Sitting of 22 June 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—

  India (Religious Persecution)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: What discussions he has had with the Indian Government regarding the persecution of Christians in that country; and if he will make a statement. [86572]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): India is widely respected for its commitment to religious diversity. We have made clear to the Indian Government our concern over attacks on religious minorities. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the issue with the Indian national security adviser and principal secretary to the Indian Prime Minister in January. The late Derek Fatchett urged the Indian Home Minister last year to take steps to restore the confidence of the Christian community. Officials here and, indeed, in India are in touch with representatives of those communities.
  Mr. Robertson: I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that, on 13 January this year, more than 140 bishops in India wrote to the President saying:
  "Christians are being maligned and persecuted and a wave of hatred is being spread against them"?
  Is he also aware of reports in the press about the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, which is currently operating illegally in India and also collecting money in the United States and this country, and is alleged to be persecuting Christians on the back of the money that it is raising?
  Mr. Hoon: I am aware of the letter and, indeed, of the situation. That is why—as I said in answer to the hon. Gentleman's main question—we continue to urge India to respect the rights of minorities. We have, however, welcomed statements by the Indian President and Prime Minister condemning attacks on, in particular, Christian minorities. We will continue to urge them to preserve India's secularism and respect for religious minorities.

  European Common Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement on his policy in respect of implementing a common defence and foreign affairs policy for the European Union. [86573]
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The Government believe that we are likely to have a bigger impact on what happens in the world if Europe speaks wherever possible with one voice and not with different voices. Britain has been in the lead, along with France, in promoting an initiative on European security. That will improve the ability of the European Union to draw on NATO's assets for crisis management and peacekeeping.
  The initiative was warmly welcomed in Washington by all members of NATO, and in Cologne by all members of the European Union. It is a good example of the leadership that Britain now provides in Europe, which must be welcome to all hon. Members.
  Mr. Swayne: Not quite, Madam Speaker.
  Why did the Government agree at Cologne to the merging of the functions of the Western European Union into those of the European Union, when that very move was described by the Prime Minister only two years ago as an ill-judged transplant? What has changed?
  If Her Majesty's Government do not intend there to be a single European army, what can the right hon. Gentleman do to make Mr. Prodi desist from calling for one?
  Mr. Cook: I am sorry that I have been unable to carry the hon. Gentleman with me—and, probably, the House—in welcoming the initiative.
  There is not the slightest prospect of a single European army. No one in the Council of Minister is proposing one, and no one would support one. Let us leave aside Britain's view: there is no question of France or any of the other major military powers of Europe putting their armies under a single European control. Following our experience of the past 10 years in the Balkans, however, it surely makes sense for Europe to consider how it can improve its decision making on security, and provide a better capacity to enforce that. Surely all hon. Members recognise that as a legitimate objective.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend see any continuing role for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union when the other institutions are absorbed into the second pillar? He must agree that there is a need for some continuing supervision of common foreign and defence policy. Can he give some hope to those who are currently delegates from the House of Commons to the Parliamentary Assembly of the WEU?
  Mr. Cook: I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern, but I think it is premature to bury the WEU. Throughout this initiative, we have stressed that the important thing is to ensure that we get the decision making right in the European Union, and provide the right capacity for it to carry out its security decisions. Only when we have done that will the time be right for us to consider whether the WEU has fulfilled its purpose.

  911
  I agree with my hon. Friend that, if we arrive at that point, it will be important for us to ensure that there is proper democratic scrutiny of security decisions.
  Mr. John Maples: Can the Foreign Secretary explain why what the Prime Minister vetoed at Amsterdam became acceptable at Cologne? What exactly happened to change the Government's mind?
  Mr. Cook: What has happened since Amsterdam is that over the past year, along with the French and our other partners in Europe, we have proceeded on the basis of our St. Malo declaration. As a result, we have a new communiqué from NATO which expands on the Berlin declaration, carried by the last Government. That enhances our ability to call on NATO's assets for the purpose of European security decisions. We have also considered how we can improve security decision making within the European Union. In the light of all those changes, there is an obvious question mark over whether it is necessary to keep the Western European Union as a body existing to call meetings, but not necessarily existing to replicate what can be done better in the European Union.
  Mr. Maples: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary, but I did not ask him about the Western European Union. He does not seem to have a reason for the fundamental change of policy announced at Cologne. Although hon. Members know that two years is a very long time for this Government to believe in anything, it was a fundamental change of policy. Is not the real reason for that change the fact that we were not going to be in the first group joining the euro, and the Prime Minister was worried about his European adulation rating? He needed a Euro-friendly policy at short notice, and the policy change was the sacrifice.
  Is it not true that the development of a military capability outside NATO, as envisaged at Cologne, will inevitably create a conflict between the EU and NATO, undermine the United States commitment to Europe, and give the EU a role for which it is totally unsuited—as the Prime Minister, quite rightly, said at Amsterdam?
  Mr. Cook: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his role, but have to say that the initiative goes back long before Cologne, to last autumn, when we met—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I was there at St. Malo. The initiative goes back to St. Malo and the Portschach decision of last autumn. As for NATO, I tell Opposition Members that not a single ally in NATO failed to welcome what we have done—[Interruption.] I was also at Washington, but do not think that the hon. Gentleman was. I have the Washington communiqué, which records the welcome for what the European Union has done to strengthen the initiative. I have had many discussions with Madeleine Albright—[Interruption.] The only countries at the Washington NATO summit were the countries inside
  912
  NATO, and they all welcomed the initiative, which builds on the basis of the Berlin declaration. As I recall it, that declaration was negotiated and signed by one Michael Portillo. I honestly do not think that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) should try to outdo him in Euro-scepticism.
  Ms Rachel Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in developing a common foreign and security policy, it is important to consider the role and perspective of countries that are in Europe, but are not currently either in the European Union or in NATO? Specifically, does he agree that Ukraine could play an important role in Europe? Will he try to ensure that Brussels remembers that Ukraine is now an independent country, and no longer a subsidiary of Russia?
  Mr. Cook: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend's last point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has just return from a visit to Ukraine, and carried that message on behalf of Britain to the Government of Ukraine. Of course, through NATO we work closely with our partners for peace. Through the European security initiative that we are launching, we shall want to ensure that we have the closest possible contacts with those NATO members that are not in the European Union. I have had bilateral discussions with a number of those countries.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Foreign Secretary share my despair at the visceral and irrational anti-Europeanism that prompted the main question? Does he also agree that the lesson of the Balkans demonstrates that there should be a European defence capability, so that we may act when the United States is either unable or unwilling to do so? Does he also agree that no one in Europe can be satisfied when the European members of NATO have a defence budget that totals two thirds of the US defence budget, but produces only a fraction of the capability of the United States?
  Mr. Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a very valid point. Europe spends on defence the equivalent of 60 per cent. of that spent by the United States, yet Europe could field only 20 per cent. of the military aircraft involved in the recent conflict in Kosovo. There is something wrong in that mismatch of spending against output. It surely must make sense for Europe to co-operate more closely, and to ensure that we are better able to get value for our money. I echo the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  The issue is not one for NATO: it is not about territorial defence, but about peacekeeping and crisis management. Heaven knows, we have seen the need for that recently on our continent, and it is time that we were ready to respond to it.

  Middle East Peace Process
  Dr. Brian Iddon: If he will make a statement on the initiatives taken by his Department to assist in the middle east peace process. [86574]
  Ms Hazel Blears: What steps he plans to take to support the new Israeli Government in achieving a lasting peace settlement in the region. [86575]
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: When he expects the Palestinian authority to be accorded statehood by the new Government in Israel. [86576]
  Mr. Tony Colman: If he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with the state of Israel. [86583]
  Mr. Tony McNulty: When he next expects to meet representatives of the Israeli Government to discuss the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement. [86586]
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): We welcomed the election of Mr. Barak as Prime Minister of Israel. It provides an opportunity to break the stalemate on the peace process. Mr. Barak has yet to form his new Government, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has spoken twice with him and offered him an open invitation for an early visit to Britain.
  We have called for full implementation of the Wye agreement as a first step back on the path to peace. We helped to draft the EU Berlin declaration and we fully support its call for final status talks to be completed within a year.
  Britain is one of the largest bilateral donors in support of the peace process. The Foreign Office recently supported a highly successful visit by Palestinian and Israeli teachers to Northern Ireland to study reconciliation projects. That has led to student exchanges between the two communities.
  Progress on the peace process is primarily a matter for the parties to it, but Britain will do everything that it can to help them reach an outcome that brings a lasting and just peace to the region.
  Dr. Iddon: My right hon. Friend will be aware that just two weeks ago the Israeli Government confiscated a very large tract of land between Mu'ale Adumim and east Jerusalem. If that land is developed it will cut off the north of the west bank from the south. In any negotiations with Mr. Barak, will my right hon. Friend try to dissuade him from developing the land, which is far more controversial even than Har Homa?
  Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend touches on an important issue. In the Berlin declaration and in the declaration of the G8 summit at the weekend, we have called on the Government of Israel to cease settlement activity that unilaterally broke the peace agreement. I welcome the fact that Mr. Barak has said that he is not necessarily bound
  914
  to develop all the settlements. I hope that there will be a return to the negotiating table rather than a unilateral attempt to change the situation on the ground.
  Ms Blears: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to achieve a lasting settlement throughout the region good relations between Israelis and Arabs are as important as good relations between Muslims and Jews? Will he urge the Iranian Government to release the Jewish people who were arrested in March this year? They have been subjected to spurious charges of spying and could face death. Does he agree that if any harm came to the Jewish people in Iran, it would be appropriate for us to reconsider whether our ambassador should remain in that country?
  Mr. Cook: We have just sent an ambassador to Iran. President Khatami has made some welcome statements about his wish to ensure that all religious minorities in Iran are protected. We have made representations insisting on a fair judicial process for the 13 who have been arrested and for any charges against them to be publicised and brought to court. I welcome some of the balanced and favourable comments that have appeared recently in the Iranian press, criticising some of the people who have prejudged the guilt of those who have been arrested. It is important that they should have a fair and open trial.
  Mr. Wyatt: As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South?East (Dr. Iddon) has already said, there are serious problems in one part of the Palestinian area. The situation is incredibly difficult for the Palestinian authorities. What is the current state of discussions between our Government and the new Labour Government of Israel on illegal Israeli settlements?
  Mr. Cook: As I have said, the new Government have not yet been formed, but I look forward to an early consultation with the Foreign Minister once he is appointed. We have already sought an early meeting with Mr. Barak. In the communications from our Government and from the European Union we have stressed the importance of making sure that settlement development does not proceed, because of the risk that it would make it difficult to bring both sides back to the negotiating table. The way forward on the peace process is through dialogue, not unilateral action.
  Mr. Colman: I am sure that my right hon. Friend welcomes the commitment from Mr. Barak to withdraw all Israeli troops from Lebanon within the next 12 months. Of course, they were put there to stop the terrorist incursions and the missiles that were fired on to northern Israel. Will my right hon. Friend urge the Lebanese Government to ensure that when Israel withdraws—as it has from Jezzine—they take up their rightful role of policing the area to prevent the resumption of terrorist attacks on northern Israel?
  Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that, in the event of an Israeli withdrawal, there must be no security vacuum. I very much welcome, as I did last month following the election of Mr. Barak, the indication that he gave that he hoped to secure the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon within a year. I hope

  915
  that that timetable will prove possible. Progress on the Lebanese and the associated Syrian track will help to prevent any security gaps.
  Mr. McNulty: My right hon. Friend's comment about Jewish communities throughout the middle east being part of the middle east peace process is welcome. Can he give me a little more reassurance on the plight of the 22 Iranian Jews arrested in Iran on trumped-up charges? While a commitment to free and fair trials is of course welcome, those people have had no visits in prison, they have no legal representation and their plight, and indeed that of the entire 25,000 Jewish population in Iran, must be a serious concern. What representations are we making?
  Mr. Cook: We have made representations to the Government of Iran both on the need for legal representation and for due legal process. I can assure the House that we shall continue to do so. My hon. Friend touches on a wider issue also. It is a matter of concern that the Jewish population of Iran has fallen from about 100,000 to barely a quarter of that figure. That is testimony to the pressure that has been put on them. The Government condemn anti-Semitism wherever it occurs and we shall certainly remind the Government of President Khatami that we expect them to implement fully their commitment to protecting the rights of all religious minorities, including the Jewish community.
  Sir David Madel: A cause of intense disagreement between Israel and Palestinian negotiators is the future of Jerusalem. Does the Foreign Secretary envisage Jerusalem becoming the capital of both Israel and an independent Palestinian state?
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is one of the most contentious elements within the peace process. That is why it was reserved to the final status talks. It would not be helpful for even the strongest well wisher of the peace process, such as the United Kingdom, to express a view on what should be the outcome of those final status talks, but we support—and helped to write—the Berlin declaration that called for the final status talks to begin as soon as possible. We believe that there is no reason why they could not be concluded with good will within a year. They would have to include an agreement on the future of Jerusalem.
  Mr. James Clappison: Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the wide support in and outside the House for the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) regarding the members of the Jewish community arrested on trumped-up spying charges in Iran? They include a chief rabbi, teachers and other members of the religious community. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this grisly spectacle does immense harm to Iran's standing in the world and that the elements in Iranian society that are responsible for it should bear that in mind?
  Mr. Cook: As I have told the House, certain elements of Iranian society have expressed quite robust and strong views about those who have prejudged the guilt of the people who have been arrested. We insist that the Government of Iran should ensure proper observation and due legal process and proper legal rights for those
  916
  arrested. The Iranian Government would rightly expect that for any of their citizens that we arrested, as indeed they would expect that from Israel. It is right that the international community should remind Iran that they must treat the Jewish members of their own society in the same way.
  Mr. John Bercow: In reflecting upon the peace process, will the Foreign Secretary acknowledge that the early general election in Israel was precipitated by the inherent instability of that country's so-called proportional representation voting system? If the right hon. Gentleman can bring himself to acknowledge that simple and salient fact, will he also acknowledge that a strong Government with a clear mandate would be a better negotiating partner in the region for the simple reason that they will be able to focus on the policy agenda and not the grubby struggle for seats around the Cabinet table?
  Mr. Cook: At two successive Question Times I have welcomed the result of that election, therefore I would be unwise to criticise the basis on which it was secured. I simply invite the hon. Gentleman to reflect on whether the past two years' history of the peace process would have been any better had Mr. Netanyahu had a strong majority.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Further to the question from the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) concerning the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon, is the Foreign Secretary aware of the generally held belief that President Assad is using Hezbollah as his proxy militia to fight the southern Lebanese army and Israeli forces in south Lebanon? To facilitate the withdrawal from southern Lebanon, will the Secretary of State endeavour to meet President Assad to try to impose on him some regulations, or at least to encourage him to withdraw his support for Hezbollah in Lebanon?
  Mr. Cook: We retain strong dialogue with Syria. I have met President Assad, and I met the Syrian Foreign Minister recently. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), is meeting the Syrian Foreign Minister tomorrow. We continue to press Damascus on these matters, but it will not be easy to secure the outcome that the hon. Gentleman seeks without progress on the Syrian track, on which Damascus, quite rightly, has its own legitimate views.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Everyone in this House would wish Prime Minister-elect Barak success in his coalition building, particularly as he seeks to include in the coalition those organisations that believe in the principle held by the previous Prime Minister of land for peace. If the new Government are to get off to a good start with the Palestinians, they must concentrate on freezing development of the settlements as a genuine sign that there is a determination to reach final status discussions on all outstanding matters. I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments, because unless there is a comprehensive peace that includes peace with Syria and Lebanon, there will be no peace in the region.
  Mr. Cook: I reinforce my hon. Friend's point that if the peace process is to be successful, there must be progress on all its tracks, and not just on the Palestinian

  917
  track. He is right that nothing could do more to jeopardise this unique opportunity to get the peace process back on track than a continuation of the unilateral breach of the peace agreement by settlement building. It is a matter of regret that during the interregnum before the new Government take over, some are taking advantage by continuing settlement building. I hope that Mr. Barak will stand by his pledge not to be committed to those changes that have taken place without any democratic mandate from the people of Israel.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: What plans his Department has to assist progress towards democracy in Indonesia; and if he will make a statement. [86577]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The United Kingdom Government have contributed more than £2 million in bilateral support for preparations for Indonesia's first genuinely multi-party democratic elections since 1955, in addition to our share of the £5.5 million EU contributions. Our support included voter education, projects by the BBC for local radio and by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy as well as technical assistance for domestic election monitors. We welcome the fact that the elections ran smoothly. We are considering what further opportunities there are to assist in the consolidation of democracy in Indonesia.
  Mr. Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that Britain has done a lot more over the previous two years to encourage democracy in Indonesia—and, in particular, to advance human rights and the rights of the people of East Timor—than the Conservative party did during its 18 years of government, when all it could think about was flogging weapons to that country?
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. We welcome the prospect of consultation in East Timor in August. We hope that that will produce a proper and fair result for the people of that part of the world.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: Has the United Kingdom offered troops as part of any possible multinational force to oversee any transfer of sovereignty for East Timor away from Indonesia?
  Mr. Hoon: It is important that the consultation should take place before there is any pre-judging of the result.

