Lords Sitting of 19 July 2001

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Dale Norman Campbell-Savours, Esquire, having been created Baron Campbell-Savours, of Allerdale in the County of Cumbria, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Carter and the Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld.
Lord Jones
The Right Honourable Stephen Barry Jones, having been created Baron Jones, of Deeside in the County of Clwyd, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Varley and the Lord Healey.

Message from The Queen
3.12 p.m.
Lord Luce: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
"I have received with great satisfaction the dutiful and loyal expression of your thanks for the speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament".

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Appropriation (No. 2) Act.

Heavily Indebted Poor Countries: Debt Relief
3.14 p.m.
Lord Watson of Richmond Lord Watson of Richmond asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they will take to persuade the World Bank and International Monetary Fund to achieve total debt cancellation for the poorest countries.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the UK and the other G7 members offer 100 per cent debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) scheme. The IMF and the World Bank are also making
1578
substantial debt reductions as part of HIPC to bring debt to sustainable levels. For the IMF and the World Bank to apply 100 per cent relief would concentrate resources on countries that are heavily indebted at the expense of those that are equally poor but not heavily indebted, such as Bangladesh. It must be remembered that the IMF and the World Bank's activities are wider than debt relief and we must support them in their work in all poor countries, in particular in areas such as health and education.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Perhaps I may remind him that although the G7 countries, including the United Kingdom, have taken major steps in terms of debt relief, the IMF and the World Bank themselves still insist on greater than 50 per cent repayment. While that situation pertains, the existing HIPC countries are forced to pay more in debt repayment than they are able to spend on healthcare. Given that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is chairman of the most powerful of the IMF committees, when are we going to do something to rectify that situation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that I made it clear in my first Answer that the priorities for the IMF and the World Bank are slightly different from those for ourselves and the other G7 countries. They have responsibilities not only for the heavily indebted poor countries, but also for those countries which are desperately poor, such as Bangladesh, Nepal and Cambodia, which have grave problems, in particular in health and education. Those nations should have their share among the priorities, rather than concentrating on debt relief.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by declaring an interest as a former employee of the World Bank. Can my noble friend on the Front Bench assure the House that at the G8 Summit to be held in Genoa, Her Majesty's Government will vigorously oppose the expected proposal of the United States Government that 50 per cent of the highly concessionary loans from the International Development Association, which is the concessionary lending arm of the World Bank, should be in grant form? Does he agree that this would be a certain way of ensuring the eventual drying-up of this extremely valuable source of concessionary finance? Does he also agree that if President Bush wishes to see a greater amount of concessionary finance going to the poorest countries, he might care to look at his own aid programme, which at present amounts to a derisory 0.1 per cent of GNP?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not wish to anticipate in detail the negotiations which will take place in Genoa. However, the points made by my noble friend are valid. I am sure that they will he raised in discussion.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, with regard to debt cancellation, are steps being taken to ensure that the money thus released then goes to help the

1579
people rather than simply to a corrupt government? Can we do anything to ensure that the right policy is followed?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, we can. It has been a feature of the HIPC initiative that we have to be satisfied that the debt relief; namely, the money released which would otherwise be spent on debt repayment, is used for the benefit of the people rather than for the governments. In addition, we have protected ourselves against unproductive expenditure, for example, by denying export credits where otherwise they would have been called for.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the process of writing off virtually unrepayable debts has been dragged out over an extremely long period? That has caused a great deal of dissatisfaction. In addition to the valuable point made by the noble Lord as regards ensuring improvements in health and education for the poorest people, will the Government also bear in mind the importance of creating jobs for those people?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course no one can be satisfied other than with immediate action being taken as regards all the countries concerned. However, bearing in mind the valid point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, I do not think that this has been such a bad story. One year ago, of the 41 eligible HIPC countries, 10 had reached decision point to the extent of 15 billion dollars. This year 23 countries have reached decision point to the extent of 53 billion dollars. I am grateful for the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about the importance of health and I can confirm that the Global Health Fund is expected to reach 1.5 billion dollars by the end of the Genoa meetings, towards which the UK has contributed 200 million dollars.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that this Government constantly advertise that they are providing 100 per cent debt relief? However, following on from the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is it not the case that hardly any country has in fact achieved the level of 100 per cent debt relief for the reasons given? Can the Minister confirm that position and tell the House which countries have reached 100 per cent relief?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have given the number of countries and the amount of money—23 countries out of the 41 have reached decision point, and the amount of money concerned is now 53 billion US dollars. This is a significant improvement on the position only a year ago. In addition, some countries, including the United Kingdom, are holding these receipts in trust for those countries for when they achieve the decision point and completion point.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, given the Minister's robust and acceptable reply to the question
1580
of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, about corruption, does he accept that it takes two parties to deal with this issue effectively, and that the United Kingdom and other wealthy countries ought to do their very best to prevent money laundering? Does he further accept that many millions of dollars have fled from Nigeria and Indonesia, some of them to Swiss, British and American banks?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I have no reason to doubt what the noble Baroness says. I am sure that significant amounts of money slip through the cracks. However, there is a paper, Debt Relief and Beyond, which has been drawn up by the finance Ministers and will be presented at Genoa this week. I believe that this is one of the issues which will be addressed in that paper.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, can the Minister tell me whether Zimbabwe is one of the relevant countries?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, not off-the-cuff. I am sorry. I shall write to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington.

University Admissions
3.21 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they believe that all applicants for university places should be treated equally.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, universities are autonomous bodies and are responsible for their own admissions policies and procedure. These may take into account a wide range of indicators, including potential as well as prior achievement. We believe that all candidates should be treated fairly and that all admissions decisions should be taken properly and responsibly.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but does she not agree that if it is the intention to raise standards in what the Government have described as "bog standard" comprehensive schools, the way to do it is not by lowering entrance requirements but by encouraging the improvement of education standards in those schools? Does she further agree that it is very hard on able candidates who have scored top marks in their courses to be turned down? What is their alternative when they have done well? It is hardly an encouragement, either to hard work or to high standards.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Government's policy is very much about raising aspiration and achievement. It is not about lowering standards. For that reason, we have introduced the excellent Challenge programme, which is worth

1581
million over the next three years, to help raise the aspirations and achievements of disadvantaged young people and to encourage applications for higher education from all.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, given the great need to encourage children from families who have no prior experience or knowledge of higher education, will the Minister join with me in congratulating the universities which are making such stalwart efforts to expand access? Can she tell the House what will happen this summer in the universities and schools which have set up partnerships to give young people a taste of what it is like to go to university?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, this summer there will be 65 higher education institutes involved in summer schools, with approximately 5,500 participants. This programme will be aimed at strengthening the relationship between universities and schools. It will build on the work with schools to help children from the age of 13 onwards to realise their aspirations and potential.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, while we on these Benches share the Government's aspirations to encourage students from disadvantaged backgrounds to go to university, does the Minister really believe that the best way to do this is to enforce on students a regime whereby they will frequently incur debts of more than £15,000 a year? Do not the statistics on the Scottish system already show that that system is far more effective in encouraging students from poor backgrounds?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know, 50 per cent of students this year will not be paying fees in the next academic year. That is precisely because their and their families' income is below the threshold to contribute. Low interest loans are available to help with living costs and we have introduced bursaries for mature students which will assist with childcare. We have also introduced 25,000 opportunity bursaries over the next three years worth £2,000 each for young students from low income backgrounds.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that my noble friend was referring to living costs rather than fees? Is she further aware that for many students admitted to university from poorer backgrounds—especially those who do not have the benefit of living rent free with their parents during vacations—the level of support is such as to subject them only to a torture of Tantalus? The Government could do much more to improve access to universities by putting that right than by preaching to universities about matters which are not under their control.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I referred to living costs when I described the low interest loans, which are a vital part of ensuring that students are able
1582
to survive within the educational system. But the Government are always keen to look at these issues over time and continue to keep them under review.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister is right, universities are autonomous bodies. However, does the noble Baroness agree that the Government are distorting that autonomy by providing considerable sums of money to widen access? Can the Minister give the House an assurance that, while the Government support a widening of access, they would not support the lowering of qualifications for getting into university by the use of that money? Does the Minister agree that a young person, from whatever background, should not be denied a place at university in order to allow someone with lesser qualifications to enter university because of the way in which government money is spent?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the postcode premium—to which I believe the noble Baroness was, in part, referring—is not intended as an incentive. It is a reimbursement of institutions for the additional resources they invest in recruiting and retaining students from lower socio-economic groups. We have announced increases in this premium over time. Institutions are not forced to lower entry standards as a condition of any funding. It is intended to address the specific question of access to institutions which have demanding entry requirements.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, contrary to the notion inherent in the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, if a university recognises that a young person who has been failed by the educational system has considerable potential, it would be irresponsible not to give that youngster an opportunity to make the best of university? It would also be an investment in the future of the country.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there are some extremely interesting examples of university admission practices throughout the UK, including Nottingham, Warwick, Oxford, Cambridge. Bristol, York and Sheffield. Without taking up the time of the House by describing some of the practices. they look at the different factors affecting the educational attainment and the potential of students for the future. That is extremely valuable. Early research carried out in Cardiff University, for example, is demonstrating that students arriving at university with "A" levels equivalent to those of students who come from schools that have a generally higher standard are performing better at the end of their degree level than those from elsewhere. We are looking with interest at these studies. We believe that universities should look in a broad way at the current attainment and the potential of all students.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, my noble friend referred to raising aspirations and reducing inequality. Can she tell us more about the Government's plans for

1583
mature students? I am thinking particularly of mature students with children who have some difficulty so far as concerns applications to universities.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we have introduced a generous package of measures to help mature students. In 2000–01 we introduced the £1,000 bursaries for mature students and a school meals grant for children of £245 or £265, depending on the age of the child. We have also introduced this year in connection with childcare costs a new childcare grant, typically 85 per cent of the actual cost. A total grant on known resources for a single parent student with two children could be as much as £17,425.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, does the noble Baroness consider that the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer publicly to castigate the admissions policy of the University of Oxford on the back of the case of the young woman from the comprehensive school in the North East was taken properly and fairly? Or would she have preferred that it had not been taken?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it raised an important debate. It is also fair to say that both Oxford and Cambridge use a greater flexibility when looking at students. They have always interviewed students as part of the process to ensure that their potential as well as their achievements so far are examined. I commend the universities for the work that they have done in this respect.

Medical Schools: Student Applications
3.30 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to reverse the decline in the number of students applying for places in United Kingdom medical schools.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, medicine and dentistry remain attractive careers and there continue to be many applications for places at medical and dental schools from those with the highest qualifications. Furthermore, the increase in the number of medical school places in England and the creation of four new medical schools, in East Anglia, the South West. Sussex and Yorkshire and Humberside, announced over the past two years, will all serve to increase the opportunities to study medicine.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, is she aware of the growing concern at the decline in the number of applicants for medical student places from 12,076 in 1997 to some 10,226 last year. Are the Government confident that they can achieve the higher targets they have set for medical recruitment with students of the
1584
highest quality, as required by the NHS, especially in view of the wide-ranging recommendations of the Bristol Royal Infirmary inquiry report?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole Government in saying that we have great confidence that we can achieve that. The number of medical school places that will be available by the 2005–06 will be 40 per cent higher than the number last year. We are confident that we shall be able to take measures to ensure that students fill those places.
It is worth making a distinction between the number of applications and the number of applicants. Applications have declined because students are no longer applying to five institutions, but to four; therefore, extrapolating by four, not five, gives a decrease. As I understand it, home graduate applications to study medicine rose by 20 per cent between 1998 and 2000.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, even if the Government succeed in making sure that there are sufficient applicants to medical schools, there remains a major problem of recruitment and retention in our medical schools. The London medical schools have made many teaching staff redundant, and a recent survey demonstrated vacancies in some 79 professorial appointments and some 322 lectureships. How do the Government square those findings with their plans to increase the number of places by 2,000 in 2005? Is this not partly the product of an overemphasis on research and the financial incentives for research as compared with the financial incentives for medical teaching?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is worth pointing out that the new medical schools have guaranteed the appropriate level of staffing. This is a broader question in terms of seeking to ensure that we have the right numbers of teaching staff in place. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord on the subject.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is important to attract a much wider cohort of students into the medical profession and to seek imaginative responses. I think particularly of the creative partnerships between the Universities of Leicester and Warwick, and Manchester and Keele. I declare an interest as the chief executive of Universities UK. Is not one of the most important ways of doing that to widen applications in terms of graduate entry, to include not only science but also non-science graduates? This is a most imaginative way forward and it could result in a considerable increase in new entrants.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we are making it possible for graduates to enter university medical schools in different ways on the back of having acquired a previous degree and being able to transfer across disciplines. In terms of attempting to bring more people into medical schools, in September we are launching the Science Year initiative, aimed at 10 to

1585
15 year-olds. That will be important in terms of showing them that there is a career to be had within the medical profession.
Lord Renton: My Lords, are the figures given by the Minister for England and Wales only; or do they apply to the United Kingdom as a whole? If they apply only to England and Wales, will the Minister bear in mind that Scotland has produced many great doctors for many years, and still has a great potential for doing so?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, having spent part of my career in the health service, I firmly agree with the noble Lord about the greatness of many of our Scottish doctors. But I also call attention to doctors from all over the world who provide an excellent service to the health service.
I can provide the medical school intake figures for the different countries of the UK. The total is 5,595 for the intake for 2000–01, from which Scotland will provide 920. For 2005–06, the UK total will be 7,248, of which Scotland's contribution is predicted to be 884.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is extremely important that better education should be given in mathematics and the sciences—otherwise, it will be extremely difficult to produce the people who can become good doctors? Urgent action is needed, with so many children coming out of school badly taught in mathematics and often having had far too little training in science.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is the value that we place on these subjects that has led us to the targets that we have for key stage 1 and key stage 2 for our children and the work that is currently under way on key stage 3. I could not agree more with the noble Baroness. It is important that we recognise the role of science—hence we are launching Science Year, for which I am delighted to be responsible—and also the need to ensure that mathematics is a key subject that is taught right through the school curriculum.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are doctors wanting to train to become surgeons and that the rotas are blocked? Will she see that the rotas are unblocked, as we need more surgeons?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I understand that there is a review of medical workforce planning. I am sure that the reports will come to this House.

European Takeover Directive
3.37 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to continue to press for the adoption of the European Takeover Directive following its rejection by the European Parliament.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is for the European Commission to decide whether to start the legislative process again with a new proposal for a takeover directive. The Government will decide what approach to take on the issue after consulting interested parties in the United Kingdom.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I declare an interest as chairman of an investment bank in the City. Will the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that, if and when the directive is brought back, there will be root and branch opposition to any inclusion of "poison pills" and artificial devices, such a s occurred in the earlier drafts of the first directive— the sole purpose of which is to strengthen the power of management and thereby to deprive shareholders of the value that is rightfully theirs? Secondly, will the Minister talk in terms to the German Government—who have conspired with German industry to defeat the directive—making it clear to them that, if they want to have a pan-European capital market, it will require a level playing field everywhere, not just in the areas that suit Germany and the German Government?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it seems most likely that if the Commission were to reintroduce the directive it would reintroduce it in its final form—in other words, the form in which it was presented to the European Parliament for Third Reading and rejected—although by 273 votes to 273. We should certainly resist strongly any attempt to delete the improvements that were made to the directive as it went through the European Parliament and before. We are concerned in particular to see that it retains the key shareholder protections that were introduced: the requirement to bid for all shares where a control has been achieved, and the prohibition on frustrating action which the noble Lord referred to as a "poison pill". We should also be very strongly opposed to any weakening of Articles 4.5 and 4.6 referring to derogations from the rules and help to prevent tactical litigation.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is a clear case where European legislation is required if we are to receive the benefits of the single market? Surely much of the opposition to this directive is, in fact, nothing less than protectionism.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am pleased that all parties from the United Kingdom, including Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour MEPs, supported the directive when it came before the European Parliament. I believe that we are all united on that front. However, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the motives of those who are opposed to the directive.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, further to the reply that the Minister gave to my noble friend Lord

1587
Hodgson, does the noble Lord agree that, even in its final form, the proposed takeover directive would have crippled hostile takeovers in this country by allowing target companies to take refuge in the courts? Therefore, does not the noble Lord further agree that the European Parliament has on this occasion, just for once, done something helpful to the British economy?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords; I disagree 100 per cent with the noble Lord. There are minor defects in the final directive—for example, I do not believe that the provisions on jurisdiction are entirely clear. However, if I had to choose between the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, I would plump for the latter. This is a thoroughly good directive. It is not perfect, but it deserved and achieved our support.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I should, first, declare an interest as a Member of the European Parliament, and as the Conservative spokesman on legal affairs who dealt with the matter. Is it not the case that the German Government welshed on the deal that they made in the Council when they changed their position, and their attitude, towards this directive? Further, is it not a fact that this directive was very popular among significant sections of German business that wanted to see a European market opened for their business, just as for every other country's business? Therefore, is it not true that the German Government have let down a large number of their citizens and their own financial institutions?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have resisted any pressure to criticise the motives of those who took a different view from the one that we expressed, especially other governments. I shall continue to resist such pressure. I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, should have a few words with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, on the subject.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister to answer the question that I put to him. I repeat: did the proposed takeover directive in its final form allow target companies to seek refuge in the delay of the courts, or did it not?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords. It did not. Article 4.6 of the directive has been specifically placed within it to deal with tactical litigation. In this respect, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is right to suggest that tactical litigation is to be deplored. That is why we have the agreement between the Financial Services Authority and the Takeover Panel about tactical litigation.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, can the Minister say whether he accepts the use of the word "welsh" in the pejorative sense?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that that is a question for the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, rather than for me.

Foot and Mouth Disease
3.44 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given private notice, namely:
What extra safeguards are Her Majesty's Government putting in place to cope with the rising number of new foot and mouth cases, particularly in view of the Government's decision to reopen more footpaths.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, we are still experiencing a number of cases in five or six areas of the country. The Government are intensifying activity in those areas, especially by way of security measures, in order to prevent further spread. Decisions on reopening footpaths reflect the veterinary guidance on footpaths that was issued to local authorities on 23rd May, including codes detailing precautions that path users should take to reduce still further the risk of spreading foot and mouth disease. We also fund the Countryside Agency's campaign which promotes simple rules that people should follow.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that the Government are clearly not in control of the outbreak, or of its logistical consequences? Indeed, 10 new outbreaks were confirmed yesterday, one of which has occurred in a totally new area. Moreover, 25 new cases were reported last week, with 24 cases being confirmed during the previous week. Does the Minister further agree that there is a lack of control in rigidly enforcing the biosecurity for farmers, while urging local authorities to open the countryside for riders and walkers? Can the Minister tell the House why the Official Secrets Act is part of the contract for the clear-up work by farmers, many of whom are still awaiting payment for work that has already been completed?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not agree with very much of what the noble Baroness says. The disease has been contained. However, there is still active infectivity in the five or six areas to which I referred. That has been the case for some considerable time, except for the rather unusual and unique case to which the noble Baroness referred which was, regrettably, reported yesterday. All the recently reported cases over the past month have been within these "hot spot" areas. It is, therefore, vital that we crack down on the disease and eradicate it in those areas. Moreover, for the benefit of farmers and those in the rural community as a whole, it also means that we can relax restrictions in other areas, including on footpaths that bring ramblers and others to the countryside who will spend much needed money in economies that have been badly hit by the effects of this disease.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the time has come for a

1589
public inquiry to be opened; and, indeed, for evidence to be heard? The Government have still not come forward with clear advice—perhaps they have not received any—as to exactly how this disease is being spread. There is clear evidence to show that footpath closures have damaged the rural economy, but there is widespread anxiety about reopening them because, as we have heard, the number of cases is still rising. There is equally widespread anxiety about keeping them closed as regards the effects on the rural economy that arise as a result of such action. Is this not the time for all the advice that the Government have received, as well as all the known knowledge, to be aired in public? Why are not the Government commencing this inquiry now?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as far as concerns footpaths, I can tell the noble Baroness that we are not reopening them in the three kilometre zones around infected places. We are agreeing with the county councils in various areas where they wish to keep in place either the blanket measures or the selective measures—for example, in very substantial parts of North Yorkshire. This is not a blanket lifting exercise; it is simply a removal of the blanket closure. We are, therefore, being very selective in relation to footpaths and in listening to the representations from the counties.
I can confirm that the vast bulk of the advice given to the Government on the spread of the disease is already in the public arena. The noble Baroness now wishes us to set up an inquiry, while other people—indeed, the majority of the farming and rural community—are saying that our top priority now must be to eradicate the disease in the areas where it is still proving to be a problem. That is definitely the Government's overriding priority. However, we are also trying elsewhere to reopen the countryside and revive the rural economy. Therefore, now is not the time to open a public inquiry of the kind that some people have been demanding.
The Prime Minister made it clear yesterday that there would be such an inquiry. He made it clear earlier that it would be an independent inquiry. The time to take such action is when we are at least within sight of finally eradicating the disease. There is no intention on the part of the Government to hide information. This inquiry, together with the review of what the Government have done and of how the disease has spread, will come in due course when FMD has been eradicated.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister tell the House how much compensation has so far been paid to farmers whose animals have been slaughtered in an effort to help to stop the disease spreading?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the total expenditure on compensation so far is over £1 billion, and the figure is rising. It comprises £900 million plus on the direct compensation scheme for FMD, and about £100 million under the livestock welfare disposal scheme.
1590
The total cost of the disease to the Exchequer is significantly over £2 billion. To return to the earlier point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on the time that compensation has taken to reach farmers, I appreciate that concern has been expressed in this respect. I can confirm that the delay has been very dramatically reduced. Such payments now fall within the target time of 21 days.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the headlines in Monday's Yorkshire Post referred to the frustration of vets because they were receiving conflicting information from DEFRA? Therefore, will the noble Lord please ensure that all vets are in receipt of the correct information so that it can be passed on to farmers and all those other people who need it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, from time to time I hear complaints of that kind. However, DEFRA's advice is clear. It has to be tailored to individual circumstances and many of the cases reported by vets require individual replies. As I say, the advice is clear. Hard pressed vets and others on the ground experience some frustration with the complexity of the issue, but we are trying to simplify the whole procedure.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: My Lords, although we welcome the emphasis on eliminating the disease, is the Minister aware just how severe the breakdown of trust is between the farming and other communities and the Government? The severity of that breakdown of trust is extremely damaging. Unless trust begins to be restored, statements which are made not simply by those who have strong vested interests will not be believed and there will be no healing of the community and no opportunity, through better human relationships, to build a future for the farming community and for the countryside.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I regret that I receive reports of, and have experienced directly, what the right reverend Prelate refers to as the breakdown of trust. In the fraught situation in the countryside with everyone—the farming community, DEFRA and the people who work for it, the vets and so on—under severe pressure, some relationships are bound to break down. However, the attacks perpetrated by some people on DEFRA staff and people working for us who work for many hours a day under severe pressure are not acceptable. Much has been done to eradicate the disease by people working for MAFF, now DEFRA. I hope that when eventually we have the inquiry into the affair, at least the DEFRA staff will not be blamed for what has happened. Quite the contrary is the case.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, will the noble Lord reconsider the answer he gave which implied that the outbreak was substantially under control and was confined to existing hotspots? Is he aware of an entirely fresh outbreak within the past month on the Brecon Beacons on the very day they were opened to

1591
walkers and of a series of outbreaks within the past 10 days in the valley where I live around Llangenny and Crickhowell, an area previously unaffected? All the sheep have had to be culled on the Sugar Loaf, which I see from my home. That area has been opened to walkers recently. Indeed, I climbed the Sugar Loaf only about two weeks ago. Does not the fact that the disease is appearing in entirely new areas indicate just how dangerous it is and the care that must be taken before footpaths are opened?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the outbreak in the Brecon Beacons has existed for some time. It is regrettable that after a lull, there have been recent cases in the area described by the noble Lord. However, to ascribe that to the opening of footpaths is erroneous. There has been no evidence of a single case of foot and mouth being spread by walkers. Overwhelmingly, the highest risk in terms of spreading the disease is incurred by people who transport livestock in vehicles and who move from farm to farm and mingle flocks and herds. One has to strike a balance here. The situation in Powys is unfortunate. The administration of that situation is, of course, primarily a matter for the Welsh Assembly. Nevertheless that is one of the hotspots on which we now have to concentrate to eradicate the disease.

