the noble Lord that I will take this back to the department. I shall ensure that research is carried out and that a letter is sent to the noble Lord, a copy of which will be placed in the Library at the same time.
As I understand it, the main effect of the Woolf reforms is on the lower courts, that is the county courts. There has already been a story of some success. As the House knows, it is only six months or so since the Woolf reforms came into operation. It is too early to say what effect that will have on the High Court. However, the department will keep a close watch on the situation.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising those two points. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Maximum Number of Stipendiary Magistrates Order 1999
5.15 p.m.
Lord Bach Lord Bach rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd November be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order is made under Section 11(4) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. That Act set the number of stipendiary
1390
magistrates outside the Inner London and City of London commission areas at 50. This draft order seeks to increase that number to 56.
Let me take this opportunity to express the Government's appreciation for the lay magistrates, over 30,000 of whom give their voluntary services free for the benefit of their communities. In expressing the Government's gratitude to them, I know that I am expressing a view that the whole House will share. At least 95 per cent of criminal cases begin and end in the magistrates' courts. The role of the lay magistracy is pivotal to the administration of justice. Its continued good health depends essentially on sufficient numbers of suitable people from all walks of life applying for appointment. To raise the profile of the lay magistracy and to increase awareness that "ordinary" people can apply to be magistrates, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor launched a month-long national recruitment campaign during March and April of this year. I am happy to say that the campaign was a great success. Over 15,000 enquiries were received. My noble and learned friend hopes that many of those will lead to applications for appointment.
My Lords, stipendiary appointments are only made where there is a clear need for support for the lay bench. The responsibility for considering whether or not it is right to bid for a full-time stipendiary rests with my noble and learned friend's local advisory committees, after consultation with the local Magistrates' Courts Committee, bench chairmen and justices' clerks. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has also recently decided that the Magistrates' Association must also be asked for its views on each occasion that a stipendiary appointment is being considered.
The criteria to be considered before recommending an appointment are set out in the Lord Chancellor's Directions for Advisory Committees on Justices of the Peace. In essence these are, first: are there excessive and apparently settled delays in disposing of the court's business; secondly, is the business of the court being dealt with within acceptable time limits but only by way of an unacceptable use of magistrates or court staff; thirdly, does the lay bench exceed 250 magistrates (the lowest size of bench at which the workload suggests a stipendiary would be fully used)?
As you can see, the paramount consideration is that delays must be kept to a minimum in the interests of justice. It is also important that excessive demands are not placed on lay volunteers. I remind the House that the minimum requirement for individual magistrates is to achieve 26 half-day sittings per year.
Before seeking the approval of this House to the increase, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor consulted interested parties on a proposal to increase the maximum to 60. The majority supported his proposal. The Magistrates' Association, however, expressed concern, in particular that it was not the right time to increase the limit given the imminent changes contained in the Access to Justice Act 1999 to establish a unified stipendiary bench. The Lord Chancellor is keen to ensure that one of the

1391
benefits that should flow from unification is that much better use is made in the deployment of district judges (magistrates' courts), as stipendiary magistrates will be called, to emphasise that they are full-time professional judges. That will require greater flexibility in their use. However, there is a great deal of preparatory work that needs to be done before the provisions in the 1999 Act can be brought into effect. The Lord Chancellor believes that he needs to move sooner and to increase the statutory maximum so that those areas that urgently need stipendiary assistance can receive it.
However, having considered carefully the views of the Magistrates' Association, my noble and learned friend has decided to limit the increase to the minimum required to meet the requests for new posts already identified as essential to ensure the smooth running of the criminal justice system in those areas. He therefore seeks approval only for an increase to 56 posts.
The Government are concerned to ensure that there should be no grounds for the lay magistracy to fear any kind of a take-over by the stipendiary magistracy. There are over 30,000 lay magistrates and outside London, 48 stipendiary magistrates. The proposals that the magistrates' courts (subject to a right of appeal to the Crown court) will decide in either way cases where these are to be tried with the expectation of an increase in the trial business of the magistrates' courts are a vote of confidence in the lay magistracy. The number of lay magistrates has increased year by year since 1988.
Those areas that have stipendiary magistrates are generally well pleased that such appointments were made. I am sure that if the House agrees to this order, that situation will continue and, if anything, improve. The appointment of a stipendiary must always be seen as complementary to the lay bench rather than displacing it. The Government are committed to the principle of the lay magistracy continuing to play a significant part in Our criminal justice system. That is why the Government believe that this order can be supported. The order will help to maintain the lay magistracy and benefit the administration of justice. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd November be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bach.)
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the Minister's unequivocal statement of support for the lay magistracy has left me with little to say from these Benches. I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave the same expression of support on his appointment some two-and-a-half years ago. I am glad to see that the Government Benches continue with that commitment.
The noble Lord said that the new stipendiary appointments are designed to supplement the work of the lay magistrates. That suggests to me that, in the opinion of the Government, there are some identifiable areas which cannot be satisfactorily covered by the work of the lay magistracy. Can the
1392
noble Lord give the House some indication as to what those areas might be? For example, are they specialist areas such as environmental work which involves issues of such complexity that they are inappropriate for the lay magistracy? Or is it that in some areas there is such a heavy burden of ordinary work that some assistance from the stipendiary part of the profession is desirable?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for his comments. In response to his question as to why stipendiaries are needed in certain areas, clearly a heavy burden of work is a major factor. However, it is also right to say that stipendiaries, as trained, professional lawyers, are sometimes better suited to hear cases which involve complex points of law. We should never underestimate that such cases arise in the magistrates' courts. At present, as the noble Lord will be aware, research is taking place as to the way in which the lay magistracy and the stipendiary magistracy can work together and to examine the advantages and disadvantages of both types. I am happy to tell the House that in the vast majority of cases the two types of magistracy complement each other extremely well.
In addition, it is sometimes more convenient for there to be stipendiary magistrates where cases are bound to take a longer period of time. The shorter cases are very much the remit of the lay magistracy.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he allay the journalistic rumour that has been prevalent recently that the Lord Chancellor plans to phase out lay magistrates?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for asking that question. I hope I answered it in my few remarks this afternoon. If I did not make myself clear, at least to the noble Lord, the answer to his question is "yes".
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, how much does this decision have to do with money? I read in the press that it is more cost-effective to deal with cases by way of a stipendiary magistrate than lay magistrates. Stipendiary magistrates can undertake more cases in a day because they are professional lawyers. If that is the case, I hope the Lord Chancellor does not have it in mind that the extra cost of using lay magistrates is not worth the money. As somebody who was involved for many years in the lay administration of justice, albeit in Scotland, I believe that lay involvement in these matters is crucial. The system in England and Wales involves a wide variety of members of the public. It helps the public's understanding of the law and gives the public confidence in the legal system. I hope therefore that if the Lord Chancellor is thinking of saving money by using more stipendiary magistrates, he will not let that persuade him to reduce the number of lay magistrates.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. Her experience in this field is widely

1393
recognised. Of course money is not the reason for using stipendiary rather than lay magistrates. As I said in my opening remarks, what matters is the quality of justice and that means justice being delivered early rather than late. Those are major considerations in deciding whether or not to appoint stipendiary magistrates.
The points the noble Baroness makes in relation to money are well taken.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Chartered Institute of Patent Agents Order 1999
5.26 p.m.
Lord Bach Lord Bach rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th October be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order concerns the right to conduct litigation and rights of audience in England and Wales.
Historically, the right to conduct litigation has been the preserve of solicitors and rights of audience in the courts have been the preserve of barristers and to a lesser extent solicitors. Last year the Institute of Legal Executives became the third body to be authorised to grant its members rights of audience before certain courts. This order, if approved, will further extend rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation to a further category: the Fellows of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents who have completed an LLM (Master of Laws) course entitled "Litigation Skills for Patent Agents". Fellows of the institute who are solicitors or barristers may be granted an exemption from completing the course.
The draft instrument was laid before the House on 25th October. Registered patent agents already have the right to conduct litigation and rights of audience before the Patents County Court and in matters on appeal from the Comptroller of Patents under the Patents Acts 1949 and 1977 to the Patents Court. This order will not affect the rights currently held. By this order the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents will become the second new authorised body for the purposes of Section 27 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, and the first for Section 28 of the Act. The order will enable the institute to grant the right to conduct litigation in the Chancery Division of the High Court, including the Patents Court, and in the County Court, and to conduct appeals from the Patents County Court, the County Court and the Chancery Division of the High Court in respect of any matter relating to the protection of any invention, design, technical information or trademark or as to any matter involving passing off and any ancillary matter thereto. The order will also enable the institute to grant rights of audience in hearings in chambers or interlocutory matters ancillary to intellectual property litigation.
The institute will be able to grant these rights to suitably qualified Fellows who have completed the Litigation Skills for Patent Agents course. This new course will develop a knowledge base to supplement that already the subject of the examinations, which are conducted by the institute. The institute expects about 20 or so individuals to qualify initially, with the numbers increasing as more Fellows take the qualifying course in the future.
The authorisation of the institute so that it may grant these rights has been welcomed by those who have considered the application. It will extend rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation as was allowed under the 1990 Act. But, as the House will know well, the procedures under that Act have proved to be too cumbersome and susceptible to delay. That is why the Government have taken powers in the Access to Justice Act to reform the system of how future applications will be dealt with.
This application is also a deregulation measure. It will lead to clients of patent agents who need to use the courts to instruct and deal with one person. The patent agent will not have to instruct a solicitor and/or a barrister in order to progress his client's case. This should lead to lower costs for businesses, in particular small and medium-sized companies, by cutting out an unnecessary tier of expense. The patent agent will be able to go straight to court. I hope that this will be welcomed by all Members of the House.
The Access to Justice Act, which received Royal Assent in July, is a blueprint for change in how legal services are provided. All barristers and solicitors will acquire full rights of audience on call to the Bar or admission to the Roll. For the first time, advocates and litigators will have a statutory duty to act with independence in the interests of justice. In addition, the Bar Council and Institute of Legal Executives will become authorised bodies for the granting of rights to conduct litigation. The House will be happy to hear that those provisions came into force on 27th September last.
Further provisions in the Act, which will come into force in January next year, will change the way in which the bodies may become authorised to grant rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation; and how their rules governing these activities may be amended. The Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct (ACLEC) will be replaced by a new Legal Services Consultative Panel. The panel will have a similar role to ACLEC but the process for approving changes to the authorised bodies' rules will be simplified and improved. The panel will be more streamlined and consist of a chairman and about eight members as opposed to the 17 members of ACLEC.
The panel's general duty will be to provide the Lord Chancellor with any advice he requires about legal services, legal education and any other related matters. The panel will also take an active role in the maintenance and development of standards in the education, training and conduct of those who offer