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: If he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. [86580]
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The last Serb tank left Kosovo on Sunday, ahead of the deadline, and 19,000 KFOR troops have now been deployed across the whole of Kosovo, to guarantee its security and to protect against violence all its residents, both Albanian
  918
  and Serb. The whole House will want to record its deep regret at the loss of life of the two British soldiers who were killed making a school safe for the local people.
  A civil administration has been authorised by the United Nations and is tasked with preparing a political settlement on the basis of the Rambouillet accords, which provide for an ambitious degree of democratic self-government, with a review of the future status of Kosovo after an interim period.
  We are determined to make the defeat of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo a turning point for the whole region, and have launched a stability pact that offers its countries more open trade and faster integration with Europe. We hope that one day it will be possible for Serbia to join us as a partner in the modem Europe, but first its Government must abandon the policies of ethnic hatred that have brought poverty to the people of Serbia and a decade of violence to their neighbours.
  Mr. Griffiths: I am going to Pristina and the surrounding area on Friday with aid workers from the Scottish charities Kosovo appeal. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Government of Yugoslavia co-operate fully in the aid effort to rebuild in Kosovo and elsewhere and abandon their disgraceful policy of ethnic cleansing, which has made the state a pariah?
  Mr. Cook: I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that the Government in Belgrade are now in no position either to pursue ethnic cleansing in Kosovo or to hinder the vital work of the relief agencies. Relief has already been supplied to those who were made homeless in Kosovo and the refugees have returned from their camps in very large numbers. That has been made possible only by the deployment of the international military force led by NATO. All hon. Members will have been moved by the pictures of Kosovo Albanians greeting the arrival of the soldiers with flowers and a spontaneous warm welcome that underlines the depth of the horrors from which they have been liberated.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: I, too, pay tribute to the sacrifice of the two Gurkha soldiers who were so tragically killed.
  May I press on the Foreign Secretary the need to move to a civil administration for Kosovo at the earliest possible date, so that the Kosovars themselves may be responsible for their democratic self-government and for the policing of their country, as it would be wrong for us to impose structures and a way of life on the country?
  Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to the soldiers who gave their lives making Kosovo safe.
  We have to be realistic about the civil administration: in the immediate future, the international community must accept an obligation to provide public administration, economic reconstruction and humanitarian relief to Kosovo, but the Security Council resolution clearly states that, over a period of time, that UN administration is expected to transfer its powers to Kosovars of all nationalities—Albanian and Serb alike—and ensure that Kosovo has a democratic Government. That is important for Kosovo and will send a strong message to Serbia, where the people have been denied proper democracy and

  919
  freedom of expression; they may find the model of a free society that we can create in Kosovo more attractive than what is offered by President Milosevic.
  Mr. Jim Murphy: My right hon. Friend has correctly paid tribute to the Gurkhas who were tragically killed yesterday.
  Are the British KFOR troops being encouraged to record what they witness and take statements from victims so that the information can be drawn together? Will he confirm that those records and eyewitness accounts will be admissible in any future war crimes hearings? If that is so, British troops will go down in history not only for securing a peace to protect the innocent but for securing the convictions of the guilty.
  Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend touches on an important priority for our troops in Kosovo. As KFOR has moved forward, it has recorded and identified all sites of atrocities and mass graves. It has passed the information to the International War Crimes Tribunal and is fully co-operating with it in the investigation. Britain was the first nation to provide a police team to carry out that investigation. The team has been working for the past three days exhuming corpses from a mass grave at Veluka Krusa, which is a priority site because it is named in the indictment of President Milosevic as one of the atrocities for which he was ultimately responsible.
  I spoke at the weekend to Judge Arbour, the special prosecutor for the International War Crimes Tribunal, and
  I am pleased to report to the House that she much appreciated the assistance that Britain is giving and the full co-operation of KFOR.
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: We should like to be associated with the remarks that the Foreign Secretary has made about the two Gurkhas—Royal Engineers—who lost their lives, and would add to the tributes that have already been rightly paid to them. We also wish to send our congratulations to Lieutenant-General Mike Jackson on the signing of the demilitarisation agreement.
  Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the demilitarisation agreement included a pledge by NATO to consider the formation of an army in Kosovo modelled on the US National Guard; that it permits the KLA to continue to wear uniforms and insignia for the next 90 days; and that it did not deny the KLA the right to self-defence, which is a sign of the on-going volatility in Kosovo? Under those circumstances, is the Foreign Secretary confident that the difficulties being caused by armed KLA patrols will cease immediately?
  Mr. Cook: It would be a brave person who claimed that all violence in Kosovo will halt immediately, given the enormous disruption and the great violence and high emotions that have been visited on that province in the past three months. That said, we believe that the agreement that has been signed fully meets our objective of demilitarisation of the KLA; indeed, it proposes to do so in a shorter time scale than was envisaged in the Rambouillet accords, which gave the KLA 120 days in which to demilitarise.
  The 90 days is not the point at which everything happens: it is the point at which everything is to be completed. For most of the intervening period, the KLA
  920
  will not be allowed to take weapons outside their designated camps. That is a sensible way forward which has provided for an understanding between both sides. It will also enable NATO to ensure that it knows where the KLA is, and that is helpful. Within the three-month period, the agreement will provide for full demilitarisation. It is our objective to ensure that the ceasefire is observed not just by one side but by both sides, and that the future of Kosovo will be brought about through the ballot box, not the barrel of the gun.

  India-Pakistan
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: What assessment his Department has made of relations between India and Pakistan; and if he will make a statement. [86581]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): We remain deeply concerned by the fighting in the Kargil area of Jammu and Kashmir following armed infiltration across the line of control. We have called on Pakistan and India to respect the line of control. We have urged both countries to calm the situation, reduce tensions between them and ensure that the conflict does not escalate further. We welcomed the talks between the Indian and Pakistani Foreign Ministers on 12 June. We hope that the dialogue will continue and that early progress will be made to end the fighting.
  Mr. Savidge: Will the Government exert all possible influence to try to reduce the risks of a nuclear conflict that could devastate the subcontinent and beyond?
  Mr. Hoon: That is precisely why we have urged both countries to implement United Nations Security Council resolution 1172 and, in particular, to sign the comprehensive test ban treaty, cease the production of fissile material and refrain from deploying nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

  South Africa (Elections)
  Mr. Desmond Browne: What discussions he has had with the South African Government about the outcome of the recent elections there. [86582]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister telephoned Thabo Mbeki on 7 June to congratulate him on the ANC's victory and on the peaceful conduct of the elections. Those elections have been a resounding success. The high voter turn-out and generally efficient conduct of these elections have further strengthened the democratic process in South Africa.
  Mr. Browne: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the continued success of democracy in South Africa will largely depend on how able its Government are to deal with the monstrous problems they face, including massively increased crime, the spread of AIDS and endemic poverty and unemployment? Will he confirm that this Government have as foreign policy priorities an increase in trade, the continued sharing of

  921
  technology, continued private investment and—most importantly—the strengthening of civil society in South Africa?
  Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The priorities that he has set out are those adopted by the South African Government. From the Government's point of view, the increase in bilateral trade and in trade between the European Union and South Africa was fundamental. That is why we were at the forefront of ensuring that the EU moved forward on a free trade agreement with South Africa.
  My hon. Friend raised the very important issue of HIV/AIDS. About 3 million South Africans are HIV positive. When he was in South Africa earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced an assistance package of £100 million, targeted on that problem. However, in all our dealings with South Africa we shall continue to give support to the democratically elected Government, who are committed to tackling the major priorities involved in improving the economic and social structure for all South Africans. That is a welcome change from previous South African Governments.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. David Heath: What assessment he has made of the current situation in Sierra Leone. [86584]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): We welcome the recent signing of a ceasefire agreement and the negotiations currently taking place in Lomé. We urge all those involved to seize this opportunity to secure a sustainable peace and to end Sierra Leone's appalling cycle of violence.
  Mr. Heath: The Minister might have been forgiven if he had suggested that interest in Sierra Leone had diminished a little in this House since last year, but it remains a very important matter. Has the Minister had any discussions with President Obasanjo of Nigeria to secure assurances that Nigeria will maintain stability over the next crucial few months while the peace process is worked out?
  Given the tragic humanitarian disaster that has overtaken Sierra Leone, which has 400,000 refugees and 1 million displaced persons within its borders, will the Minister say whether any further progress has been made on the EU's projected $30 million aid programme?
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that, sadly, the House's interest in Sierra Leone seems to have diminished, but the tragic reality of the country was never reflected in the rather partisan, party-political debate here in Westminster.
  It is important to pay tribute to the role of ECOMOG—and to Nigeria's role within it—in stabilising the situation in Sierra Leone. Nigeria has worked enormously hard, and its nationals have died in the stabilisation struggle. We have worked closely with Nigeria and ECOMOG, and President Obasanjo has maintained his commitment to ensuring that Nigeria will finish the job that it started and that ECOMOG will play its part.
  922
  I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman the exact state of progress on the EU's projected aid programme, although I shall respond in due course with that information. However, the Government retain their dual commitment to ensuring that we win in this period of conflict by maintaining progress towards peace, and to ensuring that we win the peace, too. That will involve investment after the conflict has ended.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: Will the Minister expand on the matter of the humanitarian aid that we are providing to Sierra Leone, and on the aid that we are providing to help rebuild civil society there? It is not enough to provide foodstuffs and materials; civil society must be reconstructed. What are the Government doing in that regard?
  Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend asks a very important question. A real effort has been put into giving humanitarian aid. We have given some £3.5 million since the beginning of this year, when the most recent rebel incursion into Freetown occurred. Nevertheless, the bulk of the assistance made available—in the order of £20 million—is for different forms of reconstruction assistance. The aim in part is to demobilise those engaged in combat, and also to reconstruct civil society and ensure that there is an economic base on which peace can be founded. That is the most profound and important commitment that we can make.

  Mongolia
  Mr. John Grogan: If he will make a statement concerning the Government's policy towards Mongolia. [86585]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Britain enjoys a very warm relationship with Mongolia. We have fully supported Mongolia's transition to democracy, and we commend the Mongolian Government's commitment to achieving a market economy. Our educational and cultural links are strong, and bilateral trade, though modest, has real potential to increase. We hope that the relationship will continue to develop in all areas.
  Mr. Grogan: Does my hon. Friend recognise the tremendous achievement of the people of Mongolia, whose national hero is, incidentally, Ghengis Khan? The country borders China but has established a flourishing multi-party democracy in under a decade. The Foreign Office is represented at a donor conference taking place in Ulan Bator; but will my hon. Friend do all he can to support bilateral links between the UK and Mongolia and to encourage our European Union partners to support Mongolia?
  Mr. Hoon: I know that my hon. Friend is something of an expert on Mongolia, which, unlike me, he has visited. I hope to visit that part of the world as part of my responsibilities. The Government hope to foster and develop the existing good relationship between the UK and Mongolia.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the House, which is highly knowledgeable about Mongolia, is aware that the western-oriented Government of Mongolia are not keen to become to close to China—except geographically. When the Minister visits Mongolia, will he attempt to improve our trade and investment links? Given his previous responsibility for the internet, will he explore the ease with which all members of the Mongolian Government can be contacted. It is considerably easier to reach them on the internet than it is to contact UK Foreign Office Ministers.
  Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is certainly right that there is a good relationship between the two countries, not least because the UK was the first western country to establish diplomatic relations with Mongolia, setting up an embassy in 1963. Mongolians have not forgotten that signal of support, and the UK has a consequently advantageous position. I have not recently surfed the internet in an effort to contact my counterparts in Mongolia.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: If he will make a statement on the readmission of Nigeria to the Commonwealth. [86588]
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I visited President Obasanjo after his election to congratulate him on Nigeria's return to democracy. I pledged Britain's support for the return of Nigeria to the Commonwealth, and I am delighted that we were able to secure that in time for his inauguration last month.
  An immense task remains to be done in repairing the damage done to Nigeria's economy and society in the dark days of General Abacha, a tragic case from which time affects one of my hon. Friend's constituents. However, the new Government have made a good start, and they will have a firm ally in Britain.
  Mr. Blizzard: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he consider it acceptable that a Commonwealth country should continue to fail to communicate properly with the UK high commission? My constituent was murdered in Nigeria more than a year ago. Despite requests at the highest level for the release of the police report and promises by the Nigerian authorities that that would be done by a certain date, the report, which exists—I saw it on the police commissioner's desk when I visited Nigeria—remains unforthcoming. Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that Nigeria should observe the basic consular decencies expected of a Commonwealth country in this case and in others?
  Mr. Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his resolve and determination in pursuing his constituent's case, even to the extent of visiting Nigeria. I do not believe it acceptable that any country should fail to respond, whether or not it is in the Commonwealth. President Obasanjo faces the major task of reforming and modernising the Nigerian police. He has begun by appointing a new inspector-general, on whom our consul
  924
  called last Wednesday to raise my hon. Friend's constituent's case. I hope that we may soon receive the response that we have been seeking for some time.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Secretary of State's positive endorsement of the new Government in Nigeria. We wish them well because we understand their difficulties. At the same time, I believe that they already have support right across the community, which I trust will develop strongly so as to restore Nigeria to its proper place in the Commonwealth.
  Mr. Cook: When I discussed his plans for the future with President Obasanjo, when he was elected but not yet in office, I was impressed by the stress that he placed on reconciliation among the many communities that make up the state of Nigeria. Since then, he has carried that forward, particularly by his work in the Delta region, meeting community leaders and seeking a positive understanding. That is an alternative to the random violence in the Delta, and he will have our full support in his efforts, which will also enable us to welcome Nigeria to its rightful place as a leading African nation in the international community.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: While welcoming the progress in Nigeria, will the Foreign Secretary when he next talks to the Nigerian Government mention our great concern about the amount of financial fraud involving our countries? I have two constituents who have been terribly defrauded—one of them bankrupted—by major Nigerian fraud for which there is no recourse and no possibility of ever recovering the money. Will he ask the Nigerians what they can do to tighten the regulations that allow such fraud to be so commonplace?
  Mr. Cook: I am pleased to assure the hon. Gentleman that we have already raised that issue with the Government of Nigeria and will continue to work them. I am well aware of the scale of the problem. It is a striking example of how after a break-down in a country's law and order and a failure to have a functioning central Government, as happened under General Abacha, the ripple effects spread around the international community. We hope that we can work with the new Government at least to reduce, and perhaps eliminate, the problem.

  Overseas Territories (Legislation)
  Mr. Bob Russell: What action he has taken since the publication of his White Paper on overseas territories to prepare for the introduction of the legislation. [86590]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): Action to prepare a brief for an overseas territories Bill is under way. It is proposed that the legislation will cover three areas: changes to relevant legislation to reflect the new title of United Kingdom overseas territories; the offer of British citizenship to British dependent territories citizens; and minor constitutional changes. We intend to place legislation before Parliament at the earliest opportunity possible.
  Mr. Russell: So far, so good. Does the Minister accept that the sense of betrayal in the overseas territories is the same today as it was 18 years ago when full British citizenship was withdrawn by the Conservative Government? While I welcome his proposals, he did not mention the time scale. Does he accept that unless the Government introduce early legislation, the sense of betrayal will continue?
  Mr. Lloyd: I do not accept that the sense of betrayal is still there. In fact, throughout the overseas territories there has been a warm welcome for the Government's positive tone. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who has valiantly fought this case over more than a few months. There is no doubt that the people of the overseas territories know that the injustice that they felt is in the process of being lifted. They welcome that, and our commitment is that it will happen.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the British Indian Ocean territory, can something be done to help those wretched people who were shoved off their archipelago to make way on Diego Garcia for the biggest American base outside the continental United States? With the welcome seminar on reefs to be held at the Foreign Office next week, can something be done to protect their fishing grounds?
  Mr. Lloyd: As my hon. Friend knows, there is a long and complex history to the position of the former residents of Diego Garcia. It is not a straightforward question. The issue has been resolved, returned to and re-resolved. While we have considerable sympathy for the plight of individuals, in every case the families of those moved from Diego Garcia received a compensation package. The overwhelming majority are citizens of Mauritius and are therefore not in the same position as residents of the overseas territories, who will now benefit by being given full British citizenship.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As I am chairman of the Falkland Islands group and an active member of the Gibraltar group, the Minister will appreciate my interest in the answer that he gave the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell). Will he assure me and the House that the people of the Falklands, Gibraltar and the other overseas territories will be treated fairly? Will the Minister assure me that the people of Gibraltar will be given the same rights as the people of the overseas territories of France, who are able to vote in the European elections?
  Mr. Lloyd: The fundamental guarantee that the people of Gibraltar, the Falklands and all the overseas territories seek and have received is that sovereignty will not be transferred without their express and declared approval. The hon. Gentleman raises the question of the right of the citizens of Gibraltar to take part in the European elections. I think he knows that the British Government have worked and will continue to work hard to guarantee that they obtain precisely that right.