Barclays Group Reorganisation Bill [H.L.]
3.54 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

National Australia Group Europe Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Business of the House: Standing Order 40
3.55 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The first half of the Motion concerns next Monday's business and would allow us to debate the Motion in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, alongside the affirmative order it relates to, which seems a sensible adjustment. The second half allows us to move the economic debate pursuant to Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 from Tuesday to Monday. It had been agreed that the debate should occur on Monday, but it is presently on the Order Paper for Tuesday. If the House agrees, the debate will take place on Monday.
1592
Assuming that perfect clarity has not been established by my explanation, perhaps your Lordships would like to read the Official Report tomorrow. I particularly commend that as it will be the last one to be edited by our most distinguished, long-serving editor of debates, Mary Villiers. She has been editor of Hansard for 16 years and retires today. I know that the House will not wish to see that occasion go unmarked. I am sure that your Lordships will wish to join me in expressing our sincere gratitude and admiration for all that Mrs Villiers has done. No matter what any of us actually say in the Chamber, it always comes out coherently in Hansard. Therefore, I record the admiration and appreciation of us all to Mrs Villiers. I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with so far as is necessary on Monday next to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Earl Russell to be taken before that in the name of the Baroness Hollis of Heigham; and that leave be given to the Lord McIntosh of Haringey to advance his Motion relating to the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 from Tuesday 24th July to Monday 23rd July. —(Lord Williams of Mostyn. )
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, before the Question is put, on behalf of these Benches I thank the noble and learned Lord for what he has said. I entirely endorse his views of Mary Villiers, the editor of Hansard, not only for the contribution she has made herself but also that of her whole team in providing a real service to this House. It is the lot of Hansard that we talk much about it while forgetting all the people who work so hard to make sense of our words. I know that Mary Villiers in particular on occasions has been able to see through what we are saying so that by the next day we see before us only the pearls of wisdom that we should have uttered. We all wish her well in the future and a long and happy retirement.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Bowman Radio Communications System
3.57 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"I should like to make a Statement on the Bowman communications programme.
"This project will provide the Armed Forces with a modern, highly capable tactical combat radio communications system to replace Clansman. It will provide secure, reliable communications to our land forces and selected elements of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. In addition to voice communications, the system provides a tactical internet and automatic position location, navigation and reporting. Delivery will include

1593
more than 48,000 radios, 30,000 computers, conversion of over 30,000 platforms and training for over 100,000 members of the Armed Forces.
"Until recently, the history of the Bowman project has been a saga of difficulties. The requirement for this system was originally endorsed as long ago as 1988, but the initial attempt at competition collapsed in 1996. The following year, in March 1997. it was decided to pursue a single source procurement with Archer Communications Systems Ltd. Last summer, in the light of continuing major problems with the programme, this Government decided that the competition for the Bowman combat radio would have to be relaunched.
"That decision has now been vindicated. Over the past year we have made impressive progress on the project. There has been a vigorous competition with three strong bids submitted by Thales, TRW and CDC, a subsidiary of General Dynamics already operating in the United Kingdom.
"Following careful analysis of these bids, I am pleased to announce today that CDC has been selected as the department's preferred supplier of the Bowman system.
"We have evaluated a wide range of issues. Given the project's chequered past and the continuing operational need, the priority has been to deliver a successful and low-risk solution that will fill this capability gap at the earliest possible opportunity.
"CDC offers just that. Its solution is the clear winner of the competition. It provides the best value for money solution, fully meeting our military requirements. I am confident that it will meet our demanding timetable for getting this system into service. It is based on experience of developing a proven system and includes best of class radios and a very efficient approach to rolling out and supporting the equipment.
"The Ministry of Defence and CDC will now work together on the programme to bring Bowman into service. We aim to be in a position to let a contract in late summer this year to achieve an in-service date of early 2004.
"The contract is valued at around £1.8 billion. This will cover the supply of the Bowman system and the first five years of support up to the year 2009. It will use the ITT VHF radio sub-system and the Cogent cryptographic system.
"CDC's solution provides employment opportunities in the UK in a broad range of system areas, including design, development, manufacture and project management. Ninety per cent of the work content of the CDC bid will be based in the UK—the highest proportion of any of the three bids. Around 1,600 jobs will be secured across the UK, including 400 new high technology and support posts at the company's headquarters which CDC plans to establish in South Wales. The company has also earmarked South Wales for a new Army communications technology research and development centre. This will be staffed by around
1594
65 leading scientists. Other regions will benefit as well. We expect subcontract work to secure more than 100 jobs in Scotland, more than 300 jobs in south-west England and around 75 jobs in the South East, centred on Hastings. Major UK subcontractors include Alvis and Westlands.
"This is excellent news for British industry and not just in terms of job opportunities. The high quality jobs it brings will allow for the continuation of this country's defence communications capability. In particular, there will be significant technology transfer to the United Kingdom. The Ministry of Defence will hold appropriate intellectual property rights, available for use by other companies working on linked projects. Industry has committed itself to maintain a development and production facility as a UK concern. All this will mean that we will maintain a strong UK strategic capability.
"This month will also see the first deliveries, ahead of schedule, of the personal role radios. This is a new capability, separated from the main Bowman requirement in 1999 to ensure early delivery to the front line. These radios will provide short range communications for dismounted infantry and will transform the way that they operate.
"The progress that we have made, and this announcement today, draws a clear line under the problems of the past. It confirms that the Bowman programme is on track for success. And it shows that our commitment to Smart acquisition—to best practice—is delivering tangible results for the Armed Forces. Selection of the preferred supplier, just one year after we re-opened the competition, underlines our determination to deliver this battle winning capability to our servicemen and women. Our Armed Forces can now look forward to receiving the most modern and integrated secure communications system available anywhere in the world.
"I recognise that today's announcement will be a disappointment to the other two bidders. Thales and TRW have invested considerable time and effort on their respective solutions. Both submitted proposals that were substantially better than the one we rejected last year. Their involvement has ensured a hard fought and successful competition. As a result, their reputations as credible prime contractors have been enhanced. I want to stress in particular how much we have valued the significant Thales presence in the UK defence sector.
"However, for this project, it is CDC that offers the best solution to meet our military requirements in the right timescale. As I have outlined, it does so with an excellent package of work in the United Kingdom.
"I am confident that we have made the right decision both for the Armed Forces and for UK industry. I commend it to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the Minister most sincerely for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. The Statement and the decisions underlying it are extremely welcome. We have been waiting for them for far too long.
Let there be no doubt: the initial slippage came under the Conservative government. But there have been two feasibility studies since then and there were years of fiddling about before the Ministry of Defence removed the preferred bidder status from Archer in June of last year.
I have specific questions under two headings: cost and the in-service date. The Statement states that the contract is valued at £1.8 billion. But the latest MoD estimate is £2.345 billion, of which £351 million has already been spent. This tallies with the National Audit Office estimate of £1.95 billion for the demonstration and manufacture stage of the project.
In March 1999 the Archer consortium delivered a submission which totalled £4 billion. Sir Robert Walmsley, Chief of Defence Procurement, told the House of Commons Select Committee on Defence that this was brought back into budget,
"not entirely by shouting at the company but by shaving off bits of the requirement here and there".
To what extent are we now getting a cut-price reduced specification project? After all, you get what you pay for. The National Audit Office has given examples of capability trade-offs by certifying Bowman to less stringent standards and reducing the equipment numbers. How does this contract differ from the previous Bowman specification?
The Minister has given an in-service date of early 2004. (I have to say that I shall have a bet on that one!) More important than the in-service date is the date for all the platforms to be completed, including the Territorial Army. When will that be? At present, if we were to face an enemy with a full armoured capability we would be in trouble. There is need for Bowman everywhere; it is vital. Clansman is bad enough as it stands but in the words of the National Audit Office,
"if Bowman is delayed beyond 2004 it is likely that problems arising from obsolescence, such as unreliability and lack of availability owing to repairs will increasingly affect Clansman".
The delay to date and the decision to abandon Archer means that the Ministry of Defence will have to write off development costs of between £35 million and £102 million. This is probably small beer for the Minister of Defence but what amount will have to be written off?
I remind the Minister that the capacity of laptop computers doubles in 18 months. The Ministry of Defence cannot buy anything in under five years. It is no wonder that we are behind. Again, I hope that we can get a move on.
Today and in speeches on previous occasions I have asked a number of specific questions of the Minister and her noble friend. Like my right honourable friend William Hague, I have not been very lucky in getting answers. May I please have some now—possibly through a secure radio system?
4.9 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this much-delayed announcement. The Armed Forces need far better combat radio systems. We are all aware that Clansman is becoming extremely obsolete. The sooner the equipment is available, the better. We also welcome the decision to adopt the best equipment available; and welcome this as a tried system.
I am struck by the way that this Government follow the same path as their predecessors. The civilian manufacturing industry is not given any particular privilege for home-produced manufactures in the Treasury's or sometimes the DTI's approach. In the defence industry the approach to the number of jobs in this country for each contract is applied somewhat differently from the civilian sphere. In that respect, they have chosen the best equipment, even though it has not necessarily provided the best jobs in this country.
In the context of being half way between the declaration of the Helsinki goals and their achievement, with a clear British commitment to closer European security and defence policy, perhaps I may ask how closely that takes us, if at all, towards commonality of equipment with the armed forces with which we are most likely to operate in conflict management, conflict prevention or forceful interventions over the next few years. Is there full inter-operability between Bowman and the Dutch, German, French and other forces with which we are likely to operate in the field?
Secondly, how long is the estimated service life of the system? We all hope that it will have a rather shorter service life than Clansman has had thus far, but it would be useful to have an idea of how rapidly we believe obsolescence will occur.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for having welcomed the announcement this afternoon. They are quite right: it is a very important announcement, and our priority in making it is to ensure that the Armed Forces have a proper system in place at the earliest possible time.
So far as concerns the past, although we cannot exactly draw a veil over it, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, should be slightly cautious in claiming that the present Administration has been involved in any delays that may have occurred. The single source contract was first made in February 1997. However, I believe that in relation to a matter such as this, which is very good news for the Armed Forces and for the country generally, it does not help greatly to hark back too much. Instead, we should look forward and try to ensure that the scepticism shown by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, in respect of the in-service date is, in this case, misplaced. We are determined that the system will come into operation at the earliest possible opportunity.
With regard to write-offs, there is no doubt that some will occur. However, it is important to know that a large part of the money spent in the past will have

1597
been of benefit in ensuring that the new system works properly. Therefore, by no means has all the money been wasted; a large part has gone towards ensuring that we have a decent system in place.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, raised the point that we should not change the way in which we approach these matters. I do not know whether or not that is the case. However, the manner in which this particular decision was reached within a year of the crucial, good decision taken a year ago to restart competition is, we believe, a good example of how Smart acquisition has worked. I am not sure that such a decision would have been reached so quickly in the days before Smart acquisition.
The noble Lord's point in relation to inter-operability is most important. We shall, of course, try to ensure that the new system also works well with the defence systems of our European partners and neighbours.
I do not know whether the noble Lord will be pleased or disappointed to hear that it is intended that the Bowman system should apply until the year of our Lord 2030. I dare say that some big adjustments will be made to it well before the end of this decade, let alone before 2030. However, that goes to show that the Government have today made a major decision. It was made on distinct and clear advice and will, I believe, represent a very good way forward for our Armed Forces.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him whether he can give the date by which all platforms will be equipped with Bowman.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord the final date by which that will happen. However, if the in-service date is 2004—a critical date—it is hoped that the system will be in place on a large number of platforms by 2005. I do not want to mislead the noble Lord into believing that I can provide him with a definite date, but it is hoped that all platforms will be brought into operation at the earliest opportunity.
The noble Lord should not play down the importance of the in-service date. That will cover two infantry battalions and brigrade signals, converted and trained—that is, approximately 1,800 members of the Armed Forces. I am glad that, to some extent, I played for time because I now have the answer which the noble Lord sought. All platforms will be completed by the year 2008. I hope that that answer does not come to haunt me.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate my noble friend unreservedly on today's extremely important announcement. I wish him every success in his decision and hope that he has found a solution that, until now, has eluded even his most distinguished predecessors in the responsibility that he holds.
I have one or two questions to put to my noble friend. First, can he tell us whether, as the price of obtaining this agreement, there has been any
1598
derogation of the originally intended TACAIR and marine elements of the Bowman solution? If he is unable to answer that question in public, which may well be the case, can he undertake to find a way of providing a classified briefing on this matter to seriously interested Members of the House? We are starved of classified briefings because this House does not have a defence committee. The lower House has such a committee and receives that type of information automatically.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his kind comments. As to my predecessors, perhaps I may tell my noble friend that they were all quite outstanding and all played their part in leading to today's decision. I hope that that answer satisfies my noble friend.
So far as concerns the changing of requirements. in this instance I have no need to offer a classified briefing because I can explain the position to the House. I am always happy to provide classified briefings to noble Lords who are interested. However, in this case, I believe that I can satisfy my noble friend. There has been no derogation. The requirement for operational capability has not changed. We have traded some of the more demanding technical aspects in order to maintain affordability.
In December 1999, when we first placed the programme on a Smart deployment footing, we diluted some of the more demanding specifications that appeared in the original requirement; for example, allowing United States rather than European levels of electro-magnetic protection, and continuing the use of current standards of antennae rather than developing new ones. There may be other examples. If there are, I shall inform my noble friend of them. However, he can remain content that the requirement for operational capability has not changed.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, first, I welcome this very encouraging announcement. However, perhaps I may press the noble Lord to deal further with the question of inter-operability raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I believe that the noble Lord's response was not quite complete. Therefore, I should like to give him another opportunity to deal with that matter, particularly in relation to the United States armed forces. We have experienced trouble in the past and it would be a great reassurance to know that when we have Bowman we shall be much better placed.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am not sure that I can be of much more assistance to the noble and gallant Lord, except to say that the new system that we intend to adopt meets all the necessary NATO standards. It does not go outside or beyond them, but meets all existing standards. There is no reason to fear that, if we adopt this system, somehow we shall not be able to work with our colleagues in NATO.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the announcement will be very much welcomed in the

1599
Armed Forces and especially in the Army? I congratulate the Government on bringing this long saga to a successful conclusion. It is easy to talk about the past with the benefit of hindsight, but the Government deserve to be congratulated on this occasion. I also congratulate them and their chosen contractor on the inspired choice of South Wales as a base for the operations.
I have another question, which follows on from other points that have already been made. Although it would be foolish to expect any guarantees from the Government about in-service dates, would the Minister be prepared to tell us, on a scale of one to 10, how optimistic he is about bringing this excellent new system into operation by 2004?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind comments on the Government's decision and I am delighted that he is pleased about the part of the country in which the headquarters will be sited. However, I emphasise that there will be sustained and new jobs throughout the United Kingdom—in Scotland, the South West, the South East and, of course, in Wales. This is a particularly "good news" story for that part of Wales, which many of us think has suffered much in recent years for various reasons. I turn to the noble Lord's second question. On a scale of one to 10, the answer, he may not be surprised to hear, is nine.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, I want to pursue the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, with whom I agree entirely. The announcement is good news for South Wales. I hope that the scheme will be part of the regeneration programme for Wales as a whole and for South Wales and the Valleys in particular. That brings me to my question. Will the Minister confirm that a large proportion of the jobs that he said would come to South Wales will be allocated to the Valleys where, as he well knows, there have been massive job losses in the coal and steel industries? That would be of great assistance to the Valleys, and the eastern Valleys in particular.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, who, through his distinguished career, has vast experience of industrial matters in South Wales. I confirm that the Valleys of South Wales will be among the main beneficiaries of the decision that the Government reached today.

Land Registration Bill [H.L.]
4.23 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal. )
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Geddes) in the Chair.]
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Power of court to order entry]:
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 18, line 36, leave out "have overriding priority" and insert "rank in priority ahead of such estates, interests and claims as are specified in the order, if it is necessary or desirable to give such a direction for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1)"
The noble Viscount said: The amendment is designed to clarify the extent of the "overriding priority", which is not a defined term, that a court can give to a restriction that it orders under Clause 46(1). For example, if a registered title were subject to a registered charge created long before the events giving rise to the court application and if there were a recent estate contract that was protected by a priority search, the circumstances might be such that it was appropriate to impose a restriction that prevented completion of the contract but there would be no justification for interfering with the exercise of a chargee's powers of realisation, if occasion for such exercise arose.
The amendment also makes it clear that the power to freeze the register with "overriding priority" is to be exercised in accordance with the general law. It should not be taken as conferring any wider power to make an asset- freezing order in respect of registered land rather than in respect of any other assets in relation to which a claimant alleges that the defendant is about to dissipate or conceal his property.
The report discusses overriding priority for restrictions in paragraphs 6.52 and 6.53. Paragraph 6.52 indicates that consultation produced a slight preponderance among responses in favour of a power to give an order such priority,
"if it was coupled with straight safeguards".
There do not appear to be any such safeguards in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand the concern that the noble Viscount outlined but I may be able to assist him. It may help if I explain what "overriding priority" in Clause 46(3) refers to. Members of the Committee know that that can be found on page 18 at line 35. "Overriding priority" is not a free-standing statement about priority. That is because Clause 46(3) has to be read with Clause 72(4), which can be found on page 25 at line 35. Both provisions are new.
Subject to rules being made as to detail, Clause 72 will (as under the current Act) enable a buyer of registered land to apply for priority protection. That will give the buyer a priority period. If he or she lodges a transfer application within that period, any entry made in the register during the same time will take

1601
second place to the entry made in respect of the transfer. The clause also provides for priority protection in other circumstances.
Clause 72(4) sets out an exception to priority protection. If the earlier entry is one to which a direction under Clause 46(3) applies, the entry will not have priority over the earlier restriction entry.
To make that a little easier to comprehend it might be of assistance if I give an example of the way in which that arrangement may work. A claimant seeking substantial damages in a court case is anxious that the defendant does not dispose of assets, including a house which has a registered title, so that if the claimant wins, the defendant will have the means to pay the damages. The claimant believes that the defendant intends to sell the house and to place the sale money in a bank account overseas. He or she is aware that an intending buyer has priority protection under an official search. So the claimant applies to the court for a freezing order to prevent the defendant disposing of the house.
If the court makes the order, it might, as ancillary to it, order that a restriction be entered that prevents the registration of any dealing with the registered estate of the house. The court might go on to direct, under Clause 46(3), that the restriction overrides the priority protection enjoyed by the intending buyer.
Once the restriction was registered together with an entry as to its overriding priority, the direction would prevent the registration of any subsequent transfer to the intending buyer. That would be the practical effect that would he brought into play as a result of Clause 72(4).
So, to the extent that the amendment seeks to empower the court in relation to restrictions and priority periods, we genuinely believe that no amendment is required in view of the interaction between Clauses 46(3) and 72(4).
If, by referring in the amendment to ranking in priority ahead of estates and interests, the noble Viscount has in mind priority ahead of existing entries, we consider that that would amount to a form of rectification, and any order for rectification should be in accordance with Clause 65 and Schedule 4.
We know that the two clauses are new, but they work together. Although we understand the concerns expressed, we respectfully suggest that they are met by those two clauses working together.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask her about rectification and whether one is talking about safeguards, which is really what we are asking for, and which is also referred to in the consultative document.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We would argue that Clauses 46(3) and 72(4) operate as safeguards. I also invite the noble Baroness to look at Clause 65, which refers to Schedule 4. She will know that it is possible to apply for alteration of the register under Schedule 4,
1602
which is on page 49 of the Bill. I suggest that those three clauses together give the assurance that both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness seek.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful for that full explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clauses 47 and 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Tacking and further advances]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment. No. 69:
Page 20, line 2, at end insert—
"( ) This section applies to the priority of further advances on the security of a registered charge—

(a) as against a subsequent charge notwithstanding that it is either registered or protected by a notice under section 32, and

(b) as against any other subsequent disposition, notwithstanding that it is either registered or protected by such a notice, as it applies to the priority of such advances as against a subsequent charge."