1395
legal services. The panel will also be able to make reasonable requests of others, in formulating its recommendations to the Lord Chancellor.
The Act also confers upon the Lord Chancellor, with Parliament's approval, a new power to amend the qualification regulations or rules of conduct of an authorised body by order, if he considers it desirable to do so. He will be required to consult the panel, the Director-General of Fair Trading and the designated judges before doing so, and his order will be subject to parliamentary approval. This power will enable the Lord Chancellor to change on his own initiative unreasonable or restrictive rules on the part of a professional body. If in the future the institute wants to change its rules they will be subject to the Lord Chancellor's approval. This will ensure that the public is protected.
I have a few final words to say about possible complaints. One consequence of the success of the application we are discussing today is that we propose that Fellows who become authorised advocates or litigators should come within the jurisdiction of the Legal Services Ombudsman. That person oversees the handling of complaints about members of the legal professions. The support and advice of the ombudsman will be important in seeking to ensure that the standards of service by Fellows of the institute are maintained. A separate order to that effect has been laid before both Houses. The institute has its own complaints system; complaints about patent agents are dealt with by the Litigator Conduct Committee. I have confidence in the way that complaints are handled and I am sure the patent agents will not increase the burden on the ombudsman.
As the House knows, the Government are fully committed to ensuring that all new legislation is fully compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998; and I am satisfied that the provisions of this instrument are compatible with the convention. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th October be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bach.)
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister, who has explained the purpose of this statutory instrument very clearly, whether the chartered institute has the same protections for its clients as are provided by the arrangements in force vis-à-vis the Law Society and solicitors?
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, to do this order justice would require me, on behalf of the Opposition, to re-open the whole debate on the principles that lay behind the Access to Justice Act. However, I shall resist the temptation to do so. Your Lordships have passed the Access to Justice Act and this order is entirely consistent with the principles behind the Act. In those circumstances, and in those only, I find the order unexceptionable.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am particularly grateful, as I am sure the House is, to the noble Lord, Lord
1396
Kingsland. Indeed, we have dealt with those matters. Like the noble Lord, I well remember the many hours that were spent pleasantly debating them during the earlier part of this year.
I want to ensure that the answer that I give the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is appropriate. I am advised that the protection is the same as would be the case with private solicitors or barristers. The Litigator Conduct Committee, to which I referred, has similar powers to those held by the various Law Society bodies which look after discipline. I hope that that answer gives the noble Lord some comfort.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: It does, my Lords. However, perhaps I may mention the indemnity fund provisions that are available to the clients of solicitors. Can the noble Lord say whether there is an indemnity fund provision available in the case of the chartered institute? Perhaps the Minister would like to return to that issue.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. As I understand it, the answer to his question is, "Yes". However, as this is an important question, I would prefer to look into the matter and write to the noble Lord in due course.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tax Credit (New Category of Child Care Provider) Regulations 1999
5.37 p.m.
Lord Bach Lord Bach rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th October be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the House knows, the working families' tax credit and the disabled person's tax credit were introduced on 5th October 1999. They will replace family credit and disability working allowance. Both WFTC and DPTC, as they are known, include a childcare tax credit. To qualify for the childcare tax credit, families will need to meet the general qualifying conditions for working families tax credit and will also have to use eligible childcare.
The current rules about eligible childcare focus almost entirely on childcare for the under-eights, but we have raised the children's age limit for help with childcare costs to 15—in line with the National Childcare Strategy—and to 16 for disabled children. Very little in the current rules caters for childcare for this older age group who have very different needs.
The older group of children need breakfast, after-school and holiday clubs. Such childcare is increasingly available and can be run by a variety of organisations. Moreover, because of the diversity of childcare being provided for these older children, there is no common feature that would identify appropriate good-quality providers from inappropriate ones. For that reason, powers were taken under Section 15 of the Tax Credits Act, which was passed by your Lordships

1397
earlier this year, in order to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to create a category of good-quality providers. This category covers those providing childcare for children aged eight and over, so making their services eligible childcare.
The regulations will enable the Secretary of State to accredit appropriate organisations who can then administer an approval system for childcare providers. The details of the scheme are contained in the regulations. They also set out the minimum standards which childcare providers will need to meet to gain approval from an accredited organisation. These powers will come into effect from April 2000. Therefore parents of older children who meet working families' tax credit qualifying conditions can claim childcare tax credit for childcare they receive from approved providers.
The regulations will apply across the United Kingdom, although the function of approving accredited organisations will be executively devolved to Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales. There will be no accreditation scheme in Northern Ireland because its existing regulation of childcare already covers older children.
I draw attention briefly to the main provisions of the regulations. Regulation 5 sets out the criteria for accrediting quality assurance schemes. Regulations 7, 8, 9 and 10 and Schedule 2 set out how accreditation will be applied for, withdrawn and renewed. Schedule 1 of the regulations sets out those matters which an organisation applying for accreditation will need to include in its approval system. Regulation 11 sets out requirements that the accredited organisation will need to meet during the period of accreditation. This includes the provision of information to the Inland Revenue, the maintenance of records and a requirement to allow the Secretary of State or his nominee to attend meetings of the accredited organisation's approval panel.
Regulation 14 and Schedule 3 set out the minimum criteria which a childcare provider must meet to be approved by an accredited organisation. We expect that organisations will include these as part of their own criteria. Childcare providers must provide a portfolio of evidence to demonstrate that they have met the standards set out in an organisation's quality assurance scheme.
This scheme has been welcomed by the main childcare organisations and other groups whose views were sought on the regulations earlier this year. In September we also issued draft guidance to organisations which might be interested in applying for accreditation.
In England we have received eight expressions of interest from organisations who wish to seek accreditation from the Secretary of State. This includes local authorities and registered charities covering the out-of-school care and childminding sectors. Scotland and Wales expect a smaller number of applications as they have fewer childcare providers who cater for the older age group.
These regulations are to be welcomed. They will increase the number of families who will be eligible for the childcare tax credit element of working families' tax credit and disabled person's tax credit. They represent a better deal for working families, making work pay, and they provide help for lowest income families and tackle poverty. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th October be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bach.)
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining these regulations so clearly. As he has said, the "parent" Act for these regulations before us tonight is the Tax Credits Act 1999. It will come as no surprise to the noble Lord to hear that we continue to have concerns about the Act, especially as regards the way in which it works in relation to childcare provision, which is the subject of the regulations before us.
These provisions do not treat families fairly. Some better off families receive more help than poorer families. For example, the measure fails to take into account the presence of a second adult, except, that is, for the purposes of reducing the credit. The Christian Action Research and Education Organisation states,
"A fair system should take account of the second adult both for fixing the basic credit as well as for calculating family income".
Working families' tax credit also penalises two parent but single income families because, unlike lone parents, they do not qualify for the tax credit. No account is taken of the cost of bringing up children at home while tax credits are given to lone parents who employ another person to look after their children. A policy which discriminates against couples in this way is hardly conducive to stable two-parent families. It also has the ludicrous effect of disadvantaging mothers who look after their own children while rewarding mothers who look after their neighbours' children. This will penalise excellent, informal family arrangements and will institutionalise childcare. The whole system of WFTC has a built-in incentive not to care for one's children at home. It positively invites parents and grannies to register to look after other people's children rather than those of their own family.
As I understand the position, nannies comprise the largest group of child carers in the country, and under the system parents do not qualify for tax credits if a nanny looks after the children within the security of their own home.
The statutory instrument sets out an incredibly bureaucratic system of regulations. They appear unnecessarily complex compared with the provisions which apply to a more vulnerable age group; that is, children under the age of eight. I cannot understand why it is that parents of children who are under eight years of age can claim tax credit where the carer is a registered child minder under a perfectly respected and well understood local authority registration scheme and why it is that the scheme before us today is so necessary.

1399
In another place when these regulations were debated the Minister was not entirely clear in her responses to questions raised. I would therefore like to ask the Minister whether it is the case that the accredited organisations will only be expected to make criminal record checks on potential childcare providers, rather than be required to do so?
It is also not clear from what was said in another place, nor from the regulations before us, who in practice will substitute for the Secretary of State and be responsible for accreditation of organisations, appointing awarding panels, monitoring health and safety and the granting and/or disqualification of providers etc. How many organisations are expected to cover England and Wales? I accept that the noble Lord has said that eight organisations have shown an interest, but how many are envisaged to cover the whole of England and Wales?
Finally, can the Minister be more forthcoming about estimated costs? I understand that it is not possible to estimate how much take-up there will be of the scheme. However, there will be start-up costs for the system to be put in place, and, of course, running costs. What are these likely to be? I have seen in a publication the figure of £250 million. This sum would allow for only a relatively modest take-up of the scheme. Therefore should the take-up be far greater, is there an open-ended budget to meet the costs, or would the scheme have to be cash limited and, if so, how would that be done?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks. I shall do my best to answer some of the questions that she has raised. Of course there is a difference as regards the two sides of this House in relation to the working families' tax credit. We believe that that scheme, and the childcare scheme that follows from it, will assist particularly those who are poorest and in work. For that, it should be praised. The system of family credit does not have that effect.
I wish to deal with the point about the criminal records check. I make it clear that it is expected that accredited organisations and childcare providers will check criminal records and the DfE list and the DoH list—of which the noble Baroness is aware—where that is possible under current arrangements. We expect organisations which apply for accreditation to include a requirement in their quality assurance scheme about what checks they expect childcare providers to make on the staff they employ. The Government expect this to include police checks, together with medical and qualification checks, and taking up references on staff. If an accredited organisation has doubts about the suitability of a childcare provider to work with children, it can refuse to give that childcare provider approval under the requirements of this scheme.
The back-stop is this: if the Secretary of State is not satisfied that an organisation seeking accreditation has fully met the requirements of the scheme—which may include the standard it sets on checking suitability of staff—he can reject the application.
1400
I move on to deal with funding and the question of whether the childcare tax credit will cost a large amount of money. For the £4 billion figure quoted by the Institute of Fiscal Studies to be right, there would have to be a massive behavioural change affecting almost 1 million families. Those who do not currently incur childcare costs and who get the childcare tax credit would need to pay for at least 30 per cent of the cost out of their own pocket. Our estimate is that costs are expected to be about £200 million in the first full year. That figure steers a course between the current position with the failed childcare disregard in family credit—which costs just over £30 million—and the kind of massive charge represented by the figure of £4 billion.
I have dealt with a couple of the matters raised by the noble Baroness. If there are any matters that I have not covered, I will be happy to do so in the usual way.
We believe that the working families tax credit and its childcare provisions are very important as an encouragement to help into work those people who want to. It will particularly help some of the poorest families in our country to have a decent standard of living. It is right to say that for many years past it has not been easy or possible for many mothers, in particular, to go out to work because, if they did so, no one has been available to look after their children. We hope to at least make it easier for such people to do so and to feel secure about who will be looking after their children.
The noble Baroness mentioned families who work shifts and referred to nannies. It is important to the Government that the funding is seen to support good quality childcare. We do not support a registration scheme for nannies, which would be difficult to administer and would not, therefore, be a practical solution to the concerns that some parents have stemming from reports of recent tragic cases, which I do not need to go into. Parents need to be especially careful in their choice of nannies because there is no way that the quality of care can be assured.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. That was not the point that I raised on nannies. My point was that a nanny could register and become a child minder employed by one family and work for another family where the tax credit could be received. I said that there was an anomaly there. I did not mention shift work at all. I did ask about the start-up and running costs. While I do not expect the Minister to have the answer tonight, it would be helpful to receive it in writing.
I am profoundly disappointed that it is only "expected" that criminal checks shall be run. In schools, anyone working with children are required by law to seek that information from criminal records. We are talking about a group of vulnerable young people. It seems very unfortunate therefore that if someone does not do so, although it may be expected of them, it will not be necessarily wrong.
I did not introduce the question of the figures from the Institute of Fiscal Studies. I do not know about that. I referred to the figure that the Minister

1401
mentioned, the £250 million. It is not correct to say that poorer families are helped more than wealthier families. I gave examples of where more wealthy families received better and more help than poorer families. That is also an anomaly in the system.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I shall supply her with the figures she asked for by way of letter.
Perhaps I may return to the question of police criminal records. As the noble Baroness will know, at present there are three sources of information that help to assess a person's suitability to work with children; the police check of criminal records, the DfEE list 99 and the Department of Health consultancy index. We expect accredited organisations and childcare providers to check the criminal records and the other lists where that is possible under current arrangements. Local authorities which provide holiday play schemes have access to these checks. Voluntary organisations which are members of the voluntary organisations consultancy services will also have access to all three checks. The eight organisations which have registered their interests with us in applying for accreditation will all have access to these checks. As I said, if they are to be successful, they will be expected to make those checks in a very careful way.
The safety and well being of children is paramount. I know that that is behind the noble Baroness's concerns. I say again, we expect organisations who apply to the Secretary of State to include a fit person check as a requirement within their quality assurance schemes. We expect accredited organisations and childcare providers to check criminal records where that is possible under current arrangements. If an accredited organisation has doubts about the suitability of the childcare provider to work with children, it can refuse to give that childcare provider approval under the requirements of this scheme—and it is expected that it will. I commend these regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Working Time Regulations 1999
5.56 p.m.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 27th July be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am proud to introduce these regulations. The Government believe that everyone in the workplace has a right to be protected by fair and minimum standards. This has been a long-standing commitment and is the foundation stone of our employment legislative programme. As we approach the end of the century, it is right that business moves away from the long hours culture and respects the needs of staff. The
1402
Government want to encourage competitive markets. At the same time, we are mindful of the need to ensure that workers' employment conditions are not eroded by unscrupulous employers.
Since their introduction a year ago, the working time regulations have represented a significant step in achieving the Government's wider goal of promoting family-friendly employment. Should there be any doubt, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the regulations provide: that no worker can be forced to work more than 48 hours on average; a right to paid annual leave, rising from three to four weeks later this month; rest breaks during the working day; rest periods from work, including the right to a day off per week; special protection for night workers, including the right to health assessments; special protections for adolescent workers; and protection from unfair dismissal/detriment for asserting these rights.
Obviously, it is important to recognise that it is business which needs to operate these regulations. In this respect, it has been the Government's policy to maximise flexibility where possible while maintaining the protection which the directive provides for workers. The regulations, therefore, encourage employers and workers to adapt many of the measures by mutual agreement, thus encouraging a partnership culture and ensuring that business can remain flexible to meet the needs of customers.
As with any new legislation, the Government have been keen to monitor how effectively the regulations have been adopted. The feedback that we have received has generally been positive from both sides of industry, and independent surveys that have been undertaken this year support this view. It has always been our intention to have another look at the regulations once the dust has settled. It has, in particular, become apparent that there was scope to help business to administer the regulations without weakening the new protections that had been extended to workers.
On 7th July, the Secretary of State announced two proposed changes to the regulations, easing the regulatory burden for employers and workers alike. The first amendment dispenses with the requirement to maintain detailed records for those who have voluntarily opted out of the working time limits. This will be replaced with a simple requirement to keep a list of those who have signed an opt-out agreement.
The Government believe that it is possible to protect the health and safety of workers without employers maintaining detailed records of staff who have decided of their own volition to work longer hours. Workers are obviously covered by the working time limit, unless they choose otherwise. If, having opted out, they have a change of heart, they can choose to be covered by the working time limits again at any stage.
Of course, we recognise that health and safety protection should still be applicable to those who have opted out of the working time limit. In this respect, if someone is considered to be at risk, the health and safety authorities will be able to obtain any further