  European Union (Reform)
  Ms Gisela Stuart: If he will make a statement on the plans to reform the decision-making process of the European Union. [86591]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): The Cologne European Council decided that an intergovernmental conference should begin early next year to prepare the Union's institutions for enlargement.
  The conference will cover three main subjects—the size and composition of the Commission, the weighting of votes in the Council and the possible extension of qualified majority voting. The Government welcome this timetable. We want European institutions that are effective, efficient and able to face up to the challenges that enlargement will bring.
  Ms Stuart: I thank the Minister for that answer. We should never forget that it was the previous Government who allowed the culture of mismanagement to fester in the European Commission. I welcome this Government's commitment to reform it. May I urge the Minister to focus not only on a clear agenda but on the speed of its implementation, which is equally vital in view of the imminent enlargement?
  Ms Quin: I agree with my hon. Friend that speed is important in this exercise and that we must apply ourselves to it assiduously. It is 10 years now since the Berlin wall came down and countries in central and eastern Europe have made a great deal of progress. We want to be able to welcome them into membership or closer association with the European Union. It is very important to us to keep that role firmly in mind.
  Mr. Archie Norman rose—
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Norman: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Does the Minister agree that the principle of subsidiarity in European decision making can be safeguarded only if national Parliaments have adequate time to scrutinise legislation? Is she aware of the real disquiet around the fact that in the past year on no fewer than 23 occasions the six-week time window agreed under the Amsterdam treaty for scrutiny of legislation has not been observed to the full? Will she undertake with her European counterparts to ensure that in future the time window is more precisely defined and that it is properly observed for all European legislation?
  Ms Quin: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment. Like me, he was perhaps wondering whether he would be able to get to the Dispatch Box this afternoon. We are pleased with the arrangements that we have introduced for scrutiny, which are recent. We hope and expect that they will work well. We know that sometimes the pace of European business means that decisions get speeded up, but the Government have in all cases provided full explanation. Far from being aware of disquiet, I am very much aware of the widespread welcome in both Houses for the way the Government are approaching the issue.

  MOX Shipments
  Mr. David Chaytor: What representations have been made to him by Caribbean states over the proposed shipment of MOX fuel to Japan. [86592]
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I am aware of the interest of the Caribbean states in this issue. While no specific representations have been made to me by Caribbean states over the proposed shipment of MOX fuel to Japan, I have received a letter from the high commissioner of the Bahamas on behalf of his Commonwealth Caribbean colleagues requesting a meeting to discuss the more general issue of the movement of nuclear material through the Caribbean sea. Arrangements are in hand to hold such a meeting.
  Mr. Chaytor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he accept that there is continuing concern about the safety, security and proliferation implications of the international transport of MOX fuel? Does he accept that that is partly because for many years the nuclear industry insisted that MOX fuel could not be chemically separated into its constituent element of uranium and plutonium, whereas many scientists challenged that view and pointed
  928
  out that it was a fairly routine scientific process for any terrorist group that had access to a university chemistry laboratory?
  Is my hon. Friend aware that in documents published within the past few days by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and relating to the Department's latest round of consultation on the Sellafield MOX plant, the possibility of separating plutonium from MOX fuel has been confirmed? Will he assure the House that he will keep the safety, security and proliferation aspects of the transport of MOX fuel under the closest scrutiny?
  Mr. Hoon: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I realise that there is concern about safety. I assure him that the solid nature of MOX itself, the integrity of the cask in which it is transported and the safety features of the ships mean that there is no credible accident scenario in which radioactivity could be released. With the benefit of my general science grade 5 O-level, I shall not argue with him as to the technicalities of the extraction of plutonium. I accept that that is theoretically possible, but I assure him that I am instructed that it would require a complex and highly specialised piece of equipment, and plant and skills, to achieve it. A considerable degree of nuclear sophistication would need to be available before what my hon. Friend describes could happen.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you, with your beady eye, noticed—as I did—that during much of Question Time today, including its start, our faithful friend, the clock, has been running one minute ahead of the time on the Annunciator screen? The effect of that was to lead me and several of my hon. Friends, quite wrongly, to believe that we were starting Question Time a minute late. I am glad that I was corrected by my faithful and hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). Can the matter be speedily rectified?
Madam Speaker: I shall look into the matter; my beady eye had not noticed it.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Some of my constituents took a great deal of time and trouble to put a petition to the House on the banning of hunting with hounds. I am sure that you realise, Madam Speaker, that I am not in favour of that petition, but, like any representative Member, I submitted it on behalf of my constituents. Some weeks later, I was somewhat surprised to receive a note from the Clerk who deals with petitions, stating that the Home Office had been notified of the petition, but had decided not to make any comment. Surely it is strange, when our constituents submit a petition on an issue that concerns them and that is the responsibility of the Government, for the Minister and the Department responsible to say that they have no comment. It is an abuse of our system if we cannot have answers from the Executive on matters of concern to our constituents.
Madam Speaker: The correct procedure has been followed; not all petitions are responded to. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the procedure has been carried out. If he does not approve of it, he has an opportunity to try to change it through the Procedure Committee. The procedure that he has reported to me is absolutely correct.

Parliamentary Control of the Executive
3.33 pm
Mr. David Davis: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make the exercise of certain powers of Ministers of the Crown subject to control by the House of Commons.
In 1977, the Procedure Committee concluded that:
"The balance of advantage between Parliament and Government is so weighted in favour of Government that it is inimical to the proper working of our parliamentary democracy."
About 20 years later, an NOP survey of Members of Parliament, showed that three quarters of them believed that that was still the case; a number of Members thought that it had become worse. It is a truth that has become sharper in every passing decade since the 1930s.
In the 1940s, the massive increase in the size of the Government as a result of the second world war dramatically shifted the balance of power between Whitehall and Westminster to the huge advantage of Whitehall. Over the years, that imbalance in Whitehall's favour has got worse. Even action taken with good intentions—such as improving public services through the creation of Government agencies—has had the perverse effect of making much of the Government less accountable to Parliament and reducing Parliament's access and power.
In the ensuing decades, many changes worsened that imbalance. The starkest was the effect of the growing power of the European Union. More and more of Britain's legislation is negotiated in Brussels, often out of sight, in technical Committees or at the meeting of ambassadors known as COREPER, at which the details of important legislation are negotiated without the presence of a single elected representative. The final result—which is often unamendable—is presented for Parliament's rubber stamp.
Similarly, in Britain today, one of the most important levers of economic policy—the decision on interest rates—is made out of sight and largely out of reach of Parliament by members of the Monetary Policy Committee. Those are just a few examples of areas where Parliament has lost control of policy matters that are
Enormously important to our citizens.
There are three primary aspects of government where parliamentary scrutiny and control are either absent or inadequate. They are: first, the exercise of unfettered Executive power, largely under Crown prerogative; secondly, the control of information that should often be available to the public, and which should certainly be available to Select Committees of the House; and, finally, the prioritization and control of expenditure within Departments.
I shall deal first with the powers largely exercised under Crown prerogative. I am agnostic about the virtues of European central bank independence Union decision making. However, it strikes me as extraordinary that Parliament has no say not only in the decisions, but in who makes them. Of course, the appointment of people such as the European Commissioners, ambassadors to international organizations and members of powerful bodies such as the Monetary Policy Committee is a part of the patronage that any Executive guard jealously. That is wrong. The fact that such people are appointed solely by Government

931
without any parliamentary oversight is bad for democracy. Power corrupts, but patronage corrodes—corrodes democracy, public trust and confidence, and the mechanism of government itself. That is one of the things that the Bill sets out to correct.
Executive decisions by the Government should be subject to the scrutiny and approval of Parliament in many other areas. Much of them arise under Crown prerogative—which, in truth, in modern Britain is a euphemism for the prerogative of the Prime Minister. The Bill sets out to curb that and to make it subject to parliamentary approval, giving Parliament the right of approval over all Executive powers not conferred by statute—from the ratification of treaties to the approval of Orders in Council, and from the appointment of European Commissioners, some ambassadors, members of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee and other senior public posts to the dissolution of Parliament. There is no serious reason why the Executive should have the monopoly of control of these issues—they do not have that power in most other modern democracies.
However, that proposal is not enough. The exercise of unchecked governmental power is not the only serious problem with our democracy—even with a Government with a huge majority. Parliament must concern itself with two other elements: the control of information and the control of money. Governments protect their monopoly over those two areas almost as fiercely as they defend their monopoly on Executive power.
The Government's proposed Freedom of Information Bill will improve only slightly the position regarding Parliament's access to information. My Bill creates the post of parliamentary investigating officer who, like Parliament's Comptroller and Auditor General, would be cleared to have access to all levels of Government information, whether secret or not. Such an officer would serve the House and its Select Committees. When we next have an inquiry such as the Sierra Leone inquiry, it could be conducted by Parliament's own official and Parliament would not have to swallow the Government's protestations about the "independence" of an inquiry run by a civil servant.
Like the Comptroller and Auditor General, the investigating officer would be able to test on behalf of Parliament the Government's claims within the veil of
932
Whitehall secrecy, and would also be able to make an independent judgment about whether that secrecy was necessary. By this simple mechanism, Parliament would penetrate the veil of secrecy without jeopardising the real concerns of national security, commercial confidentiality or personal privacy.
Finally, the control of money—or supply—was the original function of the House. Unfortunately, in the second half of this century, the so-called estimates procedure has become a disgraceful charade. The documents are opaque, the procedure is arcane and the outcome is irrelevant.
My Bill will require the approval of the relevant departmental Select Committee before a departmental estimate is approved. It will specifically allow the Select Committee to lay an amendment before the House altering the allocation of money within a Department, but not increasing the total for the Department. That will allow Parliament to challenge and debate spending priorities, without undermining the ability of the Government to manage the economy.
That apparently small change will transform the relationship between Parliament and the Government—and, incidentally, will transform the relationship between Ministers and civil servants on matters of financial priority—and it will, for the first time, introduce real accountability into the financial priorities of modern politics.
If enacted, this small Bill will irrevocably alter the relationship between Parliament and the Executive, and in doing so, will at least check the trend from representative democracy to presidential oligarchy, which is so sadly undermining this great institution.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Davis, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. David Maclean, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Derek Foster, Mr. Douglas Hogg and Mr. Eric Forth.

PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL OF THE EXECUTIVE
Mr. David Davis accordingly presented a Bill to make the exercise of certain powers of Ministers of the Crown subject to control by the House of Commons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 July, and to be printed [Bill 123].
Orders of the Day

  TAX CREDITS BILL AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE BILL [Lords] (PROGRAMME)
  Ordered,
  That the following provisions shall apply to—

  (a) proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to the Tax Credits Bill,

  (b) proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mrs. Barbara Roche relating to Access to Justice Bill [Lords] [Ways and Means], and

  (c) Consideration and Third Reading of the Access to Justice Bill [Lords].

  1.—(1)The proceedings to which this Order applies shall be taken in the order specified in the Table.
  (2) Each part of the proceedings to which this Order applies shall, if not previously concluded, be concluded today at the times shown in the Table.

  Table

  Proceedings

  Conclusion

  Tax Credits Bill: Consideration of Lords Amendments

  Amendment 1

  5.30 p.m.

  Amendment 2

  6.30 p.m.

  Remaining Amendments

  7.00 p.m.

  Motion on Access to Justice Bill [Lords][Ways and Means]

  7.15 p.m.

  Access to Justice Bill [Lords]: Consideration and Third Reading

  New Clauses and amendments relating to Part I

  8.45 p.m.

  Government new Clauses and new Schedule

  10.15 p.m.

  Remaining new Clauses

  11.00 p.m.

  Remaining amendments and Motions, and Third Reading

  Midnight

  Conclusion of proceedings on Tax Credits Bill
  2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of concluding any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to the Tax Credits Bill in accordance with paragraph 1.
  (2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
  (3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

  (a) the Question on any further amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and

  (b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

  (4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

  (a) the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and

  (b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.

  (5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.
  (6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.
  (7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment which is moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.
  (8) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
  (9) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of this day's sitting.

  Conclusion of proceedings on Access to Justice Bill [Lords]
  3.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of concluding any proceedings on the Access to Justice Bill [Lords] in accordance with paragraph 1.
  (2) The Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

  (c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown; and

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

  (3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
  (4) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (2)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

  Common provisions
  4.—In the case of any proceedings to which this Order applies—

  (a) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply;

  (b) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply;

  (c) the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House;

  (d) no dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown (in which case the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith);

  (e) if the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period allowed for the interrupted proceedings; and

  (f) if the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the proceedings are concluded no notice shall be required of a Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.—[Jane Kennedy.]

  Tax Credits Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Madam Speaker: I draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 4. If the House agrees with that Lords amendment, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 6

  PAYMENT OF TAX CREDIT BY EMPLOYERS ETC
  Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 31, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A),")
  3.43 pm
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 3.
  Dawn Primarolo: The amendments together would allow employers with fewer than 10 employees to elect that any tax credit payable to their employees should be paid by the Inland Revenue board. The amendments would also enable regulations to be made governing the making and revoking of such elections.
  The amendments were introduced in Committee in another place. This House has, of course, debated and firmly rejected similar amendments seeking to exempt various categories of employers from paying tax credits through the payroll to their employees. I shall ask the House to reject amendments Nos. 1 and 3, because they are ill thought out, would be disastrous for the tax credit policy as a whole and would be an administrative nightmare.
  There are two important points to make on the policy implications of the amendments. First, as their lordships are well aware, payment via the employer is central to our tax credit policy. It will be vital in showing unambiguously that work really does pay. Not only will the tax credits be much more generous than the benefits that they replace, but they will also be inextricably linked to the rewards of work because they will be shown on the employee's pay slip as an addition to the net take-home pay. Embedding the tax credits in the tax system will help to break the perceived link with benefits and will reduce the stigma which is often attached to claiming in-work support.
  For those reasons, we should not be looking for ways of taking large numbers of employers out of the scheme, thereby depriving many thousands of employees of their right to receive their tax credit through the payroll. Payment through the pay packet will be the predominant method of payment from April 2000, and we want that to apply in every case where it is appropriate and practical.
  Mr. Steve Webb: How many employees, not firms, would be taken out of payment through the pay packet by the amendments?
  Dawn Primarolo: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's point when I explain why I am asking the House to reject the amendments.
  The second, more general, point of policy is that amendments Nos. 1 and 3 would give employers the right—
  Mr. Eric Pickles: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Dawn Primarolo: I am happy to give way, but will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Opposition's policy is still as stated by the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith)—that a Conservative Government would abolish the working families tax credit and deprive millions of children of the benefits of that?
  Mr. Pickles: The hon. Lady is most courteous, but I seek only to help her out. Can she confirm that the amendments would take out only 13 per cent. of people, and that 87 per cent. would still be able to receive the working families tax credit through the wage packet?
  Dawn Primarolo: I am coming to my second point which deals specifically with the hon. Gentleman's question, and with the removal of so many employers from their responsibilities within the tax system.
  Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 would give employers the right to opt out of their tax obligations. That is a novel idea. If it were a feature of the tax system generally, I wonder how many employers would, for example, voluntarily operate the pay-as-you-earn scheme.
  To remove employers in such large numbers from their tax obligations—70 per cent. of all employers—is clearly unacceptable. Tax credits are part of the tax system, and it is completely unacceptable to say that employers can elect not to fulfil their tax administration responsibilities.
  By accepting the amendments, the House would give in the region of 825,000 employers—70 per cent. of all employers—the ability to elect not to carry out their duties in relation to tax credits. That is not acceptable.
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Lady will know that the Government have said that the smallest firms, those that do not have a PAYE or national insurance liability at present, do not have to deliver the tax credits directly through the payroll, and that they can be paid directly to the recipient. Those small firms are not giving up on their duties—rather, the Government have recognised that they are a burden on them, so why is the argument different?
  Dawn Primarolo: If the hon. Gentleman will be a little more patient, I shall address those points, which were a feature of our debates in this House and in the other place.
  I was making the point about the number of employers who would be removed from the scheme. In his first intervention, the hon. Gentleman asked about the number of employees involved. The figure is in the region of 100,000, which is a substantial number to remove from the scheme. His second intervention was about employer burdens and what will happen to those employers who are not required to be in the PAYE scheme. If I may go on to the next section of my remarks, I shall be able to deal with that point.