The noble Baroness said: The amendment is designed to ensure that the new and improved tacking rules apply uniformly in favour of the proprietor of a registered charge against all other interests in the land which are created subsequently, of whatever sort, and whether they are substantively registered or protected by notice. It is important to make it clear how far a chargee may tack as against the holders of derivative interests which are not charges, for example, tenants or contracting purchasers, because their interest in the proprietor's equity of redemption entitles them to redeem the charge. They may wish to do so in order to avoid being sold up by the chargee if the proprietor fails to repay what he owes. To give effect to their rights to redeem, it is necessary to work out how much of the amount secured in favour of the chargee has priority to their interests. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope that I can assist the noble Baroness. I can deal with paragraph (a) of the amendment relatively briefly. It is intended to apply the provisions relating to further advances to all subsequent charges. However, we respectfully suggest that this is already the effect of Clause 49(1) because it refers to a subsequent charge. Clause 129(1) defines a charge as
"any mortgage, charge or lien for securing money or money's worth".
It therefore appears that paragraph (a) of the amendment is unnecessary.
With regard to paragraph (b) relating to further advances to all subsequent dispositions, it is not clear which dispositions are covered. For example, is the paragraph limited to registrable dispositions, or will, say, a contract for the sale or an option on such dispositions be covered? It is difficult to see how the amendment will work. In any event, it appears to be unnecessary.

1603
Let us suppose that Miss Smith charges her land. The legal charge is registered and she subsequently grants Mr Brown an easement over the land. Clearly, if Miss Smith fails to keep up with her mortgage payments, the lender can exercise its power of sale and sell free of Mr Brown's easement. But let us also suppose that there is a further advance, subsequent to the grant of the easement, and Miss Smith then repays what was due under the legal charge at the time of the grant of the easement, but not under the further advance. The chargee could still sell free of Mr Brown's easement. In other words, the lender will always have priority for everything that is advanced under its legal charge over any subsequent disposition that is created after the legal charge.
I am assuming that if disposition includes a subsequent registered disposition, the legal charge is registered before then. The lender could ensure that such a legal easement is not entered as benefiting another registered estate and that it was not the subject of a notice against the borrower's title. That could be done by the legal charge providing that a restriction should be entered in the ownership part of the register, prohibiting the registration or noting an easement without the lender's consent.
If the amendment were capable of working, it would go beyond the provisions of the present Act and could lead to injustice, particularly as there would be no provision for the person granted the interest under the disposition to serve notice on the proprietor of the charge even if it were practicable.
I hope that that helps to explain why we say that it would not be a helpful amendment and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it. I hope that I have dealt with the concerns that she expressed.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her full response to the amendment. On reflection we almost questioned ourselves whether paragraph (a) of the amendment was strictly necessary in view of the definitions of "charge" and "registered charge" under Clause 129(1). We were more hopeful about paragraph (b), but having listened to the Minister, I would now like to consider what she has said. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Overriding statutory charges: duty of notification]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 20, line 7, after "effect" insert ", or is claimed by that person to have effect,"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment would require the registrar to give notice, to the persons affected, of a claim that a statutory charge had priority over existing entries where priority is unclear or disputed, as may happen. Paragraph 7.38(2) of the Report refers to the existence of situations in which the relevant statute makes no express provision as to priority. If the proprietor, and especially chargees with
1604
securities that are earlier in date than the statutory charge, are given notice of claims for statutory priority, it will be possible to resolve any disputes forthwith. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand the reasons for tabling these amendments as it is important to have clarity as to what these provisions mean. I hope that I can again assist the noble Baroness. It seems that the amendment's intention is to relieve the registrar of the need to satisfy himself that the statutory charge has postponing effect before giving notice. I see that the noble Baroness is nodding.
Clause 50 is an important provision relating to the interaction of the different statutes. Statutory charges arise over a person's land. For example, a local authority may carry out work to protect public health or safety and then charge the land so that the money can be recovered. The charges arise under a variety of statutory provisions, and those provisions govern whether or not a charge has priority over existing interests in the land.
Clause 50 ensures that where the priority of existing rights is affected, the people affected are told of the application to register the statutory charge. They can then respond if they feel that the statutory charge has not arisen or they do not believe that the charge affects the priority in the way indicated.
I am able to reassure the noble Baroness that the clause as originally drafted will operate to cover the situation envisaged by the amendment. It is also open to those affected, even at a later stage, to contest the issue of priority should that become material to them. That would be achieved by an application for rectification of the register.
As I say, I quite understand why the noble Baroness and those opposite have tabled the amendment. It is helpful for us to have clarification on how the Government believe that the measures interact. On that basis, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for that very helpful clarification of Clause 50 on that particular point. I have pleasure in withdrawing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Effect of completion by registration]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 20, line 17, at end insert "(no account being taken for the purpose of this section, and of section 87(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (c. 20) as applicable for the purpose of this section, of the prohibition in section 23 of this Act of the creation of mortgages and sub-mortgages by demise or sub-demise)"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment, in relation to Clause 51, is a technical amendment. We hope to prevent any difficulty or confusion arising from the fact that the meaning of a charge by deed by way of legal mortgage is not directly defined by the Bill but must be derived from Section 87(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925. That section specifies the effect of

1605
such a charge by reference to a mortgage by demise or sub-demise. But Clause 23(1) of the Bill will forbid such mortgages in relation to registered land.
There appears to be a logical difficulty in defining the effect of a permitted dealing with registered land in terms of the effect of a disposition of a type which is not permitted. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Government believe that this amendment raises an interesting point on the wording of Section 87(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925. As Members of the Committee will know, that subsection puts a mortgagee in the same position as if there was a mortgage by demise or sub-demise. As the Bill abolishes mortgages by way of demise or sub-demise, it is a good idea to amend that subsection if suitable wording can be devised. I shall return to that point on Report. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing that matter to our attention.
I turn now to the amendment. Clause 23 abolishes mortgages by demise and sub-demise. The Law Commission's consultation exercise found that they are no longer used. If that is the case, then there is no need for the saving provision proposed by the amendment.
There is also a more important issue. Clause 23 should not be robbed of its teeth. If such mortgages cannot he granted then they should be completely ineffective. They should not be given legal effect because they have been inadvertently registered.
I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment but obviously we shall return to the matter at a later stage.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her very positive response to the amendment. I understand entirely what she said in relation to, first, Section 87(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925. I am grateful that on Report she will return to that point. I am grateful also for what she said in relation to Clause 23(1). On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clauses 52 to 58 agreed to.
Clause: 59 [Dependent estates]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 21. line 24. leave out "that" and insert "the registered"
The noble Baroness said: Perhaps I may read out Clause 59(1) to clarify the purpose behind the amendment. The subsection states:
"The entry of a person in the register as the proprietor of a legal estate which subsists for the benefit of a registered estate must be made in relation to that estate".
Simply put, this amendment seeks confirmation as to which estate is being referred to; namely, whether it is the legal estate or the registered estate. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It gives me great pleasure to say that I absolutely agree with the noble
1606
Baroness. I am grateful to her for her helpful suggestion. We believe that it improves the clarity of the Bill. It gives me even more pleasure because we seem to be celebrating comity, which is very good.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her very positive response to that amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 60 [Boundaries]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 22, line 2, after "determined" insert "on an application to the registrar"
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is not, I am afraid, very obvious on the face of the Bill. Its purpose is to obtain clarification of the jurisdiction of the adjudicator.
Under Clause 106(1), the adjudicator has jurisdiction to determine matters which are referred to him under Clause 73(7). Clause 73(7) requires a registrar to refer to the adjudicator any objection to an application made to him, the registrar, unless that application is either groundless or disposed of by agreement.
Most clauses in the Bill which refer to applications refer specifically to an application being made to the registrar; for example, Clause 3(2) is the first example of that in the Bill. But Clause 60 simply requires rules to be made enabling boundaries to be determined. It is true that Clause 60(3)(c) refers to procedure in relation to applications for determination but it does not refer to applications being made to the registrar.
It is my understanding that it is the Government's intention that the determination of fixed boundaries, as opposed to general boundaries, should be made by the adjudicator, and that is certainly an objective with which I entirely agree. But I suggest that as drafted Clause 60 is not adequately clear about that. For example, it is not clear that any application must be made to the registrar and unless that is clear it is uncertain whether the adjudicator has jurisdiction. I suggest that my amendment, which would simply insert the words,
"on an application to the registrar",
would clarify that situation and would make it clear beyond any doubt that the adjudicator will have jurisdiction to determine the question of fixing of boundaries. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I support the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. This was a point I raised on Second Reading and received a favourable response from the Minister. I believe that the noble Lord's words make the matter somewhat clearer and every bit of clarity will help.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Having listened carefully to the noble Lord, it may be necessary to reconsider this matter to ensure that it is absolutely clear. We believe that it is clear, but the aim, as the

1607
noble Lord rightly says, is to allow jurisdiction for both the registrar, the adjudicator and other proceedings, which we intend to do.
This clause seeks to address the difficult matter of boundary disputes. We hope that the mapping techniques that even now are being developed will improve with time, and that they will make it easier to overcome such difficulties in the future. One of our concerns is that we should not restrict, too rigidly, this provision so as to prevent the required flexibility to enable that technical advancement to take place. As the noble Lord has put his finger on an interesting point, we shall reconsider it. If it has to be overcome, we shall try to ensure that it is overcome.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister. One or two other clauses raise this problem, although not quite as acutely. In one, there is a reference to an application without mentioning that it is an application to the registrar. No doubt if the Government feel that there is a point here, they can deal with the other references to "application" as well. In view of the Minister's reply, I am more than happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Accretion and diluvion]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 22, line 11, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
"(1) Subject to any agreement to the contrary, accretion or diluvion do not alter the boundary of a registered estate."
The noble Lord said: We now come to the arcane world of accretion and diluvion. Accretion is the addition to the bank of the river or the shore of a lake or sea of soil that raises it above the water level and, in effect, creates new land out of what previously was water. Diluvion—a word with which I am sure all noble Lords are familiar—describes the opposite process by which banks or shores are washed away by the action of water so that they disappear under the water.
It is desirable that the boundaries on the register should be conclusive unless there is strong reason to the contrary. Allowing accretion and diluvion to change boundaries will mean that boundaries on the title plan are not decisive, at any rate on inland waters. I believe that this process is fairly rare but it does happen. I believe that the operation of this clause could be reversed: unless the parties on opposite banks of the river agree to allow accretion and diluvion to affect their boundaries, and that agreement is entered on the register so that any purchaser is aware that accretion or diluvion may have changed the boundaries, it should not apply.
As the law is proposed in Clause 61, that will produce uncertainty as to the validity of the plan boundaries whenever there is a water boundary, even if it is quite a small stream. In such a case, the boundaries will need to be inspected, even if the result shows that there is no accretion or diluvion. So far as transactions are concerned, I believe that it would be
1608
simpler to accept the amendment that I have proposed and reverse the effects of accretion and diluvion on boundaries so that it takes effect only if there is an agreement between the owners of the opposite bank. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Lord for including in the amendment an issue of such enticing complexity. I shall first give a short answer, but the point raised by the noble Lord deserves a longer answer with which I shall weary the Committee in a moment.
This issue is one of great importance, particularly when one considers coastal erosion and accumulation. An example of that is if X owns the coastal land, but not the foreshore—the noble Lord knows that in most cases the Crown owns the foreshore—and in time erosion occurs. In such a situation, that which appears on the register will, of course, not be accurate, because it will not reflect the fact that there has been movement of the land. If the amendment were allowed, the owner would own not only the land, but also the land under the sea, which would mean that the owner would also own the foreshore.
Members of the Committee will know that the Crown is zealous in its protection of the foreshore, not least for the protection of the public, so that piers, and other constructions that may encroach on the foreshore, will be subject to regulation. I do not mean the Peers in your Lordships' House, but the more wooden, steely variety or perhaps I should say inanimate variety, which could never describe Members of this House.
A great difficulty would be that, if the amendment of the noble Lord were accepted, the Crown would not be able to protect the foreshore, in the interests of the public. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would not contemplate that because he would not want any of us to engage in such a sin.
Clause 61, as the noble Lord rightly says. deals with accretion and diluvion. The words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, who is not in his place, but who is with us in spirit, are important. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will remember what he said in the Privy Council case of Southern Centre of Theosophy Inc v. State of South Australia:
"The doctrine of accretion recognises that where land is bounded by water, the forces of nature are likely to cause changes in the boundary. Where these changes are gradual and imperceptible, the law considers the title to the land. as applicable to the land as it is changed from time to time. Except where a substantial and recognisable change has suddenly taken place, it is both convenient and fair to regard the boundary between land and water as being where it is from day to day or year to year. If part of an owner's land is taken from him by erosion, or diluvion (that is by the advance of the water), the landowner is treated as losing a portion of his land. So, if an addition is made to the land from what was previously water, it is only fair that the landowner's title should extend to it. The doctrine of accretion, in other words, is one which arises from the nature of land ownership from, in fact, the long-term ownership of property inherently subject to the gradual processes of change".

1609
The Bill gives effect to those well and long-established principles. Subsection (1) provides that the registry's plan showing a particular boundary, whether a fixed or a general boundary, does not affect the operation of the common law principles of accretion or diluvion.
I respectfully say that the effect of the amended clause would not, however, be totally clear. It raises questions as to the ownership of coastal land that has emerged by accretion, as I have already indicated, and it suggests that areas of foreshore could fall into private hands— I have already referred to this—rather than to the Crown Estate.
That uncertainty would be likely to cause real problems for a significant number of people. It would be very easy to think that the changes brought about by accretion and diluvion are comparatively minor and comparatively slow. But that is not the case. One has only to think of Poole Harbour where a significant amount of land has been reclaimed from the sea, both by human intervention and accretion, to realise that there are major and sometimes catastrophic situations to be dealt with.
I am able to tell Members of the Committee that five or six years ago a number of disputes arose in the Poole Harbour area with which the Land Registry had to deal. They centred around a retained footpath from which the sea had receded. Indeed, the boundaries of the properties along many large estuaries are changing all the time. In the past few years, several disputes have been heard by the Solicitor to Her Majesty's Land Registry arising from such boundary changes. The floods of recent years give every reason to think that it may be more, rather than less, important that the law should be able to provide a quick and clear answer to the effect of accretion and diluvion.
One of the principal aims of the Bill is to clarify and improve the law. In this clause it achieves those aims by allowing the familiar common law principles to be applied to registered land. The Land Registry's practice in this area is well established and has been effective for some time. Title registers will record in appropriate cases that the boundary of the property is the high water mark as it exists from time to time. Current Land Registry practice is to record on the register when an alternative arrangement, disapplying the normal principles, has been entered into by the local landowners. The Bill also allows landowners the freedom to come to an alternative arrangement, provided that that arrangement is clearly recorded on the register.
The Government believe that in order to achieve both fairness and convenience, that is the most appropriate way forward. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment, although I thank him for giving the House such rare entertainment.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister for giving such a full answer to this interesting question which is of wide general concern to the Committee. I recognise the importance of maintaining the rights of
1610
the Crown to the foreshore in the public interest. I am not so sure that the same problems arise in connection with inland waters, where there is no foreshore.
However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. It is unlikely that I shall want to bring it back again; it has had its outing.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clauses 62 and 63 agreed to.
Clause 64 [Use of register to record defects in title]:
5 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 23, line 18, after "become" insert "and remains"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment. No. 75 is intended to clarify that even if the right to determine has become exercisable, if that right has been waived or relief against the determination or forfeiture has been granted so that the right to determine can no longer be exercised, no power remains to enter the fact on the register.
Put another way, the right to determine has arisen, but supposing that it comes to an end because, for example, there is a waiver or acceptance of rent by the landlord. Why then should the registrar enter that right to determine in the register, given that it has been satisfactorily dealt with? As currently drafted, the registrar can therefore put a blot on the title, even if the blot has been erased. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Once again, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. As she says, Clause 64 gives the registrar a new and significant power to record on the register any right to determine a registered estate which has become exercisable.
We respectfully agree that the amendment draws out an important issue. Before making the entry, the registrar must be satisfied that the right to determine is still exercisable. It is unlikely that in practice the registrar would record a spent right on the register, but the clause as drafted does not make that clear. I am therefore grateful to the noble Baroness for having raised the issue.
I hope that she will not mind if, having said that I take her point, I prefer to take the matter away. I believe that there is scope to improve the drafting of the Bill still further and on that basis I am not able to accept the amendment in its present form. I accept the need for it and the principle behind it and therefore undertake to introduce a government amendment at Report stage. I hope that the noble Baroness will be content with that explanation.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response. I am grateful to her for taking the point on board. I understand that the drafting of the amendment may not be perfect and I know the

1611
Minister appreciates that we were under great pressure of time. On that basis, I am pleased to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clauses 66 to 79 agreed to.
Clause 80 [Compulsory registration of grants out of demesne land]:
[Amendment No. 76 not moved. ]
Clause 80 agreed to.
Clauses 81 to 90 agreed to.
Clause 91 [Electronic dispositions: formalities]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 77, I must advise the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 78 or 79 because of pre-emption.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 33, line 6, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 have been grouped together and relate to the same subsection of Clause 91. However, they have been tabled for different purposes and I shall deal with them successively. I can do so briefly.
As regards Amendment No. 77, the Law Society has expressed concern about Clause 91(6). It says that it is wholly unacceptable because it will not be possible to raise any question as to whether an agent had written authority to make the authentication.
Having attended the exhibition last week and heard the discussion, it may well be that there is an answer to that problem. If so, I should be grateful if the Minister could explain and put on record in the Committee why the concern of the Law Society is ill-founded.
Amendment No. 78 raises a different but small point. Why does Clause 91(6) apply only where the agent is an individual? Corporate bodies can be agents just as much as individuals. Although it is intended that the agents in this case will be conveyancing practitioners, if the agent is to be a solicitor the agent might well be a firm of solicitors incorporated as a limited liability partnership rather than an individual solicitor. I should have thought that in that case to avoid any problem it would be appropriate to delete "an individual" and insert "a person" to make sure that a corporate body can, if appropriate, be an agent. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Before I deal with these issues in detail, the authentication of documents will be scrutinised with great care by the rule committee. As the Committee will be aware, on that committee will sit representatives of the Law Society, conveyancers, members of the Bar, mortgage lenders and consumers. As a result of a suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord
1612
Goodhart, earlier in Committee, we intend to add surveyors to that list. That committee is chaired by a High Court judge, Mr Justice Blackburne, who is known for his impeccable judgment and the care with which he scrutinises rules generally. Historically, we have found that the committee jealously guards the efficacy of the rules and generally has been able to ensure their very high quality. We have no reason to believe that it will relax its attention to detail. I make that comment in parenthesis before I turn to amendments.
I deal first with Amendment No. 77. I am grateful to the noble Lord, first, for his presentation and, secondly, giving me the opportunity to put on the record the Government's response to this issue. The Committee will be aware that Amendment No. 77 seeks to remove in its entirety subsection (6) of Clause 91. Perhaps it is helpful to explain what Clause 91 is intended to achieve before considering the specific and rather narrow role of subsection (6). Clause 91 is part of the preparation for electronic conveyancing. Under that clause electronic documents will be introduced into the conveyancing process gradually. At first, there may be only a few electronic documents. Perhaps the first will be charges which are signed only by one party and do not give rise to stamp duty. The idea is to learn through that limited experience as we move further into the electronic world.
Eventually, we may all have our own electronic signatures. That appears to be the way that it will develop in future, but we are not there yet. That is, however, too far into the future for that contingency to be built into the first electronic conveyancing process. We may, therefore, have to rely in the early stages on the authentication of electronic documents by the person who has been instructed to carry out the conveyancing process on an individual's behalf, typically a solicitor or licensed conveyancer.
The prospect of professionals having their own electronic signature is not quite so far into the future. We believe that that will happen relatively soon. The professionals will have access to a secure network established by the Land Registry. Access will be permitted by means of a network access agreement between the professional and the Land Registry. The terms of that agreement will regulate the conduct of electronic transactions. The standards of conduct required will be high, whether the party to the transaction electronically signs in person or through his or her agent.
We appreciate the concern that to permit agents to sign electronic documents on behalf of their clients where those clients would themselves sign the equivalent paper document will increase the opportunity for fraud. However, perhaps I may assure the Committee that proper procedures to ensure that the terms of the agency are clearly understood will be necessary. The terms of network access agreements will provide an opportunity for control, and rules of professional conduct may well need to be developed. The detailed terms will be worked out in consultation with professionals and the industry.