1403
information, including the keeping of records necessary to protect the health and safety of workers through the use of existing safety law.
The second amendment relates to the "unmeasured working time" derogation, which disapplies the working time limits for so-called "autonomous workers" for whom the duration of working time is not measured or predetermined, or can be determined by the worker himself. The intention of the amendment is to allow the derogation to apply to workers who have some of their working time predetermined (for example, by contract), but choose to work longer of their own volition.
The amendment would not exclude workers from the entitlements to daily and weekly rest periods, rest breaks or paid annual leave, but would have the effect of disregarding some of a worker's time in respect of the working time limits. These workers will continue to be subject to the weekly working time limit in respect of time that they are required to work. No one can be forced into working long hours or signing away their working time protections. Even if they do decide to opt out, they can choose to opt back again at any time, without fear of reproach from the employer.
The amendments apply to those who freely work more hours than their employer requires of them. If the worker is paid or required to work additional hours because of the demands of the job, the amendment would not apply. Workers' rights have not been eroded. The safeguards that were introduced a year ago are still in place, unless the worker chooses otherwise.
The new measure sets a test which should leave no doubt as to its application. The derogation will apply,
"if the specific characteristics of the job are such that, without being required to do so by their employer, the worker may also do work the duration of which is not measured or pre-determined or can be determined by the worker himself".
It could be that all or part of a worker's time meets this test. Any time that does fall into this category will not count towards the 48-hour weekly working time limit. Therefore, unless the worker has voluntarily decided to put in extra hours, the amendment would not apply.
Industry and enforcement bodies, including the TUC, CBI and the Health and Safety Commission were consulted before the Secretary of State laid the draft amendments before Parliament on 19th October. We welcomed the opinions expressed from both sides and, as a result of our discussions, we have decided to issue statutory guidance on the amendments. This will dispel any possible danger of ambiguity. We shall, of course, be actively consulting with the industry and enforcement bodies again on the proposed statutory guidance.
In conclusion, I must stress that the Government are fully committed to the working time regulations. We believe that the regulations are already effective but have recognised and intend to take action to make them even better. I see this as a positive step. The Government are not tampering, but ensuring that the regulations evolve into a range of measures that can easily be embraced by employers and workers alike. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 27th July be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the Minister for the elegant way in which he admitted that last year the Government got it wrong when they brought in the original regulations. However, I prefer the letter written by the right honourable Mr Stephen Byers, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to John Monks at the TUC on 7th July. He said that:
"We have become concerned about the effect the Regulations are having on business and believe there to be scope to relieve some of the administrative burdens that are imposed on employers".
It might have been worth considering that a few months before the Government brought in the regulations.
When on 2nd November the other place debated the regulations in a committee, other events were happening in the economy. First, there was news from all around the country of huge job haemorrhaging. Furthermore, the Prime Minister was addressing the CBI. On the job losses, on Wednesday 3rd November the Scotsman newspaper reported it thus:
"DAKS-Simpson, which makes trousers, jackets and skirts for the company, [Marks and Spencer] employs 1,500 workers at its Scottish factories, including 800 on the M&S contract which will end next spring. Less than two weeks ago M&S said it was terminating its 30-year supply contract with William Baird, the clothing manufacturer, putting 800 jobs at risk at factories in Grangemouth, Stirlingshire and Polmadie, Glasgow.
The latest jobs blow came as the Prudential Insurance Group, BAT, the tobacco giant, and Cooper Menvier, a leading electrical company, announced more than 2,500 job losses across the UK".
On the same day, the Prime Minister was visiting the CBI. In its customary brisk language, the Sun reported the following day:
"Tony Blair yesterday vowed to slash red tape throttling British firms after furious bosses blamed HIS policies.
The Prime Minister admitted Labour measures risked holding back industry as he answered a blistering assault from the Confederation of British Industry.
As thousands of workers were dumped on the dole yesterday, CBI president Sir Clive Thompson produced a list of 22 rules brought in by Mr Blair which have hit business.
And in a bitter attack he told Mr Blair: 'We hear the Government frequently state that they believe in entrepreneurship and that individuals should reap the rewards of their success.
But the Government"'—
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that if a Conservative administration were in office at the moment, they would not introduce these regulations? The history behind the regulations is that the Conservative government, having signed the Single European Act, which obliged them to introduce the regulations, prevaricated and took the case to the European Court. Quite predictably, they were roundly and unambiguously defeated in the Court. Furthermore, they caused the delays in consultation. For those reasons, there have been a few hiccups in introducing the regulations. Is the noble Lord saying

1405
that, if a Conservative government had been reelected, they would not now have been introducing these regulations?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's irritation when hearing the words of his own Prime Minister being quoted to him. I cannot do better than the Prime Minister when he made his remarks and admitted that red tape was throttling British industry. Perhaps I may continue with the quotes—I know it discomforts the noble Lord, but he will have to get used to it—and I shall answer his question in time.
I quote Sir Clive Thompson's words in the Sun:
"'But the Government imposes regulations and burdens on business, increasing our costs and lowering our flexibility to respond in fast-changing markets'".
I can say to the noble Lord who intervened that Conservatives would most certainly not do that. At every turn we attempted to prevent that kind of red tape being inflicted on British industry.
Perhaps the staider words of the Daily Telegraph will appeal more to the noble Lord and his noble friends. The article reiterates the point made by the Prime Minister himself. Who am I to argue with the Prime Minister? Who indeed are the noble Lords sitting on the other side of the Chamber to argue with the Prime Minister? The Daily Telegraph reported that the Prime Minister,
"Addressing the Confederation of British Industry conference in Birmingham … acknowledged business concerns that the Government had imposed too much red tape and bureaucracy on industry since coming to power two and a half years ago…
Mr Blair underlined Labour's pro-business approach by siding with the CBI over the need to water down the European Union's Working Time Directive"
no wonder the noble Lord who intervened approves of that—
"despite a strong protest from one of the country's leading trade union leaders".
I have two preliminary questions to ask the Government. First, are our businesses going abroad for their sourcing—outwith the EU indeed, like Marks and Spencer—because at home our industry is being made less and less competitive by one government regulation after another? Secondly, do I take it from what the Prime Minister had to say to the Confederation of British Industry, especially the part about the need to water down the European Union's working time directive, that we actually likely to see another set of regulations in the future, further reducing the damaging impact of the original 1998 working time directive? That is the implication of what the Prime Minister said; and I presume that we are expected to believe the Prime Minister when he says something like that.
The regulations have had a damaging impact. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself has admitted it. By bringing forward this puny little set of regulations, the Minister has admitted it too, as he is toning down in a very minor way the original regulations introduced last summer. The damage is enormous. The estimated
1406
extra cost to British industry is £2 billion a year. The Institute of Directors was fully justified when, following the introduction of the original regulations in October last year, it said that:
"the Working Time regulations represent yet more costs and burdens on business. They restrict labour flexibility and impose costly new obligations on companies … The Working Time regulations are entirely unnecessary and can only damage competitiveness at a time when industry is being exhorted by the Government to be more competitive".
A survey by the IoD found that about half of the respondents to its questionnaire said that their overall business would be damaged by the imposition of the working time directive; a mere 3 per cent said that it would be helped. That is the background.
The regulations are very complex. The original ones are, as are the ones we have before us today. I doubt whether many small businessmen in particular have the time, and the number of cold towels needed to put round the forehead, to study the regulations or indeed the guide to the regulations.
We are discussing unmeasured time. Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to what the Guide to Working Time Regulations says about unmeasured working time. Paragraph 2.2.2 states:
"It is not possible to specify a complete list of the cases which would fall into the relevant category. The Regulations cite as examples 'managing executives or other persons with autonomous decision-taking powers, family workers or workers officiating at religious ceremonies in churches and religious communities'. However, it is important to note that these are for illustration only. It is the characteristics of a worker's activity that will determine whether the limit may be excluded".
Can the Minister help us by explaining what is meant by,
"the characteristics of a worker's activity",
showing that he might be excluded under the unmeasured working time? I thought that all time was measured, but I suppose that one must believe government documents that there is some unmeasured time.
Paragraph 2.5 of the Guide to Working Time Regulations deals with the records which employers have to keep. It states:
"The employer would need to ensure that their means of monitoring workers' working time would be adequate to highlight instances of workers working in excess of the standard working hours. The employer may need to monitor the hours worked by such workers more closely … The records must be kept for two years".
I wonder how that squares with a speech made by the Secretary of State in June. He said:
"The vast majority of individuals do not need to keep a specific record of the hours they work".
Whom do we believe: the Secretary of State or the guide?
I could depress your Lordships for the rest of the evening, if many of your Lordships are not already sufficiently depressed by the dreary affair that is happening in the other place, but I probably should not do that. However, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to one other part of the guide, because I can remember once being teased mercilessly by the Opposition about a similar kind of

1407
arrangement. I refer to the calculation of night work. Here we come to algebra, so the employer will need to have higher algebra as well. The equation is:
A/B-C
Where A is the number of hours during the applicable reference period which are normal working hours for that worker; B is the number of days during the applicable reference period; and C is the number of hours of weekly rest to which a worker is entitled under the Regulations (i.e. 24 hours for each seven days) divided by 24. (It should be noted that this is not the total amount of hours that the worker is at rest in each week. Only the hours making up the weekly rest period that the worker is entitled to under the Regulations are counted.)
It really is crystal clear, is it not?
That is the original. I now come to an example from the draft guidance. I could read out others but I shall read out only one of them. It relates to Worker E as explained in the draft guidance. I want your Lordships to listen carefully because I shall say this only once. The guidance states:
"Worker E is keen to be promoted and is working longer hours. If E is working these extra hours because he thinks it will get him promotion, then the additional time will fall within the scope of the proposed amendment as he is choosing to work the additional time. However, if it is established at E's workplace that to get promoted, one must work longer hours, the additional time would not fall within the scope of the proposed amendment because it is an implicit requirement to work longer hours".
It seems to me that E would be a fairly stupid individual if he worked extra hours to get promotion if he had absolutely no evidence that it would be of some help to him in gaining that promotion. So I wonder what all that means. What exactly does,
"if it is established at E's workplace",
mean? Does it mean that it is to be put on the notice board; does it mean that it is to be whispered around the office; what does it mean? It seems to be fairly fertile ground for a disgruntled employee who does not get promotion. When will employers get a new, preferably clearer, guide to the regulations? When will we see the next tranche of damaging limitation regulations, as was clearly promised by the Prime Minister to the CBI?
When I was coming in on the Tube this morning I noticed a headline that must have brought joy to the spin doctors of Downing Street. It said: "Tax breaks for risk takers who show enterprise". When will we see the headline: "Red tape breaks for risk takers who show enterprise"? There is absolutely no evidence that this Government will look at—or even want—that kind of headline. But that is what British industry wants.
In so far as the regulations reduce by the tiniest fraction—that tiny fraction is a saving of some £13 million on costs of £2 billion—the burden, the uncertainty and the confusion in the Government's original regulations, they are welcome, but the Government have a long way to go before they merit even one cheer on the deregulation stakes. Action is what British business needs; not kind word from the Prime Minister at the CBI conference. Weighing down commerce and industry with regulation upon regulation is no way to run a competitive European
1408
Union; it is no way to run a competitive country; it may even not be a way to run a competitive supermarket.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, it is manifestly clear that he is going for promotion! It will come as no surprise to noble Lords and to the Minister that on these Benches we disagree both with the tone and with the content of what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said. For those of us who follow debates on the economy and trade and industry in this House and in another place, one remarkable point is the air of significant depression that always comes from the Tory Benches. Last year I remember being told by the noble Lord and by his colleagues here and in another place that as a result of government action and the poor performance of the economy, the economy was going into deep recession. I remember being told that by the noble Lord on a number of occasions. But that did not happen.
The latest depressive canard that comes from the Tory Party is that the regulations which the Government have indicated are the cornerstone of their policy for employment will produce significant unemployment in this country. I hazard a prediction that that depressive indictment of the regulations will be no more true than was last year's depressive indictment from the Conservative Party that the economy was moving into recession. To that extent, I entirely disagree with the tone and substance of the noble Lord's remarks.
However, one aspect deserves a serious answer from the Minister. Over the past year, the Government have imposed an enormous number of procedures by means of regulations and directives on the employment structure of this country. I do not say that that is not right or that the measures were not required to regulate the employment position of many workers. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, when he says that he doubts very much whether the average director of a small or medium-sized business really understands the obligations that his or her business is now under. I have made this point many times when debating these issues. Will the Minister indicate the steps that the Government intend to take to make sure that the content of these and other regulations is disseminated with a clear explanation to small and medium-sized businesses in this country?
Lord Hives: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for allowing me the opportunity to speak in this debate. As one of the younger members of this House, it is a great privilege to be able to make my maiden speech—probably the last by an hereditary Peer—before I leave this place, where both my grandfather, who received the title for the work of Rolls-Royce during the Second World War, and my uncle, who was rewarded with a CBE for his services in this House, have sat before me.
The Working Time Regulations have been in place for just one year and, although the sentiment of setting a reasonable working week and holiday entitlement is important, it must be balanced against the need for the