  937
  The main criticism of employer payment of the tax credit concerns the method of payment imposed and unacceptable burdens, although I note that today's Confederation of British Industry press release welcomes and
  "supports the Working Families Tax Credit which should play a key role in raising incentives to work by targeting additional resources on those people who are most likely to suffer from the poverty and unemployment traps".
  I am sure that we all have a copy of the press release, which points out that
  "the CBI welcomes the government's recognition"
  of the issues in respect of the cost of compliance and
  "looks forward to working with the government to develop proposals to meet the needs of smaller firms."
  I should say that I will deal with that point during my speech, in case any hon. Members think that I might miss it out.
  Mr. Pickles rose—
  Dawn Primarolo: I am always pleased to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I should be grateful if, in return, he would answer my question: does his party support the working families tax credit—yes or no?
  Mr. Pickles: I am sure that it was for the sake of brevity that the hon. Lady missed out the paragraph of the CBI press release that states:
  "We would have preferred smaller firms to have been exempt from administering the credit".
  Does she believe that Lord Haskins, who has been asked to look into this matter by the Prime Minister, is wrong when he says that the Government have underestimated the impact of the working families tax credit on small businesses?
  Dawn Primarolo: Shall I take the hon. Gentleman's answer as yes—his party intends to repeal the working families tax credit, denying millions of children and families the support that it gives? He is quite right; I do not deny that the CBI would have preferred different action, but it is saying that, despite its concerns about employer compliance, it accepts that the Government recognise that something will need to be done in that area and that we will respond. It is not opposing the Bill; it welcomes the Bill. If employer compliance is such an overwhelming problem, one would have expected the CBI to feel unable to support the Bill.
  Mr. John Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Dawn Primarolo: As always, I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I must try to make progress, if he will permit me.
  Mr. Bercow: I am exceptionally grateful to the Paymaster General for giving way. On the subject of opponents of Government policy in this area, is she aware that the National Farmers Union is resolutely opposed to the current position because the great majority of agricultural businesses would be adversely affected? Given that she is flagging up her willingness to consider means by which to alleviate the burden on small
  938
  businesses, is she prepared sympathetically to consider the NFU request that the new measure should be delayed for two years to allow agricultural businesses adequately to prepare themselves for it?
  Dawn Primarolo: The Government are not prepared to delay the implementation of that policy because we are not prepared to stand by and watch as millions of children who could be assisted by the measure continue to be trapped in poverty. We have made it clear—and the CBI recognises this—that tackling compliance cost is being addressed; on that basis, it supports and welcomes the Bill.
  The Government have recognised from the outset that employers will incur some extra costs in paying tax credits through the payroll, and we are doing everything possible to keep those extra costs to a minimum. Since May 1998, we have been consulting representatives of employers and payroll software suppliers on the details of the scheme, and significant changes have been made to meet their concerns.
  We have also recognised that, whatever the advantages of employer payment of tax credits, that method of delivery may not be appropriate in all cases. As the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) pointed out, some employers are so small that they are not required to comply with PAYE arrangements. We have already announced an exemption for certain very small employers, in whose case the advantages to employees of receiving their tax credit with pay would clearly be outweighed by the practical difficulties. A line must be drawn somewhere, and the Government have drawn it at that point, given that those employers will not be participating in the PAYE scheme.
  Employers will normally offset tax credit payments against PAYE tax payments, national insurance contributions and student loan repayments that they are due to make to the Inland Revenue. If their liability to the Revenue is not enough to cover the tax credit payments that they are required to make, they will be able to apply to the Revenue in advance for funding. That was discussed extensively during earlier stages of the Bill's passage.
  What are we to do about employers who do not operate a PAYE scheme, because they do not have to deduct tax or national insurance contributions from the pay of their employees? Employers in that category would include people who employ a cleaner or gardener for a few hours a week. They currently have no dealings with the Revenue in their role as employers. For those employers, the burden of paying tax credits with pay would be disproportionate, because they would be brought on to the Revenue's employer database simply through once having had tax credit recipients on their payroll. They would have to apply to the Revenue for funds on that basis, because they would not be able to make deductions from the payments that they were collecting on behalf of the Revenue.
  In Committee, we announced that we had decided to exempt employers from paying tax credits through the payroll if they did not operate a PAYE scheme. That was an entirely reasonable move, and was welcomed as such. It is a targeted exemption, which will take about 80,000 employers out of the scheme. I am anticipating a possible further intervention from the hon. Member for

  939
  Northavon. The exemption will be relatively easy to operate, because the Revenue's PAYE database will quickly confirm whether a particular employer qualifies for it. In the vast majority of cases, employers will not need to be troubled in the first place.
  Let me now deal with the practical implications of Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 3, which, by contrast, would be anything but easy to operate. As I said earlier, they would be an administrative nightmare. The central practical problem is how the Revenue will know which employers qualify for the opt-out. Inland Revenue information about the number of people employed by a particular employer is based on employers' end-of-year returns, so it could be up to a year out of date. A possible source of information could be the employees themselves, but employees filling in their tax credit application forms will, in many cases, not know how many other employees work for the same employer. They may send in the form without the information, make a guess, which may or may not be correct, or ask the employer for the information—thus adding a further element of employer involvement and possible delay in the application. Moreover, in all cases of doubt, the Revenue would have to investigate. The proposals would, therefore, increase compliance burdens on employers, to establish whether they should be able to opt out. The Government think that such a proposition is ridiculous.
  Further problems would arise with employers who have about 10 employees, as they might be eligible to elect to opt out in one year, but not be eligible to do so the next. Some employers could move from the exempt to the non-exempt category several times in one year. Do hon. Members really think that employers should be relied on to opt back into the employer payment scheme if they take on additional staff? Again, the proposal would only add another unnecessary complication to the system.
  4 pm
  I think that it will be clear to the House that the type of arrangements needed to make an employer opt-out work cannot possibly be in the best interests of employees entitled to tax credits. The award of tax credits could not be finalised until the Revenue and the employer had agreed who would make the payments. Therefore, needy families would be kept waiting for vital income to which they were entitled—and that would not be acceptable to the Government. Employees of employers who move in and out of the fewer-than-10-employees category would be thoroughly confused and would not know where they were from one award to the next.
  I am sure that the Lords amendments were prompted by a concern to protect small businesses from damaging administrative burdens. However, the Opposition are not alone in wanting small businesses to flourish. The Government are committed to creating a climate in which small and medium-sized enterprises are able to thrive, and we are proud of the measures that we have introduced in the past two years to make that happen.
  Since March 1997, we have lowered the small companies tax rate twice: the rate is now 20 per cent. Moreover, as the Chancellor announced in his March Budget, from April 2000, there will be a new 10p rate—which is the lowest rate of corporation tax for small
  940
  companies among major industrialised countries. The new small business service, which was also announced in the Budget, will provide better and more targeted support and assistance to small businesses. There will also be a new business guide, business tax starter pack and guidance for new employers, and a new helpline service for new employers, offering fast-track support. The Government are committed to assisting small employers and to ensuring that their compliance costs are reduced.
  The Budget also raised the threshold for quarterly payment of PAYE tax from £600 to £1,000 per month, thus extending the quarterly scheme to an additional 130,000 employers—who could each save up to £100 annually. Since 1997, we have abolished advance corporation tax, bringing a £1 billion cash-flow advantage to business and benefiting many small businesses. We have also enhanced capital allowances for small companies, which have been in place since July 1997.
  As part of the service for all new small businesses, we shall, from April 2000, be providing assistance with their payroll operation. The Department of Trade and Industry is consulting on the method of delivery of that service. We intend that the service should be delivered by means of a voucher scheme, whereby all eligible businesses will be able to redeem a voucher with any commercial provider on a list held by the small business service. The scheme should do much to ease the burdens on small businesses of running their payroll.
  Specifically, in the coming months, and after April 2000, all employers will be given guidance to enable them to pay tax credits smoothly and with the least possible extra work. There will be a targeted publicity campaign involving all the media and there will be seminars across the country which will be of particular interest to small businesses.
  Small employers have nothing to fear from paying tax credits through the payroll. Many of them will gain from the more satisfied and motivated work force who will result.
  Miss Julie Kirkbride: I have listened with interest to the hon. Lady's explanation of why she does not believe that the Government's proposals would be unfair on small businesses, but she knows that the working families tax credit cannot be paid through the tax code because of the distortions that would ensue. It will have to be a separate item, which means that the benefits that she is claiming for small businesses will not be so great. If she is serious about helping small businesses, why not compensate them for the administration of the scheme in line with the existing precedent of the payment of statutory maternity pay? That would be a welcome way forward for small businesses.
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Lady cannot have been listening to the points that I have just made about the DTI's consultation on the voucher scheme and our services to small business. That point is addressed by the proposals. I do not intend to go back over the debate on tax credits that we have had in this and another House. If the hon. Lady informs herself, she will see that the requirements on business are no more onerous than under the family credit system.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that the amendments are not sincere,

  941
  but are wrecking amendments? There is no logic to choosing 10 employees as a threshold. Companies will vary between nine, 10 and 11 employees during a year. There is no linkage with turnover. The amendments are an incentive to small companies not to grow larger than 10 employees. The Opposition are using the amendments to hide the fact that they want to scrap the working families tax credit and give away the billions of pounds that they have been promising willy-nilly to smokers and others in debates on the Finance Bill.
  Dawn Primarolo: I have made it clear that the amendments are wrecking amendments which would break the tax credits principle. The arrangements that the Government have made across many areas to support small businesses show that we are determined to deal with compliance costs while assisting small businesses to discharge their obligations in the tax system. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green made it clear when he was Opposition spokesman on social security that the Conservatives opposed the introduction of the working families tax credit. They are trying to use the issue of employers to conceal that opposition, which would be rejected by the electorate. The millions of families who will benefit will be horrified to hear that, for all the Conservatives' words about supporting families, they oppose a policy that will help families in poverty.
  I hope that I have convinced the House that the amendments would involve red tape which would not be in the interests of tax credit recipients. The system would be time consuming and costly. Conservative Members claim to be concerned about compliance costs for small business, but the amendments would impose more compliance costs and burdens. The Government are already addressing the needs and concerns of all employers, large and small, through consultation on the detailed schemes that I have set out. The CBI has made clear its welcome for our policy. I urge the House to reject the amendments and support the Government's policy on the introduction of tax credits.
  Mr. Pickles: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady. The Opposition will long remember her closing remark—that the CBI agrees with the measure so we must support it. I am not entirely sure what Mr. Monks and Lord Hattersley would have to say about that, but at least we know that, in the great debate within the Labour party, the hon. Lady is on the side of the toffs.
  Dawn Primarolo: I hate to spoil the development of the hon. Gentleman's speech as he warms to his theme, but I am sure that he does not need reminding that the TUC also supports our policy, as do a large number of organisations, including the National Council for One Parent Families. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could broaden his theme somewhat.
  Mr. Pickles: At the moment I am trying not to broaden myself.
  The hon. Lady is quite right, but she chose to refer to what she thought was most important—the praise of the CBI. I recognise that she is a creature of the current Labour party and wish her every success in the forthcoming reshuffle.
  Mr. Tony McNulty: What about the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Pickles: We have had our reshuffle.
  942
  It seems to me that the hon. Lady was attempting to create a paper tiger in order to destroy it. Lords amendment No. 1 is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a wrecking amendment: it is a very narrow amendment that would help the general development of the Bill. The hon. Lady said that it would be disastrous to the Government's policy, as payments through the wage packet were central to the Government's scheme. Payments through the wage packet would remain central to the Government's scheme even if the amendment were accepted. The amendment would not affect that. Essentially, the Government have painted themselves into a corner.
  Mr. Derek Twigg: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question that the Minister has asked him at least twice? If his party got back into government, would they scrap the working families tax credit and therefore take away money from 5.75 million children—yes or no?
  Mr. Pickles: I am grateful for the opportunity to answer the hon. Gentleman, who has not participated in our proceedings so far and therefore cannot be blamed for relying too heavily on the briefing from the Government Whips. However, I am afraid that the Whips have let him down. I shall give the hon. Gentleman a full answer, as he deserves one.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said that we would not have introduced such a scheme. Frankly, the credit is very similar to family credit and it does not improve on it. As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, the working families tax credit will take money away from children. It will effectively transfer money from men to women. It will increase stigma. It will do little to help people at the lower end of the income scale—and it will significantly increase fraud.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said that we will probably have to follow Canada's example. Canada introduced a similar system a number of years ago and has effectively had to reverse it. If the hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) thinks that the party that introduced family credit would not provide some in-work benefit, I have to disabuse him. There is no question about that. However, the hon. Gentleman supports a more expensive mechanism for delivering in-work benefit. I am sorry to have shot the hon. Gentleman's fox, if he will forgive me the hunting metaphor, but this is a further example of the Government's creating a paper tiger in order to destroy it.
  The Government apparently have two contradictory aims: to reduce the burden on business and to change people's attitude to in-work benefit. However, their chosen method in respect of the latter involves imposing burdens on business. The amendment seeks to square the circle that the Government have created.
  4.15 pm
  If only the Government—who are desperate to appear tough on this measure after their battering by recent rebellions and their drubbings at the polls—would see reason. However, to give ground here might be portrayed as a U-turn, or as giving way to the middle-class values that the Paymaster General clearly embraces but about which some in her party have doubts. If the Government

  943
  gave way today, they might make this dreadful Bill work. The amendment would not only exempt those small firms who so elected but ensure that the overwhelming majority of workers were still paid the working families tax credit through their pay packets.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Is not the real reason why the Tories want to scrap the working families tax credit that they want to take billions of pounds from young children to pay for the promises made by Opposition Members in Committee; for instance, not to increase tax on cigarettes and fuel and not to abolish the married couples allowance for older people? Is not the Conservatives' policy to take money and food from poor children to subsidise cigarette smokers? Is that the basic strategy of the Opposition?
  Mr. Pickles: The short answer to that is no.
  The Government's own advisers have doubts about the working families tax credit. The Paymaster General was most careful not to answer my question about Lord Haskins. I know that Lord Haskins is on the Euro-enthusiast wing of the Labour party and that the hon. Lady may wish to distance herself from him. However, she will recall that Lord Haskins is the chairman of the better regulation task force, which was set up by the Prime Minister to cut red tape on business. It may be an embarrassment to the Government that the first thing that the noble Lord has picked on has been the Tax Credits Bill.
  We know that the noble Lord has received a number of complaints about the Bill. The Financial Times on 29 May reported that the Treasury had seriously underestimated the burden that the working families tax credit would impose on small businesses. If the noble Lord has been seen to be kicking over the traces a little, he is in good company. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—as reported in The Sunday Telegraph on 25 February—have expressed worries about the effect of the policy on small businesses, and particularly on agriculture.
  According to the same article, the Prime Minister is worried about the effect on middle England—again, something that the Paymaster General has embraced: she is clearly in favour of warm beer, and matrons cycling happily through the countryside. Were it not for the European elections, the Government might have accepted our proposals. Perhaps our victory has had the detrimental effect of preventing this sensible measure from proceeding.
  Maria Eagle: I have been trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. Why does his party always seem to be against alleviating poverty? The Bill, along with the national minimum wage and certain other reforms, will lift 1.25 million people out of poverty, including 700,000 children. Why does his party oppose those measures?
  Mr. Pickles: I cannot take credit for this point, because the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) made it both on Second Reading and in Committee, but the working families tax credit does absolutely nothing for those in the
  944
  lower income deciles: it only helps people at the other extreme, earning up to £38,000. I am sure that it will come as a great surprise and disappointment to the hon. Lady, but the Government are not giving a penny piece extra to those on lower incomes but are supporting those higher up the income scale. She is clearly mystified and I am sure that she feels badly let down by the Government.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pickles: First I must make a little progress, as I do not feel that I have done full justice to Lord Haskins and his views.
  Mr. James Cran: We want to hear more.
  Mr. Pickles: I am here to please the Whips, and if they want to hear more about Lord Haskins, they will. I know how the system works.
  Lord Haskins is understood to have concluded that payroll issues are one of the main regulatory problems facing small businesses. In reporting to the Treasury on competitiveness—I understand that the report is on the Chancellor's desk as we speak and will be published in July—he concluded that, in respect of companies employing fewer than 10 people, the working families tax credit should be processed by the Inland Revenue for at least two years. That is the very point that the Paymaster General has just rejected. Companies need time to prepare and, according to Lord Haskins, owner-managers may require Government help if they are not to be swamped by the regulatory burden.
  What is the regulatory burden? The Paymaster General said that it was no different from that arising from family credit, but family credit claimants only have to produce a certificate of work, after which they can rely on the pay slip. The conduit for small businesses is not as simple as the Government seek to suggest. The overworked, over-stressed small businesses have to complete a series of steps.
  First, the employer must calculate the amount of WFTC or disabled persons tax credit to be paid by multiplying the specified daily rate—to be supplied by the Inland Revenue—by the number of days in the payment period. Then the employee's net pay after the deduction of PAYE and national insurance must be added. Then the employer must enter the figure on the employee's pay slip and record it as an item entitled "tax credit".
  Then the total must be calculated and a separate tax credit figure recorded on another form. Total tax credits must be recorded on Inland Revenue forms P14 and P60. At the end of the year, a further form, the P35, is needed for each employee, including the total amount of any Inland Revenue funding for the year. Employers must also produce certificates of payment for leavers. That strikes me as reasonably onerous.
  In Committee, the Financial Secretary, whom we all respect for her fairness and honesty, characteristically admitted that there would be some extra costs. In characteristic fashion, she said:
  "I do not deny that employers will face some extra work in connection with paying tax credits through the pay packet, and of course that will involve some costs".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 9 February 1999; c. 136.]
  Dawn Primarolo: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that on application the requirements are no more onerous for