1613
We are not yet in a position to cross every "t" and dot every "i". Therefore, I am not able to explain precisely how it will work. However, I am happy to outline the area with which we are dealing. At the moment a significant and thorough development process is being undertaken. Constant vigilance will be required to ensure that standards are maintained.
If a transaction involves the authentication of an electronic document by an agent to prevent difficulties for the agent and the system as a whole, it is important, subject to proper safeguards, to minimise the occasions on which the action taken by the agent can be questioned. For example, electronic transactions will be made more cumbersome if an agent must supply hard copy evidence that his or her authority was given in writing. Whether or not the agent is acting within his or her authority will, as now, be a matter for the general law of agency. In this context Clause 91(6) is intended to facilitate electronic conveyancing in a very specific way. It makes clear that where statute requires an agent's authority to be in writing objections cannot be raised as to whether a solicitor or licensed conveyancer who had signed an electronic document had written, as opposed to merely oral, authority to do so. The agent will need authority from his client before proceeding with authentication, and he can be held to account to his client if he fails to acquire it. However, this subsection prevents the need for other parties to investigate if the associated formalities that should be observed have been complied with.
I hope that my comments have clarified why there is a need for this assumption to be built into the provisions relating to electronic documents. I also hope that I have dealt with the concerns raised by the Law Society and enabled the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment No. 78 moves in the opposite direction. It seeks to extend the benefit of the deeming provision in Clause 91(6) from individuals to both individuals and artificial legal persons, such as companies incorporated under the Companies Acts and other bodies corporate. Clause 91(6) was drafted with the authentication of electronic conveyancing documents by solicitors and licensed conveyancers very much in mind, because, as I have said, it is expected that in the early days of electronic conveyancing electronic signatures will not generally be held by members of the public. Signing electronic documents is, therefore, likely to be one of the services that professionals providing conveyancing services will offer to their clients. Under present dispositions those professionals are likely to be individuals.
However, I believe that the noble Lord has a point in relation to corporations. I am very grateful to him for pointing out in his amendment that it is possible that in the future corporations may offer the service of authenticating documents on behalf of others. Whatever kind of person authenticates the document, it is important to remember that he will be required to comply with the terms of the relevant network access agreement to be able to send the document to the Land Registry. These agreements are likely to include
1614
provisions to ensure that proper procedures are followed by agents in regard to authentication. There may well also be professional rules which better support that.
The detailed terms of these arrangements will be a matter for consultation and careful consideration in the coming years as electronic conveyancing is developed, and they will have to change and he flexible to respond to those needs.
I understand the concern expressed about electronic signatures. It is our belief that the security and safeguards which will be inherent in the electronic system will be far greater than are currently available with a paper signature. Many of your Lordships will know that, regrettably, people are often asked to sign documents. Those signatures are not witnessed but are transposed. It is very difficult to have a proper trail to be able to verify whether that signature is actually the signature of the person signing. Therefore, it is our reasonable expectation that whatever the difficulties that may be inherent in the electronic system, it is likely to be much more secure than the present system.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was also concerned about the authentication not being capable of being challenged at all. His concern was that the agent's principal, in this case the conveyancer's customers, could not challenge an erroneous, negligent or fraudulent signature. We can reassure him that this will be possible and does not affect the law of agency, although the rules under the Bill will state how authentication should be done. The clause merely stops a buyer challenging the seller's authorisation. We believe that the Law Society will be reassured once it has seen the demonstration that the noble Lord had the advantage of seeing earlier. I hope that what I have said in relation to Amendment No. 77 assists. We shall consider Amendment No. 78.
Lord Goodhart: I am most grateful to the Minister for her reply to both amendments. Obviously, I want to hear further from the Law Society on Amendment No. 77 before deciding whether to bring it back again. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 78 not moved. ]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 33, line 8, leave out "written authority of his principal'. and insert "authority of his principal conferred by deed"
The noble Baroness said: An electronic document under Clause 91(5) is treated as a deed for the purposes of any enactment. Under the general law an agent can only make a deed if authorised to do so by deed. The amendment avoids a doubt about whether subsection (6) is sufficient to treat an electronic document made by an agent as authorised to take effect as a deed.
It could be argued that the amendment is not necessary because the electronic document is not actually a deed; it is only treated as one. However, the amendment saves having to be certain about a not entirely straightforward point. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Government believe that the amendment is not necessary. Perhaps I may explain to the noble Baroness why. Amendment No. 79 relates to the authentication of electronic documents by agents, as outlined by the noble Baroness. But it seeks to upgrade the deeming provision in subsection (6) of Clause 91. It would provide that where an electronic document permitted by Clause 91 is authenticated by an individual as an agent, the agent's authentication is to be regarded for the purposes of any enactment as having been carried out under the authority of his principal conferred by deed. As drafted, subsection (6) deems only written authority. It therefore operates at a lower level of formality.
The reason that this lower level is more appropriate is that the electronic document under Clause 91 is not a deed; it is only to be regarded as a deed for the purposes of any enactment. That is provided for by subsection (5) of Clause 91. The common law rule that an agent can only execute a deed if he or she is authorised to do so by deed is therefore not applicable. All that is required to facilitate electronic conveyancing in this respect is therefore an assumption that the document was executed under a written authority. I hope that on the basis of that explanation the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw Amendment No. 79.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response. I think that I understood it. I am not sure that I entirely agree with it. On that basis I would prefer to read what she has said in Hansard. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 91 agreed to.
Clause 92 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 93 agreed to.
Clause 94 [Supplementary]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 34, line 13, at end insert "including documents relating to the conduct of electronic land auctioneering"
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 80 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 81. In addition, I declare an interest as a surveyor and a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. In the briefing that we received on the Bill and in the letter that the noble Baroness kindly wrote to me, it is said that the Land Registry wants to introduce a world-class, up-to-date and modern system. We are all in favour of that. However, I detect a slight lacuna in the Bill; it omits electronic online auctions of land. That
1616
system will become increasingly used in the future but I cannot find anything in the Bill that deals with it. That is the purport of Amendment No. 80.
I raised this point at Second Reading and received a kind letter from the Minister. That allayed my fears somewhat; nevertheless I felt that it was worth tabling the amendment. It is also a matter of concern to the RICS property auction group. It has approached the Lord Chancellor's Department for clarification of the impact of the law on this particular sector of the property market. Currently, English law allows online auctioneering until the stage of exchange of contracts. That action must still be done in the traditional area of the auction room. The RICS and others are keen to develop electronic auctioneering to its fullest potential and has established guidance for its members on the best practice in undertaking such transactions. Amendment No. 81 refers to the rules concerning this measure and states that no rules should be brought in without the RICS and, indeed, the Law Society being consulted by the Lord Chancellor in order to develop the best practice.
Having listened with care to our discussion on Clause 91, and indeed the rest of the Bill, it occurs to me that it is time that I beat another drum. It is rather an old drum; nevertheless, it is a tune that is growing increasingly loud.
Given the responsibility that there will be on agents—I do not use the word "agents" as did the noble Baroness in relation to Clause 91, but "estate agents"—they will have huge responsibilities and access to a great deal more information than now. They will be dealing with matters which traditionally have been handed straight to solicitors. If I am instructed to sell a property now I immediately advise the owner to start getting his documents in order and contact the solicitor. The more that that is done online, the quicker the process will be and the more the agents will able to do for themselves without bringing in solicitors. But the agents are not licensed and it terrifies me that some of my fellow agents will have this power and responsibility. I therefore hope that the Government will give urgent consideration to implementing the licensing of estate agents. As the noble Baroness will know, provision is already made for that under the 1979 Act. Given the added responsibilities that agents will have, particularly with regard to online auctioneering, I hope that we, too, can be licensed. That would add a good deal to our credibility and ease some of the concerns of those who will be using our services. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Caithness. To repeat what he had to say would be otiose, but it is important to him and to all of his profession that we understand the Government's intention in relation to the auctioneering of land.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for returning to the topic of electronic auctioneering that he raised at Second

1617
Reading. It provides the common theme for Amendments Nos. 80 and 81. At Second Reading I promised to write to the noble Earl about the topic and, as he indicated, I have done so. In my letter I explained that the full details of the actual electronic conveyancing systems and services that are to be used to carry out transactions have not yet been settled.
The present position is that the Land Registry has built a model demonstrator of a potential electronic conveyancing system for consultation purposes. The current model was of course demonstrated on the committee corridor of the House last week. I am very sorry that for quite understandable reasons the noble Earl was not able to be with us. The current model is creative and effective and demonstrates how quickly and easily the system could be made to work. But the final system will be the product of detailed consultation with stakeholders in the professions, the IT industry and consumers over a period of years. Experience suggests that the only certainty is perhaps that the final system will be different from the model. We hope that the prototype will be the basis for creative discussion which will better hone the system in the long term.
The Bill provides the primary legal framework for the development of electronic conveyancing. It does not specify either the particular transactions that may, in due course, be carried out electronically or the method by which those transactions are to be carried out. Those details will be contained in secondary legislation and the network access agreements referred to in Schedule 5. However, auctions have special requirements and I quite understand why the noble Earl therefore raises them. In relation to sales of land, the most striking is perhaps that the contract is formed on the fall of the hammer rather than by exchange of written, signed documents. Fully electronic auctions will presumably require instantaneous electronic commitment by the successful bidder on the fall of the virtual hammer.
In traditional auctions the bidders are quite likely to be unknown to the seller and the auctioneer. Whether that will also be the case in electronic auctions remains to be seen. The pattern of an auction sale is therefore very different from that of a sale negotiated by private treaty. Electronic auctions in England and Wales are still in their infancy but electronic bidding over the Internet is growing in popularity. The noble Earl indicated as much in his earlier comments. At present, the creation of the sale contract still occurs in the real auction room. Electronic signatures seem to offer a way in which the small, but crucial, step to electronic auction contracts could be taken.
Auctions can be a very efficient way to sell property. We certainly do not wish to impede their operation by the creation of electronic conveyancing. Rather we will have to accommodate them within the systems to be created. We believe that the legal framework created by the Bill is sufficiently flexible to achieve this and we have therefore no reason to think that electronic auctions will need separate treatment in the Bill to fit within the new systems as they develop.
1618
These systems will, of course, relate to contracts for the sale of registered land. In so far as auctions of unregistered land are concerned, the Land Registry's systems will not be appropriate. It may be the case that if it is necessary or desirable to make general legal provision for online auctions of land a different legislative vehicle may be required. I can assure the noble Earl that the Government are giving the matter detailed consideration. He may be interested to know that our officials will be meeting in early August with representatives of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors to discuss the issues. I shall consider the amendment and the issue of online auctions generally between now and Report. I hope that on the basis of my reassurance the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 80.
Amendment No. 81 is intended to ensure that appropriate representative organisations, including in particular the Law Society and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, are consulted by the Lord Chancellor before any land registration rules are made relating to online auctions. While I wholly agree with the sentiments underlying the proposed amendment, I do not think that it is necessary. First, as a matter of general policy electronic conveyancing will be developed in collaboration with the stakeholder organisations. Secondly, land registration rules, such as those to be made under Clause 94, are already subject to a requirement of consultation with the rule committee established under Clause 124. That committee includes representatives of the Law Society, the General Council of the Bar, the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Council of Licensed Conveyancers. There is also provision for the Lord Chancellor to nominate additional members for specific purposes. We are very happy to do that. I can think of few more obvious uses of that power than to obtain expert representation from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors in relation to any rules that may be made regarding online auctions. That is entirely sensible.
In relation to the noble Earl's final point, the licensing of agents is well outside the scope of the Bill, though I understand that the temptation to raise it was irresistible. We hear what the noble Earl says and we understand his concerns. The quality of service is a matter for network access agreements. That may meet some of the noble Earl's concerns. I can certainly reassure him that network access agreements will be entered into and then completed only by those who satisfy the Land Registry and others that they are competent and have the necessary skills to have that facility. As the noble Earl may know, the Land Registry has jealously guarded that in the past and I do not feel that it will change very quickly.
The Earl of Caithness: I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for that full reply. Perhaps I may he a little pernickety and take up on one point: she might think that I belong to an institute—I probably deserve to do so—but in fact it is an institution. I am also grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady

1619
Buscombe. How nice that she is feeling 100 per cent better than was the case two days ago and to hear her in fine voice.
The Minister mentioned that the legal framework is already contained in the Bill. I am reassured by that. However, she went on to say that if it is not, there would be different legislation. Does that legislation already exist or will further primary legislation be required? Alternatively, could this be achieved under the secondary legislation provisions of another Act of Parliament?
I should like to take this opportunity to apologise for being unable to attend the demonstration. I wrote to the noble Baroness to explain why I could not do so. It is clear that I missed an important meeting which would have helped me with this amendment.
Perhaps the noble Baroness could respond to the question that I have put to her in the fullness of time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 94 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Duke of Montrose: Before we agree to the inclusion of Clause 94, I should like to ask the Minister for clarification. This clause deals with the storage of documents. I should like to know whether what might be contained in the rules will be adequate and whether a further amendment should be considered at a later stage.
First, I apologise to Members of the Committee for the fact that, owing to other duties, I was not able to attend the Second Reading debate. Furthermore, I should declare my interest as a landowner with an interest in land registration.
I shall paraphrase Section 8 of the Electronic Communications Act 2000: "The Minister is not to authorise electronic communication or electronic storage unless he considers that … the extent to which records will be available … will be no less satisfactory in cases where use is made of electronic communications or electronic storage than in other cases". This seems to suppose that electronic recording could be the only form of recording under the provisions of that Act.
So far as I understand the Bill before the Committee, it does not depend on the provisions of the Electronic Communications Act, although it runs on fairly similar lines to it. Furthermore, it does not require that electronic recording should be no less satisfactory than in other cases, as stated in Section 8 of the Act. In the question of land title, a great deal of satisfaction comes from being able to go back to the deed in 50 or 100 years' time.
I was grateful to be able to attend the demonstration which took place on the committee corridor. From what I saw, in the initial stages a paper document will be produced by the Land Registry. However, so far as I can see, there is no requirement for it to do so.
1620
Problems may arise in that electronic communication, as well as being subject to the usual hazards of fire, water, civil disturbance and a number of other risks, faces other dangers. In particular I refer to the continual updating of operating systems—something that I have come across even with my own limited experience. In 50 years' time a situation could arise where a problem occurs when attempting to interpret an electronic document. The outcome could be unfortunate: "We had a man here who was very good at updating this system, but he died 10 years ago". I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that it might be better, possibly when the rules are framed or at another level of authority, to lay down some requirement and status for an old-fashioned paper record which could be consulted if the electronic version had become garbled.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I say straightaway that I understand the noble Duke's concern. In particular for those of us who have grown up with paper, there is something reassuring about holding it in one's hand. I can sympathise and empathise with that concern. However, the whole purpose underlying electronic transmission is that all the records will be held electronically. Back-up systems will also be available so that we shall not have to rely on only one. We all know how dangerous that can be. That is particularly the case for any noble Lord who knows the feelings of joy when one's PC crashes. I can certainly reassure the noble Duke that the intention is that any system put in place will have proper back-up.
Although a paper record will not be kept, the computers will still be capable of creating paper. Anyone will be able to request a paper copy of their entry in the register. Indeed, for only a very few pounds anyone can request such a record. We have taken on board any concerns that might be felt in this area.
The Bill stands on all fours and its provisions are free of the Electronic Communications Act 2000 mentioned by the noble Duke, although it is right to say that this legislation is better informed by virtue of the fact that an Act similar in nature had already been passed to which reference could be made. For registered conveyancing, ultimately it will be the register and not the original deeds that will matter. The register already is almost wholly electronic.
I should like to take this opportunity to applaud the Land Registry for having achieved a great feat. It has converted many of those beautiful but dusty and deteriorating documents into electronic form. We now have a safe record of them. I am sure that many historical libraries will be happy to have other records in due course. Guidance will be made available from the Public Record Office. We respectfully hope and suggest that a paper back-up will not be necessary. However, I understand that for those of us born before 2001, we shall probably bemoan its passing.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): The Question is whether Clause 95 shall stand part of the Bill?
Clause 95 agreed to.
Clause 96 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Registration of adverse possessor]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Schedule 6. Amendment No. 89, Lord Goodhart.
Lord Goodhart: I think that the noble Baroness wished to oppose the Question that Clause 95 shall stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Buscombe: I wish to oppose the Question that Clause 95 shall stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have already dealt with Clause 95 stand part.
Baroness Buscombe: I am sorry.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have already called Clause 95 stand part and the Committee agreed that it was content. I have also put the Question whether Clause 96 shall stand part and the Committee agreed that it was content. We have now reached Schedule 6 and Amendment No. 89 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
Lord Goodhart: I think that this problem has arisen because the Question whether Clause 94 shall stand part was not put to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Yes it was.
Lord Goodhart: The question was put to the Committee, but I do not believe that the Members of the Committee were asked to say "Content". I shall proceed with Amendment No. 89.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No 89:
Page 56, line 11. leave Out sub-paragraph (4).
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to leave out paragraph 5(4) to Schedule 6. This sub-paragraph confers a right to registration on the traditional basis of adverse possession where a boundary on the ground does not coincide with a boundary on the register. The report from the Law Commission refers specifically to this. It may happen in the course of the development of a new estate. Frequently the developer of the estate may draw up a plan which is divided into neat plots. The plan is then used as the basis for registration, but the boundaries between the different houses on the estate do not coincide with the boundaries as shown on the plan. I understand the thinking behind paragraph 5(4), but I do not agree with it.
The reason I do not agree with it is that if the boundary as shown on the register is paramount, it reduces the chances of boundary disputes arising. Speaking from personal experience, I can remember a case in which I had a marginal involvement which appalled me. It concerned a dispute over a boundary which had arisen in exactly the circumstances where the boundaries on the plan did not coincide with the boundaries on the ground. There was therefore a claim based on adverse possession.
The dispute involved, I think, some 10 days of hearings in a county court, spread over a period of 18 months. This was followed by an application for leave to appeal, which was rejected by one judge at the Court of Appeal. But there was then a re-application to a three judge court, which gave leave. That appeal was subsequently successful.
There were three parties involved, the two landowners and the developer, who was brought into the case. At the stage at which I was involved—which was after the county court decision but before leave to appeal had been given—each party had already incurred costs of approximately £40,000 over a strip of land worth at the most a few hundred pounds. If the landowners in that case had been told that the boundary on the register was decisive, there would have been no litigation.
Of course there may be cases where, for example, a garage has been built on land which one owner believes to be his but which was in fact on the wrong side of the boundary as shown on the plan. In such a case, it would obviously be undesirable that the boundary should be changed and that a garage—and possibly, in some circumstances, even a building—should have to be knocked down at great cost because it had been built on the wrong side of the boundary. But that particular problem is covered already by subparagraph 5(2) on the ground that it would be unconscionable for one owner to claim land from his neighbour where the neighbour had spent a substantial sum in the belief that he owned the land, and where no objection was made at the time the building was going on.
Boundary disputes are the worst kinds of litigation. It is always difficult to find clear evidence and it leaves neighbours in a state of permanent hatred and warfare. I believe that the elimination of subparagraph 5(4) would make boundary disputes significantly less likely because there would be less opportunity to challenge the plain boundary shown on the plan. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I have listened with considerable sympathy to the circumstances described by the noble Lord. It is not surprising that his experience in that case stays forever in his memory. It is certainly an excellent illustration of the problems that can arise when boundaries are fiercely disputed. However, we believe that the solution proposed by the noble Lord would lead to many more disputes and, indeed, to some considerable injustice.
Perhaps I may start by explaining the problem with which the paragraph deals. The Land Registry has found that it is very common indeed for there to be small differences between the legal boundaries of an estate and those laid out on the ground. Much more rarely, as we have heard, the differences are significant. Problems are often particularly marked, in number and in kind, in relation to new estates, where, I am advised, it is rare indeed for properties to be exactly in the spot marked on the original plan. It is quite usual for a developer to have built a whole estate some three

1623
or four inches or three or four feet in the wrong place. That causes the quite significant difficulties that we are talking about changing.
The most obvious example is a series of fences put up in the wrong place. Those who move into a new house tend—perfectly naturally—to take their new fence as the boundary of their territory. Few will go to the trouble of comparing their new property in detail with its entry on the register. One can see how that occurs. If one has a 50-foot garden, and one measures it and it is 50 feet, one tends to think that it is the 50 foot garden one purchased, as opposed to thinking it is three inches the wrong side of a particular fence. Certainly such persons do not go to what can still be a matter of considerable inconvenience and expense of getting the general boundary of their property fixed by the land registry.
Such new owners, having made assumptions about the location of their boundaries, proceed to treat all the land within the fences as theirs. They will often plan their gardens accordingly; they may build garden sheds and greenhouses against that boundary. A position can then arise where, for whatever reason, one party examines the actual boundaries, and the legal position turns out to be something very different from what it had up to that point been thought to be. In the circumstances I have described, it is simply unreasonable that someone who has enjoyed territory through a mistake which was no fault of his or her own, should not be able to apply to have the position regularised.
The best assessment we can make—and this is clearly not capable of being precisely quantified—is that there are a large number of boundaries which may be in the wrong place. There could therefore be a large number of strips of land, which could be subject to serious dispute, without means of acquiring the title contained in the sub-paragraph. But—and this must be emphasised against the exceptional example described by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—the overwhelming majority of these estates involve comparatively small error.
Without the simple procedures of the kind laid out in the schedule, the only recourse would be expensive litigation, with all the uncertainty and stress that that would bring. One envisages, for example, an estate with 20 houses, where all 20 houses are one foot in the wrong position. Although all 20 houses have got the direct proportions the owners thought that they were buying, the man or woman on the end could say "You have got a bit of my land". To get his or her bit of land back, everyone would have to perform a very interesting dance.
That is the kind of situation which the Land Registry, which sees documents all the time, knows is likely to occur. As it is currently phrased, the Bill takes that kind of situation into account; it is an attempt to operate a degree of balance. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
1624
I should add one point. The noble Lord is saying in essence that the boundary should be paramount. I gently remind him that it is not paramount under the law as it currently stands, and it will not be paramount under the terms of the Bill. The registry operates a general boundary rule and, unless there has been an application to fix detailed boundaries, that avoids many disputes. We believe that the provision in the Bill deals with the matter efficaciously.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her full reply. I shall consider what she has said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 57, line 24, after "charge" insert ", and of any charge protected by a notice under section 32,"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is designed to ensure that where an adverse possessor is registered as proprietor, the extent to which he takes free of a charge is not affected by whether that charge is substantively registered or merely an equitable charge protected by notice. The way in which a particular security happens to have been protected is irrelevant to the substantive issue of whether the adverse possessor should take subject to it or free from it.
Paragraph 14.74 of the report—relating to registration of the squatter and the effect on registered charges—points out that registered chargees are to be notified of an adverse possessor's application to be registered—paragraph 2(1)(b) of Schedule 6—and are therefore able to object to it. Paragraph 2(1)(e) of Schedule 6 allows rules to be made for notice of such an application to be given to other persons; it will be possible and appropriate to require such notice to be given to a chargee whose security is protected by a notice rather than by substantive registration. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Under the provision in the Bill, a squatter who has made a successful application for registration is registered in place of the registered proprietor. Unless the Bill provides otherwise, the squatter will take subject to the matters which affect that registered estate.
The effect of paragraph 9(3) of Schedule 6 is to make the registration of an adverse possessor as proprietor of a legal estate free of any registered charges which affect that estate immediately before the registration, subject to one qualification. I shall explain the reason why this exception has been made.
When an adverse possession application is lodged, notice of the application will be served on both the registered proprietor and the registered chargee. As that chargee has the right to possession, his position has been improved under the Bill, since he will have two years in which to take action to evict the unlawful occupier (the squatter). If he does not do so, however, he loses his charge.