1409
regulations to be clear and understandable to all those who are tasked with applying them. Like my grandfather, I am an engineer. Some areas within my industry have found that the regulations offer businesses the opportunity to improve employee efficiency and safety by reducing the overall hours worked. However, for the majority of other businesses, the burden of records and the responsibility for part-time employees engaged in other work has been very confusing.
I hope that with the introduction of this updated statutory instrument the Government will take the opportunity to provide clearer guidance for the operation of these regulations and the clearest lead in their implementation in smaller businesses, so that the spirit of improving business efficiency as well as improvement in health and safety for greater worker satisfaction can be met. I hope that the Minister will bear those issues in mind in regard to the draft guidance for business.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the excellent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hives. The noble Lord has a similar background to my own. I am a hands-on technical man and began my time in this House sitting on the Cross-Benches. The noble Lord is an engineer. By that, I expect he means a professional engineer, which I cannot claim to be. He has wisely chosen to sit on the Cross-Benches, where much wisdom and guidance are to be found.
Where we have fallen down in the UK is that we have not properly recognised or rewarded our engineers. It is a problem that lies within the Minister's portfolio. I am sure that this country would be in an even better state if we did so. In normal circumstances, I should say that we look forward to further contributions from the noble Lord, drawing on his expertise in the engineering industry. Unfortunately, that will not be possible. When we look across to the Cross-Benches, we see four relatively young Peers. Sadly, only two of them will be able to sit in this House next week. Whether that is modernisation or improvement I shall leave to your Lordships' judgment.
My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish spoke with his usual skill. He identified genuine difficulties with the Working Time Directive, particularly in regard to the regulation that is before the House. I shall be more specific as to my concerns. Before doing so, perhaps I may remind the House that I currently command a TA REME company and the issues that I shall raise directly affect my unit. However, these issues affect all TA units, and I should surely have been briefed and should be speaking on them even if I were no longer serving in the TA.
I first raised this matter by means of a Starred Question on 18th October. The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, admitted that the problem has not yet been solved. The Working Time Directive will affect the regular Armed Forces, but perhaps not too adversely. Operations and training are excluded and other routine work and administration are
1410
extremely unlikely to exceed 48 hours per week over a 17-week period. Moreover, there is no requirement to keep records, so there will be no extra administrative burden.
The situation is rather different for the TA and other reserve forces. As shorthand for the volunteer reserve forces I shall merely use the term "TA". My understanding is that the DTI has told the MoD that the Working Time Directive will apply to the TA. The difficulty is that a TA volunteer may already work, say, 40 hours a week for his civilian employer. His TA duties may easily take him over 48 hours per week.

The Minister may pray in aid the regulation—I believe it is Regulation 18—that exempts training and operations from the WTD calculations. However, with the TA it is extremely difficult to differentiate between training, operations and administration. That is one minor reason why the Reserve Forces Act 1996 was so desirable. Certainly when planning TA activities it would be highly undesirable to have carefully to consider the nature of the activity and its impact on the WTD.
The Minister may remind the House that the Armed Forces do not have to keep records. The problem is that if the WTD is to affect TA personnel, some records will have to be kept, and to some extent they will to have to be made available to the employer. That is obviously undesirable. It is true that employers might possibly be able to comply with their own WTD obligations by means of amendments to their payroll IT system, if they can understand the regulations. No doubt the IT companies will offer software upgrades at some cost. However, they are unlikely easily to accommodate TA training as data input. That could make the TA volunteer very unpopular with his civilian employer's management.
The problems with implementing the WTD are very serious for the TA, and there is clearly not much "joined up" government as regards the relationship between the DTI and the MoD. The solution currently proposed to the problem that I have described is for the TA volunteer to opt out of his employer's WTD arrangements. I must tell your Lordships that that is a completely unworkable arrangement.
First, many TA volunteers cannot afford to tell their employers that they are in the TA. That can often be because TA service could conflict with the ethos of their employer or because the volunteer's motivation might be misunderstood by his civilian colleagues.
Secondly, junior members of the TA generally communicate with their employers at a very low level, typically their immediate superior who may only be a junior supervisor. In addition, the public now has very little understanding of military matters and this is reflected in another place. A junior supervisor may not be aware that his company chairman has enthusiastically signed up with the TA National Employers Liaison Committee. Thus, the junior supervisor may regard the TA volunteer as a nuisance and so discriminate against the TA.

1411
Thirdly, there is the obvious question of how long the Government will maintain the opt-out provisions. Is there a time-limit envisaged?
Finally, Ministers promoting the WTD have said that most employers will have no difficulty in accommodating the WTD. I have just touched on how they might achieve that with IT systems. That being the case, many responsible employers may develop a policy of not allowing any of their employees to opt out of the WTD. Can the Minister say what will happen to the TA soldier who finds he cannot opt out of his employer's WTD for the reasons that I have suggested? Can the Minister say whether the WTD should already have been implemented in respect of the TA according to the current regulations? In other words, is the TA being operated illegally or outside the spirit of the law?
6.30 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, we heard a wide-ranging attack on the principle of the Working Time Regulations from the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I asked him whether the position was that any Conservative government would not introduce the regulations to implement the directive. He said that he would reply later in his speech, but I did not hear that reply. The answer is clear: any government in Britain, if they did not want to tear up and renege on the Single European Act, would have introduced these regulations. It would be nice if occasionally we could have something agreed on the matter.
Things have moved a long way since the debates of a couple of years ago about the Social Chapter. But if this had been done under the Social Chapter, it would have been preferable because the social partners would have been able, as we have done on such matters as fixed-term contracts and maternity leave, to have a much broader-based framework. There could have been scope for more flexibility in implementation.
However, we have had these legal battles; we have been to the European Court of Justice and it found unanimously in favour of it being a health and safety measure. So we are implementing it.
I should like to make a point about health and safety, as the matter is being discussed as a question of fundamentals. All surveys of popular workplace opinion at the moment show that working time and stress levels are at the top of most workplace agenda—not pay or any of the other matters that used to be at the top. Working time and stress are an important matter in industry and the public services at present. This measure will be widely popular. No doubt it will take a little time to settle down, but on 23rd November, when the four weeks' holiday comes in, that will be the first time many millions of workers in the country will have had four weeks' holiday, from construction sites through to many areas of retail business and so on. It will be widely popular. I do not want to make a political speech like that of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, but time will tell who reflects the popular mood in the country on the matter.
1412
In conclusion, although there have been difficulties in implementation to get us where we are, they were almost entirely due to the prevarication and legal challenge made by the previous government to the European Court of Justice. It has been a difficult process of consultation and I hope that noble Lords can appreciate that unless we tear up the Single European Act and leave Europe altogether, this is the road down which we are going, and we want to make a success of it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may put a question to him. He said that the four weeks' holiday will be widely popular. I do not doubt that. But what on earth has it to do with health and safety?
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, if one is to have any regulation on working time, it must specify a number of matters such as night work, rest periods and a minimum period of holiday. I should have thought that was self-evident.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hives, on his short and excellent maiden speech. His brevity was a model for us all. The House of Lords' loss will surely be the gain of the engineering profession. As Minister for Science, I look forward to seeing him have a highly successful career in that vitally important part of our national economy.
When the Working Time Regulations came into force over a year ago, the majority of employers were already providing at least the minimum protections and entitlements. What the regulations have done, however, is provide protection from unscrupulous employers who were able to undercut the competition by exploiting their staff.
We believe that all workers have a right to expect decent minimum standards in their terms and conditions of employment. Similarly, businesses should be able effectively to market their product without fear of being undercut by unscrupulous competition. That is why the Government are fully committed to the regulations and why we have taken action to ensure that they can be administered in the most effective way possible.
In line with the common sense of the House, I hoped that we could avoid the kind of attitude that one day says that we ought to monitor legislation to ensure that it is practical and flexible in effect, and the next day, when action is taken, says that it shows that the original legislation was totally flawed. I do not think that that is a practical, sensible way to approach legislation.
At the CBI, the Prime Minister was absolutely clear that he was referring to the amendments before us today, and no further review of the regulations is planned at present.

1413
I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, welcomed the amendments. We know of his disapproval of the basic working time directive and I am glad that he welcomed the amendments. In the 12 months that the regulations have been in force, contrary to predictions by the Opposition, the earth has not stopped turning; the universe has not disintegrated; and we have not witnessed the end of civilisation as we know it. Indeed, we have made a small contribution to civilisation by helping to end the exploitation of British workers which the previous government ignored; nor has the working time directive destroyed jobs. In the 12 months since October 1998, unemployment has continued to fall, and it has fallen by over 50 per cent since the election.
I was amazed that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, chose to take as his example of job losses a clear piece of restructuring which is taking place in the textile industry. It is common knowledge throughout the whole of industry that that relates to a redirection of policy by one major retailer in the clothing industry. It has nothing to do with this legislation and it is wrong to say that it has. It has everything to do with the industrial restructuring of that retailer.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Does he agree that it has everything to do with competitiveness? That is why the company is going to countries outwith the EU to obtain supplies.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, the process whereby underdeveloped countries with low wage costs have been competing effectively with the textile industry has gone on for 15 years. The retailer involved has stood out against the trend but now, under pressure on its profits, it must restructure. However, that has nothing to do with this legislation. No one who knows the industry would claim that that it had.
The aim of the amendments is not to save large sums of money, but to make the regulations simpler and more effective in administration. Anyone can read out employment law and make it sound amusing, and that is a happy, common pastime. If there was a piece of employment law which had the clarity of the Gettysburg address, we would all like to see it, but that is not the way of the world. The noble Lord referred to particular cases where the whole matter is complicated and difficult. I do not believe that that is so. He mentioned the question of specific records and the point made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. One does not have to keep specific records if other material provides that information. Surely, that is a sensible, pragmatic point.
The noble Lord said that employees would find it difficult to understand the situation. It is not difficult to understand that if one is required to work two hours every evening to get promotion, that is different from choosing to work at home to brush up on a presentation to be given the next day. I do not believe that that is complicated or difficult to understand.
1414
As to the clarity of the legislation, we recognise the importance of making guidance as clear and informative as possible. To date, in the region of 1 million copies of the guidance on the Working Time Regulations have been distributed. While this document remains factually correct, we believe that the time is right to produce an up-to-date version that addresses concerns that have been raised since the regulations came into force. We shall do that as soon as possible. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, we shall also consult further with the social partners once the regulations are made. That will enable us to finalise the statutory guidance, which is a central part of this, before the end of the year.
I turn next to the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. He referred to the Working Time Regulations in the context of the Territorial Army. I assure the noble Earl that the Government are acting in a joined-up way in this matter. The Ministry of Defence was fully involved in the drafting of the Working Time Regulations, and concerns about their application to the service were taken into consideration. A TA soldier can agree to opt out of the regulations as far as the TA is concerned. Such soldiers are covered by the regulations because they are deemed to be employed by the Territorial Army for the purposes of the regulations. As the Territorial Army stands as their employer, they can agree to opt out with the Territorial Army. Whether or not they tell their main employer is a matter for them, and that is a continuation of the present situation.
The Territorial Army should comply with the regulations. I cannot comment on whether it does so at the moment; I have insufficient information on that matter. However, the amendments before us can only make the situation easier for the TA. If the clarification that I have sought to give has not totally answered the noble Earl, my noble friend Lady Symons will be happy to have a meeting with him to deal with any issues that the noble Earl believes remain outstanding.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The real question is: what happens if a TA soldier is unable for one reason or another to opt out of his employer's arrangements under the Working Time Directive?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Symons is happy to discuss that matter with the noble Earl. If the soldier works for another employer and serves with the TA on a voluntary basis, he can opt out of these particular regulations. That is how the situation is dealt with. However, I am aware that my noble friend is happy to discuss the matter further with the noble Earl, if necessary.
In essence, the Working Time Regulations are about providing fair and decent minimum standards and entitlements for all workers, and in this respect they have been extremely effective. These amendments will not weaken the measures but improve their application. The important point to remember is that those who want to be covered by the regulations can