  945
  the employer? Does he accept what I have said this afternoon about all the measures that the Government have taken to reduce compliance costs for small businesses? I explicitly recognised the increased requirements in the operation of the working families tax credit and pointed out that the consultation that the DTI is now undertaking, in particular on the voucher scheme, would also address the issue. The hon. Gentleman's argument that we have not recognised and are not dealing with the increase in costs is simply not accurate.
  Mr. Pickles: The hon. Lady has recognised the problem but she is not doing anything about it. It does not help that the regulatory assessment is so woefully inadequate. The hon. Lady will recall that, on Report, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) referred to the work of Mr. Roger Cockfield, Reader in taxation at De Montfort university, in which he demonstrated that the yearly impact on employers with fewer than five employees was not £35, as the Government suggest, but £342. The hon. Lady, who will have read the report of proceedings in the other place, will have seen that that issue was further explored by their lordships, who arrived at a similar figure. Neither the hon. Lady nor her hon. Friends have been able to knock down Mr. Cockfield's figures.
  The burden will fall disproportionately on small businesses. It will affect their cash flow. The Social Security Committee recommended that, to ease the problem, advance payments should be made to employers with cash flow problems and that reimbursements of administrative costs should be paid to smaller firms. The Government have rejected both suggestions.
  Dawn Primarolo: With regard to the question of reimbursement of employers, I made it clear that, if employers could not meet the costs of paying the tax credit because they could not deduct it from PAYE or NICs that they had collected on our behalf, they could apply for a grant from the Inland Revenue to cover those costs. That point has been specifically dealt with, and now that I have jogged the hon. Gentleman's memory, I am sure that he will acknowledge that.
  Mr. Pickles: Of course I acknowledge the point. I would not wish to accuse the hon. Lady of feeling smug, but before she starts feeling too happy with herself she should bear in mind the views of the National Farmers Union, which said:
  "We are also fearful that in a significant number of cases involving agricultural workers, tax credits are likely to exceed liabilities for PAYE and National Insurance Contributions which could cause cash flow problems for employers."
  The Minister in the other place put that point more simply when he said:
  "There will be a reduction in the positive cash flow benefits of the employer's relationship with the Inland Revenue."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 April 1999; Vol. 600, c. 126.]
  The Government expect small firms not only to be their agent for paying benefits but to pay for the privilege. It is therefore surprising that the only help that the Minister in the other place offered was a potential reduction in software costs which might help to ease the burden on small employers. The Government want to change employees' attitude to in-work payments, but not the attitude of employers.
  946
  4.30 pm
  At present, there are 1.17 million employers, of whom 825,000 are covered by the amendment. There are potentially 730,000 claimants of working families tax credit, of whom—according to the Minister's figures—100,000 are covered by the amendment. The amendment would thus affect 70 per cent. of firms, but 87 per cent. of those entitled to receive working families tax credit would continue to do so through their wage packet.
  The amendment would preserve the principle of payment through the pay packet, and ensure that small firms did not have to go through an elaborate opt-out mechanism, as they could elect to opt out. I do not believe that payment directly from the Inland Revenue would in any way exclude the change of culture that the Government seek to achieve.
  Today's CBI press release has been much quoted. It is only fair for me to refer to the only sentence that neither I nor the Minister have yet read out. It states that
  "direct payment by the Revenue would reinforce the new status of the tax credit. Direct payment by the Revenue would not involve a significant additional burden on the Revenue as it will already be making direct payments to some employees."
  The Government can retain the principle behind the Bill while still exempting small businesses. We are in a strange position, in that the Opposition want to strengthen the Bill, while the Government seek to weaken it. This is a modest amendment, and deserves consideration.
  Mr. Webb: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), as I have done on a number of occasions. Our styles are rather different, but we are of one mind about the amendments, which were tabled by my noble Friend Lord Goodhart in another place and which received the support of Conservative peers.
  I listened with interest to the Minister. I started with a blank sheet of paper as I tried to list the possible arguments against the amendments. I made notes about the defences that she presented, and shall take this opportunity to reflect on them.
  The Minister argued that payment through the pay packet would reduce stigma, and that allowing small employers to opt out and their employees to receive payment from the Inland Revenue would somehow be a stigmatising experience. My noble Friend Earl Russell in another place said:
  "From time to time, I have the pleasure of receiving refunds from the Inland Revenue. They have been known to come direct to me and not through my pay packet. When those refunds reach me, I do not suppose that they are social security benefits."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 May 1999; Vol. 600, c. 586.]
  In other words, people can distinguish between benefit payments and tax refunds. The difference is clear, regardless of whether such payments come through the pay packet or the post. The Government are patronising the prospective recipients of the tax credits. They assume that people cannot tell the difference between a social security payment and a tax credit, and that they cannot add up two numbers—the amount in the pay packet and the tax credit amount—if the tax credit is paid direct to their bank accounts. I do not feel able to support such patronising arguments.
  The Minister said that we cannot have a system in which small firms opt out of their tax administration responsibilities, as though that were some grand,

  947
  sweeping point of principle, then listed the exceptions. She said that the very smallest firms with no PAYE employees will not be so burdened. However, she noted that a line has to be drawn somewhere, which suggests that it is a matter of pragmatism rather than principle.
  The Minister explained that the smallest firms would be exempted from the requirement because, on the balance of benefits, it was more beneficial to allow them to opt out. The reason that she gave was that the burden would be so great that it would outweigh the benefit gained by getting the money to the employee through the pay packet. On the balance of arguments about costs and benefits, it was accepted that certain categories of firm should be exempted. The amendments merely seek to exempt a broader category.
  In contrast to similar amendments that we have considered, the present amendments do not exempt all small firms—merely those that opt for exemption because they would find compliance particularly burdensome. Those with sophisticated payroll systems or who are at home with personal computers are not forced to opt out. The Minister mentioned 100,000 employees—one in seven of those covered by the tax credit—but that figure is a maximum. Many small firms that do not find the change a burden might not opt out, making the number of employees withdrawn even smaller. It is almost impossible to argue that amendment No. 1 is a wrecking amendment as it would remove from the scheme only a fraction of those covered by it.
  The Minister said that the amendments would cause an administrative problem because information on the size of firms might be a year out of date. That is no great problem. Most small firms clearly and consistently fall within the threshold employing fewer than 10 people. Off the top of my head, I believe that more than 90 per cent. of small firms are always small, perhaps with one or two employees, and it is irrelevant that information on them is a year old.
  Of course, some firms will move above and below the threshold, and that would create problems. The Minister said that the smallest firms—those without pay-as-you-earn liability—would be exempted, but the same problems would apply if such a firm went over the line one year and back under it the next. The Minister seems to believe that the problem can be satisfactorily resolved for those firms, so why is the same not true of firms with fewer than 10 employees? Discrimination and workplace legislation applies only to firms with specified numbers of employees; if that legislation can be implemented, why cannot the amendments?
  The Minister said that recipients would face uncertainty about whether the employer would deliver the tax credit. There might be delays in payment. But the tax credit is paid directly to the employee, and the money will reach the employee while the question of who pays is being resolved. There will be no delay. Even under the Government's proposals, the money will be paid direct at the beginning of a claim and employers will not be involved at that stage.
  The problems that the Minister raised are fig leaves intended to cover the fact that the Government are taking an ideological position. Many of their arguments about practicality simply do not stand up. The Minister
  948
  reassured us that employers would be able to attend seminars. Is she saying that hard-pressed business people, possibly sole traders with one employee, will be able to spend an afternoon at the local Inland Revenue office learning how to administer the system. The Minister cannot say that that is no burden on business. Small businesses should not have that obligation imposed on them.
  The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar referred to the Minister's throwaway suggestion that the Bill's proposals are no more onerous than family credit. She may wish to set the record straight if that was not what she meant. It is certainly what we heard her say.
  Dawn Primarolo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his seeking to assist me, but if he reads the record, he will find that I said specifically that the proposals would be no more onerous at the point at which an application is made. I referred clearly to compliance requirements on business, and I set out all the Government's points. The hon. Gentleman suggests—as did the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles)—that we do not recognise the burdens. Let me remind of him of one item in the Budget. We moved quarterly PAYE payments from 600 to 1,000—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The Minister is making an intervention, which should be brief.
  Mr. Webb: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am happy to accept the Minister's clarification. If she was merely making the point that earnings information must be verified in both cases, I am happy to accept that that is so. However, the regulatory impact assessment makes it clear that business will face costs of an aggregate £100 million or more, recurring every year. The Minister has failed to convince me that will not be onerous for small firms.
  Mr. David Willetts: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that what the Minister has just said appears to admit that the method of paying the new working families tax credit is more onerous than the old method of family credit? Her defence was that she was referring only to the method of calculating entitlement to the benefit.
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman is right that the regulatory impact assessment shows that the additional cost of more than £100 million relates to the cost of delivering the benefit, which does not feature in family credit.
  There has been some discussion of what the burden of the tax credit on a small firm will be. Figures of £37 and £342 have been cited, but I suspect that the Minister would accept the figures advanced by Baroness Hollis in another place. In response to my noble Friend Lord Goodhart, she gave a figure for small firms and said:
  "Where a small employer has a WFTC member of staff … it will typically cost £135 per year for an employer with up to five staff'.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 May 1999; Vol. 600, c. 560.]
  Those are Government figures. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar gave some larger figures, which may or may not be correct, but even the Government admit to £135 every year for a small firm. The Minister

  949
  calls it the worst case scenario: £135 a year for a small business with one WFTC employee, using a manual payroll system, as must be the case with most such small firms. While £135 may not be much to the Minister, it is to small firms struggling to get by.
  There is an inconsistency in the Government's approach. They argue that the burden on business and small business is so negligible that we should not allow small firms to opt out. However, schedule 3 provides protection for jobseekers turned down by employers who do not want to take on potential recipients of the WFTC. The Bill anticipates that employers may want to discriminate against such people. Why could that possibly be? It is because of the burden of administering their payroll.
  The Lords amendments would reduce bureaucracy because one of the key bureaucratic elements of the scheme is that the Inland Revenue will have to pay small firms up-front so that they can pay the tax credit. The Minister would accept that it is small firms that will need to avail themselves of the facility. If the smallest firms could opt out, that central category of firms would no longer need to claim the money up-front, so a whole bureaucracy of advance payment to allow firms to pass the money on to their employees and reconcile the figures at the end would be done away with. All the difficult firms would be taken out of the system.
  These are far from being wrecking amendments. They are helpful and constructive. They would leave 87 per cent. of employees in the existing regime but take the problem cases out of it. The CBI, in the full, unexpurgated version of its press release, expresses its concern. The Federation of Small Businesses, which includes a greater number of small firms, opposes the Government's proposals.
  I disagree with the Conservatives in that I am clear that the principle of the tax credit and the extra resources are welcome, but the Liberal Democrats are concerned about the way in which they are being delivered. We are united in believing that small firms should not have to meet the cost of this piece of Government ideology.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: The Paymaster General has the House against her on this one, and I am not here to help her. The amendments are modest and, as the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) rightly said, apply only to the very smallest businesses, and even they can opt out if they wish. I cannot see more than several thousand businesses taking advantage of that, but they are precisely the ones that the Government should be helping rather than imposing an extra burden on them.
  We are dealing with the tiniest businesses in our economy but we are heaping more and more roles upon them and turning them into Government agencies. They are expected to be tax collectors, one-man benefit offices and the fraud squad. The Paymaster General told us of a new role: they are expected to be social engineers and to help the Government reduce stigma. I think she said that they would help advertise and promote the scheme. They are supposed to be part of the Government's public relations machine. That is not the function of a small business in our economy.
  950
  4.45 pm
  Let me deal briefly with the main arguments that the Paymaster General made in opposing the amendments. First, she said that they would encourage businesses generally to opt out of their responsibilities. That completely misses the point. The amendments would allow the very smallest businesses to opt out of the extra responsibilities that have been placed on them. No one suggests that this is a kind of a thin end of the wedge for a wider attack on PAYE.
  Secondly, the Paymaster General suggested that such an exemption would result in an administrative nightmare. She still does not understand that the administrative nightmare is this tax credit itself. It is coming and she ought to look at ways of minimising, not maximising, its impact. Thirdly, she suggested—the hon. Member for Northavon got there before me in pointing this out—that there would be lots of guidance and seminars. No small business man with three or four employees has time to travel across the country to some regional seminar. The Paymaster General ought to understand, from the experience of the working time directive and other regulations that have been introduced in the past two years, that the guidance itself is as much a burden as the original regulations. Will she undertake to make that guidance as simple and effective as possible when she replies to this or later debates?
  Fourthly, the Paymaster General suggested that somehow the CBI, the TUC and the National Council for One Parent Families were all in favour of the proposal and would no doubt oppose the amendments. Those organisations do not represent small business. The CBI certainly does not. There cannot be an employer with fewer than 10 employees in the country who can afford to belong to the CBI dinner—[Laughter] I mean the CBI organisation; I was going to say that they cannot afford to attend the CBI dinner. The organisations mentioned are not small business organisations, and for the Paymaster General to pray them in aid does her cause a great disservice.
  The Bill is discriminatory. It discriminates against the very businesses that we ought to be helping. I declare an interest as a director of a small business. Such businesses do not have big personnel or human resources departments to sort out all this stuff. The entrepreneur himself or herself will have to take time off to wade through the paperwork.
  The Bill discriminates, as the hon. Member for Northavon correctly said, against employees. My fear is that, faced with the choice of employing someone who would qualify for the tax credit and someone who would not, and who therefore would not come with that extra burden of paperwork, small businesses will discriminate against those who come to them and are in receipt of the working families tax credit. That is recognised by the Government themselves elsewhere in the Bill.
  In this House, we debate enterprise; we praise small businesses. Then, at the first opportunity, we chuck out an amendment that is designed to help them. The Government talk deregulation, yet here again, faced with a real example of how we might deregulate just for the very smallest of small businesses, they impose more regulation on them. I hope that even at this late hour the Paymaster General will think again.
  Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 160.

  Division No. 213]

  [4.48 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ainger, Nick

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Darvill, Keith

  Alexander, Douglas

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Allen, Graham

  Davidson, Ian

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Ashton, Joe

  Dawson, Hilton

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Austin, John

  Denham, John

  Barnes, Harry

  Dismore, Andrew

  Barron, Kevin

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bayley, Hugh

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Beard, Nigel

  Doran, Frank

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dowd, Jim

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Drew, David

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Benton, Joe

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Best, Harold

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Betts, Clive

  Edwards, Huw

  Blackman, Liz

  Efford, Clive

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ennis, Jeff

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Fisher, Mark

  Boateng, Paul

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Borrow, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Follett, Barbara

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foulkes, George

  Browne, Desmond

  Galloway, George

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gapes, Mike

  Burden, Richard

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burgon, Colin

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Godsiff, Roger

  Cann, Jamie

  Goggins, Paul

  Casale, Roger

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Cawsey, Ian

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Chaytor, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clapham, Michael

  Grogan, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Gunnell, John

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cohen, Harry

  Hill, Keith

  Coleman, Iain

  Hinchliffe, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Home Robertson, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hope, Phil

  Cousins, Jim

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cranston, Ross

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Crausby, David

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  952

  Hurst, Alan

  Norris, Dan

  Hutton, John

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Illsley, Eric

  Olner, Bill

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jenkins, Brian

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pearson, Ian

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Purchase, Ken

  Kemp, Fraser

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Khabra, Piara S

  Radice, Giles

  Kidney, David

  Rammell, Bill

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Raynsford, Nick

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lepper, David

  Rooker, Jeff

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rooney, Terry

  Levitt, Tom

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Roy, Frank

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Ruane, Chris

  Linton, Martin

  Ruddock, Joan

  Livingstone, Ken

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Lock, David

  Salter, Martin

  Love, Andrew

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McCabe, Steve

  Sawford, Phil

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McDonnell, John

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Singh, Marsha

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Skinner, Dennis

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Snape, Peter

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Spellar, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Maxton, John

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Meale, Alan

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Merron, Gillian

  Stringer, Graham

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Miller, Andrew

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Morley, Elliot

  Timms, Stephen

  Mountford, Kali

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mudie, George

  Todd, Mark

  Mullin, Chris

  Touhig, Don

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Trickett, Jon

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  953

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Winnick, David

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Vaz, Keith

  Wise, Audrey

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Wood, Mike

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Woolas, Phil

  Wareing, Robert N

  Worthington, Tony

  Watts, David

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  White, Brian

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wyatt, Derek

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wills, Michael

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Mr. Greg Pope.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Green, Damian

  Amess, David

  Greenway, John

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Grieve, Dominic

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Baldry, Tony

  Harvey, Nick

  Beggs, Roy

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bercow, John

  Hayes, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Heald, Oliver

  Blunt, Crispin

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Boswell, Tim

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Hunter, Andrew

  Brady, Graham

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Brake, Tom

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Brazier, Julian

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Breed, Colin

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Key, Robert

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Burnett, John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Burns, Simon

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Burstow, Paul

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Butterfill, John

  Lansley, Andrew

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Leigh, Edward

  Letwin, Oliver

  Cash, William

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Chope, Christopher

  Lidington, David

  Clappison, James

  Livsey, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Loughton, Tim

  Collins, Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Cotter, Brian

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cran, James

  Madel, Sir David

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Dafis, Cynog

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Maples, John

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Mates, Michael

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Duncan, Alan

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Evans, Nigel

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Faber, David

  Moore, Michael

  Fabricant, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fallon, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Öpik, Lembit

  Flight, Howard

  Ottaway, Richard

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Page, Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Paice, James

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Paterson, Owen

  Fraser, Christopher

  Pickles, Eric

  Gale, Roger

  Prior, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Robathan, Andrew

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gibb, Nick

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gill, Christopher

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Ruffley, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Gray, James

  St Aubyn, Nick

  954

  Sanders, Adrian

  Tredinnick, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Trend, Michael

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Tyler, Paul

  Shepherd, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Walter, Robert

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Webb, Steve

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wells, Bowen

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Spring, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Steen, Anthony