1625
The position of a chargee whose interest is noted on the register is, however, significantly different. Even if notice of the adverse possession claim is served upon that chargee, he is unlikely to be able to take any action against the squatter. It is unfair that he should be singled out to lose his charge when he can do nothing to stop the squatter obtaining title. I hope that in view of that explanation the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I have listened to the noble Lord's response. I am not sure that I am entirely happy with it; however, I shall read his words in Hansard and give them careful consideration. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 57, line 25, leave out from beginning to "in" and insert "Where a person is registered as proprietor"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 92.
These amendments are intended to ensure that when an adverse possessor is registered as proprietor because he establishes one of the conditions in paragraph 5 of Schedule 6, he takes free of registered and noted charges which on general principles would not bind him, because they were created by the proprietor at a time when the adverse possessor's claim had already acquired priority.
It is doubtful, at best, whether the adverse possessor can claim priority over chargees because he had an overriding interest as an occupier of the land at the relevant time, as the report suggests (at paragraph 14.76, note 258). Before being registered, the adverse possessor's interest is the independent "wrongful" fee-simple which arises from the fact of his possession; but when he is registered, that interest is extinguished by the provision in paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 6; therefore, it cannot subsequently be relied on, even if at some former time it was an overriding interest. If in a "paragraph 5 conditions" case the adverse possessor cannot rely on having had an overriding interest, paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 6 will make him subject to all charges whenever created—even the day before the application under paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 is made— because paragraph 9(3) will be disapplied by paragraph 9(4).
Again, we are not entirely certain that the amendment is ideally drafted in the terms necessary to achieve our intention. However, I hope that my remarks have made clear the purpose and intention behind both amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: In discussing this amendment we are concerned with only one specific instance of an adverse possessor being registered as owner of the land. That is when the adverse possessor is registered after only 10 years, having successfully established that one of the three conditions set out in paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 applies.
1626
The combined effect of sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) of paragraph 9 of the same schedule is that the adverse possessor, in this instance only, does not automatically take the estate free of any registered charges which affect that estate immediately before his registration.
I understand the concern that has been raised. Taking paragraph 9 in isolation, it seems that an adverse possessor can be registered as proprietor after 10 years, but only by paying the penalty of being subject to existing charges over the estate. I can reassure the noble Baroness that that does not reflect the complete picture.
At first sight, every adverse possessor, whether registered as owner after 10 years or after a further two-year period has expired, should take free of all registered charges and, as we discussed in relation to the previous amendment whether he or she should take free of any noted charges as well.
However, if the adverse possessor does not take free of the charges under paragraph 9, it does not mean that the story ends there. If the basis of registration is one of the first two conditions set out in paragraph 5 there exists an independent right or other reason justifying the squatter's registration as owner. That independent right or justification will, under wider property law principles, either have priority over the charge or it will not. The fact that the claim to registration has been made by way of the adverse possession procedure should not affect that priority. In such cases the apparent unfairness that the amendment seeks to address does not arise. The scheme does not make an arbitrary decision as to whether the charge still bites, but leaves the general law to determine the answer to the question. I suggest that this is probably the fairest solution to apply.
This leaves the third condition in paragraph 5 to be considered; namely, where there is a boundary dispute. In such cases, the claim relates to only part of the property. The adverse possessor may have successfully claimed a very small part of a very large estate; and that estate could have a substantial mortgage on it. The provision in paragraph 10 deals with the practical problem that this may cause: it enables the proprietor of the land to seek an apportionment of the charge between the land acquired and the remaining land. This is an important point. I say that because, in most normal circumstances, lenders would seek repayment of the entire loan before releasing any part of the property from their charge. In some cases, the apportionment exercise will result in a charge being secured entirely on the remaining land.
In the light of that slightly complex explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that the unfairness that the amendment, understandably, seeks to address has already been considered and that it is, indeed, covered by the Bill's provisions. In those circumstances, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for a very full response to the proposed amendments. Indeed, his

1627
reply will certainly help to clarify and reassure us on the points raised. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 58, line 21, leave out paragraph 12.
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to delete paragraph 12 to Schedule 6, which says:
"A person is not to be regarded as being in adverse possession of an estate for the purposes of this Schedule at any time when the estate is subject to a trust, unless the interest of each of the beneficiaries in the estate is an interest in possession".
Therefore, in a situation where the property is held on trust for a parent for life and then, on the parent's death, for a child, it is not until the death of the parent that the time for adverse possession would begin to run.
I see no justification whatever for including paragraph 12. One of the benefits of registration is to make it easier to ignore the interest of beneficiaries under a trust. Indeed, that has been the aim of property legislation since well into the 19th century when the existence of trusts of land was making it increasingly difficult to sell such property.
Why should the interests of beneficiaries be relevant to the question of whether or not there is adverse possession? Land will be registered in the name of the trustee. The trustee has a fiduciary duty to protect the interests of a beneficiary. If the trustee has failed to prevent someone acquiring trust land by adverse possession, the trustee is in breach of trust and is liable to make good the loss suffered by the trust fund. Under existing law, there is a problem; namely, that land may be in the personal occupation of a current beneficiary, who has only a life or rather limited interest. In those circumstances, the trustee is unlikely to pay any close attention to what is actually going on as regards the land, and may not be aware that adverse possession has taken place.
However, the new system set out in Schedule 6 requires a notice to be given to the proprietor—the trustee—before registration of an adverse possessor can take place. At that point, the trustee will have notice of the adverse possession and it is not too late for him to act; indeed, he has two years within which to put an end to the adverse possession. The trustee can and should take the necessary action at that stage. As far as I can see, paragraph 12 is entirely unnecessary under the new system. I can see no good reason why land held in trust should be any harder to acquire by adverse possession than land which is in absolute ownership. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I listened with particular care to the comments made by the noble Lord. This is certainly a difficult and complex area of property law. However, I am very far from being
1628
convinced that the noble Lord is right in this instance; or, indeed, that his amendment is in tune with the general scheme created by the Bill.
As the noble Lord rightly acknowledges, under the current law it is not until all the equitable interests under the trust of land have been successfully barred that the legal estate of the tenant for life, or, as the case may be, the trustees of land, is extinguished. Where there are successive interests under the settlement or trust, a squatter must, therefore, bar each equitable interest in order before he or she can claim the legal estate.
In accordance with this rule, the registrar will not register as proprietor a squatter who has take adverse possession against the tenant for life under the Settled Land Act 1925. The registrar will only do so when satisfied that all beneficial interests under the settlement have been barred.
I am a little troubled in this respect because the noble Lord said that he cannot see why the beneficiaries in such a situation should be given protection. Perhaps I may give the Committee a not too far-fetched example because, regrettably, this kind of situation arises from time to time. Let us take, for example, a couple who are involved in a car or an aeroplane crash. Unfortunately, the husband dies, leaving property of some considerable nature in trust for his wife for life and for his child upon her death. The wife, who is distressed and overcome by what has happened to her husband and, indeed, to her situation, becomes mentally ill. As a result, the child is removed from her care and placed into the care of the local authority. This tragic situation continues for some time.
During the time that the child in question is in the care of the local authority and the wife is housed in an appropriate mental institution, squatters take up residence on the child's property and remain there for some considerable time. Nothwithstanding the fact that the person with the life interest has done nothing wrong—or, indeed, has not been able to control the property—and the fact that the child is also innocent of any wrong, the noble Lord's amendment proposes that the squatter who takes up adverse possession of the property should thereby deprive the rightful beneficiary of his or her interest. That has never been our law; it is not our law now; and it is not proposed that that particular injustice should be visited by the Bill.
The Bill's provisions aim to fit the situation of trusts into its new scheme. It provides wholly new arrangements for squatters to apply to be registered as the proprietor of a registered estate in place of the existing proprietor. The application will succeed in the limited circumstances set out in the schedule. But the provisions of the Bill should not prejudice the rights of beneficiaries who are not yet in possession. We must have a balance: a squatter will not be regarded as being in adverse possession at any time when a registered estate is held in trust, as long as there are successive interests in the land. It is only when the interest of all of the successive beneficiaries of the estate have actually taken possession that a squatter can begin to clock up adverse possession that will qualify under the Bill.

1629
The effect of the noble Lord's ammendment is very different. Squatters would be able to count time against the 10 years of qualifying possession as soon as they entered the land. They would be able to apply for a first time to be registered as proprietor after 10 years, against whichever of the beneficiaries under the trust was then entitled. If the beneficiary failed to remove the squatters after an unsuccessful application, they would be able to apply again two years later and their application would succeed.
We could apply the latter situation to the example that I gave earlier to the Committee. If, tragically, the mother was still in the care of an institution of some sort and the child was also not of age—he or she being of tender years when the father died—both the mother, suffering from her incapacity, and the child would be deprived of their rights by virtue of the noble Lord's amendment. That situation would be very much easier to achieve, as the noble Lord said, than under the provisions in the Bill, or indeed under the current law. It would represent a very significant shift of the balance of interests away from the successive beneficiaries of the trust, in land which is registered, towards a squatter. That is very much against the general scheme of the Bill, which sets out to clarify and strengthen the position of a registered proprietor.
It also significantly shifts the balance between current and future beneficiaries. The general law would serve to prevent a tenant for life acting in a way which would frustrate the trust by alienating the land by normal means. I used the example of a mother suffering from incapacity because it does not even go to the situation where the tenant for life has behaved badly. But if a tenant for life took no action to resist an application for registration by an adverse possessor, the life tenant would lose not only his or her own but their successors' rights as well.
Indeed, it is perhaps not too fanciful to envisage circumstances in which the amendment if accepted might create a loophole in the law which would enable a life tenant to bring the trust to an end in favour of the selected ad verse possessor, frustrating the intentions of the trust. I am sure that that was not the noble Lord's intention. For the reasons I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that, notwithstanding the initial attraction of his amendment, it would be undesirable, and quite possibly unjust, to amend the Bill in that way. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful for the answer of the noble Baroness. However, it is not an answer to my amendment. What it does is to raise a different problem. Let us take the example that the noble Baroness has raised of a car accident in which the husband is killed and the wife to whom he has left a life interest in his property is severely injured as a result of which she has to be confined in an institution. Even if the wife has been named as the sole executor of the estate in the will, she would probably be unable to take out a grant and someone else would have to be found to take out a grant of representation to the estate. That person would
1630
become the trustee and it would be that person to whom notice would have to be given. That person would be the person who would be in a position to remove the people in adverse possession.
The point raised by the noble Baroness would therefore only arise in the somewhat improbable situation where the wife, having been fit to take out a grant as sole executor of the estate, then. as a result of delayed reaction, becomes unfit and no steps are taken to remove her as trustee of the estate. The problem that that throws up is that of the trustee who becomes unfit. Just as much injustice would be caused if the property had been left outright to the wife, so that she is the absolute owner of the estate, but, as a result of her injuries, she is unable to authorise action to be taken against the adverse possessors.
What one needs here to protect the situation is not paragraph 12 at all. What one needs is some provision for preventing adverse possession being acquired in cases where the registered proprietor is under an incapacity. That is the problem. What is needed here in my view is not paragraph 12—I believe that paragraph 12 can safely go—but something which will ensure that adverse possession cannot be acquired in cases where the registered proprietor, whether a trustee or an absolute owner, is incapable of taking action within the two-year period. In the case of absolute ownership, it would be just as much an injustice for the registered proprietor to be deprived as it would for a beneficiary to be deprived because of the incapacity of the trustee. If there is a trustee and if that trustee has full capacity, I continue to be of the view that paragraph 12 is unnecessary. In the circumstances, although I shall, of course, withdraw the amendment today, it is one which I may well bring back on Report, coupled, perhaps, with a further amendment to ensure that time does not run against a proprietor who is suffering from an incapacity.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Before the noble Lord sits down, I used that extreme example to soften his heart in relation to some beneficiaries. The noble Lord will know that we have made provision in terms of a disability in paragraph 8 to Schedule 6. However, the comments I made in relation to beneficiaries and tenants who have full capacity stand. The law as it stands is the law we intend the Bill to reflect.
Lord Goodhart: I respond to that point briefly. The fact is that nowadays under a trust of land it is very rare that the person who is the tenant for life—in the perhaps technically inaccurate sense of being a person who has the current life interest under the settlement—and has the current life interest under the settlement is also the sole trustee of that settlement. I simply do not see that where there is a settlement of that kind that situation is likely to arise.
Although I did not expect the noble Baroness to raise the point that she did I take the point that paragraph 8(2) to Schedule 6 deals with the question of incapacity. I accept, therefore, that no further

1631
amendment is necessary. However, that strengthens the case for saying that paragraph 12 is not necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clauses 97 and 98 agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 99 agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Clause 100 [Annual report]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 36, line 10, leave out "must" and insert "may"
The noble Baroness said: Clause 100 imposes a duty on the registrar to produce a report. However, it also gives him a discretion as to its form. In that context, we suggest that the word "may" is more appropriate. Clause 100(2) states:
"The registrar must publish every report under this section in such manner as he thinks fit".
It is the intention of the Government that the registrar has a duty to publish a report but that the report itself should be produced in such a manner as he thinks fit, thereby giving him discretion as to its form and content. We propose that the registrar may publish every report under this section in such manner as he thinks fit. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand the import of the noble Baroness's remarks. Clause 100 provides that the registrar must publish an annual report in the way that he considers appropriate. That is already what happens. Although it occurs at present without the benefit of statute, the Lord Chancellor lays that report before Parliament. So that reflects the current position.
The annual report is distributed widely to many organisations interested in the way in which the land registration system works. Those who are stakeholders in the registry use the information to monitor how the registry is functioning and to raise issues on its performance. The publication of information about the land registry's operation as a business is, therefore, important. Although it can be left to the registrar to decide the method of publication—for instance, in addition to printed copies the report is currently made available through the registry's website—the registrar should be obliged to publish that information. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response and clarification that the registrar should be, rightly, under a duty to publish a report. However, the English is not clear. I suspect that I shall bring forward a different amendment to clarify the use of English and retain the meaning that the registrar is under a duty to
1632
produce the report but that he may do so in such a manner as he thinks fit. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 100 agreed to.
Clauses 101 and 102 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Indemnities]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 60, line 35, at end insert "or section 86, or
(i) any other negligent act or omission on the part of the registrar in the performance of his duties under this Act"
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 97.
The amendments are directed to a similar point. Members of the Land Registry enjoy immunity from suit save where bad faith is proved. Perhaps I may direct the Committee to paragraph 4 of Schedule 7 which re-enacts, albeit in slightly different language, the provisions of Section 131 of the Land Registration Act 1925. In principle it is objectionable that the Land Registry cannot be sued for negligence. By contrast a local authority may be liable for the negligent acts of its employees in carrying out local searches. I draw attention to the Ministry of Housing v Sharp. This means that the scope of the indemnity provisions in Schedule 8 are of critical importance. At the moment they are not wide enough to protect the innocent citizen in all circumstances in which the registry has been negligent.
One example is provided by Clause 86(2) and (4) which impose a duty on the registrar to enter in the register relating to registered estate a notice of a bankruptcy petition which may affect it and to enter a restriction where a bankruptcy order has been made, in both cases as soon as practicable. Clause 86(5) provides that where no such notice or restriction has been entered in the register and a registered disposition is made in favour of a purchaser for valuable consideration without notice of the bankruptcy petition or order, the title of the bankrupt's trustee is void as against the purchaser.
What if the registrar negligently fails to enter a notice or restriction as soon as practicable and the bankrupt's creditors lose? No rectification of the register is appropriate so that paragraph 1(1)(a) does not apply and the other sub-paragraphs do not seem to apply either. If so, there is no remedy. The proposed amendment to paragraph 1(1)(h) of Schedule 8 is designed to cure this defect. But there may well be other situations in which there should be a remedy and there is not. The suggested new paragraph 1(1)(i) is a "mop up" provision designed to cater for these. This is not a particularly elegant solution but it will at least serve to raise this important point of principle.
I turn to Amendment No. 97. The references to "mistake" in Schedule 8 are ambiguous in that they do not in terms refer to intentional as distinct from unintentional error. The position under the 1925 Act is much clearer. Section 82(1)(d) permits rectification where the court or the registrar is satisfied that an entry has been obtained by fraud and Section 83(1) provides

1633
for any person suffering loss by reason of any rectification to be indemnified. A person suffering loss in consequence of the register being rectified by reason of fraud is thus clearly entitled to be indemnified. The proposed amendment is designed to produce the same clarity. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope that I shall be able to reassure the noble Baroness that the difficulties she outlines are already covered. The issues involved in relation to Amendments Nos. 95 and 97 are the same. I shall therefore deal with them together.
Paragraph 1 of Schedule 8 sets out the circumstances in which a person who has suffered loss can seek to be indemnified for that loss by the registrar. This is an important area. It was considered by the Law Commission fairly recently and the law changed by the Land Registration Act 1997. Although the Bill recasts these provisions into the current style, it makes no significant change to the provisions that were contained therein.
The fundamental premise on which the title guarantee system is based is that it is a no-fault indemnity system. The underlying policy is that no one has to prove that someone is at fault. All that has to be shown is that, first, a mistake exists in certain documents kept by the registrar; secondly, a mistake exists in the search, result or register created by the registrar; or, thirdly, a document lodged with the registrar has been lost. The only exception to that is the failure to serve notice under Clause 50.
Clause 50 is a special case. Under that clause, a lender may lose out as a result of the registrar's failure to serve notice but not because an incorrect entry has been made. I absolutely appreciate the concern behind the amendment: that failure to enter details of a bankruptcy petition or order, or a negligent act or omission on the part of the registrar, may result in loss for which indemnity is not payable.
I share the belief that people who suffer loss in either of those circumstances should be compensated for that loss. However, I hope that I shall be able to reassure the noble Baroness that the Bill already addresses those concerns to the extent that it needs to do so.
If the registrar fails in his duty to make an entry in relation to bankruptcy matters, a resulting error will appear on the register. In other words, if a bankruptcy entry of some kind should appear but does not, that will be the error. The registrar's failure would therefore be a mistake, the correction of which would involve rectification of the register. Such a mistake entitles the person who suffered loss to claim the indemnity.
I now turn to the question of negligent acts or omissions by the registrar. Perhaps I may say respectfully that issues of this kind have no place in a no-fault indemnity scheme. If the negligent act or omission results in a mistake in a document or in the loss of a document, then indemnity is payable. It is not a matter of how the mistake or the loss arose. If a negligent act or omission does not fall within the indemnity scheme, the complaint is likely to be based
1634
on delay in achieving the right result. The registry is, and will be, held to account for maladministration through its complaints procedure. In such circumstances, compensatory payments can be made outside the indemnity scheme. It is certainly our view that it is more appropriate to handle those payments in that manner.
In the light of those comments, I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that the amendment is not needed and that, without it, the system will operate fairly in a similar way to the current system. The interpretation of Schedule 8 defines the scope of the term "mistake" for the purposes of the payment of indemnity under the schedule. Again, I appreciate the concern behind the amendment. For these purposes, a mistake should include one that results from forgery or fraud. It is only right that a person who has suffered loss should be able to claim indemnity if the mistake results from forgery or fraud.
However, as I have already said, the fundamental principle on which the success of the indemnity system is based is that it is a no-fault system. Indemnity is payable however the mistake that gave rise to the loss was caused. It would cover mistakes resulting from the two specific types of event described as well as mistakes caused by other factors. As I said earlier, the important and legitimate concern raised by the amendment is already addressed in the Bill. I hope that I have been able to clarify that for the noble Baroness, and I invite her to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her full and helpful response and reassurances in relation to both Amendments Nos. 95 and 97. I should like to consider with care what she said in Hansard and study the references that she made covering the points that we have raised. However, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 not moved.]
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clauses 103 to 105 agreed to.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clauses 106 to 115 agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 116 [Power to reduce qualifying term]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 40, line 9, at end insert "the Rule Committee and".
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 98 relates to a very important power under Clause 116 in Part 12—that is, the power of the Lord Chancellor to reduce the qualifying term. It is our belief that that power must be exercised with great caution. We discussed in some detail its implications in relation to earlier amendments.
This clause puts one in mind of the Regulatory Reform Act. A significant power exists here without, we fear, sufficient constraint because the Lord