1415
still be so covered. This is merely common sense and reduces the burdens on employers without impacting on the right of workers to be protected by the regulations. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Arts and Sport
6.44 p.m.
The Earl of Clancarty The Earl of Clancarty rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they believe the arts and sport relate to the issue of "social exclusion".
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I start by saying how much I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Shaftesbury.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will permit me to intervene. He chose his words very carefully. My noble friend Lord Gavron is on the list to make a maiden speech. I am afraid that it is all my fault. He is an old friend of mine. I know how expert he is in the arts and I tried to encourage him to make a maiden speech. I thought that I had succeeded and put down his name. I had not succeeded. I apologise to him and to the House for that slip.
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification.
It is certainly time that the concept of social exclusion was tackled in debate. The idea of social exclusion, whatever the term may mean—it may mean a number of things—seems to be one of the most crucial in current government thinking. It is surprising that as a concept it has not yet been more widely discussed either in the media or in Parliament.
Just under two years ago the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, asked the Government about the terms of reference of the newly-established Social Exclusion Unit. In the course of a long Written Answer he was told:
"Social exclusion is a shorthand label for what can happen when individuals or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown". —[Official Report, 9/12/97; col. WA20.]
Does the Minister say that that is still a reasonable definition of "social exclusion", or has the definition recently changed—perhaps it has shifted or broadened—in some way? I ask this because "social exclusion" and "access" together now appear to be the two concepts which most permeate thinking and policy in the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. If that is so, what is the association between these two ideas? If access is about a concern for broader and different audiences it is clear that we are also talking about social exclusion as something which may affect all classes or parts of society: exclusion by race, gender, disability and so on.
From the definition that I have quoted, social exclusion is characterised primarily by what are perceived to be the marginal or poorest parts of
1416
society. In this respect the present Government have extremely laudable aims in combating what they perceive as social exclusion by funding government schemes or by indirectly encouraging smaller-scale projects at local community level. I mention a recent visit by me, at the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Listowel, along with my noble friend Lord Freyberg, to Buffy House, which is a hostel near Kensington, Olympia, run and funded by Centrepoint, where we were shown the art workshop organised by the remarkably energetic and enthusiastic Jaime Bautista. Each year it participates in an exhibition of work in the crypt at St Martin-in-the-Fields organised by the St Martin's Social Care Unit. Certainly, given the present level of homelessness this is one of the very few such projects in London which need a real input from government in the form of finance.
Local projects are cited in Policy Action Team 10's report to the Social Exclusion Unit on arts and sport. One widely quoted project is a housing estate in the North West where the incidence of crime dropped from 44 to six per month following the introduction of a community football scheme. There are many similar ongoing local community-based schemes across the country involving sport and different cultural activities. Such schemes which reduce crime can only be for the good.
I live on a council estate in north London where there are two playgrounds, one of which is used every night for football. It has never occurred to me that these playgrounds keep down crime, although in effect I suppose that they do. The playgrounds have always been there. They were built as part of the estate in the 1970s. I believe that I and other residents simply see them as normal, essential parts of the estate facilities. If they had been provided afterwards the Government could probably have cited them on their list of schemes. That starts to raise in my mind questions about the degree to which initiatives should be, or should have been, an inherent part of the structure in the first place; or that new schemes become an organic part of the way a local community naturally develops according to its own requirements, according to the desires of the local residents, before the symptoms of frustration such as crime have set in; and how facilities once in place need to be maintained in good order by the community or by those immediately responsible for the local community such as the local councils.
In that respect, the most recent poor responses of councils to the desires and feelings of local people spring to mind easily. The actions of councils such as those of Westminster City Council this year in cutting community funding are examples of social exclusion. The current problems of the public library in Lewisham are another case in point. As with Camden, the feelings of the local communities are simply being ignored. It seems to me that that is as much a basic problem as any ultimate decisions over library closures—wrong indeed as such closures are.
In many ways the central problem of the issue is the treatment of social exclusion in relation to the exclusive nature of society as a whole. It is of course classic socialist thinking to believe that the arts are

1417
primarily an instrument for curing society's ills even though the policy action team's report goes out of its way to insist also—I emphasise the word "also"—on the independent significance of the arts. But that is not true either. The Government assume art and sport in a sense to be original agents: to treat them as though they have emerged from nowhere. Yet art and sport among other cultural effects are already entangled within society. Social exclusion is a dominant, perhaps the dominant, characteristic within our society and therefore within culture. Cultural activities themselves are already implicated in the process of exclusion. What perhaps we should be addressing, as well as the local symptoms, is the exclusionary nature of the tenets of our society as a whole.
To exemplify this, where I think that the Government seem to come unstuck in their thinking, or at least incomplete in their appraisal, is in the contradiction that exists between the desire for involving those at the margins of society in arts and sport and the encouragement of business at other levels—for example, the creative industries. In the Government's own thinking there is a separation. In terms of sport we can, for instance, look at the now immense wealth of certain of the Premier League football clubs and the development at that end where the emphasis is on economic success rather than anything to do with community.
What effect, for example, does that have on the smaller local clubs where, from a governmental perspective, the moral emphasis is on shared community values, yet market forces will never be far away?
There is a parallel here with the star system in art where a lot of money chases a relatively small number of known artists who are either kept in London or are sucked into London and away from the regions. In a sense, where the art stars tend now to win out, apart from financially, is that they escape the "social" function of art operating at the local level: that is to say, the governmental policy towards the arts filtered down through the regional arts boards' criteria for funding individual artists' projects. Increasingly, artists have to think their way around this situation to obtain the grants to do the projects that they want to do, or to continue the work that they are already engaged in, with whatever individual intentions there might exist behind that work. Such intentions may be extraordinarily diverse and that diversity is in itself a contribution to society. Yet despite that contribution, the effect of the system is that the great majority of artists work at or below the poverty line which is in itself an example of social exclusion.
The principle at work here in society is the operation of the free market which, to adapt the Government's own terms, excludes possibilities for the many in favour of the few. The Government instruct the local levels of cultural activity to take part in the curative process. Yet most money goes to the business end of those activities.
1418
I asked at the beginning of the debate what was the relationship between social exclusion and access. This Government, perhaps society as a whole see access primarily in terms of the consumption of information as the key to knowledge—a trend very much embodied and supported by the information revolution with all the benefits that that supplies. That is "external access". But what remains I think largely unrecognised is the individual person as a primary source of knowledge which comes from their being in the world. Individuals are producers as well as consumers of knowledge. Without considering the nature of this access, an access to an innate knowledge of the world, one can make only the crudest interpretations of how people visit museums, for instance, among many other activities. The denial of that as a possibility is in some ways the most significant form of social exclusion.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to thank my noble friend Lord Clancarty for initiating this important and timely debate on the contribution which arts and sport can make towards social inclusion. Like my noble friend, I too look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Shaftesbury.
On a personal note, I should like also to take the opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Clancarty for the significant contribution he has made to debate in this House on the arts and in particular on museums and galleries. His passionate campaigning on these issues and others has been a great inspiration to me and I am extremely sorry that this is the last debate in which we shall both be participating.
My noble friend has already told the House what the Social Exclusion Unit of the Cabinet Office defines as social exclusion; I shall not repeat it. However, we have both been exercised on the subject of access to museums, particularly free access; and I think that we both agree that museums have a useful part to play in tackling social issues, and that they must welcome every section of society.
On 12th October, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport confirmed in his speech to the Social Inclusion Conference that social inclusion is thought to be key across the whole of government and will be of increasing importance to his department. What I hope that he will enlarge on in future is the number of ways museums can be drawn on to help the disadvantaged in our society.
There is a growing recognition of that in government circles, but it has not always been so. The Policy Action Team 10, which reported earlier this year on arts and sport to the Social Exclusion Unit, made surprisingly little reference to the role of museums in creating social inclusion. I understand that this omission has been addressed and I hope that the group that has now been set up to advise the DCMS on this area of policy will be able to redress any previous imbalance.
Today museums are no longer perceived merely to be repositories of valuable artefacts, although they of course hold a wealth of wonderful things and must

1419
continue to be bastions of scholarship. Nor is a visit to a museum considered to be the civilising ritual it was in Victorian England. Museums, however, play an important role in our communities. They give individuals knowledge of their cultural identity, an awareness of their traditions and, I hope, enormous pleasure and pride.
Walsall Museum and Art Gallery is an inspiring example of a museum which has successfully made the transition from Victorian municipal museum to paragon of contemporary best practice. Established in 1892, and about to open in a new, exciting building, the museum has gained a reputation aver the past eight years for its pioneering new approaches to exhibition programming and interpretation of its collections. It aspires, in the words of its director, Peter Jenkinson, to be a,
"national model of accessibility in the arts".
Walsall's recent education projects have ranged from the lowest technologies—jigsaw puzzles and 3D construction models—through to the higher technologies of multi-media, video animation and video conferencing. Collections and exhibitions have been explored in a number of exciting and innovative ways, through commissioned music, dance and writing, as well as through the works of many visual artists. Such ground-breaking approaches must be built on and nurtured if our museums are to continue to inspire and attract new audiences.
But none of these new things can be done unless museums can afford to take risks. Museums have extremely limited financial resources and yet they need to be able to test out new and innovative ideas. This is why schemes such as the Heritage Lottery Fund's Museums and Galleries Access Fund are important. The fund exists:
"to support museums and galleries which are developing innovative, exciting and imaginative approaches in making their collections accessible to the widest possible audience".
Through this scheme, the Heritage Lottery Fund is specifically encouraging museums to work with groups that they are not traditionally associated with such as prisoners and victims of drug abuse. It is also aiming to fund projects that include groups such as the disabled and those from ethnic minorities. In addition, museums are able to apply for grants towards the cost of touring their collections to other venues, enabling audiences to look at works that they have had little opportunity to see before. Clearly, pioneering schemes such as these will have to be evaluated in order to make sure that the best ones continue and the least successful ones are dropped. It is hoped that other museums can then learn which projects might best suit them.
Museums can do much to ensure that they are equipped to provide the broadest possible access to the services they offer. They need to work in partnership with other organisations and, in particular, with specialist agencies, using a range of workshops and activities to engage people with their collections. Such agencies can act as a bridge with previously unknown audiences.
1420
In broad terms, I am encouraged by what has so far been achieved in this area. I hope that the Government will continue to support new ways of breaking down barriers between museums and the communities that they serve.
7 p.m.
The Earl of Shaftesbury: My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords for this dramatic last-minute but not opportunistic maiden speech. Although I inherited my title 30 years ago and have attended spasmodically, particularly during the early 1970s when we rigorously debated the Industrial Relations Bill and the European Community Bill of Accession, both in Committee and on Report until extremely late at night, my heart has not entirely been in the thrust and cut of politics, unlike my more distinguished ancestors.
In fact, building a society the Shaftesbury way is not a matter of imprisoning a presumed evil spirit of mankind. It is a matter of beauty and truth. Both Goethe and Voltaire were influenced by the third. Lord Shaftesbury. The former particularly reminded us that we must cultivate our garden. We all know about large prize-winning marrows, but are not succulent baby courgettes more perfect? Small is beautiful too.
However, the size of the arts grant in the United Kingdom is scarcely large. I have been fortunate enough to have had first-hand experience with the London Philharmonic Orchestra for 16 years and more, as well as the International Musicians' Seminar for Chamber Music in Cornwall founded in the early 1970s by Sandor Vegh, the eminent Hungarian violinist and teacher. I always struggled to find sufficient funds for these magnificent organisations. Maybe only the late noble Baroness, Lady Jennie Lee, gave us any hope and impetus. I recall branding her wisdom and enthusiasm at a reception speech in the Royal Festival Hall as the goose that laid the golden egg. Unfortunately, as so often has happened, her endeavours were then two steps forward, to be followed by three backwards, to the arts' world's consternation.
I also collect paintings by living modern artists in a modest fashion. I believe that all noble Lords acquire contemporary literature. The problem seems to lie with marginalised and struggling artists who often, particularly in the case of musicians, spend long hours travelling to work and cannot afford decent instruments and have no pension rights or plans. Shoestring budgets can sometimes produce healthy and excellent art: I do agree, but they can also fall beneath a dignified quantum.
For example, all musicians at a rehearsal of a new commission or work recognise immediately whether it should be aired in public or whether it is unworthy of a performance. Even Gustav Mahler and the Vienna Philharmonic imbued this recognition as a musical necessity, a striving for purity.
I wondered whether the Treasury should not be prompted to look again at means of devising tax breaks, especially for writers whose output can span years and yet, if successful, they are forced to pay to the