  Wilkinson, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Willetts, David

  Swayne, Desmond

  Willis, Phil

  Syms, Robert

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thompson, William

  Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Mr. Stephen Day.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment disagreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 3, line 35, at end insert—
  ("() The Board shall ensure that any single parent can decide to receive payment of any tax credit from the Board rather than from the employer.")
  Dawn Primarolo: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  The amendment would give one group of applicants—lone parents—a choice not available to other applicants. It would allow them to choose whether to be paid a tax credit by their employer through the pay packet, or to receive it direct from the Revenue.
  I make it plain at the start that, whatever the reason for the amendment, accepting it would mean a major policy change. It is not a matter of tinkering at the margins. The Government have said repeatedly that paying tax credits through the wage packet is one of the key elements of our policy on tax credits. It is designed to drive home the message that work pays, and to reinforce the crucial link between tax credits and work.
  Single parents are not just a small peripheral part of the 1.4 million households expected to get the working families tax credit. They make up half of the family credit case load now, and we expect that to be roughly the same for the working families tax credit. Lone parents are precisely the families who should be able to benefit from the help that the working families tax credit can give, so that they can go back to work if they want to do so.
  Our policy is to provide families with extra help and to do it through the wage packet if they are employed. Tax credits send the clearest message to those families that what they get is not a handout but an extra reward for work. That has been discussed at length in both Houses during consideration of the Bill. It allows families who would otherwise be better off on benefit the opportunity to re-enter the labour market and properly see the rewards of working. Against that background, I am not at all sure why single parents should be singled out for this special extra choice of payment method.
  One argument is that, in practice, couples have a choice because they can choose which of them receives the tax credit: but the choice is not how it is paid, but who should

  955
  receive it. That choice exists in order to avoid involuntary transfer from the woman's purse to the man's wallet, and it has been widely welcomed by those who had concerns about that in the early stages of the design of the working families tax credit. If both parents work, the choice is not whether the parents receive it through the wage packet, but which parent receives it. If there is only one parent, there is only one person to whom the tax credit can be paid.
  Therefore, the argument does not run. Lone parents are not being denied something that couples have been given. I hope that it is now crystal clear that couples have a choice about which one of them is to receive the credit because there are two in the family, and that, by definition, cannot apply to a lone parent.
  Other arguments in support of the amendment are that it would protect lone parents from having to disclose their circumstances in some way to an employer, or that it would allow them to compete on an equal footing with other parents when looking for work.
  Any fears about breaching confidentiality are unfounded. Single parents may need to ask an employer to certify likely wages, as happens now with family credit, once they have a job. That operates in the same way for couples. Single parents are treated no differently from anyone else. The form simply gathers information; it contains no clues about the employee's circumstances. Employers will just be told the amount to pay and will in no way be involved in computing the amount, as was recognised in the previous debate, when going through the steps they will be required to take in order to pay the tax credit.
  Mr. Webb rose—
  Dawn Primarolo: In the previous debate, the hon. Gentleman repeatedly intervened, anticipating my speech. If he will allow me, I shall make my speech and, if necessary, I shall be more than happy to return to particular points.
  There were concerns that an employee's circumstances could be inferred from the amount notified to the employer. I can assure hon. Members that, because of the number of separate elements, such as the effect of the taper and the child care tax credit, it will be almost impossible to relate the amount of tax credit directly to the elements upon which the award is based, and say that, because someone is receiving X in tax credits, they must have Y children or two other jobs. No doubt payment through the wage packet will mean that employers are aware of employees' eligibility for one of the two tax credits—the working families tax credit or the disabled persons tax credit, which is also part of this—but that is all.
  Another concern expressed in this House and in the other place was that employers would be able to discriminate against groups of employees who might cause them administrative hassle by claiming tax credits. The Opposition spokesman was a little confused in the previous debate, on the one hand arguing that discrimination would occur, and on the other saying that the anti-discrimination clauses should not be in the Bill.
  956
  It is useful to remember—
  Mr. Webb rose—
  Dawn Primarolo: I was not referring to the hon. Gentleman, but I am happy to give way on that point if he insists.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We will of course remember that we must not go over the arguments about the previous amendment, which has been disposed of.
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman has decided not to intervene, but I look forward to hearing his comments.
  It is useful to remember that employers are unlikely to know about a person when they take him on and will be unable to make an accurate judgment of whether he is likely to qualify for a tax credit. However, once the credit has been claimed and awarded, and if the employer administers the payment through the wage packet, it will of course become clear that the employee is receiving that credit. We included the relevant provisions in clause 7 because of the possibility of discrimination at that point, but I stress that we are absolutely confident that the overwhelming majority of employers are law abiding, that they will not discriminate in such a way against their employees and that they will recognise the benefits of the tax credit to their work force.
  Giving single parents alone a choice of payment method would give employers who wanted to avoid their responsibilities under the tax credits legislation a new incentive to find out about lone parents so that they could persuade or pressure them into asking to receive the tax credit directly, perhaps on renewal. That option would identify lone parents.
  If hon. Members are concerned that lone parents should not be identified, and certainly should not be identified as recipients of the tax credit payment, they should not support the amendment. There is no serious mileage in the argument that lone parents are somehow being discriminated against or being denied a right that is provided for other parents. Although the amendment may be an attempt to help lone parents, I do not think that it will do anything of the sort. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
  Mr. Willetts: I apologise to the House for turning up rather late for proceedings on the Bill, which is about as far through its parliamentary process as one could imagine. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), who so powerfully led for us in Committee. I also thank several of my hon. Friends who are in the Chamber and who served on the Committee, making telling criticisms of this profoundly misguided measure.
  Perhaps I may reflect for a moment on the history that has brought us to this point. A keen young policy wonk thought that the way forward was to copy the American earned income tax credit. He got the ear of Ministers and the legislation was introduced. It passed through its stages in the House of Commons, but then it hit opposition in the House of Lords on two points: burdens on business, and whether the payment should be made through the benefits system—or directly to the claimant—or through the pay packet.

  957
  That is the point at which the history of the efforts made by a previous Government in 1986, to whom I was proud to be an adviser, and the recent history of this Bill, took rather divergent paths. The Government of Margaret Thatcher—who had had objections put to them in the House of Lords on behalf of businesses worried about the burdens on them, and on the so-called wallet-purse argument and whether groups such as single parents should be paid direct—concluded that the right thing to do was to listen to those objections.
  5.15 pm
  All we are asking the Government to do—having gone through exactly the same process at exactly the same stage—is listen to the same arguments in the same way as the last Government did. What we hear, however, is what has rightly been described as pure ideology: the empty assertion that it is somehow better for working families tax credit to be paid through the pay packet, with absolutely no evidence to back it up.
  In fact, it is worse than that. Not only have the Government no evidence to back up their assertion; every criticism that they made in opposition of what was then family credit applies in spades to the scheme that they are now introducing. In opposition, those who are now Ministers used to talk about something called benefit abuse. They claimed that employers were exploiting family credit, and using their knowledge of which people would receive it to hold down wages. I wonder whether the Paymaster General has compared notes with her colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry, who still use that argument in defence of the minimum wage. They say that one of the reasons why the minimum wage is needed is the need to deal with the behaviour that they claim to have identified on the part of employers.
  Now the Government are suddenly introducing a measure that is much more open to that line of criticism than family credit was. There is much more employer involvement in their proposal than there was in family credit. The boot is now firmly on the other foot. Suddenly Ministers are telling us not to worry, and saying that there is no reason for any concern about employers' knowing what is going on.
  Leading for the Opposition when the Bill that we introduced years ago was in Committee, the current Leader of the House said:
  "unfortunately, there are instances in which employers deliberately manipulate the system and withhold the benefits to which their employees are entitled. All Committee members would regret and oppose that, but we must recognise that it happens. For the Government to propose putting the whole weight of payments that are an important part of a family income on to a system which gives employers that freedom is a substantial risk to take."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 March 1986; c. 943.]
  We know that the charge made against family credit was entirely invalid. We know that because an independent body, the Institute for Employment Studies, conducted objective research into what employers knew about people who were receiving family credit. Research
  958
  study No. 32 from the Department of Social Security states:
  "Employers did not have adequate knowledge of Family Credit or sufficient information about potential recruits to adopt such practices"—
  that is, exploiting the benefit to hold down wages. The research established that
  "only 9 per cent. of employers agreed that the availability of Family Credit affected the wages they pay."
  The risk that the Opposition went on and on about when attacking family credit is now the basis for one of the charges that we make against working families tax credit. We regard it as a serious mistake. It takes the policy of helping people who are receiving low earnings in entirely the wrong direction. It is cumbersome, it is badly targeted, and it increases marginal rates for many families. It imposes a new burden on employers, and it poses the risk about which the Government, when in opposition, claimed to be worried in relation to family credit—the risk of benefit abuse by employers.
  In supporting the Lords amendment and opposing the Government's attempt to reverse it, we are concentrating on one small aspect of the system. We want single parents receiving this benefit to have the option of receiving it directly, rather than through the pay packet.
  The Paymaster General advanced a series of arguments in defence of the Government's position. She advanced them briefly just now, and she advanced them in Committee. One of the arguments is that there is a problem of stigma. We are told that it is important for people to be forced to receive the benefit through the pay packet, because otherwise it will be stigmatised and they will be reluctant to claim it.
  If family credit suffers so badly from stigma, why is it that approximately 90 per cent. of single parents who are entitled to it are claiming it? If we are to be told that there is that problem of stigma, what evidence from the real world is the Minister able to offer that it exists as a problem? On the contrary: the evidence is that, if 90 per cent. of single parents are collecting family credit, there is no problem of stigma.
  Dawn Primarolo: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his promotion to the Opposition Front Bench, and appreciate that he is formidable in his speeches. However, does he accept that families who are desperate for an income will take the money regardless of whether they are stigmatised by so doing, and that stigma will not therefore affect take-up? He is talking about two separate issues: the need to receive the money; and an attitude to how it is paid.
  Mr. Willetts: I understand the point that the Minister is making, and had planned to deal with it later in my speech. Nevertheless, my response to the argument is that the best way of judging whether there is stigma—in the sense in which the Minister refers to it—is to give people the choice. If they are concerned in the way in which she describes, they will opt to be paid through the pay packet, as there would be absolutely nothing to stop them from doing so. Alternatively, they could be paid direct.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) is in the Chamber. I hope that he will not mind if I say that, on this occasion, the great advantage of our proposal is that it is a permissive measure: all it

  959
  would do is give people the option. It is the Government who are trying to force people to take one route rather than the other.
  All we are saying is that we do not know what concerns people more. They may prefer to receive money through the pay packet, in which case they could choose that route; or they may prefer to receive the money direct, in which case they could choose that route. The onus is on the Minister to explain why she wants to compel them to take the money one way rather than the other.
  Dawn Primarolo: As the hon. Gentleman said, we are reaching the end of our consideration of the Bill. Does he accept that the purpose of the tax credit is to provide a work incentive and to reinforce the rewards of work, and that, throughout our consideration of the Bill, that has been our central argument in support of the Bill?
  Mr. Willetts: The argument that we have to boost in-work incentives does not mean that we have to compel people to receive the payment in a specific way. We could perfectly well create work incentives without simultaneously imposing on people the requirement that they must be paid the benefit in one way rather than another.
  If the Government care so much about work incentives, it is a pity that they are increasing marginal rates by so much for so many families—as that could well have the perverse effect of reducing incentives to work among precisely the group whom Ministers are claiming they want to help: middle-income families.
  The Opposition believe that the minimum the Government should do is give people the choice. If the Minister believes in what she is saying, she should have no problem with Lords amendment No. 2. If the Government were to accept it, they might find that, miraculously, everyone is perfectly happy to be paid through the Government's preferred route of the pay packet. However, if by any chance some single parents are not happy with that route, why not give them the option of being paid direct? That is all the amendment proposes allowing.
  I should perhaps briefly comment on another point made by the Minister—that, in the amendment, we are making a special proposal for single parents, and that there are no proposals on how the benefit should be paid to couples that would provide any type of precedent. I felt that, on that, her argument was disingenuous. When a married couple decide whether payment should be made to the working partner or to the non-working partner, they are essentially also deciding whether the payment should be made through the pay packet or direct, as that will be one of the consequences of their decision.
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood the point that I was making. Lone parents—who are the only parent in the family and, by definition, the only working parent—should be compared with a family with two working parents. If both parents are working, either can receive the money through the wage packet. The only choice is which of them receives it. That choice is not necessary for lone parents. I am happy to send the
  960
  hon. Gentleman the references from the Rowntree research, which has been quoted on the record before, that identify the problem of stigma.
  Mr. Willetts: For married couples with only one partner working, the choice of who receives the payment of the working families tax credit will effectively be a choice between the payment going through the pay packet or directly to the non-working partner. Although some two-earner couples will qualify as the working families tax credit is extended, most people receiving family credit or the working families tax credit are one-earner couples or single parents. There will not be many two-earner couples.
  All we are asking for single parents is an option that is available to the other large category of recipients of the working families tax credit: the choice of whether it should be paid through the pay packet or not. The Paymaster General says that it is simply a decision between the working or the non-working partner, but in practice it is a decision on how the payment should be made. We are simply asking for single parents to have the same provision as—thanks to the effective parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill—already exists for couples where one partner is not working.
  The Paymaster General has not explained why her preferred method of payment has to be compulsory. She has not explained why she wants to force people down one route rather than giving them the choice of two different routes. I am afraid that the explanation is simple. There are some pig-headed people in the Treasury who believe that they should impose what they think is the earned income tax credit model on Britain regardless of the practical evidence of the success of family credit and widespread concerns about the implications of the working families tax credit.
  There are concerns about the marginal rate, burdens on businesses and the issue of wallet versus purse. It is deeply disappointing that the Government have not listened in the way we did when we introduced our measures. The Paymaster General will come to regret her refusal to consider our valid, pragmatic and sensible proposals to improve the current muddled policy.
  Miss Kirkbride: It gives me great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). I add my congratulations on his promotion to shadow Secretary of State for Social Security. He will offer great wisdom on the issues, following other honourable and wise contributions in the past.
  I sat for many hours in Committee and throughout the Bill's proceedings in the House. The Government still have not explained why they believe that the working families tax credit will be an incentive to work. When the Select Committee on Social Security considered the issues, we took evidence from Martin Taylor, the architect of the Government's proposal and then chairman of Barclays bank. We closely cross-examined him on whether there would be added incentives to work if we transferred from the very successful family credit system that tops up low wages to a working families tax credit. He offered nothing more than his prejudices that there would be. The Government have offered no evidence on why a tax credit rather than a benefit will be an incentive to take a job. That of course is predicated on the idea that

  961
  single parents should be paid family credit by the Post Office instead of being forced to claim working families tax credit, which is paid through the wage packet.
  5.30 pm
  There is a flaw in the argument which has not been addressed by the Minister or her colleagues. We are facing a fundamental reform of our tax and benefits system that is based on the prejudices of those who are introducing it, not on the serious empirical evidence that it will have a major impact on the low-paid sector.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant said, there is stigma on both sides. A huge number of people claim family credit. If the object of introducing a benefit is that people should take it up as it will improve their lives, family credit is extremely successful, as it has the highest take-up rate in the entire benefits system. I take issue with the Minister when she says that that does not mean that there is no stigma attached to it. The take-up rate would suggest otherwise.
  My hon. Friend made a valid point when he was challenged on the matter. He said that introducing choice to the system would establish once and for all whether there was a stigma attached to family credit. The only pure experiment would be to give single parents the choice, as married couples may have a different incentive to take a benefit rather than a tax credit—involving wallet-versus-purse issues. We should give single parents the choice between family credit and working families tax credit and find out whether there is a stigma attached to family credit.
  The reverse may also be true. Those claiming working families tax credit could suffer the stigma of being on benefit. At present, other employees in the workplace are unaware that someone is claiming family credit. In many instances, employers are similarly unaware, although some may need to be informed of a claim. If people are to be exposed in the workplace as being on benefit because of the method of payment of the working families tax credit, that would increase the possibility of stigma rather than detract from it.
  Mr. Pickles: Does my hon. Friend agree that the principal difference between family credit and working families tax credit is that the employer is informed just once that an employee has claimed family credit and thereafter has no idea what the position is? Under working families tax credit, the position will be continually assessed. The amendments would allow single-parent claimants to retain some privacy.
  Miss Kirkbride: My hon. Friend is right. The fact that he and I sat through the Committee's discussions on this point means that we are in unison on it. The employer will be aware of a claim for working families tax credit and, given the nature of these things, it is likely that other employees will be made aware of it. The employer will have to be aware of the situation continually, in a way that he or she is not with family credit.
  The arguments about stigma are not as one-directional as Treasury Ministers believe. There is a strong argument that stigma will operate in a more profound way as a result of paying the benefit—that is what working families tax credit will always be, whatever language we use—via working families tax credit, rather than family credit.
  962
  There is also a question of fairness. If couples want to choose how the benefit is paid, that should not become a form of discrimination against single parents, whose options—by definition—are more limited in terms of their ability to operate their lives, their business and their finances. The measure is open to couples for reasons concerning wallet-versus-purse issues—an option that the Government do not like having to offer. Some Labour Back Benchers might have been upset had the wallet-versus-purse issues not been addressed by creating the opportunity for choice.
  Dawn Primarolo: I am following the hon. Lady's argument closely. She appears to accept that there is not a transfer from purse to wallet, and that the Bill has dealt with the issue. Does she therefore disagree with her Front-Bench colleagues?
  Miss Kirkbride: The short answer to that is no.
  Another worry is that people may fear that they are less likely to get jobs or to be offered employment if they are likely to be beneficiaries of working families tax credit. Most employers will be capable of working out who among those applying for a job are likely to be recipients of family credit or working families tax credit. There are circumstances where, because of the administrative burden, some employers might prefer to take someone on who is less likely to become a recipient of working families tax credit.
  If there is a choice of potential employees, that will become a form of discrimination against single parents, who do not have the option of taking up the benefit in the form of family credit paid by the Post Office, and are forced to take it as working families tax credit, paid via the employer. It would be difficult to prove a case of discrimination in circumstances where there had been, to all intents and purposes, a perfectly reasonable selection of candidates, but where those who were not likely to be recipients of working families tax credit—or who had the option of not being a recipient—were actually taken on.
  We must remember that not all employers are model employers. There will be some who find it difficult to operate the scheme—they may wilfully find it difficult to operate. Some may even see fit to run off with the money that the Treasury gives them as a float to pay the working families tax credit.
  Vulnerable people who are eligible for top-up on their wages, and who used to be able to rely on payments from the Post Office every week, will be completely reliant on their employer, so when there is uncertainty about the employer's probity or competence there could be a disincentive to work, through the fear of being left with nothing at the end of the week.
  The Government are keen to get single parents out to work, and giving them the option of saying that they want their family credit to be paid as it has always been paid, so that they can rely on its being there when they need it and they will not be left vulnerable at the end of the week or month, would be a great service to them. It would keep them in the driving seat and leave open all the options available to them, by contrast with the rather patronising view of the Government, which forces them to go in one direction.
  Mr. Webb: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), who made an important