1635
Chancellor need only consult as he considers appropriate. I say that with all due respect to the current noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who, I am sure, would consult all appropriate parties. However, we must remember that this Bill replaces an Act that has lasted since 1925. Therefore, we are looking to cover all eventualities for the long term.
We believe that it is simple to do so because we have a ready-made rule committee that is, we are assured, constituted to reflect upon and take account of all interests affected by the Bill. Yet, when it comes to an issue that goes to the heart of the Bill and, indeed, as we stated when dealing with earlier amendments, affects so many people who are involved in conveyancing, small business, farm tenancies, and so on, that important committee will not be consulted. We believe that to be a serious omission. We hope that it is accidental, but, if the omission is intended, I hope that the Minister will explain to us the policy behind it.
Perhaps I may refer the Minister to col. 1395 of Hansard wherein she makes reference to an earlier amendment dealt with in Committee. Perhaps I may repeat her words:
"Confidence in the system is necessary. Once that confidence has been established, it will be possible for the Lord Chancellor of the day to look again at whether a further reduction"—
that is, in the qualifying term—
"is merited, but that would be done at a time that was in line with what the market, the profession and the registry could tolerate with ease". —[Official Report, 17/7/01; col. 1395.]
We on these Benches believe that that test would be met if properly applied by consulting fully with the ready-made rule committee. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I believe that the noble Baroness has made a rather good case for what has not been done—that is, that an order made under this clause should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I believe that there is a strong argument for that— perhaps stronger than the argument for requiring consultation with the rule committee, whose field of action in this case is slightly different.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As Members of the Committee will know, the Bill was drafted on the basis that leases of seven years or more will be subject to compulsory registration. In the longer term, it is intended to reduce that period to three years or more. The Committee will already be aware that that will happen only when both the registry and its customers can cope with the change, as the noble Baroness reiterated from our earlier deliberations.
As the noble Baroness said, Clause 116 enables the Lord Chancellor to substitute in various clauses throughout the Bill a shorter qualifying period for leases. That will enable related provisions to dovetail with each other by adjusting the length of the leases to which they refer. The clause imposes a duty on the Lord Chancellor to consult before that change is made. That will be a significant change and a wide consultation exercise will be undertaken with all representative groups.
1636
Members of the rule committee have professional expertise and experience of serving on that committee and they will undoubtedly have a valuable contribution to make in this area. However, the rule committee as a committee has a very specific function in relation to land registration rules and fees orders; namely, to ensure that the procedures that are set down function well and operate fairly for the benefit, ultimately, of the Land Registry's customers. It is not the committee's function to represent the public interest generally in relation to changes to primary legislation; as Members of the Committee know, that is the role of Parliament.
Orders that are made under the clause will be subject to the negative resolution procedure, in the same way as orders to extend compulsory registration in relation to shorter leases will be. I give proper weight—I am very much thinking on my feet—to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about the proposed change. I cannot give a positive answer on that matter but it needs—or deserves—further consideration.
The approach throughout the Bill has been to impose on the Lord Chancellor a duty to consult without attempting to list all the different bodies and stakeholders that might have an interest. As Members of the Committee know, that list may change from time to time. It might be inelegant and inappropriate to prescribe or limit it in any fixed way. It may also depend to some extent on the proposed change. It would be very unlikely that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would wish to consider the exercise of the power in the clause without considering whether he—or she—should consult the rule committee. Equally, I should expect the answer usually to be, yes. However, that does not make it necessary or desirable to single out the committee in the Bill. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
I can say that the matter will be given further consideration. At the moment we believe that that arrangement suffices and that it would be inappropriate to so restrict it, but the matter perhaps needs more thought. However, I obviously cannot guarantee that I shall come back with a positive answer.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response and her assurance that more thought will be given to this matter. I do not quite understand why the rule committee's remit could not be extended to include such an important issue as the power to reduce the qualifying term. We should like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to consult the rule committee as a minimum and, in addition, as much as possible with other organisations that and individuals who will be affected by such an important issue, which will go to the heart of conveyancing. I wait to hear what proposals the Minister will return with on Report. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 116 agreed to.
Clauses 117 to 123 agreed to.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clause 124 [Exercise of powers]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 41, line 39, after "Conveyancers," insert—
"( ) a person nominated by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors,
( ) a person nominated by the National Consumer Council,"
The noble Lord said: The proposal in the amendment has already been touched on in this debate; it is that—in addition to representatives from the Bar Council, the Law Society's council, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, a judge from the Chancellery Division and the registrar—the rule committee should include a person nominated by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. If the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, were in his place, I should apologise for getting its title wrong. The amendment also proposes that the committee should include a person nominated by the National Consumer Council as a representative of consumer interests.
I should mention that when, some years ago, I was a member of the conveyancing committee of the Law Commission, that committee included a representative from the National Consumer Council—she was a valuable member of the committee. I presume that that is the appropriate body to represent consumers' interests. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It should be plain that we have some sympathy with the amendment. Clause 124 deals with the membership and role of the Land Registry Rule Committee, which assists the Lord Chancellor with the development of land registration rules and fees orders. As the committee is currently composed, it is chaired by a High Court judge. He in turn is supported by the Chief Land Registrar and representatives from the Bar Council and the Law Society. Additionally, a surveyor is appointed by the Ministry of Agriculture, as it was then called.
As it is drafted, the Bill will remove the requirement for the appointment by what was called the Ministry of Agriculture and extends the committee to include a person nominated by the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Council of Licensed Conveyancers. That reflects the impact that the rules have on the different stakeholder interests. We are most grateful to the noble Lord for raising the issue of representation by consumers and surveyors. It must be right that in important discussions about the content of land registration rules the interests of both should be represented. I have in mind the large number of rules that will need to be made following the Bill's enactment.
In addition, the Bill will give the Lord Chancellor the power to appoint to the committee anyone who it appears to him can make a valuable contribution on any matter. I am beginning to think that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, might fit that bill, as would the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. Including in the Bill those two additional nominees as members of the
1638
committee will enable them rather than the Lord Chancellor to decide on which matters they wish to be heard. That is an important point in this regard. It seems to us to be the most appropriate way forward.
However, I have concerns about the way in which those additional members are identified in the amendment. I have therefore turned to the legislation relating to the membership of the rule committee overseeing county court procedures, which is perhaps the nearest equivalent body to this rule committee. One of their members is chosen for his or her knowledge of consumer affairs. I prefer that more generalised wording. I am also attracted to that approach for the selection of the surveyor. I should prefer it if the Bill stated that the Lord Chancellor will appoint someone with experience in surveying matters. That would cover the point. I say that because even now the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors is not the only eminent body in the surveying profession. The change of wording is not intended to prevent the Lord Chancellor from consulting the RICS on the appointment. It is likely that a nominee from RICS will be best placed to sit on the committee while the vast numbers of rules that will come into force alongside the Bill are made. The revised wording is designed merely to provide and ensure greater flexibility in future. The specific areas covered by rules might be more specialised. I have mentioned the additional power given to the Lord Chancellor to appoint other members of the committee in relation to specific matters. That power can be used to ensure that the relevant interest groups in the surveying profession are represented whenever the need arises.
To conclude, the amendment is accepted in principle and we undertake to table a government amendment on Report, incorporating wording along the lines that I have suggested. In light of that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, says about the position of representatives of consumer groups, but I have difficulty about not including the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in the Bill. That body is incorporated by Royal Charter and while I accept that there are other associations involving surveyors, they are mostly organisations of a different kind. They are not groups of surveyors who deal regularly with conveyancing issues. I should have thought that the RICS was plainly the pre-eminent body with regard to surveyors involved in conveyancing and that it was an appropriate body to include. It is somewhat inappropriate to specify the four named organisations in the clause without including the RICS.
The matter is not vital, but I should like to hear the views of the RICS before deciding whether to table another amendment naming that organisation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 124 agreed to.
Clause 125 [Rules, regulations and orders]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 42, line 17, leave out from "instrument" to end of line 20 and insert "made under this Act"
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendments is to give effect to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which recommended that the rule-making powers should be made subject to parliamentary procedure through the negative resolution procedure.
In my enthusiasm, I went a bit too far. The effect of my amendment would be to require a parliamentary negative resolution procedure for matters such as fee orders and commencement orders, which are not customarily subject to such procedure. That was not my intention and I do not wish to press that issue.
With regard to the rule-making powers, there is provision to lay statutory instruments before Parliament but to provide for no other parliamentary procedure. That procedure seems to be unique to the Land Registration Bill. I recognise that some Acts of Parliament have provisions requiring certain documents, such as codes of conduct, to be laid before Parliament. Those are not statutory instruments, of course, and do not contain rules. We in the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee believe that the land registration rules should be brought into line with the general practice of rules of court and should be made by statutory instruments which are subject to the negative resolution procedure. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 101 and 103A. I thank the Minister, representatives of the Land Registry, Charles Harpum and others for an informative demonstration of the electronic conveyancing model. It is always helpful to have in one's mind's eye some practical experience of how a system will operate. There is no question but that we are very supportive of this development, which will, when it is fully operational and the teething problems are ironed out, clearly transform conveyancing for the benefit of all.
Part 8 and Schedule 5 of the Bill set out the principles and outline the parameters of the new system which, to a large extent, are welcome. It is clear that the detail of the system and its operation will be covered by rules under Clause 93 and Schedule 5. It is our view that the detail, when drafted, should be discussed in Parliament because it will be of such fundamental importance to the operation of electronic conveyancing, and thus everything that impacts on the future of land registration.
It would be nice to discuss today the regime that will be in place for the next 100 years, but we cannot. It was conceded during the demonstration of the e-conveyancing model that a pilot study will be crucial to ensure that the current system is workable in practice for a multitude of applications. It must be said that it is extraordinary the speed with which the
1640
Government have brought the Bill to Parliament in contrast with the lack of detail with regard to the most important point.
We know that the pilot scheme is expected to last for five years, which is a sensible period. We hear the Government's argument against specifying the detail in the Bill because technology may, and probably will. progress in that time frame. However, whatever process is finally determined by the Land Registry to be the right one following the pilot scheme, that is no argument for not allowing us the opportunity to debate the finer points in Parliament. The detail is too important.
I refer the Minister to her speech on Second Reading when she stated:
"The power referred to exactly replicates the current law".—[Official Report, 3/7/01; col. 798.]
That is true, but we are now introducing a very new system which requires new law. We therefore believe that we should not be bound by current law that relates back to 1925.
Amendment No. 103 is consequential on Amendment No. 101. Clause 129(1), referring to general interpretation states:
'"land registration rules' means any rules under this Act, other than rules under section 93, Part 11. section 119 or paragraph 1, 2 or 3 of Schedule 5".
All the rules that are specifically excluded relate to rules for electronic conveyancing. Clauses 123 and 124 relate to land registration rules. Clause 124(1) provides that,
"Power to make land registration rules is exercisable by the Lord Chancellor with the advice and assistance of the Rule Committee".
Therefore, all land registration rules can be made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as the Minister made clear when speaking to a previous amendment, but only with the advice and assistance of the rule committee and excepting those rules relating to electronic conveyancing.
Why is that? Our amendment would remove that exception because it is entirely consistent, logical and sensible for rules relating to electronic conveyancing to be made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in conjunction with the advice and assistance of those who understand the market and who are in touch with the practicalities of operating the system.
Remember that it is the Government's intention to have comprehensive electronic conveyancing in a few years from now. With all due respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his advisers, it is a nonsense to exclude the advice and assistance of the rule committee regarding the most important elements of this new system.
I respectfully remind the Minister of the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on Second Reading. He stated:
"The Land Registry has now begun an intensive campaign of consultation with conveyancers and with all other people involved in buying and selling property. That is necessary because conveyancers themselves must work with the system". —[Official Report, 3/7/01; col. 778.]

1641
We are pleased that there is now a campaign of consultation. However, that consultation should continue for the long term because, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor recognised, it is those who are and will make up the rule committee who must work the system and who will best understand its strengths and shortcomings.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I shall now reply to Amendments Nos. 100, 101, 103 and 103A. It may be for the convenience of the House if I start by explaining that I have listened very sympathetically indeed to what has been said, and, as I mentioned when we last met in Committee, I shall be undertaking to bring forward amendments at a later stage.
As the Explanatory Notes on the Bill and the Lord Chancellor's Department's memorandum to the Delegated Powers Committee explained, the Bill has adopted an improved version of the approach to rule making to be found in the current legislation.
As Members of the Committee will already know, the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform has recommended a different approach. It points out that the general power to make rules regulating land regulation procedures dates back to 1925, and has always been subject only to the requirement of their being laid before Parliament after being made. It points to the example of rules of court, which are subject to negative procedure, and suggests that all land registration rules should be so subject. The committee also recommends the extension of that procedure to rules under Clauses 107, 108 119, regulations under Schedule 9, and orders under Clause 99.
The Government are happy to agree that the rule-making powers should be modernised. We are of the opinion that the Committee's comparison with rules of court is appropriate, and we think that the model which should be adopted is the one which is now followed for the civil courts, and which has recently led to the wholly reworked civil procedure rules. The Government will therefore bring forward amendments which would subject all land registration rules to negative procedure.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, clarify that he did not intend to include fees orders and so on. There are, however, some aspects of internal court administration which, as the noble Lord knows, are not subject to that procedure, but are simply laid before Parliament after being made. Although fees orders are made on the advice of the relevant rule committee and with the consent of the Treasury, they are also simply laid. There are powers of this kind in the Bill: for example, the powers under Clause 99 to make provision on the carrying out of functions during any vacancy in the office of the registrar. Clearly, any delay in such regulations created by the procedural requirements of negative procedure could have a very serious operational implications for the Land Registry. The Government's provisional view is
1642
therefore that the regulations which are brought forward should follow as closely as possible the scheme of rules for the civil courts.
Amendment No. 101 would go considerably further than the recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. The Select Committee did not recommend that any of the delegated powers under the Bill should be subject to affirmative resolution. Apart from subjecting the great majority of delegated powers under the Bill to negative procedure, this amendment would also make the most important rules relating to electronic conveyancing subject to affirmative procedure.
Rules under Clause 93 would prescribe the transactions for which the use of electronic conveyancing would be made compulsory. Rules under the first three paragraphs of Schedule 5 would govern not only who was allowed to have access to the Land Registry electronic network but also the terms on which that would be permitted. Those rules will therefore be central to the regulation of the system. It really is fundamental to the success of electronic conveyancing that it should be able to command the confidence of customers, and of conveyancers. The noble Baroness acknowledged that those rules may need to be changed rapidly if technology improves and I thank her for that acknowledgement because it is quite clear that that is the way we shall go in the future.
The Government certainly see the value of ensuring proper parliamentary scrutiny, and a full public airing, for the draft rules. The amendments which the Government will bring forward at a later stage will therefore include provision for affirmative resolution in relation to rules dealt with under the current amendments. In the light of that undertaking, I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will not press their amendments.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 103A. It seeks to remove certain words from the definition of the phrase "land registration rules" in Clause 129, which is the general interpretation clause to the Bill. As drafted, the phrase "land registration rule" is used to identify the rules which must be considered by the rule committee before being made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. In the form of the Bill as introduced, those rules were to be made and then laid before Parliament.
As we have already indicated, the Government will be reconsidering the degree of scrutiny to be applied to the rule-making procedure. The effect of Amendment No. 103A would be to extend the rules that must he considered by the rule committee to include rules relating to simultaneous completion and registration in electronic conveyancing under Clause 93 and network access agreements under paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Schedule 5 to the Bill.
It would also draw into scrutiny by the rule committee rules under Part 11 of the Bill relating to the proceedings before the adjudicator and rules relating

1643
to the forwarding of certain applications by the Land Registry to the registrar of companies under Clause 119.
We do not believe that that would be appropriate. Applications to the registrar of companies are matters of joint interest to Companies House and to the Land Registry. Therefore, we suggest that they should not depend upon the advice and assistance of the rule committee alone. Similarly the new adjudicator to Her Majesty's Land Registry is an independent office and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for consideration by the rule committee to be a formal stage in the creation of rules applicable to proceedings before the adjudicator.
As originally drafted, the Bill subjected the rules to be made in relation to electronic conveyancing under Section 93 and paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Schedule 5 to a negative resolution procedure following consultation by the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor is required to consult on the rules governing electronic conveyancing, and that would include the rule committee where relevant. However, the amendment would have the effect that the rule committee would include the Chief Land Registrar in the rules governing the adjudicator, and that may not be appropriate for reasons of independence.
Given the wide and important ramification of the rules, we consider that the wider provision of general consultation is more appropriate. I have already indicated that the Government will bring forward amendments to include provision for affirmative resolution procedure. Clearly, we could not involve the rule committee as a formal step in the making of the rules if this higher level of parliamentary scrutiny were adopted.
In the light of those comments and that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister. In view of what she has said, I shall ask for the leave of the Committee to withdraw Amendment No. 100 and I shall not move Amendment No. 102. As I understand it, the Government agree to most, although not quite all, the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. The outstanding one is orders under Clause 99. I am unsure whether there are any others. Having had a quick look I believe that Clause 119, which simply deals with transmission between two registrars, perhaps falls into the same category. No doubt the delegated powers committee will have a chance, before the Bill is dealt with on Report, to consider the arguments put forward as to why there should be no changes in those limited respects. I cannot speak for the Committee, but I do not have any particular problems with those. Therefore, I ask leave to withdraw Amendment No. 100.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 101:
Page 42, line 17, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
"(4) No rules under section 93 or paragraphs 1, 2 or 3 of Schedule 5 shall be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
(5) An order under any provision of this Act other than section 99, 101. 111, 131 or 133 is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
The noble Baroness said: I thank the Minister for a full response in relation to Amendments Nos. 101 and 103A. I am pleased by her undertakings in relation to Amendment No. 101 and look forward to considering the government amendments on Report.
I also want to consider with care what has been said in relation to Amendment No. 103A and earlier amendments in relation to the remit of the rule committee and its relationship with the Land Registry. Of course, the matter of independence is important, but on that basis I shall not move Amendment No. 101.
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
Clause 125 agreed to.
Clauses 126 to 128 agreed to.
Clause 129 [General interpretation]:
[Amendments Nos. 103 to 103A not moved.]
Clause 129 agreed to.
Clause 130 agreed to.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clause 131 agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Transition]:
[Amendments Nos. 104 to 108 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 80. line 40, leave out "section" and insert "paragraph"
The noble Lord said: This amendment is intended to correct what appears to be a minor drafting error. The word "section" appears in the Bill and I believe it should read "paragraph". I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We have arrived at the final amendment. I am delighted that it has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Again, he has demonstrated that even the smallest of drafting slips in any part of the Bill are not safe from his keen eye. As he has noted, the reference in paragraph 18, subparagraph (3) to "this section", should read "this paragraph". I am pleased to accept the amendment.
It has been a pleasure to participate in the second day of the Committee stage. The amity with which the Bill has been dealt with is a matter of some pleasure. We have had a good debate today and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I thank the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 132 agreed to.
Schedule 13 agreed to.
Clause 133 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Multi-ethnic Britain
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Uddin Baroness Uddin rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they will respond to the recommendations of The Parekh Report: The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at the time of the Parekh report going to press, the Government declared that they are committed
"to creating one nation … [where] every colour [is] a good colour … every member of every part of society able to fulfil their potential … racism is unacceptable and counteracted … everyone is treated according to their needs and rights … where racial diversity is celebrated".
A year is an eternity in politics—it was last year that I tabled this Question for debate—and events have overtaken my initial thoughts and my genuine search of the Government's agreement to consider the recommendations of the Parekh report. In doing so today, I cannot ignore the events of the past weeks in Oldham, Burnley, Bradford and Stoke-on-Trent. Now that we have the debris of these events lying in the ashes of deprivation, isolation, fear and hatred, I have to say that the evidence of inequality, discrimination and exclusion is so pervasive that it would be a dereliction of duty to the truth not to give it prominence.
In the period leading up to the prolonged election campaign, I had numerous conversations with many honourable and noble friends about the state of race relations. I said the same as has been said by many for more than 20 years and as was stated in the Parekh report: "Do something about the underachievement, the poor housing and education and apartheid in town halls and, above all, do something to redress the issue of representation and leadership not just in local and central government but, more importantly, in the boardrooms and on the quangos. And we need to widen participation in the decision-making structures of this country".
I also talked about the visits I made last year to the North of England and, as usual, I talked about Tower Hamlets. I have to say that I used the word "apartheid" on our doorsteps and raised serious questions about the effectiveness and performance of local authorities in engaging their citizens.
The past few weeks have revived all the fear, hopelessness and soul-searching of the 1980s when the Scarman report was left to rot on the shelf. What is the difference? None, according to the delegation I met yesterday from Oldham, Bradford and Burnley. Twenty years ago young people claimed that they were defending their community and they make the same claim today. And the allegation made 20 years ago was—and it still stands—that the police failed to protect the community. Throw in racially segregated
1646
estates, schooling, unemployment and lack of access to prosperity on your doorstep and you have a recipe for grief and tension.
After decades of hard work, it must be admitted that community work in Britain is in disarray. There is a big gap between intention and outcome and promise and delivery. Oldham and Bradford are today, as they were 25 years ago—ghettoised housing and education. Yesterday, the members of the delegation said that there is no shortage of initiatives but there are few tangible results. Their despair is made even worse by a feeling of marginalisation and a lack of any genuine partnership with the authorities. They say that the experts who rule all the decision-making structures have no affinity of any kind with their plight and dilemma.
The Parekh report is an important milestone in the collection of evidence on which to base a strategy for some equalisation of services and for addressing some of the questions arising out of the events of last week. Anyone who remembers the reception the report received when it was launched in October last year should have heard alarm bells ringing about the state of race relations in Britain.
Some of the extreme media response was the usual blurring of the fine line between advocating balance and freedom of speech for everyone and damning confession of belief in true blue history and justification of the "rivers of blood" speech. But if perception is two-thirds of the truth, two-thirds of the country must have been totally confused about the subsequent discussion on Britishness. The same media, throughout last week, remained trapped in its own definition of "freedom of expression" and raised new heights by giving a platform to the defence fascism.
Suddenly every newspaper and journalist wants to give the so-called "Cambridge-educated fascist" a platform. Really, my Lords, the "old boys' network" works even for those who are advocating race and religious hatred. The master prosecutor sat fixated in his chair allowing viewers to believe that the "Cambridge-educated fascist" had the upper hand. I hear that in response to complaints from the CRE, the BBC's explanation was that it had given the matter careful consideration and it was duty-bound to be fair, even though it may find some of what it has to broadcast unpalatable.
The comments of politicians and the reporting of the incidents in the media dramatically highlighted the phenomenon of bipartisan political consensus on race. Furthermore, it demonstrated that there is no dialogue between those who make decisions and those beneath them.
An editorial in the Yorkshire Post of 12th July reminded its readers of the words of one Marsha Singh, who in the 1980s defended Asian activists who had stockpiled petrol bombs for use against the National Front and who was now making a plea for the police to be given water cannon to quell the predominantly Muslim rioters. And now the Member for Keighley has similarly broken with old socialist