1421
Inland Revenue even greater sums of tax, as if their onerous opus had been created in a single financial year. I recognise that this matter has been aired before, but these very difficult situations must be addressed if artists are to benefit. There must be a decent way forward since there is so much natural talent to be harnessed; or do we wait for an after-life? I remain concerned.
One of the best sermons I have ever been privileged to hear was by the late Bishop of Winchester. Social exclusion? He said virtually that if one sheep from a flock of 100 goes missing, the good shepherd worries frantically about that single sheep until it is safely found. There are too many sheep, men, women and children, being marginalised. John the Baptist had the answer: why do we not? I remain concerned in these turbulent times, but thank you for your patience. It has been my privilege to be able to speak in your Lordships' House.
7.8 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords I warmly congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Shaftesbury, on his excellent maiden speech. The noble Earl was Chairman of the London Philharmonic Orchestra Council for many years and has been Honorary President of the Shaftesbury Society since 1961. His contribution this afternoon reflects his enormous experience in these matters. We very much regret that this will be his last contribution.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for calling the debate. I hope that your Lordships will permit me a few further words of thanks to my noble friend on the eve of his departure from the House. His thorough knowledge of Parliament and his independent-mindedness has been a great help to me as I have sought to find my feet during the past year. It is tragic that in him we have lost one of the few younger Peers; one of the very few regular attenders with a concurrent career as a fine artist and one who in just three years has developed an expert knowledge of procedure in this House.
I shall concentrate on one socially excluded group; rough sleepers. They are the homeless who sleep on the streets. Louise Casey, head of the Government's Rough Sleepers Unit, is soon to publish her strategy for achieving the Government's target of a reduction to one third in the number of rough sleepers by 2002. She believes it is essential that rough sleepers become engaged in meaningful activity.
Two of the activities these people find most rewarding are art and sport. Very often, rough sleeping is the result of inadequate parenting and a consequent difficulty in forming and keeping close attachments to people or places. The best experience of rough sleepers' lives may be the esprit de corps found on the street with drinking mates or in the illegally occupied house with heroin addicted friends. Art can be a way of finding something better to replace that experience. Making art allows rough sleepers to express themselves as they have never been able.
1422
The most damaged of these people have felt ignored throughout their lives. Indeed, those who study child development describe those begging and sleeping in the street as forcing us to pay attention to them. Their situation results partly from the need to dramatise their own experience of neglect and rejection. But in art, they have the opportunity to enjoy public attention in a constructive rather than a harmful context. Art teachers pay close attention to their work and do not seek to judge it but simply to help the person express himself.
Some of this work is exhibited. At the preview, the artists are invited to stand up and speak about their work. They are applauded. Their work may also appear in a magazine, such as SMART, the publication produced by Jaime Bautista in London and looking for funding for its third edition. So the person who needed to be on the street to feel noticed finds that notice through his creative work.
Furthermore, in the course of their efforts rough sleepers learn skills which may later earn them employment. For example, one now has a contract as a designer with a renowned advertising agency. In addition, a rapport is built up between the art maker and his teacher. Such intimacies are extremely valuable in healing people who find relating to others difficult. Often, the art teachers give of their private time because of the care that they have for the individuals concerned.
I hope that the Government will consider providing proper training and support for such teachers as part and parcel of making art accessible to the socially excluded. Once an intimacy is established by a vulnerable person, it needs to be sustained. If broken because the teacher has become emotionally exhausted, that may simply confirm the vulnerable person's sense of worthlessness.
I should like to pay tribute to Jaime Bautista, who for 19 years has led art workshops in hostels for rough sleepers in London. He has established an annual exhibition of the art work produced, as described by my noble friend Lord Clancarty. He now produces the magazine, SMART, showcasing art by the homeless. I hope that the Government will consider the funding of art teachers and art materials as part of the rough sleepers strategy for the next three years.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, from noble Lords who thought that they had heard my parting words yesterday I beg indulgence. When I arrived at the House this morning, I noticed the noble Earl's extremely interesting Question on the Order Paper and I am grateful to him for enabling me to indulge my other great passions, sport and Everton Football Club. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Foundation for Sport and the Arts and as a director of Everton Football Club.
I greatly enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Shaftesbury. I found it most interesting. His contribution was particularly pertinent.

1423
Sport and the arts can play an extremely important role in tackling some of the problems associated with social exclusion and deprivation. Participating, especially in team games, can be instrumental in integrating communities, building confidence and pride and creating a feeling of worth. The Foundation for Sport and the Arts, funded by the football pool companies, was set up to enhance the quality of life for the community generally through the funding of sports and the arts at every level, regardless of competence. It aims to encourage outstanding initiative, enterprise and creativity, with the main thrust targeted at community participation and the grass roots. Particular regard is paid to promoting equal opportunities. Access to premises and membership must not be denied by reason of ethnic derivation or gender, with due regard paid to the needs of the disabled.
The foundation identifies worthy projects in sound hands and puts money into them. Since 1991, £320 million has been awarded in grant aid. In the financial year to April 1999, some 1,800 projects were grant-aided to a total of £8.1 million. Trustees are convinced that they have influenced an integration in the community in many areas of sport and the arts.
Noble Lords may wonder what Everton, a Premier League football club, has to do with social exclusion. All football clubs throughout the domestic leagues are concerned with their identification and integration within the local community. Young people identify with their team's stars, and football recognises that it has responsibilities and a role to play in their development. This can be of particular significance in inner city areas.
At Everton Football Club, we realise that if we are to compete at the top, the sports pyramid must be firmly established with a sound and extensive base. The youth programme, as part of the FA Premier League's programme of fostering excellence for the future, has as its objective the identification and encouragement of footballing talent throughout the development of the personality of the young person from the age of nine. Underpinning this extensive youth programme, the Football in the Community scheme at Everton employs six full-time community officers who, together with sponsors and Sportsmatch undertake many coaching and educational sessions with local schools, with the emphasis on ethnic minorities.
Everton recently launched Showing Racism the Red Card, involving many of the first team squad as part of the Kick Racism out of Football campaign of the Commission for Racial Equality. We expect to be the first Premier League club to implement all nine points of the action plan in order to ensure that racism has no place at Everton.
These schemes form part of the wider picture of football's responsibility and underline the determination that the forthcoming international between England and Scotland should not suffer disruption, as witnessed in Dublin between England and Ireland. I trust that the whole House will join with
1424
me in supporting the measures introduced by the various authorities to ensure the media only report a footballing occasion as England builds its campaign to host the 2006 World Cup.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I previously declared an interest in your Lordships' House as the vice chairman of the Government's Football Task Force. I hope that when the task force has concluded its work and published its final report, I shall have the good fortune to address the House again and perhaps at slightly greater length than I am permitted tonight.
Meanwhile, I crave your Lordships' indulgence for allowing me to intervene in the debate. I shall do so briefly. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for initiating the debate and I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Shaftesbury, on his fascinating maiden speech. I am pleased also to follow my noble friend Lord Grantchester, who speaks with such authority on the subjects of the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, and the role of Everton Football Club.
I shall discuss briefly the ways in which foot ball can play a part in tackling problems of social exclusion, which was the subject of the task force's third report, Investing in the Community, published earlier this year. The report states:
"Football is unique among sports in the positive influence it can have on the lifestyle choices of young people. Young boys who are disruptive and under-achieve at school are often those who are involved in crime and anti-social behaviour out of school hours. They have few interests—but football is usually one of them. Organisations that work with disenfranchised young people see the value of building on this interest and using it to stimulate an interest in learning or provide a distraction from crime".
The report was prepared following an extensive programme of visits to 10 major cities in England, where the task force members took evidence from local people during the day and held open meetings in the evening for anyone who wanted to come along to express an opinion. Our report describes a number of schemes. The oldest and best established is the Football in the Community Scheme set up in 1986 and run by the Footballers' Further Education and Vocational Training Society, with the support and active involvement of all the main authorities in the game. Its original purposes were: to provide employment and training for unemployed people; to promote closer links between clubs and the community; to involve minority and ethnic groups in social and recreational activities; to attempt to prevent acts of hooliganism and vandalism, and to maximise the use of the facilities at the football club.
Such schemes are in place at 86 of the 92 professional clubs. My noble friend Lord Grantchester informed us of the good work at Everton in that respect. Research carried out last year found that 80 per cent of community officers saw involving young people in football activities—on school holiday coaching courses, through organising games and tournaments, and by bringing the game into the classroom, and so on—as the most important part of their job.

1425
The task force particularly commended the schemes at Leicester City for tackling racism, at Manchester City for drug awareness, at Sheffield United for working with local people to promote a leisure park in the most deprived part of the city, and at Wolverhampton Wanderers, which pioneered the idea of "midnight leagues" to encourage youngsters to play sport, rather than to hang around street corners late at night.
We were also greatly impressed by the work being carried out by the National Association for the Care and Rehabilitation of Offenders in the Salford Football Community Link Project. This involves 1,000 young people and over 100 adult volunteers in running football teams on high crime estates, particularly those affected by vandalism, under-age drinking and drug abuse. That scheme, as your Lordships may remember, was visited by Mr Eric Cantona as part of his community service after his conviction for assaulting a fan at Crystal Palace. Both NACRO and the local police heap praise on the scheme, and say that on an estate in Pendlebury where there are particular problems, the number of reported incidents of anti-social behaviour was reduced as a direct result. It is important for such schemes to be encouraged because they demonstrate the part that football can play in tackling social exclusion.
7.23 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we are all grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. It is a particular pleasure for me because the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, who sits beside him, have played an important part in many of our recent debates on the arts. It has been a great pleasure for me to take part in those debates with them. The noble Earl will not be with us for much longer, which is sad. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, like myself, is fortunate in that he will continue to be with us for a while. I hope that we shall take part in other debates on the arts in the future together with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. In that respect, it is both a sad and happy evening.
The maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Shaftesbury, displayed uncommon charm and colour. That has been a quality of many maiden speeches in your Lordships' House from both life and hereditary Peers. In my 15 years in the House I have never had occasion to see life and hereditary Peers as anything other than the same. But we now go our separate ways.
The noble Earl began by asking, rightly, what the definition of "social exclusion" was. I hope that he will permit me to amplify the remarks he made. To me and I believe to most noble Lords social exclusion is one of the greatest ills in our society. It is an ill not only of our society but of other industrial countries. The list of other ills that spring from social exclusion is endless. Unemployment is an obvious one. Others are disability, racism, addiction, crime and illiteracy. It is of great credit to the Government that since they have
1426
been in power they have taken great steps in all departments to tackle this problem in our society. We support all the steps that they have taken.
I hope that the Minister will tell us more about his department's work in this respect, in particular the work resulting from the reports of Policy Action Team 10 and of the Social Exclusion Unit. In the few minutes available to me I should like to concentrate on one aspect of social exclusion which I did not include in the list that I gave. It is one of the most worrying and pernicious issues and I believe that in expressing that view I have the support of the Prime Minister and probably of most noble Lords. That issue is child poverty.
With child poverty at its current levels in this country one cannot build anything. Of course there is a relationship, implicit in our debate, between social exclusion and the arts and sport, but how can we bring more people into those areas, which are, after all, the areas concerned with enriching people's lives in all civilised societies, if child poverty exists at today's levels? The Prime Minister says that he is going to halve the level of child poverty in 10 years. I have great faith in his determination to do so, and he will certainly have every support from these Benches and from the party which I represent.
I was interested to see that only yesterday a Treasury policy paper was published, as was another important part of the Chancellor's pre-Budget report, which dealt specifically and directly with the issue of child poverty. The report recognised the importance of the voluntary sector. I have a personal interest in that sector because I have been connected with the work of what used to be called the Pre-School Playgroups Association—it is now called the Pre-School Learning Alliance—which has been a leader in the voluntary sector dealing with the problems of children outside the normal net of nursery school education. Those children often live in extreme poverty, often with a lone parent.
The Government have taken very seriously the work of the voluntary sector in this area. I am delighted that that is so, in particular on behalf of the Pre-School Learning Alliance. That group was a conspicuous sufferer as a result of the fall-out from the disastrous nursery voucher system. Effectively, that made it possible for the maintained sector to poach funds which were available to the voluntary sector, upon which the Pre-School Learning Alliance depended. That issue was followed up to some extent when the present Government came to power, and it was addressed in yesterday's remarks. I am delighted about that, as is, I know, that particular voluntary group. Focus will now be concentrated on the effective areas in the voluntary sector which deal with child poverty.
As many of your Lordships know, playgroups have filled an important gap in the education system. They have provided opportunities for children who are excluded by poverty from the earlier stages of education, and they have also benefited the parents, bringing them into a level of activity which enables