  963
  contribution to our scrutiny of this matter in the Social Security Committee, and the distinguished hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). Our paths have crossed in the sheltered world of academia, and I look forward to their crossing many more times. His first contribution in his new role showed clearly why he has such an enviable reputation.
  The Minister has propounded a strange doctrine: that it is in lone parents' interest to be denied a choice, presumably because they might make the wrong choice and choose to have their money paid direct to them rather than being mediated through the employer. It is almost impossible to imagine any model of human behaviour in which that is true, other than when the individual concerned is stupid. Only in that case should the Government step in and insist that one option be taken rather than another.
  I am sure that, in a different setting, the Minister would tell us that lone parents are far from stupid, that their role is often challenging and demanding as they juggle work and family responsibilities, and that many of them make a superb job of it. That being so, why cannot those able people be trusted to make the simple choice about how to get their money?
  The Minister said that the point was to drive home the message about making work pay. That goes back to people being stupid, because if they want to they can have their family credit paid direct into their bank account, just as they can have their salary paid direct, and every month they will get a bank statement showing two elements that will not appear if they do not work: the pay and the tax credit. Unless they are as thick as two short planks they will notice that both appear when they work, and neither when they do not.
  Forcing the two elements to appear as one figure on the bank statement does not in any sense demonstrate that work pays. Indeed, given that people may not scrutinise their pay slip as well as they scrutinise their bank statement, the presence of two separate entries on the bank statement might spell it out more clearly that the credit is a benefit of working.
  The Minister gave two reasons why the argument for choice for lone parents should fall. She said that there was no issue of confidentiality involved in payment through the pay packet. We are dealing with lone parents, many of whom do not remain lone parents. Some of them, to use the jargon, re-partner; they do not necessarily marry, but become part of a new partnership. The new partner's income would have a bearing on the lone parent's family credit entitlement, so the employer would get a letter from the Inland Revenue saying that the amount payable had changed. The employer would know that the lone parent's income had not changed and the employer would also know—because they had not paid any maternity pay—that she had not had a child; so the employer would know that the she had experienced some other change, such as re-partnering.
  What business is that of the employer? If family credit was being paid, the employer would not know, and if the lone parent could opt to have the tax credit paid direct, the employer would not know. It is only because payment has to be made in this doctrinaire way that employers will be aware of any change.
  964
  5.45 pm
  The Minister also said that an employer could not work out from the amount of tax credit payable what the family circumstances of the lone parent were. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that in about a third of tax credit cases the maximum credit is paid. The Minister also mentioned tapers, but they would be irrelevant. She also mentioned child care costs, but she cannot have it both ways. Most of the time she tells us that the child care tax credit will not cost a fortune because not many people will take it up, but if lots of people do take it up, the cost will be much greater than the Government have budgeted for.
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman is being unusually imprecise in his argument. I have every sympathy with lone parents and I was a lone parent myself for some time so I do not need the hon. Gentleman to instruct me on that issue. He knows that work incentives are at the heart of the Bill and are its purpose. It is thus entirely appropriate that the Government should ensure that that policy is delivered.
  On the issue of choice, lone parents are capable of seeing exactly what their income is on their wage slip as easily as on their bank statement.
  Mr. Webb: We should let those last words hang in the air for a moment. In other words, lone parents do not need to have the tax credit paid to them through their pay packets to demonstrate to them the benefits of working. In a fulsome intervention—which I hope presages a response to the debate, instead of nodding it through—the Minister said that she was a lone parent. I put a rhetorical question to her: when she was a lone parent, would she have needed the state to force her to take the tax credit through the pay packet to demonstrate to her the benefits of work? I put it to the House that she would not. As an intelligent woman, she would not have needed that, so why does she insist in forcing it on other lone parents?
  My final point concerns discrimination by employers and whether lone parents, with no choice about how the tax credit is paid, might find themselves discriminated against as tax credit recipients. The Minister said that the majority of employers are good employers, and I am sure that that is true, but that does not mean that the Government will not create problems for lone parents who work for the minority of poor employers.
  If a lone parent works for a poor employer or applies for a job with one, why should she not be able to exercise the choice? My noble Friend Lord Goodhart put that point well in the other place:
  "Faced with the choice between two more or less equal potential employees, the employer will go for the one who will not cost the extra £370, or more time with a wet towel at the kitchen table."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 May 1999; Vol. 600, c. 553.]
  That resonates with an earlier debate, and so does the reference to the kitchen table—for the Conservatives.
  The Minister pointed out that a provision had to be built into the Bill to prevent discrimination, so the Government must believe that it is a real threat. Why should lone parents be subject to it? It is pure sophistry to argue that married couples will not exercise a choice between the pay packet and direct payment. It is clear that that is exactly what they will do when they decide who is to get the money. Lone parents should not be denied that choice.

  965
  They are intelligent people and should be able to make intelligent choices about what is in their own interests. I support the Lords in their amendment.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) for convincing me in his formidable speech that occasionally a permissive society is to be preferred. I also have sympathy for the Minister, who has been given an impossible case to argue by her masters. A good Minister can argue such a case, and the hon. Lady has done her best. It is an impossible task, however, as all we are arguing for is a degree of choice.
  There has been much debate about the alleged element of stigma. I need not repeat the cogent arguments that have been made but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) said, Martin Taylor, one the scheme's architects, was unable to produce any evidence to the Select Committee on Social Security that stigma was a factor militating against the take-up of child benefit. He told the Committee that hard-and-fast evidence in non-financial and psychological matters such as stigma was difficult to come by.
  That is a very honest statement and cannot be bettered. No one knows how much stigma is involved in take-up of family credit. However, we know that those who are entitled to take it up are not put off by considerations of stigma.
  The Minister has said that desperate people have no choice but to take up the benefit as it is currently paid, but my hon. Friend the Member for Havant responded that they should have a choice, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove said that the market should decide. The reality is that the Government are imposing this method of take-up as part of a wider political agenda. They want to move towards some type of negative income tax system, in which no one receives benefits.
  The stigma does not apply to people who take up benefits under the current system, but to the Government. They are stigmatised by political observers, who see that an ever-increasing proportion of the population receives benefits. The Government's response to that undoubted social and economic problem is to say, "We will ensure that people receive the same money, but not as a benefit. It will now be paid as a tax credit. We have solved the problem of poverty. We have ensured that the many millions of people who have come off the unemployment or poverty registers have been encouraged to take low-paid or part-time work and receive their benefit through the pay packet."
  I understand why that is good for the Government's reputation, but I am not convinced that it is good for the people receiving the benefit, who include some of the most vulnerable in society. As we know, 79 per cent. of lone parents take up family credit.
  My secondary point has not been addressed by the Government, and has to do with the position of very small employers. The measure will present no problem for large companies, but many lone parents' work is part time or variable. Their circumstances change and they often work for very small employers. I understand the Government's argument that people in regular employment whose circumstances do not change—or people working for a large employer who knows nothing about their circumstances—present a problem for employers, in that it
  966
  may be impossible to work out the details of their life styles from the tax code. However, people's circumstances often change, and very small employers may be very familiar with aspects of their employees' lives.
  I once stood behind a clerk handing out family credit in a social security office. We know that people, in order to receive family credit, already underclaim deliberately or pretend to be getting less money than is in fact the case. The worry is that there will be more collusion between employees and employers.
  That collusion is evident in the rag trade in the east midlands. A case with which I am familiar provides a good example. A person with a large number of children filled in a benefit application form. Although that person worked 40 or 50 hours a week, the figure given for earnings seemed absurdly low. Such collusion already goes on to a large extent, but it would be made worse if lone parents are to be enmeshed ever tighter in the grip of employers.
  So it is not a question merely of the stigma or unfairness suffered by the employee, but of the society that the Government want to create. There is one way out of the impossible position in which they have placed themselves—they should accept the amendments.
  Mr. Tim Collins: I welcome the chance to contribute to what has been an excellent debate. One of the most pleasant features has been the gentle way in which the Minister has sought to engage in the argument and to respond to points made in interventions. I pay tribute to her and look forward to what she has to say later. If her response is made in the same spirit as her earlier contributions, I hope that we shall get a more genuine reply than has been the case with other Ministers and other debates that I have witnessed in the past year or so.
  However, I very much regret three things about this debate. The first is that we are having it at all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) noted. The amendment is quite justified, and the Government should have accepted that it represented an opportunity to think again and to accept that the revising Chamber had improved the Bill. There would then have been no need for this debate.
  The second cause for regret is that there has been no contribution from Government Back-Bench Members, even though the Government have said consistently that this was a flagship Bill. It was announced last autumn, and was said to be the centrepiece of the Queen's Speech and the Budget. As I speak, there are four times as many hon. Members on the Conservative Back Benches than there are on the Government Back Benches. That is an odd way to launch a flagship. Perhaps the Mary Rose was launched in that way, but the Paymaster General will recall what happened to that vessel. I hope that archaeologists 500 years in the future will not be salvaging the record of this flagship.
  Miss Kirkbride: Given what he has just said, my hon. Friend may be interested to know that, although the Whip ensured that Labour Members physically attended the Committee deliberations, their audible presence was non-existent. I do not recall any of them contributing to our deliberations.
  Mr. Collins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose contribution to the Committee's proceedings was as

  967
  distinguished as her contribution this afternoon. I was the Whip on that Committee. I employed the gentle, laissez-faire touch that is typical of the Conservative party and its Whips Office, and it is with great pleasure that I can confirm that it was not necessary to gag any Conservative Member. The Government Whip seemed to gag Labour Members, but they may simply have had nothing to say in support of the Bill.
  My third regret about the debate is that I find myself in the uncomfortable and unusual position of having to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). That is very sad, and deserves a rapid explanation. I disagree with my hon. Friend because he said that the only real difference between family credit and the working families tax credit was continuous assessment and its affect on stigma. In fact, the principal difference is that family credit is a benefit, which pretends to be nothing else, while the working families tax credit is a benefit pretending to be a tax cut, which it patently is not.
  6 pm
  WFTC should be administered by the Department of Social Security. We have been graced by the presence of the Paymaster General, to whom I pay tribute, but she should not be here. A Social Security Minister should answer for the Government.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The amendment is more narrow than the hon. Gentleman's point as it relates to whether the credit should be paid through the wage packet or in some other way. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would talk about that.
  Mr. Collins: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and shall do as you say.
  The Paymaster General said that the amendment should be rejected because employers would not exploit or abuse employees. She engaged seriously in the argument about stigma, but said emphatically that it did not hold water and that there was no likelihood of employers using information gained from the working families tax credit against single parents or other employees.
  Dawn Primarolo: I said that the majority of employers were law abiding and would discharge their duties under the Bill. However, the Bill includes provisions to deal with any who do not.
  Mr. Collins: I am delighted by that clarification, which gives me yet another opportunity to agree with the Paymaster General. The vast majority of employers are wholly law abiding. Good employers recognise that their prospects are much enhanced if employees are treated well, even if it is odd to hear that said by a member of a Government who are imposing a raft of requirements on employers, such as the minimum wage and the social chapter.
  The Financial Times—not exactly the in-house journal of the anti-capitalist league and hardly renowned for its anti-employer sentiments—has opined that the Bill poses the risk that some employers will use information about their employees unscrupulously. I go no further than to
  968
  say that there is a possibility that that will happen. It follows that some single parents fear that it will, and it would be sensible to give them the option of relieving their fear. Information can never be used against them if it never comes to the attention of their employers.
  Mr. Leigh: No one knows for sure whether my hon. Friend is correct, but every CBI survey suggests that up to a third of employees who claim family credit do so without their employers' knowledge. Many employers have no idea that their employees receive family credit, but all of them will know under the new system.
  Mr. Collins: My hon. Friend is entirely right, once again displaying his knowledge and commitment on these matters.
  There is every reason why the Government should grant the concession contained in the amendment to allow single parents the ability to choose.
  Mr. Pickles: I am afraid that my hon. Friend misreported me a few moments ago. When he was a Whip, I thought of nominating him for the Rin Tin Tin award for the quality of his speeches. I did not suggest that continuous assessment was the only difference, but that it was the only difference as far as the employer would be concerned.
  My hon. Friend has talked about bad or unscrupulous employers, but honest mistakes can happen regarding benefit. What tension will exist between employers and employees when the wrong amount of benefit is paid or where benefit is withheld? What kind of reaction—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is too long.
  Mr. Collins: Perhaps Rin Tin Tin might reply to my hon. Friend. My misquotation of his views was entirely unintentional and I appreciate that he was referring only to one of the many reasons why family credit is superior to the working families tax credit. My hon. Friend's point is a good one. Difficulties may arise from disclosure of information by an employer. Honest mistakes may be made, leading to wrong payment, underpayment or overpayment.
  It is conceivable that the financial records or circumstances of a business or employer could be inadvertently disclosed to others. Often, a small and growing business, started by a husband and wife, will expand slowly, employing a few people—friends of the family perhaps. Even businesses that employ six to 10 people process financial information on the kitchen table belonging to the principal partner or director, and papers could easily be left lying around to be seen by people who, in a splendid multinational corporation, would not have access to such personal financial information.
  The amendments would prevent the possibility—rare, but not impossible—of financial information being seen by someone who goes into the kitchen for a cup of tea or a bacon and egg sandwich at the end of the day. Having spilt his or her coffee over paper work, that person might find financial data that would enable him or her to work

  969
  out the financial circumstances of someone who works for the company. The amendments would remove the anxiety that arises from the existence of such a possibility.
  Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend makes valid points about the effect of the Bill on the employer. However, single parents are also affected. A single parent may work for several employers on short-term contracts, and it would be reasonable for that person to ask for direct payment rather than face the hassle of payment through several employers.
  Mr. Collins: I agree with my hon. Friend. The circumstances that he described, with a single parent working for several different employers, are precisely those in which single parents could be defensive and worried about having to tell Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all personal details about their private lives. That would be especially true if they all lived in the same village or small area. There is an important requirement for privacy. The matter may even be covered by the European convention on human rights.
  Miss Kirkbride: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. Could it be a criminal offence to pass on personal information about wages given to employees? It is true in this place, and in every place that I have worked, that some of the more entertaining conversations concern one's colleagues. Their pay and family circumstances might be interesting factors. Would it be improper, or even an offence, for a wife or husband to pass on such personal details?
  Mr. Collins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As a former Whip, I assure her that there has never been any tittle-tattle in this House. The very suggestion is outrageous. I see that the Government Front Benchers are nodding vigorously. One can only hope that that is noted outside. I am not a lawyer and so cannot tell her whether criminal offences might arise. Most of the single parents affected are unlikely to be lawyers and may not know the legal position. They will be confused and might prefer to have the option that we propose.
  It is that option that leads me to my next point. Our society is moving into an era in which the Prime Minister and other senior Ministers have told us that the nature of our economy will mean that more and more things will depend on individuals being able to exercise more and more choice about their personal lives. If the Prime Minister means that, I welcome it. The Conservative party has always believed in choice and that individuals should be treated as adults.
  I welcome what the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) said about the presumption that seems to lie behind the Government's intentions—that single parents should be treated as incapable of making correct choices about their lives. I prefer to think that this is an oversight by the Prime Minister, like many other things that he has not been able to notice recently, such as the European election campaign. As his attention returns to domestic policy, he will realise that the amendments would give him the opportunity to turn his rhetoric into reality and demonstrate that he is really committed to free choice and individual liberty.
  The Paymaster General once again made a delightful contribution but there may be a Government reshuffle, so the Conservatives are seeking to rescue her from what
  970
  might be a devastating personal mistake in going against the direction in which the Prime Minister says that he wants to lead his party and Government. She is seeking to close options and perhaps she should not be. I give her that free career advice for what it is worth.
  6.15 pm
  We should move on to discuss some of the other sadnesses reflected in this debate. One that has caused me particular pain is the fact that the Government did not give the minimum commitment that it seems reasonable to ask: that they will review the matter. It is conceivable, I put it no higher, that the Government may have the numbers tonight to prevail. I do not know. If they do, they are not sitting here. They may be elsewhere so when the Division bell rings, they will flood in to give the Government another narrow victory. In the earlier Division, barely 300 Labour Members bothered to turn up. More than 25 per cent. of Labour Members withheld their support for the Government's position. These things snowball. Their majority might slump even further.
  Let us presume that the Government will prevail. Why have they not said that they would seek to review the matter after five or 10 years so that we could see whether our arguments or theirs had stood the test of time? It is possible—we should all admit this in politics—that we are wrong. I openly concede it. After 10 years, it is possible that the Government will prove to have been correct and single parents will dance happily around the streets.
  Dawn Primarolo: I thank the hon. Gentleman for all his kind comments and advice, of which I take note. I am delighted that he expects the Government to be here for at least 10 years. I am sure that at the end of that time, we will be able to demonstrate that our policy is correct. I look forward to giving him some advice then.
  Mr. Collins: That is very sweet of the hon. Lady, but perhaps 25 per cent. of her parliamentary colleagues were not here for the earlier vote because they are desperately going round the constituencies that they lost in the European election.
  Mr. Pickles: It was more than 25 per cent.
  Mr. Collins: It was, but before you admonish me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not follow the hon. Lady down the seductive path of considering the thumping majority that my party will secure at the next general election. I shall return to the narrow points that we are discussing. If she is so confident about winning the next general election and letting her policies stand the test of time, why will she not say that she is prepared to review the matter?
  Miss Kirkbride: I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way. Another reason why the Government might want to review the matter crossed my mind. The post office network may be in difficulty soon because of the cancellation of the main contract for paying benefits through a computerised system. We all know from representations from our sub-postmasters and others that they are concerned about their future business. The