1647
Labour rhetoric, and perhaps even risked the wrath of the Labour Whip, by calling for restrictions on the influx of husbands and wives from the subcontinent who cannot speak English. Now, wait a minute, we are not talking about the "river of blood" or the dark days of the cricket test. Are we not referring to second and third generation British citizens?
These are trying times for our good will and our Government and it is time for a genuine and deep-rooted assessment of community relations in our country; time for bold action. For a long time, individuals in the Labour Party such as myself have argued that efforts aimed at creating modern Britain need to go beyond the rhetoric and tokenism of past years. Just when we think that there is progress, we dig ourselves into a corner where even Enoch Powell may not have dared go; making a sin and a crime of not speaking English.
Coming from one of the wealthiest parts of London, I despair every time I come across the frustration, sense of helplessness and marginalisation that people within my own community continue to feel. It is not that money has not been poured in, but that the division has continued to be widened; ghettos have effectively placed their people into an apartheid system of governance; and the race relations organisations have become more elitist and have failed to become more inclusive. We are no longer talking about immigrant communities but about second and third generation British citizens. That is where the Parekh report's recommendations in their fullest are applicable. Perhaps the Minister will say why he believes the democratic movement of our country has missed these young people who have been burning their community, smashing it, and making a mockery of democracy.
The young people of Bradford and Oldham came to London yesterday seeking to retrieve their hopes. We have to signal that hope, fairness and justice. The problems in the North of England affect all young people; the lack of jobs and prosperity, poor quality housing with racism just added on. Only the fascists are gaining from the violence that has occurred. The solutions lie in establishing dialogue. The Parekh report is a testimony to the many possibilities. The British citizens of Bradford and Oldham are seeking explanations and justice, not condemnation.
Under the new Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, public bodies must work through their statutory functions to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination, direct and indirect, and, most poignantly for the moment, to promote good race relations across and between people from all backgrounds.
These are trying times. Ultimately, the choice is stark. Difference can continue and citizens be damned, or the diversity of all our communities can be embraced, for the failure to be wise may lead to an abyss from which none of us can claim victory. The recent Bradford race review could apply to any place I have mentioned so far with far-reaching consequences for the Government. The necessity for reversing the
1648
segregation and apartheid in the heart of our democracies is imperative and we cannot stand by and allow the destruction of communities to continue.
The Parekh and Lawrence reports give us a means of putting long-standing rhetoric into meaningful action. The Parekh report is not just a statement on race relations in Britain, but raises questions about the legitimacy of a significant group of British citizens hitherto denied equal rights in Britain. It is none of us who occupy these Benches, but those who occupy the ghettos of Bradford, Burnley, Oldham and Tower Hamlets.
7.39 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this interesting report. I resisted with great difficulty a wish also to speak about Bradford, but I believed that I did not know enough about it. The report contains some interesting ideas, notably a recognition that,
"it is legitimate to bar female circumcision, forced marriages and repressive and unequal treatment of women. even though these practices may enjoy cultural authority in certain communities".
It also recognises that society,
"may rightly insist that parents should not deny full-time education or opportunities for self-development to their daughters".
I feel strongly about that. When I was principal of Somerville, to which from time to time clever Asian girls applied to read medicine or law in particular, because it was then a single sex college, and thus acceptable to Indian or Muslim fathers, I visited many comprehensives to meet such girls and encourage them to apply. But at one large school I found no girls in the sixth form. The head explained that, naturally, they had been withdrawn by their fathers at the age of 13 to go into purdah and then to be sent back to their villages in Pakistan to marry and bring back with them young husbands who often spoke no English.
I asked what the girls felt about it. They were, after all, British subjects who were entitled, and required by law, to stay at school until the age of 16. I was told that they had begged to be allowed to stay but the local council felt that it was vital to respect the culture of their community. I said then, as I say now, that we cannot hope to achieve a healthy, integrated society while such procedures are tolerated and even encouraged. Those young women have been excluded from their rights as citizens and their children will suffer too. Therefore, I warmly agree with the report's view on that issue and its suggestion that,
"a more ceremonious form of welcome for new British citizens—as in the US—might help everyone to reflect on the value of citizenship and to appreciate diversity".
However, I regard some of the rest of the report as misguided, not least because it has confused expression of the proper indignation that some members of ethnic minorities are entitled to feel over

1649
perceived injustices, which need recognition, and letting itself be used as a vehicle for intemperate, untrue and unjust attacks. I want to know when we,
"colonised three-fifths of the world with unspeakable barbarism, occasioning several holocausts in the process".
One wonders whether the Commonwealth thinks that.
The report's eight pages of recommendations include such proposals as demanding that the Qualifications and Standards Authority should require that all exam boards offer only syllabuses in which it is possible to gain at least a C grade at each tier and that all schools monitor tier entry by ethnicity. The issue should not be to demand special treatment for members of ethnic minorities, which all those with spirit will resent, but a major investment in good teaching right across the board in areas where children, black and white, live in bad circumstances. They need to be taught together. How else will they ever become truly British? They need to be taught in English because they are all citizens of this country, and they need to be taught an equal pride in its past and future. That does not prevent those with family ties to other cultures and histories from learning to be proud of them too. The Poles who settled here after the war have carefully taught their children their history and culture, but it should not be to the exclusion of their loyalty to the country whose citizens they are.
We are speaking of the needs of some 6 per cent of the population which is an important group that is capable of enriching our society in terms of literature, music and many other things, but I suggest that the report should be more concerned with how to encourage it to integrate than to demand that every institution and business—every part of society—should be policed to ensure that ritual numbers of members of ethnic minority groups are to be found there. It urges that in any one year for the next five to six years a t least one-sixth of new Members of this House should be from Asian and black community backgrounds. I value the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, because of his great wisdom. I value the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, for her work among women and her community in general. But each happens to be a member of an ethnic group, just as hereditary Peers are valued not for their birth but their knowledge of forestry, medicine or the arts.
The report is full of restrictive and even punitive proposals, such as that broadcasters should be required to provide statistics broken down by ethnicity and gender in relation to grades and categories, such as producer, editor and camera operator, and by management level. That is only one such restrictive and prescriptive requirement. When asked whether she felt proud of being a great woman writer, Iris Murdoch replied that she was proud to be a writer. The clever Asian and black graduates of Somerville have made successful lives on the same basis; they are neither gender nor race-conscious.
Finally, I believe that to confuse patriotism with nationalism shows a failure to understand the nature of the people of this country. We are justly proud of much that our forebears did, just as any nation is, and
1650
critical of other things. Robert Gardiner, a very great Ghanaian who became head of the Economic Commission for Africa and a good friend of mine, said that the British left two infinitely valuable legacies behind in the countries that they colonised: the rule of law and the English language. Our greatest opponents, men like Gandhi, Nehru, Nyerere and the Zulu chiefs, respected us even as they fought for their independence, and men and women from the Indian sub-continent, Africa and the Caribbean were proud to fight by our side against a common enemy.
The report quotes a young woman as saying that,
"Britain is populated with many races but the feeling that the whites reign supreme never goes away".
Since 94 per cent of the population—among them many who were originally Poles, Czechs, Latvians and others, not just the deplored English—are white, this does not seem unreasonable. What matters is that we are all equal as citizens. We all have the vote and a voice in a free society. We must fight injustice, poverty and cultural divisiveness wherever we see it and ensure that all our people have an equal chance of education, employment and freedom of worship. While we must work to resist injustice, the authors of this report should understand that they will not achieve it by attacking our national character and pride m our history. I am tempted to end with the old cockney saying,
"If you know a better 'ole, go to it".
7.46 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, we should thank not only my noble friend Lady Uddin for securing this debate and for the depth of experience that she brought to her introduction of it but also my noble friend Lord Parekh who took time off from pressing academic work to chair, on a voluntary basis, the commission which produced this brilliantly analytical but also practical report. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Runnymede Trust, the parent body of the commission.
On publication of this report, the media concentrated on their own misreading of what remains a seminal analysis of the nature—its tensions and glories—of life in multi-ethnic Britain., and largely ignored the range of expert recommendations on how to secure a fairer and more harmonious and productive future.
I shall concentrate on the employment recommendations. The distinguished black American academic, William Julius Wilson, proposed that paying attention to the poor would incidentally and without backlash deal with racial discrimination. But the stark facts of race discrimination in employment are race-specific. They are not poverty-specific.
The Higher Education Funding Council's report last April showed that black and Asian graduates are up to three times as likely to be unemployed as white graduates. The skin colour of graduates dwarfs all other variables put together, and this is in the context of proportionately more graduates—about 12 per cent—than among white people.

1651
If we look more generally at all kinds of work, the position is no different, except that the various communities within our minorities are more sharply differentiated. Men of Bangladeshi and rural Pakistani family origin—a common background in Oldham, Burnley and Bradford—had, at the last Labour Force Survey, a 24 per cent unemployment rate, compared with the overall national rate of under 6 per cent. But the unemployment rate for men of Indian background is, at only 7 per cent, close to that of white men. Women of Afro-Caribbean background are less likely to be unemployed than their menfolk, particularly young men. There are obviously different factors at work here—perhaps different local school standards, different family patterns and the decline of traditional industries. This has also had an effect on the employment of our Irish minority. But these different factors add up to a single unfair outcome, evident in getting jobs, in earnings and in levels of promotion. Is not this a cause of shame to any patriot?
The best recent thing the Government have done to tackle this dangerous unfairness is the Race Relations (Amendment) Act's new duty to be accountable for promoting race equality, as my noble friend Lady Uddin said. This was a great step forward by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary's predecessor. It goes far to implement the Parekh report's recommendations in the public sector. We could with advantage include the chartered professional associations, in respect of their members. But the requirement does not apply to the private sector.
The report proposes similar provisions for the private sector. They show the hand 'of Professor Bob Hepple QC. I cannot do justice to his thoughtful and detailed measures in the time available, but I would add that the Runnymede Trust's work on the FTSE 100 companies found that only 27 monitored their workforce by ethnicity and only four set targets for fair representations. The former chairman of the Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland has described how, since companies were required to report the percentage of Protestant and Catholic employees—only report, my Lords; no restrictive requirements—after such reporting, Catholic participation in the workforce rose until it was only 2 per cent less than their workforce proportion as a whole. Law has been helpful here I suggest.
The report's recommendations for labour market programmes prompts one to ask: what was the fate of the Employment Service's "Closing the Gap" project to remedy its lack of success with New Deal entrants from ethnic minorities, even those with higher qualifications? The Social Exclusion Unit recommended a year ago that the New Deal should test the effectiveness of positive action training. Has this worked? Have modern apprenticeships now remedied their racial imbalance? The European Union funds the "EQUAL" Community Initiative, to promote innovation in combating labour market discrimination. How has the UK used this opportunity?
1652
I understand, from when I worked in the then Employment Department, reluctance to festoon coherent standards like Investors in People with added requirements. But is compliance with the standard now interpreted with regard to race equity? And I also remember, when I was chair of Camden's Racial Equality Council, we could not get the Single Regeneration Budget to recognise that its outputs should include fairer employment chances for London's minorities. Does it now address race discrimination?
Finally, I ask my noble friend the Minister, in responding to the employment recommendations of the Parekh report, will he say how the new work of the Performance and Innovation Unit on ethnic minority communities will deal with discrimination in employment?
7.53 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I, too, wish to acknowledge a debt to the noble Lord, Lord Parekh. However, in saying that, I see him as a guru of race relations who, over time, has helped me with his insight and his wisdom. I only wish that at this stage I could whole-heartedly subscribe to the concept in the report, which, sadly, I cannot. My vision of British society is very different from the one that the Parekh report tries to put forward.
Seventeen years ago we were working on a report on the education of ethnic minority children. It was called the Swann report. I remember that I shocked my fellow members by changing the introductory chapter called the "Nature of Society". If your Lordships who are interested in this subject have not read that chapter, I would commend it to you. That was 17 years ago. In that I put forward a vision of British society as being one where the mainstream culture will evolve and change and encompass other cultures and their diversities. It will not be pockets of multi-culturism, but it will be the mainstream British culture which will undergo the change.
After 17 years, even I am surprised at how much of that has happened. We only have to look at dress, food, music, dance and sport. Everywhere there is diversity. There is richness. There is a shared belonging. It is something which actually fills me with a huge deal of hope for the future.
Cultures are dynamic. When they come into contact with each other they evolve. Any part of our culture which we value we shall maintain and share with others. That applies both to the mainstream and minority cultures. As they rub against each other they evolve, grow and become an event in themselves.
It was very unfortunate that there was an attack on the term British and the concept of being British. Unlike most of the people here of Indian origin, I am probably the only one who actually remembers and grew up in India when it was part of the British Empire. I remember how unbearable the racism was. I remember the marches. I remember all kinds of things. There is no doubt that the original concept of being British was racist because we were the British

1653
subjects, although we accepted that at the time. But there was definitely a racist connotation. But now we have to take back that concept. We have to make sure that we are included in that Britishness, not excluded. By excluding ourselves from Britishness we do no justice to ourselves or our second and third generations.
If we have no concept of Britishness, what is our concept of a cohesive society, of a country and of belonging to some place? Our children do not belong to their country of origin. If they are not going to belong to this country, where are they going to belong? We came here to improve our future. What right have we to ignore entirely the attitudes and opinions of the majority? We have no right. We have a duty also to acknowledge and change to fit in with what this society wants. That is not to say that we have to forego what we value. It is not necessary. This society does not demand that of us. It does not demand that we reject our culture. It does not demand that we reject our religion.
Certainly, it demands that we reject some of the nastier things mentioned about discrimination against women. The report should have gone much further than it did. Those are all against the law; and we all have to obey the law. Where are the recommendations for treating ethnic minority women with respect and with equality? These are matters that are absolutely against the law. I see no plethora, if I may use that word, no huge number of recommendations to protect the women from the discrimination they have to suffer every day of their lives in minority communities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, read out some statistics. If I remember correctly, she said that Indian men, and possibly women, have the same kind of unemployment rate as white people. Why is that the case? Is it not because there is better educational achievement and a better understanding of what is required of them? Is there no responsibility on the minorities to do something about their own situation? I do not believe that one can have rights without responsibilities.
We have heard that in Bradford there is a great division between the different communities. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, that we have to fight against that separation. What is this about paying more money to community leaders? Why do our third generation need spokesmen who belong to the first generation? They have nothing in common with their young people who are fighting in Bradford.
My time is up. My vision of Britain is of a cohesive society that is open enough to enjoy and respect what is within us and where no one is treated as a separate or less good or less able person.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, for initiating this debate on the Parekh report on the future of multi-ethnic Britain. I spent the first six years of my life in India. I have visited many countries in the Commonwealth and I have worked in universities with
1654
many colleagues from Asia and Africa. I have heard about some of the bad experiences they have had. But I am pleased that many have really appreciated coming to this country, and in ways that would surprise noble Lords. One of the most interesting examples was Japanese colleagues referring to the British culture of the Grand National. Some of my colleagues have even taken out British nationality.
I have a little experience of sonic of the extraordinary problems faced by our ethnic communities. In the 1960s my wife and I tried to get a flat. I put down on the application form where I was born. Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that I completely failed to find a flat until I appeared and tried to get one in person. So I do know a little about what happens.
The Parekh report records a sombre situation in the UK, with the widespread feeling among ethnic minorities that the general ethos in this country is not sympathetic to their interests, their communities and their culture. This debate is particularly timely following the recent urban riots in Lancashire and Yorkshire and the realisation that the remedies must have several elements—more resources, new governmental and community organisations, new ideas for running business, education and government and, above all, fresh approaches to how different ethnic communities see each other. I should like to comment on those points and make some suggestions.
In order to give the House an idea about an ethnic community, I once showed some colleagues from the Philippines The Penguin Book of Jokes. They said, "Ah, ethnic jokes". Of course, they were all English jokes; but they were very ethnic. The report refers to the experience of and the policies adopted by other countries. I know something about that subject. Inadvertently, by turning right instead of left in New York, I witnessed the riots in the United States in the 1960s. I was not a very good navigator. It was a frightening experience which I hoped not to see in the UK. I believed that, with our welfare state, our special provision for the poorest communities and, most of all, our gun-free culture, it would never happen in the UK. Unfortunately, I think I was wrong.
Our present Government are greatly increasing the funding and focusing of welfare provision but ethnic groups quite rightly expect more. One hopes that we can also move back to more gun-free policing, following recent legislation. The UK is learning from the organisational measures taken in the United States to overcome some of those difficulties. The Government have taken welcome steps which one hopes will be extended and taken in new directions. A determined effort will be required to change bureaucratic rules.
In school education, the Government are allowing funding of new types of school. The House has heard, particularly from the Bishops' Bench, about some of the results of improvements in that direction. In higher education, we heard today how universities are being funded to bring school students from ethnic minority groups into colleges over the summer period to

1655
familiarise them with the advantages and enjoyment of higher education. Such initiatives of internships for minority groups, as recommended in the report, could be vastly extended but would not require huge additional expenditure. It would be a highly effective use of funding and it could be provided to government, agencies, non-governmental organisations and business. As a director of a small company which certainly employs interns, some of whom are from minority groups, I believe that such a scheme is practical. In the United States it is standard that everyone having a research grant or having funding from the government for a research project would have some element of that kind. It is a matter of looking at all the forms and applications used by quangos and other organisations. I therefore believe that that recommendation in the report could be implemented.
There is considerable scope for positive discrimination along such lines. The report recommends that government agencies could do more to recruit in that direction. I believe that the report is quite right. As a former chief executive of a government agency, I encouraged my personnel staff—it was something of a surprise to begin with—to advertise in minority newspapers. We were also encouraged by circulars from the Ministry of Defence to have representatives of ethnic minorities and women on our board. We did that. We just needed the letter and we did it. But the report underlines that much more could be done. I wonder how many senior managers in government really have such an obligation in their job description. It is certainly not in the framework document.
As I noted this week in the International Development Bill, government departments and agencies have enormous powers to direct their purchasing of services. As a civil servant, I struggled with a previous government on that issue. A Minister in that government said that that was the kind of thing they did in France, not the UK. Such a break with traditional bureaucratic methods must happen and such powers could be used to purchase from companies employing or owned by minority groups, whether ethnic, disabled or poor communities in overseas countries. At the moment it is exceedingly difficult with the best will in the world for an executive to apply those concepts. That has to change from the very top.
As the report emphasises, the media are essential. There should be more financial and technical assistance to minority groups to allow them to develop their own media. That would empower them, as happens all around the world.
Finally, asylum is a key issue. It is essential that our leaders should acknowledge the enormous contribution to this country made by minority groups. There has been such acknowledgement in today's debate. It is important that that should happen. I should like to draw an invidious distinction between the recent visit of President Bush to New York—President Bush would not be particularly welcome on these Benches—and a highly regrettable event during
1656
the general election when the leader of the Conservatives went to Dover. During President Bush's visit he spoke to a group of people who had just emigrated to America. He referred to the enormous value of those people to that country. He greeted and met some of those who had just arrived. But the leader of the Conservatives did not go to Dover to meet new asylum seekers. He went there to make an announcement. It was not a helpful announcement.
I look forward to hearing from the Government what plans they have to introduce new arrangements at Folkestone. If the United States Government can, as the Tube advertisements for Air Lingus tell us, have immigration facilities at Dublin Airport, surely the UK should have immigration offices in Calais. That would avoid the nightly scenes of people crawling through cages and risking electrocution on railway lines. It is a desperate situation. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Warwick: My Lords, we cannot shake hands with a clenched fist. The recent riots that we witnessed in Bradford, Oldham and other towns can only damage race relations. Riots grab headlines, but when the TV cameras move on, it is the local community that is left to sweep up the debris. The riots caused millions of pounds' worth of damage. People who fight fire with fire usually end up with ashes.
But these episodes are a warning which we must heed. If we cannot prosper as one nation, in time we may become no nation. Racist groups thrive on ignorance. They would have us believe that the riots were caused by the inability of white and Asian communities to live together. That ignores factors such as unemployment and poverty which are major causes of the discontent. It is on such unhappy social conditions that the racist vultures target and feed.
I welcome the Parekh report on the future of multiethnic Britain. I pay tribute to the commitment which the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, and his colleagues clearly gave to producing this work. There is time to highlight only a few of the recommendations that I support. For example, I believe that a truly independent mechanism to investigate complaints made against the police is long overdue. This in itself may also encourage more black and Asian recruitment, which is needed in the police service.
The report rightly urges deeper thinking about the policy of exclusion of pupils from schools. This is a particular issue in the black community. A balance needs to be struck between maintaining school discipline and offering support to pupils who display problems. The majority of youngsters that I have represented in criminal courts had already been expelled or excluded from school, with little or nothing to occupy their time. Criminal prevention is the best crime prevention. It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.
As vice-president of the National Small Business Bureau, I welcome the call for more support for black and Asian business. This must incorporate a review of