1427
them to learn, progress and enrich their lives and those of their children in a way which often, unhappily, is still impossible for many.
In summing up, again I congratulate the Government. Apart from anything else, I like to see departments working together. I may be naive; I always thought that departments did work together until I came into this House 15 years ago, and I now know that that is a rare thing. However, I believe that it is now happening, to the benefit of us all. It is rare for me to praise the Government in such extravagant terms, but I believe that progress is now being made. If the Government get this right, we shall no longer need to have a debate in exactly the same terms as those raised by the noble Earl this evening. A great number of people who are excluded from enjoying the enriching area of arts and sport will be able to do so to the benefit of the country as a whole.
7.32 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, it is a courtesy in this House that noble Lords thank the Peer who has introduced the debate. Like other noble Lords, I do so tonight with heart as well as mind. Other noble Lords have expressed their appreciation of the way in which the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, has introduced difficult topics for the House to consider. He has always spoken about them with independent mindedness and with forensic attention, which I have found extremely valuable. He will be much missed. I thank also my noble friend Lord Shaftesbury for the opportunity he took to make his maiden speech this evening. It may, indeed, be late in the day but, thank goodness, not too late.
I feel I cannot do justice to this subject in such a short debate, but I shall attempt to flag up some of what. I believe to be the main issues. The Policy Action Team report states that:
"Participation in the arts and sport has a beneficial impact. They can build confidence and encourage strong community groups".
I believe that there will be broad agreement on that. But I feel that a controversial question underlies this debate. What should be the Government's role in promoting social inclusion and what is their definition of the kind of society that they believe to be acceptable?
In the past, totalitarian states at both extremes of the political spectrum have used the arts to promote social uniformity, and sports to promote national supremacy. Therefore, when we talk about the reduction or elimination of social exclusion, we must all always be aware that we may be treading a fine line between social prescription and social enrichment.
The second danger is that it is tempting to tackle the issue of social exclusion only by targeting policies or activity at neighbourhoods and to overlook the individuals elsewhere.
The third danger is that as soon as one starts to talk about using arts and sport as a vehicle for promoting social inclusion, one is at risk of treating them as therapies, not as disciplines of excellence. One must
1428
take the greatest care to ensure that the arts and sport are seen as valuable in themselves and not just valuable if they deliver social order and prosperity. In promoting them as something that we all can do, we must not forget to promote them, too, as something that only some people can do very well.
I believe that voluntary organisations have led the way in grasping those difficult issues and in getting the balance right. There are many examples of their success, some of which we have already heard about this evening. I should like to quote just two.
Noble Lords will be familiar with the work of the NABC—Clubs for Young People. Its president is a Cross-Bencher in this House—the noble Lord, Lord Inchyra. It is one of the largest, longest-established, national voluntary youth organisations in the UK. It is a club and activity-based organisation which supports over 2,000 affiliated clubs and serves the needs of more than 350,000 young people. Its diverse programme of youth work helps its young members to take their place in society as responsible citizens—whatever their ability may be—having reached their full potential.
Earlier this year I visited one of its clubs. It is situated in Old Pye Street, Victoria, just a few hundred yards away from this House. It was full of good-natured noise and energy directed at activity which the young people thoroughly enjoyed. There was everything from line dancing to kick boxing. The young girl doing the kick boxing certainly left me impressed—not physically, I hasten to add!
I have, of course, also been impressed by the work of the National Playing Fields Association, to which I have referred in previous debates. I declare an interest as an honorary appeal patron to its millennium appeal. The association launched its millennium centre project to provide a series of community facilities, rather like village halls, in high density urban areas throughout the UK, run by the community for the community. By next year, there will be 10 centres across the UK from Glasgow to Hackney. Each of those centres will provide facilities which are sorely needed for play, sports and hobbies—a vast variety of activities. 'They will also provide activities such as midnight basketball, which has reduced street crime in American cities by between 30 per cent and 70 per cent. In essence, that late-night recreation scheme—rather like the football scheme already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester—is designed to appeal to young people at a time of day when they are vulnerable. It keeps them both safe and out of trouble. It also provides them with learning opportunities.
Those are just two examples of voluntary organisations which work in this field. That work is invaluable to the welfare of society and individuals now and in the future.
But what of the vision projected by the Policy Action Team report and the Government's response? Time permits me only to dip my toes into the waters of this report, but I suspect that even if I waded in, I should not get very far. However, when I read the summary of recommendations on pages 9 to 19 (the pages are not numbered, so I apologise to noble Lords

1429
for having to describe them in detail), I soon realised that we were in familiar waters as far as concerns the Government. Generally, no quantifiable targets are set out by the team and the time-scales are very loose. Out of 44 recommendations, 25 are set merely as "ongoing". Therefore, measurement of progress becomes impossible.
I have a few questions for the Minister about the recommendations. Page 55 refers to European Union activity. It states that the DCMS should,
"seek to ensure the more systematic use of [EC] Agenda 2000 [regeneration] funds to support arts/sports projects promoting neighbourhood renewal".
Is that on the agenda for the EU Cultural Council meeting on 23rd November and, if not, why not? Perhaps other discussions have taken place. If so, I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that.
Where a time-scale is set of three, six or 12 months—as is the case with regard to some recommendations—can the Minister say what is the start date from which we count that time? Is it from the publication of the report last July, or from some other date?
I should like to give three examples of where target dates are set. Page 11 states that the DETR should consult on a revised draft of PPG17 (Sport and Recreation) by the end of October 1999. Is that consultation complete? If so, when can we expect the results to be published? On page 13, the DCMS is advised that it:
"should ensure that neighbourhood renewal issues are on the initial agenda and strategies of the new DCMS regional cultural consortiums, and that the consortiums properly involve the commercial culture/leisure sector".
That is within one year, but from when? Page 14 states:
"When developing its sports strategy DCMS should ensure that the benefits of participation in sport can be shared by people from all groups in society".
That is a laudable objective. It states that that should be achieved within six months; but six months from what occasion?
Publication of the sports strategy is already many months overdue; so much so that several of the leading sports bodies have gone ahead and published their own. The strategy document, A Partnership for Sport, recently published by the Central Council for Physical Recreation, and put together by the governing bodies of swimming, cricket, football, lawn tennis, rugby and athletics, highlights a fundamental flaw in the Government's approach so far. It states:
"Government has not been able to decide whether its remit for sport is an issue of health, education, culture or social inclusion".
That is the problem for all of us in looking at issues of both arts and sport. When the Government have made their decision, I am sure that all noble Lords will look forward to analysing it.
7.41 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is a sad as well as a happy occasion; sad because noble Lords who have taken part will no longer be with us but happy because they have been able to do so and
1430
because the result has been such a constructive debate. It has been notable also for the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Shaftesbury. Perhaps I may say immediately that anybody who names Jennie Lee has friends on these Benches. As the noble Earl probably remembers, she was in some ways an impossible woman. However, she was also remarkable for her involvement with the Open University and was probably the best Minister for the Arts this country has ever had. It was marvellous to hear the noble Earl paying tribute to her amidst his references to Keats, Voltaire, vegetable marrows and courgettes, which I very much enjoyed.
Let me say where I come from on this. I shall not say that everything in the garden is lovely, even though it is not a Westphalian garden. In the early seventies, as a member of the Greater London Council, I was roped in to what was called "The Spitalfields Project" before Spitalfields became largely Bangladeshi. The theory behind that project was, "What is wrong with deprived areas is the lack of co-ordination between departments and different levels of local authorities". The Department of the Environment, the Greater London Council, the Inner London Education Authority and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets all got together and asked, "Can we all act together in cooperation rather than separately?" That sounded fine. We had a small group of members surrounded by an enormous group of officials from various bodies, probably numbering 50. We had meetings and a budget over a period of three years. At the end of that time we had carried out some useful work. We had built children's playgrounds, converted buildings for community use, provided traffic calming schemes and all sorts of good things.
At the public meeting held at the end of the project—we held our meetings in public—I was sitting at the table when an old lady came up and plonked a lump of mouldy bread in front of me. She said, "It's all very well you lot tinkering around the edges. What's wrong with this place is that we do not have decent dry homes to live in, which is why my bread is mouldy, and we do not have proper jobs". Fundamentally, that set me against pilot projects, demonstration projects and area projects which are and have been used by governments in the past as an excuse for not tackling the major issues.
The key to combating social exclusion is to make government programmes work more effectively to solve the basic problems faced by those who feel most excluded. That is why the main government strategy for social exclusion features on health, crime, education and employment. I should add to that, from my own interest, housing. That does not represent a sidelining of the arts and sport but is a major opportunity for them to help on the ground: to get people fitter, improve their employment prospects and to divert those committing petty crime.
That is why social inclusion is a key initiative across government. It is remarkable that this is the first debate to be held in either House, not just on social exclusion and arts and sport but on social exclusion at all. There has been no proper debate in either House

1431
before today on this absolutely vital subject. I confirm that the early definition of social inclusion given by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, still applies. However, I do not place much faith in definitions. It is what we do with them that really matters.
The aim here is to address poverty and to give opportunities to everybody. I hope I can show in the limited time available that the way to achieve that is by the approaches being taken across government, in all departments, to ensure protection throughout life. We have mentioned child poverty. We have not talked much about pensioners, but we could have done, and everybody in between. Measures for families do not come under the category of social exclusion but perhaps they should. I refer to the working families' tax credit which helps families get back to work; the National Child Care Strategy; Sure Start; education and initiatives to reduce truancy and exclusion; the education action zones and the commitment to nursery education of one kind or another for the under-fives, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred. I refer also to employment and the new deals to help people back into work. They start with the under-25s, go on to the over 50s and, as a result of announcements yesterday, are being extended beyond that.
The Social Exclusion Unit, set up by the Prime Minister on the initiative of No. 10 Downing Street, based in the Cabinet Office, is working on projects including the strategy for neighbourhood renewal, reducing teenage pregnancy and improving participation and achievement in learning by 16 to 18 year-olds. In the area of crime there is the setting up of youth offending teams. There is also the vital objective of reducing health inequalities and standards of care and, for all these departments, strengthening communities. I refer not to initiatives by one department but those which involve all departments in local partnerships, giving control of regeneration initiatives to local communities. I should refer to rough sleepers, mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who, as he knows, are a particular focus of one of the reports of the Social Exclusion Unit.
I turn to the role of arts and sport. The Policy Action Team 10 has been referred to by a number of speakers. It was set up by the Social Exclusion Unit and led by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I do not like to disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, but he described it as a socialist theory of art that it should be there to cure society's ills. I should love to debate socialist aesthetics with him at some stage, from Engels to Luckács to John Berger. However, that is not the way I see it and not the way I believe it is seen by modern democratic socialists. We see excellence in the arts as being their own objective. We do not see them having their basis in social purpose. I am more of the Louis Dudebat school in "The Doctor's Dilemma" than I am of curing society's ills.
Having said that, what we find already existing in government is that culture, leisure and heritage, in the broader sense, have a valuable role to play in neighbourhood renewal. There are numerous examples. I could take up an entire speech with
1432
examples. For instance, in relation to improved health we have the culture-sensitive provisions made by Hounslow Borough Council's Community Recreation Outreach team; in education we have the work of the Hartcliffe Boys' Dance Company in Bristol; in relation to reducing crime we have the education programme of the Galleries of Justice in Nottingham.
While I am on the subject of museums, I can advise the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, whose examples of Walsall were welcome, that the Museums and Galleries Social Inclusion Group, which is due to report to Ministers by February of next year, had its first meeting at DCMS this morning. I am sure that the noble Lord will be interested in its conclusions after the study.
Participation in cultural and leisure activities, like amateur dramatics, playing a sport or visiting a library, can help to instil individual pride; it can raise expectations; it can raise community spirit; it can provide leadership capacity within communities. We want to see communities themselves having the power and taking the responsibility to make things better. From what I said at the outset it is clear that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that we are not just talking of deprived communities; we are concerned with individuals wherever they may be who may be socially excluded and who should be included in the programmes.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, questioned the relationship of access to social inclusion. Access is about providing convenient facilities for people to use. Social inclusion is about getting people involved and drawing them in. That is a link between them. There is no question of any conflict there.
The important point, which again relates to what I said at the beginning, is that we should not be tinkering with short-term projects; projects which will die after three years unless they fund themselves—the pattern in the past; pilots that will not exist in the long term. We want to see changes in the mainstream of how central and local government funding is spent. We want to see arts and sports bodies which receive public funds being accessible to everyone. That is not—I say this again to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty—in conflict with business involvement. Indeed, if we look at the initiative of my noble friend Lord Hamlyn—the Hamlyn Week in the Royal National Theatre gives a whole week of cheap tickets to provide greater access—we see that business and charity can work together. However, it is true, as the noble Earl reminded us, that accessibility applies widely to people with disabilities, people of different ethnic origins, people with poor educational qualifications.
All the arts and sports bodies in receipt of public funding are being encouraged not to depart from quality, which is a prerequisite, and to work actively to engage those who have been excluded in the past. We want them to look outside their traditional, virtual funding patterns—this relates to what the noble Earl, Lord Shaftsbury, was saying—to provide the links between remedies for social exclusion and the arts and sport. Health spending on the arts can help treat mental

1433
health problems. Decent access to leisure facilities can reduce crime—the midnight football matches. Education spending on cultural leisure can reduce truancy. That is why the Policy Action Team was interdepartmental. It included the Cabinet Office, DETR, the Department for Education and Employment, the Treasury, the Department of Health, the Government Offices for the Regions and Number 10 Policy Unit.
We are embedding the social inclusion objectives throughout the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and throughout government. We are setting up social inclusion groups to develop, advise and monitor social inclusion policy for libraries and museums. We are reviewing the funding arrangements which we have with our non-departmental public bodies. We are working—this relates to what my noble friends Lord Grantchester and Lord Faulkner said—with the Football Association, the FA Premier League and other interested parties, to develop a funding package for grass roots football which is likely to be worth £50 million.
In all of that we must not underestimate the role of the Lottery distributors, who again are being encouraged, respecting their independence but within their agreed objectives, to look at the social exclusion element of the applications which come to them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, raised a number of specific points in relation to publication of reports and the timing of funds. The answers are rather complicated and perhaps I may write to her. I can assure her there is nothing sinister in that.
I have exceeded my time, as I so often do. I hope your Lordships will feel that the Government are grateful for the exposure which has taken place in this debate. We are determined to avoid some of the worst mistakes of the past and have a clear idea of how to move ahead, but we are still open to ideas. We are grateful for the contributions of your Lordships in this debate.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as the House is aware, we are awaiting the House of Lords Bill from another place. In view of the time, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until nine o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.6 to 9 p.m.]

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, we are still awaiting news from the other place regarding the progress of this Bill. Therefore, the best thing I can suggest at the moment is that we adjourn during pleasure until ten o'clock, at which time we shall review the situation.
I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 10 p.m.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 10 p.m.—(Lord Carter.)
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may offer a degree of support to the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip. Obviously we accept that the House must adjourn until ten o'clock. However, if we do have to come back and do so at a late hour to deal with the remnants of the House of Lords Bill, I hope that it will not be at what I think the noble Lord, in private, referred to as "an unseemly hour". This is something that must be done at a proper hour. Indeed, if it is not done at a proper hour, the proceedings may possibly have to be adjourned until tomorrow.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 9.1 p.m. to 10 p.m.]
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have been in touch with the other place. It is not making the progress that we thought it might make. There is still a possibility that we shall receive the Bill tonight. I suggest that we adjourn during pleasure until eleven o'clock, and at eleven o'clock we shall make a decision. I shall not adjourn the House again. I shall reach a decision in conjunction with the usual channels that we shall either discuss the Bill tonight or adjourn until three o'clock tomorrow, as was agreed originally. If we adjourn until three o'clock tomorrow and we deal with the Bill then, we shall prorogue tomorrow and not on Friday.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think that this is a highly undignified way to end this Session, and particularly with this Bill. It is being discussed in another place. I am informed by the Clerks that it will take over an hour for the Bill to come as amended from another place to this House. That will take us beyond eleven o'clock. Why do we have to prolong the agony now for another hour? Would it not be better, much more dignified and more helpful to the House and to all those who are present for the last time for the Chief Whip to adjourn the House now for the night and for us to start again at three o'clock tomorrow?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, before the Chief Whip rises to speak, I wish to support every word that has been spoken by my noble friend. This is an important constitutional Bill. I think that many people would think it quite improper if at a late hour we were to embark on some important amendments. At the present time Members in another place are discussing what I consider to be one of the most important amendments to this Bill; namely, whether a commission should be established to ensure that propriety is observed in the appointment of new Members of this House.
The idea that we should wait until they reach a conclusion on that matter in order to decide whether or not we should sit seems to me quite preposterous. I should have thought that there was scope for quite extensive debate. I should have thought that by now the Government should have learnt some sense and should have realised how improper it is that they are not prepared to accept a proposition which embodies their own proposal which states no more than that

1435
there should be a commission to ensure that in future Cross-Bench Peers are appointed in proportion to their present numbers in the House.
The idea that we should be required to come back here an hour or two from now and then debate for an hour or two a proposition which is so self-evidently right seems to me absolutely extraordinary. I agree entirely with the words of my noble friend. For goodness' sake, let us have a little dignity even at this late stage. There has been precious little of it recently on the other side of the House. I think quite honestly that we have had enough. The noble Lord opposite ought now to draw stumps.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, it is of course a difficult time of night and one can understand that people are concerned about the matter, but lest my noble friend should think that there is only one point of view in the House, I say, speaking for myself, that I would be quite happy to stay and finish the business tonight, whatever the hour.
Lord Henley: My Lords, following that remark and following the remarks of my noble friends I ought to say the following. Obviously there have been discussions between myself and the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip. Can I have an assurance from the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip that if it looks as if the debate will start much after eleven o'clock, it would not—as I think I put it earlier—be seemly that we should continue to debate these matters? Therefore, it would be far better, if we were to begin the debate after eleven o'clock—we have to remember that another place is taking some time over these matters—that the matter should be discussed tomorrow rather than today. Therefore, I hope that the Government Chief Whip will give some assurance that if we have not received the Bill by the time we are talking about, he will say very firmly at eleven o'clock, "That is it. We will sit down and leave this until tomorrow".
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, those of us who were here at the time will remember an occasion when the then Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, came to the House on a similar occasion at eight o'clock, adjourned proceedings until ten o'clock and then adjourned until 10.30 p.m. while waiting for business to be received from the other place. I accept that the issue today is different—but no more important—from the issue then, which was the privatisation of the railways. For some of us, that was of equal importance to the issues that are before both Houses tonight. So let us not confuse them.
Of course, this is an important matter. But if my noble friend should come back with the news that there is a prospect that the Bill will be received here in reasonable time, I, for one, am prepared to stay. The management of business during the next two days will clearly be affected by the decision taken.
I trust the Government Chief Whip to give the House his best judgment. I watched the proceedings in the other place. It is quite clear that the issues are
1436
important and that there may be a delay. Very fairly, the Opposition Chief Whip said that he is party to the announcement made by the Government Chief Whip. He also made it clear that at eleven o'clock the Government Chief Whip will need some very solid evidence as to why we should continue.
Do not let us—as did the noble Lord, Lord Waddington— bring in the issues and the arguments. We are not concerned with those matters now; we are concerned with procedure. When the noble Lord talks in terms of gracelessness and lack of dignity and points only to this side of the House, he also should look around himself.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, the Bill that the noble Lord was talking about was not a constitutional Bill. This is a constitutional Bill, which is slightly different. I agree with my noble friend on my Front Bench that this matter should be considered at a reasonable time.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as your Lordships can imagine, I have been in discussions all around the House this evening. I believe that the sense of the House is that if we can deal with the Bill tonight, we should do so. For once, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has slightly lost the sense of the House; I believe that it would like to deal with the Bill tonight. It is still only ten o'clock. I think that we voted on the Question that the Bill do now pass at half-past eleven last week.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is entirely correct; we should not be discussing the issue of the appointments commission before the other place has taken a decision. It is voting on that matter now and we will receive that decision. There is no problem over that point. I have said already that we shall review the situation. I am in continual touch with the Whips in the other place. They are doing their best on all sides—with limited success in some cases. I shall review the situation with the Whips of both parties and the Whips of the Liberal Democrats in the other place before eleven o'clock. I have said that at eleven o'clock I shall give the House the decision through the usual channels. If we can receive the Bill at a reasonable time after eleven o'clock, we shall deal with it tonight; if we cannot, we will come back and deal with it at three o'clock tomorrow.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Government Chief Whip as to what he means by "a reasonable time". As he knows, he and I have had certain discussions about these matters. We feel that because this is a major constitutional Bill we should not sit too late. Bearing in mind that should the other place finish at this moment, it would take some time before the Bill arrived at this House and that some time would then need to be allowed for tabling amendments, can the Government Chief Whip make it

1437
categorically clear that unless we get the Bill by, at the absolute latest, 11.30 p.m., we will not debate it tonight?
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, the noble Lord is being a little harsh on the Chief Whip when he seeks an assurance at this moment in time. The assurance we must ask of the Chief Whip is that he will use his best judgment at the time. I suggest that we return at eleven o'clock, as has been proposed.
Lord Carter: My Lords, for once I must disagree with my noble friend Lord Shepherd. He said that I had been harshly dealt with, but I am used to that. We will review the position through the usual channels at some time before eleven o'clock. At that hour I shall announce the decision of the usual channels. I certainly do not wish to enter into a debate on the hour of the clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 10.10 to 11 p.m.]
Lord Carter: My Lords, it seems unlikely that we shall receive the Bill tonight at a time which would enable us to debate it properly. Therefore, I think that we should adjourn the House, return at three o'clock tomorrow for public business, conclude the business on the Bill and prorogue tomorrow, not on Friday. If we meet at three o'clock, there will have to be Questions. We shall then deal with the Bill in good order and, it is to be hoped, deliver it and then prorogue. Therefore, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—(Lord Carter.)
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the Government Chief Whip for those remarks and I thank him for agreeing to the points that were put to him outside the Chamber by the usual channels. I thank him for
1438
agreeing that these matters should be dealt with in a seemly manner, as I always said was appropriate. I hope that there can be further discussions concerning when we should deal with these matters. We will meet at three o'clock and we give our commitment that we shall try to ensure that the business can be dealt with in an appropriate manner tomorrow afternoon.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government Chief Whip for his Motion. Earlier this evening there was mention of the Railways Bill. I took the trouble to look it up because I took the Bill through the House and it also happened to be my birthday on the day we had the same discussion as we are having now. I recall the words of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, when he was Leader of the Opposition. Referring to my noble friend Lord Wakeham, who moved a similar Motion, the noble Lord said that,
"he subjected the House and, I think, a large part of the Palace of Westminster and certainly an interested public to the farce of watching the Government do a total U-turn. May I say to the Leader of the House what I think that one of his colleagues once said to another Member of Parliament? Perhaps at this stage he should go and lie down in a darkened room, keep on taking the pills and ponder on his future".—[Official Report, 3/11/93; col. 1151.]
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, what the Government Chief Whip has proposed is reasonable and it is probably unavoidable. We have had discussions outside the Chamber and I think that the House should accept what he has recommended.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Immigration and Asylum Bill
Returned from the Commons earlier this day with an amendment disagreed to with a reason for such disagreement; with an amendment agreed to with an amendment; and with the remaining amendments agreed to; the Commons amendment and reason ordered to be printed pursuant to Standing Order 50.
House adjourned at three minutes past eleven o'clock.