1657
banking and mortgage codes. Building a business is not easy, whatever your colour or your background, but racism is an added factor which can inhibit growth and enterprise.
I share the view expressed in the report that publicly funded organisations like the BBC need to encourage the promotion of suitably qualified black and Asian employees to positions of authority. Some years ago I was a television producer at the BBC. I did wonder, sometimes, whether the building I worked in was called "White City" on the basis of the fact that I appeared to be the only black person working there above kitchen level. At the time, little interest was shown towards encouraging ethnic minorities into mainstream programme making. I left the BBC, rather disillusioned, to return to the law. Things have improved at the BBC since then, but a great deal more needs to be done.
I agree with the call for the asylum system to be improved. Reducing the delay in dealing with cases should be a top priority. It has been too easy for asylum to become a political football, especially during election campaigns. By reducing the inefficiencies in the system, there is more chance of the main issues being debated fairly.
The report rightly urges that more should be done to make public the positive aspects of immigration. The issues of asylum, immigration and race relations are easily intertwined and confused. Journalists, broadcasters and political parties all have a responsibility to shed light, not heat.
None of the mainstream parties can feel satisfied about its track record when dealing with these issues. But I shall say a brief word about the Conservative Party. This is designed to help and not to harm. Whoever becomes the next leader, the Conservative Party needs to take a long look at itself in the mirror. It needs to ask itself whether it is ready to extend the hand of welcome, rather than point the finger of blame, towards ethnic minorities.
While there is a legitimate distinction between the issues of race relations and asylum, the tabloid tone adopted over recent years by some Conservative spokesmen has not been helpful. Before the last general election, I criticised the Tory leadership over its weak response to the racist comments of one of its own MPs. Some commentators were convinced that I was being fed these lines by Millbank. They were totally wrong. These are my own views. If some in the Conservative Party now choose to rebuke me rather than heed my words, it will again waste a chance to modernise and broaden its appeal. You cannot win until you know why you lost.
In the 1980s there were riots in places like Brixton and Tottenham. I was one of the defence barristers involved in the court cases which followed the Handsworth riots. It may well be that the crisis of identity which some young Afro-Caribbeans felt then is being repeated among their Asian counterparts now. But it is important to note the many examples of success in those same areas since that time. Local
1658
people have worked hard and have turned things around. We need to create a bank of best practice of what works in the inner cities.
Finally, I hope that the Government and other decision-makers will learn from the Parekh report. Success is a journey, not a destination. So we must not forget the earlier submissions in the Swann, Scarman and Macpherson reports. Those are all valuable, eloquent studies. But ultimately the finest eloquence is action.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, for introducing a debate on this interesting report, one which has been produced not only by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, but also by a commission containing an impressive list of members. My only regret is that we do not have more time in which to debate the matter. However, the contributions that we have heard from all sides of the House well vindicate the decision to table this Unstarred Question.
Under the present circumstances, there is a topical temptation to spend our time discussing Bradford, Oldham and Burnley. The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick, and others have rightly referred to the matter. All that I wish to say is that the report of the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, focuses specifically on the situation in Bradford. I hope that the House will find an opportunity to debate that report as soon as possible after the Summer Recess. The job for the summer facing those of us who might have a little influence in their local areas is to stand firm against any rise in racism and fascism in our communities and to talk to and work with others as much as we can to prevent what may be seen as justifiable anger by young people from erupting into counter-productive and destructive riots.
I wish to address my main comments to the Parekh report itself. It contains two distinct sections. Parts 2 and 3, covering "Issues and Institutions" and "Strategies for Change", culminate in a checklist of 140 recommendations divided into 13 groups. Each of those groups would sustain a debate in this House. Many of the proposals are extremely sensible. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, referred to some of the proposals made under the section covering employment. Some of them are debatable and should be debated further. In such a list, inevitably one or two are nonsense. But as a whole, it is an extremely valuable checklist and I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to consider the list and decide what they wish to do about each recommendation.
The interesting section of the report is contained in Part 1 which seeks to set out a vision of a multi-racial society which is based on basic human rights and which will work. The vision is interesting and worthy of careful consideration. It is a vision of,
"communities of citizens and communities",
based on,
"a pluralistic human rights culture".

1659
These concepts are relatively new and deserve careful consideration. The report rightly emphasises quality and diversity and the concept of people being equal but different—or, perhaps, equal and different.
Back in the 1950s and 1960s, the debate among liberals—I use the word with a small "l", across all parties—was about the concepts of assimilation and integration between immigrant communities and host communities. Integration, quite rightly, came out on top because it accepts that people and communities are different.
The report challenges us to a new debate between "integration", which it describes as
"a liberal theory of society"
as a "community of citizens", and "pluralist theory", which it describes as a "community of communities". The report argues for a combination of the two. Reading between the lines, one gets the distinct impression that there were some fairly vigorous debates within the commission on these matters.
As a liberal—with a small "l" and a capital "L"—I believe that fundamental human rights belong to individuals. Communities as such do not possess rights; any rights that they do possess, they possess because of the rights possessed by the sum of their members. For example, there is a reference on page 37 of the report to the "rights of communities". There are major question marks about Part 1 of the report which, at the very least, deserve debate.
The diversity of individuals, which many of us welcome—the more the better—may follow from their membership of communities, or it may be that some of us are a bit eccentric. The report rightly points out that people must be free to leave their communities if they wish to do so. But fundamental human rights are not different for different people. What we do with our human rights may well be very different—and that may lead us to have very different lives—but fundamental human rights are not different for different people.
Some parts of the report appear not to accept that and try to suggest otherwise. For example, paragraph 7.3 states:
"Human rights need therefore to be interpreted and applied in a culturally sensitive manner"—
which I do not think any of us would disagree with. It goes on to state:
"and may sometimes entail different responses in different individual cases".
I have collected a whole series of quotes from Part 1 of the report which suggest that there is an interesting debate to be had about the nature of human rights in relation to communities. I say no more than that, although the suggested declaration of cultural diversity on page 277 seems to be a good basis for such a debate.
One of the difficulties with the report is that the interesting discussion in Part 1 does not relate clearly to the checklists in Part 2, which seem to have been put
1660
together by subject specialists rather than related to the rest of the report. That is a problem with the report itself.
However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, and his team have done us all a service in stimulating a debate on vital issues such as what we mean by "national identity" in the modern world; what we mean by the "nature of community"; what are the fundamental rights of individuals within a multicultural society; what is the nature of a multi-cultural state serving a multi-cultural society; and what is the nature of the links between racism and inequality in general. And that leads us back to the problems in places such as Bradford and Burnley.
The report is stimulating; in places it is troubling—it certainly troubles me as a liberal and causes me to think hard—and in places I think it is wrong. However, it would be very surprising if a report of this nature was not wrong in some places. The important thing is that it is, I hope, the start of a debate. I hope that the issues which it raises will continue to be debated, not only in your Lordships' House but widely within this country. It addresses issues which are vital to the future of this country.
8.24 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, for initiating the debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, for a thought-provoking report. I am very pleased that my noble friend Lord Taylor of Warwick finds that it has many positive aspects.
The theme of positive discrimination runs right through the report. In my view, this is, in reality, a very blunt instrument. Its effect is to divide people into categories when the desire is to unite them. Applied in a racial context, where the categories are difficult to define at the margins, it can act as a disincentive for the integration of communities to evolve naturally, and it can provoke unnecessary resentment from parties excluded from it. I do not say it can never be used, but it is, in my view, a way of last resort.
I deplore the recommendations of the report that, for instance, 30 per cent of the Members of this House appointed in any one year should be of ethnic origin. Applied to your Lordships, it could diminish the standing of the significant body of Members of your Lordships' House of ethnic minority background who make such a distinguished contribution to its working and, if I may say so, the high standing in this regard of the House. Their ethnic origin is sometimes relevant to the contributions they make, but often it is not at all, and their high standing rests on their other contributions as much as on their representative capacity.
How far are we to go? Is the House to have appropriate quotas of those who regard themselves as Cornish or Welsh or Jewish? Are we to distinguish between the origins of the Chinese who live here? And

1661
what about the Americans among us. Logically, I suppose, that any group which had a one-690th part of the population should have a Peer.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but does he accept that the report nowhere advocates quotas—that is, positive discrimination—but targets, that is, aiming at a balance.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I accept the comment of the noble Baroness. Thank you.
If minority groups are to be over-represented, as the 30 per cent target suggests, it will be difficult to fit us English in.
I note that the report specifically recommends that the Irish community should be included in such positive discrimination. This is in respect of health service bodies. All I would say is that the Irish have been established in this country in numbers since the famine 160 years ago. They are usually not in communities. The Anglo-Irish relationship at personal level is a pleasant fact of life. The suggestion that, after this period, they should be the subject of positive discrimination, I find frankly patronising.
My noble friend Lady Flather referred to the concept of Britishness, which the report deplores. In my view, that is evidence of the nanny state attitude. You are not allowed to use a perfectly acceptable word in the English language because, in the mouths of some, it has racist overtones. While there are manifestations of this in certain aspects of government policy elsewhere, which we deplore, certainly I and my party agree with the comments of the then Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw, in an interview with the Daily Mail on 12th October last, where he made a very robust comment on the report. He said:
"Unlike the Runnymede Trust I firmly believe that there is a future for Britain and Britishness. I do not accept the arguments of those on the Nationalistic right or the liberal left that Britain as a cohesive whole is dead".
We all take pride in seeing British athletes of whatever ethnic origin win at the Olympics or at football. In the same interview, Mr Straw went on to say:
"I am disappointed that the commission is so grudging in recognising what we have achieved already. I do not I regret find the Runnymede Trust of particular help in that regard".
I turn now to the sad events of the recent riots in Bradford and other northern cities. These have brought into focus the one word which is central to the debate—namely, "multi-culturalism". If there is one thing to come out of these events, it is the need to strike the delicate balance between intensive segregation on the one hand and total assimilation on the other. The former leads to the ghetto; the latter to extinction of national subcultures. As an article in this week's issue of the Economist points out, for a society to be truly multicultural some degree of assimilatory mixing is necessary. This is borne out again by the report chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, on the situation in
1662
Bradford. It is certainly a vindication of the stance taken by Mr Ray Honeyford in his campaign to desegrate the Bradford schools, for which he lost his job.
My party opposes racism in any form. We believe in an inclusive Britain. To achieve that, we need an approach based on the British tradition of tolerance one of respecting people for their character rather than their colour—not an approach based on a panoply of patronising and politically correct nonsense. While we agree with a number of the recommendations in the report, we believe that there is a missed opportunity to highlight the very real progress that has been made in making Britain more inclusive.
In conclusion, I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, and his committee for this comprehensive report. It has prompted a very British response—a debate on the subject. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.
8.31 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, we all owe a debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lady Uddin for introducing the debate, and to the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, and his team for preparing the report. This has been an interesting debate. I agreed with virtually every word of many contributions from both sides of the Chamber, although there has been no tension.
I must say one thing to my noble friend Lady Uddin. I have not yet read all of the detailed contributions of my honourable friend in another place, Ann Cryer; however, I did hear her on the radio and I agreed with everything she said. She was not talking about compulsory English; but she was talking about importing poverty—as has happened in my former constituency. She made a fair point. It touches also on some of the points raised by the noble Baroness Lady Park. She referred to what happens to young girls of 13 or 14 who think that they are being sent on holiday; they do not know that they are being sent abroad in order to return with a husband. I have dealt with dozens, if not hundreds, of such cases over the years. It is a tragedy. It is a question of civil rights.
Not wishing to employ a stereotype, there is a divide in terms of educational achievement. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, is absolutely right. I did not note down all the figures mentioned by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, but they indicate that those of Indian origin are close to whites in terms of educational achievement as opposed to members of other ethnic groups. We must ask why that is. We cannot lump people together. Whites are not a homogeneous group. When I use the word "Asians", I do not know what I am talking about. They are not a homogeneous group. On the sub-continent they are split between different countries, different faiths and different cultures. Their religions come from an absolutely different standpoints. Lumping people together is a big mistake, particularly when we white leaders do it because we think it is politically correct. Going along with political correctness is part of the cause of the problem.

1663
I was at Aston University yesterday, where I studied 40 years ago. They brought me in to correct my misdemeanours in the past and to give me an honorary degree. The multicultural efforts of the student population in which I took part bore testimony to the fantastic variation that we have from all social groups.
But let us not beat about the bush. Only three or four years ago, a young women in my constituency said to me: "Jeff, some of my friends are not allowed to put the milk bottles on the doorstep. My mum is not allowed to travel on the bus to town on her own". There are girls who are not allowed swimming lessons, even fully clothed, with female instructors. That is a denial of civil rights—which are non-negotiable. In relation to domestic violence the Parekh report states that there is a non-negotiable bottom line: people's individual civil rights. Then you can build around those rights and maintain the culture and the heritage as one generation succeeds another; greater assimilation is inevitable. You maintain the culture of diversity; you maintain the religious differences. But the bottom, non-negotiable line is the civil rights of our fellow citizens.
I shall not defend political correctness. I never have done. It has caused me a few problems. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and I once walked the streets together in Perry Bar in Birmingham. We did not see a divide; we saw exactly the points that the noble Lord made. People have gradually built a way out of the difficulties that occurred in the Handsworth riots.
There is no question that we must do a great deal better in terms of economic performance and job discrimination. There is clearly rampant discrimination in some areas. Some people think that it is not worth obtaining qualifications. They make a big mistake.
I do want to cause anyone to take umbrage, but two speakers referred to asylum and immigration as though they were interconnected. They are completely different. President Bush did not go to welcome asylum seekers; he went to welcome new immigrants to the American economy. That is exactly what we ought to do, would do, and do do. But it is a massive mistake to equate asylum with immigration. The two are not the same. We must run twin-track policies. Mixing them up, as happens in the media, is causing massive problems for communities that are settled here and for those who come to join them, whether under the terms of work permits or settlement permits for marriage or merely to join their families. That has nothing to do with seeking asylum. We must never make the connection between seeking asylum and economic prosperity; otherwise, we could rule out those who genuinely fulfil the United Nations' requirements for asylum. That is what it is about. It is not about economic migration. We must adjust to that. We must examine our own economy, as other countries in Europe are doing, and plan for that; but we must not use asylum as the back door for doing that. If we are not careful, we shall make the wrong decisions. As likely as not, we shall not give asylum to those who can genuinely meet the demands of the United Nations
1664
resolution which are uppermost in our mind. That is the centre of asylum policy. We are not confusing the two. The present team at the Home Office is determined not to go down that road.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred to complaints against the police. I hope I have got this right, as I believe I said in my maiden speech, the police Bill that we shall bring forward this Session will set up a truly independent police complaints procedure. That has always been a bone of contention. The Bill is some way away from publication and it will probably go to the other House before it comes to this place, but it will certainly tackle that problem.
The noble Lord referred also to speeding up decisions. In one year, the number of decisions has risen from some 50,000 to 130,000. However, I must warn noble Lords that some people do not like decisions to be speeded up. By "decision" I mean a firm, quality decision; otherwise it does not work. But some in the industry do not like that. The inevitable consequence of speeding up decisions means that you have to face the consequences four-square: 80 per cent of applicants are found not to have a well-founded fear of persecution under the terms of the UN convention. As a result, action has to be taken. Some people preferred the old, inefficient approach, whereby sacks of mail remained unopened, the Home Office was incredibly inefficient, and no one knew about the matter, took any decisions, or read any papers for years. That situation is changing radically, but the consequences are such that it will make unpleasant reading for some.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, touched on forced marriages. It goes without saying that there is no justification for this practice. I need go no further.
My noble friend Lady Whitaker asked specifically about the Performance Innovation Unit project. The project's central objective is to increase the achievement of ethnic minorities in the labour market; and to do it under a better and shared understanding of what are the current differentials within ethnic groups and what causes those differentials, drawing on the existing research. It will undertake an assessment of the effectiveness of different approaches to increasing the achievement of ethnic groups and will examine the impact of existing action by government, in the private and the voluntary sector.
We shall also consider a clear policy recommendation for building on existing work and adopting new approaches to address the causes. Indeed, that will help to develop a fresh intellectual policy approach to the issues regarding the ethnic minority differential performance in the labour market. The project will examine such issues as the role of employers, both public and private, in shaping the labour market, as well the role of private services—such as banks and financial institutions—the impact of discrimination, the effect of economic conditions, and working patterns. Those issues must be tackled. I expect the PIU report to be a really valuable document in that respect.

1665
We are also considering the effect of the SRB, and its successor "Neighbourhood Renewal". The money—literally, hundreds of millions of pounds—is going into the 88 areas defined by the census information. In order to deliver, the money must have a consequence at the end of the process. Indeed, it will have to deliver to narrow the gap on many of the measures of disadvantage, worklessness, crime, health, skills, housing and the physical environment of some of these areas. We must tackle all of those issues. However, ultimately we shall want to know what difference the money made. It must make a difference to people's lives. We need, if you like, to look at the "footprints" of people's lives and see that they have been vastly improved by us through targeting resources in this way. We have found that the old way of spreading the money thinly did not work.
I hope that I dealt with the point made by my noble friend Lord Hunt. in fact, one of the issues raised was the work between the English and French regarding the Channel Tunnel. I shall be visiting Dover and Coquilles tomorrow to review some of these issues at first hand. We are doing everything that we can to work together in this difficult situation. There is no question about that. It is causing problems for both countries. It is causing great hardship for people. It is causing deaths: people are incredibly brave, but they are also incredibly stupid. Nevertheless, some people are pushed to such action because they have already spent so much money on getting this far. Therefore, they are now in bondage and have to take incredible risks.
The issue of positive discrimination was raised—I am sorry, but I have forgotten which speaker did so. I have considered the matter over the years, as, indeed, have many other people. All the projects come along with big new investment. You think, "Right, this is a great opportunity here to get local firms and local people involved. There will be new training for the community with this project". However, we come up against the problem in the process of having to address some of the rules from the European Union, especially if we are talking about large projects. We could not do it with the national indoor arena or the international convention centre in Birmingham. There is a difficulty with positive discrimination in that it can be held to be unlawful.
However, the Race Relations Act does allow us to take positive action in certain areas. Therefore, in those areas where it is possible to do so and where we can gain a big advantage from it, we want to ensure that we take such action. But, of course, there is nothing to stop companies in, say, Bradford and Burnley, or other parts of the country, investing in those areas. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, a few weeks ago when I made a Statement to the House. After the Liverpool riots, Michael Heseltine took a coach-load of businessmen to the area and asked, "Are your companies buying from these local subcontractors? Are they employing local labour?" By just asking the question, sometimes you can solve the problem. It does not need a government-driven plan to achieve that end. You have
1666
only to observe what cars the French people drive. It is almost ingrained in them. I do not believe that there is a law that requires them to drive Renaults and Citroens made in France, but they look at what is available on the market and draw the obvious conclusion.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, mentioned the report of the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, on Bradford. We are extremely grateful, as, I am sure, is the whole House, for that report. I certainly look forward to the contributions that the noble Lord will make in this House. I am sure that he will bring great wisdom to our proceedings.
I turn to the report that forms the subject of this debate. I am well aware of some of the history involved; that is why I have not gone into the detail. I remember the publication of the report and the debate that followed; and, indeed, some of the newspaper headlines that were not very productive. Nevertheless, there were 130 recommendations, which, as a package, are broadly in line with what the Government are trying to do and have set out to achieve. I am not saying that that applies to every one of them, because there are the odd one or two that go right against what we are trying to do in respect of certain aspects of policy. But as regards what we are trying to achieve with the "Neighbourhood Renewal" strategy, with building citizenship and with community awareness in the national curriculum, we are bang on.
I understand that the previous Home Secretary met the chairman of the group that produced the report, my noble friend Lord Parekh. I know that my right honourable friend David Blunkett has already fixed a meeting for a specific date in September. There is no need for me to put the specific date on the record, but the meeting will take place in about the third week of September when we shall discuss the issues involved. I hope that I shall be present. During the intervening period, I am obviously prepared to discuss some of the issues that come from the report with both my noble friends and noble Lords on both sides of the House.
We shall certainly take forward the recommendations that we can, but I shall do more work on these issues than I have been able to accomplish in the short time that I have been at the Home Office. I have read only the press reports issued at the time that the report was published. I remember that the debate about Britishness took away the focus from some of the key issues, which I believe this House would want to take forward. Indeed, I am sure that the House would certainly want the Government to report back on what we are doing in this regard from time to time. The debate will not go away—rightly so.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may express my thanks to him and to the other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and made it most meaningful. On behalf of my noble friend Lord Parekh, perhaps I may tell the House that he was unable to attend today due to a longstanding commitment elsewhere.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before nine o'clock.