  971
  payment of family credit, when people choose to collect it from local post offices, is one way in which their business could be promoted.
  Mr. Collins: My hon. Friend introduces an important dimension into the debate. She is right that if the legislation is passed, the post office network would suffer yet another blow from the Government on top of the many delivered to it since May 1997. As she rightly says, the introduction of the working families tax credit, which will be paid through the wage packet, to replace family credit, which is often paid through the post office, will hit the rural post office network in particular. I represent a very rural constituency in south Cumbria, and my constituents would deeply regret yet another withdrawal of rural services by a Government who, despite their rhetoric, have repeatedly demonstrated that they have little understanding and less sympathy for rural issues and areas.
  Mr. Leigh: As a former Whip, will my hon. Friend confirm that there is not the slightest chance of the Minister accepting the excellent arguments that have been adduced this afternoon, not least because—ironically—Labour spent much time in opposition criticising the Government for allegedly massaging the employment figures but is now massaging people off benefits into so-called tax cuts?
  Mr. Collins: My hon. Friend is right and brings me to another point. What is the motivation behind the legislation and the Government's determination to resist these very fine Lords amendments? It is simply that they wish to transfer several billion pounds of expenditure from the expenditure side of the column to the tax reduction side. Then they hope that they can claim to be a tax-cutting Government, when all that they are is a spending-shuffling Government. That is the underlying motivation. The reason why they are resisting the attempt by their lordships to improve the legislation is that they do not want any scrutiny of this dodgy piece of work. They want it to sail through with the minimum of publicity and they simply do not want anyone to inquire into the detail.
  The Government have demonstrated in the debates on Second Reading, in Committee and at various other stages, including today, that they are not very focused on anything other than the so-called big picture. All that they have really said is, "Well, the Bill is about providing incentives to work. If you are not in favour of the Bill, you are not in favour of incentives to work so therefore you are in favour of unemployment." That, albeit in the most charming of ways, has been the only argument that the Paymaster General or anyone else has advanced in our proceedings. I am afraid that that will not do. Legislation has to be examined in detail.
  I come to what is perhaps the clinching argument in favour of the amendments made by the other House. During the debates in this Chamber in the past year we have heard time and again how the other place needed to be reformed because it was out of touch, arrogant and ancient; that it was a Chamber composed of people who had no sympathy for the way in which society was changing; that it was loaded on one side of industry
  972
  because it was composed of people who sympathised with business rather than with employees. Yet the other place, unreformed as it is up to this time, has made amendments that would strengthen the hand of single parents—that group in society that has evolved and grown in recent years—against that of unscrupulous employers, while this democratic Chamber will be whipped by the Government to vote against single parents and for the opportunity of unscrupulous employers to take information away from them.
  This afternoon, the Government have completely, wholly and unapologetically demolished not only their case for the Bill but their case for reform of the House of Lords.
  Mr. Pickles: It is a pleasure to see the Financial Secretary here with us, no doubt to defend what she sees as the phantom menace that the proposals represent to her Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale—and all the nice bits of the lake district—(Mr. Collins) said, there is a real irony in the way in which the House of Lords has stood up for amendments Nos. 1 and 2. There were lots of things that could have been sent back to this House, but the Lords were more sparing and more precise. They gave us an opportunity to rethink on business, and we did not do so, to our cost. It is important that we rethink on lone parents because the amendments will give them an opportunity to exercise choice about how they are paid.
  We recognise that people in receipt of the working families tax credit, especially those working in small businesses, may be discriminated against because of the additional cost that businesses will have to bear. Lone parents are particularly vulnerable to loss of employment, in the same way as a single-earner couple is vulnerable. When an employer is faced with the prospect of someone in receipt of the working families tax credit or someone who is not, he may plump for the person who is not. That is why in schedule 2—I am sure that you have taken a great interest in schedule 2, Mr. Deputy Speaker—we make it an offence for someone to discriminate against people in receipt of the credit.
  The Bill will give employers almost the ownership that 19th century mill-owners had of their work force. Like in the 19th century, they will have a clear view of what is happening in each family. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) made a number of valid points on that, which I will not repeat.
  There is another aspect of privacy. Many people, especially those on low incomes, have more than one job. They may have a full-time job and a part-time job. They do not necessarily want their employer to know that they are engaged in a different job in the evening. Under the Bill and the regulations, the employer who pays the largest sum will be responsible for administering the working families tax credit, so employers will know at a glance whether the employee is receiving additional income. That is why the amendment is so important. It would give the lone parent the opportunity to say that they would like to receive the credit directly from the Revenue.
  We heard earlier that the CBI—an organisation that the Paymaster General slavishly follows and is pleased to receive help from—considered that the amendment would strengthen the Revenue because the cheque would come from it in the same way as people receive rebates.

  973
  The hon. Lady has a number of points to respond to in the few remaining moments of the debate and I look forward to hearing what she has to say.
  Dawn Primarolo: I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming back my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has been released from the Finance Bill Committee on its completion. It is a bit like "The Return of the Jedi", or should I say, "May the force be with me."
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) will enjoy reading his speech as much as we enjoyed hearing it, although the direct relevance to the amendment I struggled at times to see. I know that he was always in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because otherwise he would have been reprimanded. I am grateful for the number of times that he said what a nice person I was. I do not know whether that damages his career or mine.
  The hon. Gentleman made a number of points about discrimination. As I said in my speech and in an intervention in his, the majority of employers behave properly now and will continue to do so. It is difficult to see how discrimination could be in advance, but discrimination against someone who is employed has been referred to several times in the debates in this and the other House. Clause 7 specifically deals with that. Those are exceptional circumstances and we are by no means implying that every employer will behave in that way, but there is, quite rightly, protection in the exceptions which would result—
  It being half past Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order.
  Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 161.

  Division No. 214]

  [6.29 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Ainger, Nick

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Allen, Graham

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Browne, Desmond

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ashton, Joe

  Burden, Richard

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Burgon, Colin

  Austin, John

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Banks, Tony

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cann, Jamie

  Beard, Nigel

  Casale, Roger

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cawsey, Ian

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Chaytor, David

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Clapham, Michael

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Benton, Joe

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Betts, Clive

  Blackman, Liz

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Boateng, Paul

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Borrow, David

  Clelland, David

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Clwyd, Ann

  974

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hood, Jimmy

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cohen, Harry

  Hope, Phil

  Coleman, Iain

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Colman, Tony

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hurst, Alan

  Cousins, Jim

  Hutton, John

  Cranston, Ross

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Crausby, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cummings, John

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jamieson, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jenkins, Brian

  Darvill, Keith

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davidson, Ian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Doran, Frank

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Drew, David

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Edwards, Huw

  Khabra, Piara S

  Efford, Clive

  Kidney, David

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Fisher, Mark

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Flint, Caroline

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Follett, Barbara

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lepper, David

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foulkes, George

  Levitt, Tom

  Galloway, George

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gapes, Mike

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Linton, Martin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Livingstone, Ken

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Lock, David

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Love, Andrew

  Godsiff, Roger

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Goggins, Paul

  McCabe, Steve

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Macdonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McDonnell, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Grocott, Bruce

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Grogan, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Gunnell, John

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McWilliam, John

  Hanson, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mallaber, Judy

  Healey, John

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Heppell, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Martlew, Eric

  Hill, Keith

  Maxton, John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Meale, Alan

  Home Robertson, John

  Merron, Gillian

  975

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Miller, Andrew

  Singh, Marsha

  Mitchell, Austin

  Skinner, Dennis

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mountford, Kali

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mudie, George

  Snape, Peter

  Mullin, Chris

  Soley, Clive

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Norris, Dan

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Olner, Bill

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Stringer, Graham

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pendry, Tom

  Pickthall, Colin

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Plaskitt, James

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pope, Greg

  Timms, Stephen

  Pound, Stephen

  Tipping, Paddy

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Todd, Mark

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Touhig, Don

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Trickett, Jon

  Primarolo Dawn

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Purchase, Ken

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Quinn, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Vaz, Keith

  Radice, Giles

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Rammell, Bill

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wareing, Robert N

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Watts, David

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  White, Brian

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Rooney, Terry

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wills, Michael

  Rowlands, Ted

  Winnick, David

  Roy, Frank

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ruane, Chris

  Wise, Audrey

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wood, Mike

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Woolas, Phil

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Worthington, Tony

  Salter, Martin

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wyatt, Derek

  Sawford, Phil

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Allan, Richard

  Brady, Graham

  Amess, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Breed, Colin

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Baldry, Tony

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Beggs, Roy

  Burnett, John

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Burns, Simon

  Bercow, John

  Burstow, Paul

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Butterfill, John

  Blunt, Crispin

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Boswell, Tim

  Cash, William

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Chope, Christopher

  976

  Clappison, James

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Madel, Sir David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Maples, John

  Collins, Tim

  Mates, Michael

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Cran, James

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Moore, Michael

  Dafis, Cynog

  Moss, Malcolm

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Norman, Archie

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Duncan, Alan

  Page, Richard

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Paice, James

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Paterson, Owen

  Evans, Nigel

  Pickles, Eric

  Faber, David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Fallon, Michael

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Flight, Howard

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Ruffley, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Fraser, Christopher

  Sanders, Adrian

  Gale, Roger

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Garnier, Edward

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gibb, Nick

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Gill, Christopher

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gray, James

  Spring, Richard

  Green, Damian

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Greenway, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Grieve, Dominic

  Streeter, Gary

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Syms, Robert

  Hammond, Philip

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hayes, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Heald, Oliver

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Thompson, William

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Trend, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Tyler, Paul

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Walter, Robert

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wardle, Charles

  Waterson, Nigel

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Webb, Steve

  Key, Robert

  Wells, Bowen

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Whittingdale, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Wilkinson, John

  Lansley, Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Willis, Phil

  Letwin, Oliver

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Lidington, David

  Woodward, Shaun

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Loughton, Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Mrs. Jacqui Lait and

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Mr. Stephen Day.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment disagreed to.

Clause 14

  PERSONS QUALIFYING FOR DISABLED PERSON'S TAX CREDIT
  Lords amendment: No. 4, to leave out clause 14 and insert the following new clause—Persons qualifying for disabled person's tax credit—

  (".—(1) Subject to subsection (6) below, section 129 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (disabled person's tax credit) and section 128 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (equivalent provision for Northern Ireland) shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5) below.

  (2) In subsection (1), for "or (2A)" there shall be substituted (2A) or (2C)".

  (3) In subsection (2)(a), for "56 days" there shall be substituted "182 days".

  (4) After subsection (2B) there shall be inserted the following subsections—

  "(2C) A person qualifies under this subsection if—

  (a) the condition mentioned in subsection (2D) below is satisfied;

  (b) a medical practitioner (within the meaning of the Administration Act) certifies, not more than 14 days before the date when the claim for disabled person's tax credit is made—

  (i) that in his opinion the person will continue to have the disability in question for a period of at least six months; or

  (ii) that in his opinion the person will continue to have that disability for the remainder of his life; and

  (c) the level of the person's expected earnings is lower, by at least the required amount, than it would have been if he had not had the disability.

  (2D) The condition is that there are 140 qualifying days, the last falling within the period of 56 days immediately preceding the date when the claim for disabled person's tax credit is made, which are days in respect of which—

  (a) statutory sick pay has been payable to the person;

  (b) the lower rate of short—term incapacity benefit has been payable to him;

  (c) income support has been payable to him on grounds of incapacity; or

  (d) earnings have been credited to him under regulations made under section 22(5) above.

  (2E) For the purposes of subsections (2C) and (2D) above—

  (a) the required amount, in relation to a person's expected earnings, is—

  (i) 20 per cent of what those earnings would have been if he had not had the disability; or

  (ii) if the amount given by sub—paragraph (i) above is less than the prescribed amount, the prescribed amount;

  (b) qualifying days are days forming part of a single period of incapacity for work within the meaning of Part XI of this Act; and

  (c) income support is payable to a person on grounds of incapacity if and only if he satisfies the condition in section 124(1)(e) above by virtue of being a person who—

  (i) is, or is treated as, incapable of work for any purposes of this Act; or

  (ii) is treated as capable of work by virtue of regulations under section 171E below.

  (2F) Sections 3 and 112 above shall apply as if this section were included in Parts Ito V of this Act."

  (5) In subsection (8), after "allowance" there shall be substituted ", or the level of a person's expected earnings,".

  978

  (6) In section 128(2E)(c) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, as inserted by subsection (4) above, for "124(1)(e)" there shall be substituted "123(1)(e)" and for "171E" there shall be substituted "167E".

  (7) In section 11(3)(b) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (repeat claims), for the words from "he" to "that paragraph" there shall be substituted—

  "(i) he qualified under subsection (2) of section 129 of the Contributions and Benefits Act by virtue of paragraph (a) of that subsection, or of there being payable to him a benefit under an enactment having effect in Northern Ireland and corresponding to a benefit mentioned in that paragraph; or

  (ii) he qualified under subsection (2C) of that section or of section 128 of the Northern Ireland Contributions and Benefits Act,".

  (8) In section 9(3)(b) of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (corresponding provision for Northern Ireland), for the words from "he" to "that paragraph" there shall be substituted—

  "(i) he qualified under subsection (2) of section 128 of the Contributions and Benefits Act by virtue of paragraph (a) of that subsection, or of there being payable to him a benefit under an enactment having effect in Great Britain and corresponding to a benefit mentioned in that paragraph; or

  (ii) he qualified under subsection (2C) of that section or of section 129 of the Great Britain Contributions and Benefits Act,".

  (9) This section, except subsection (3) above (and subsection (1) above so far as relating to that subsection), applies to claims made, or treated as made, on or after 1st October 2000.")

  6.45 pm
  Dawn Primarolo: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 7.
  Dawn Primarolo: The Chancellor announced in his Budget statement in March a new fast-track gateway to the disabled persons tax credit to help people who become disabled while in work. Since then, work on the details of the fast track has been under way, and the Government were pleased to introduce the new clause on Report in the other place. It was warmly welcomed there and I am sure that the House will welcome it also.
  The new fast-track gateway introduced by clause 14 aims to make it financially possible for newly disabled people to stay in work even if, because of their disability, they either have to move to a less demanding—and therefore less well-paid—job, or need to reduce their working hours in their old job. The fast-track gateway will be an additional route to the disability tax credit for people who are in work and who cannot meet the present qualifying conditions.
  From October 2000, a person will be able to apply for the disabled persons tax credit if he or she has received, for 140 days, statutory sick pay, short-term incapacity benefit paid at the lower rate, income support paid on grounds of incapacity, national insurance credits only or occupational sick pay—linked periods of incapacity will count as long as together they add up to 140 days; if he or she has a condition that puts him or her at a disadvantage in getting a job; if a medical practitioner certifies that the illness or disability will last for at least six months, or for the rest of the applicant's life if that is

  979
  likely to be shorter than six months; and if, on returning to work, the applicant will receive earnings at least 20 per cent. less than would have been the case if there had been no disability. People who have made a successful initial application for the disabled persons tax credit will, of course, be able to make a repeat application if the illness or disability continues at the end of the 26-week award period.
  The idea of the fast-track gateway emerged from informal discussions between the Government and the disability lobby about the problems faced by people who become disabled while in work. As I have said, the Chancellor announced the fast track in outline in his pre-Budget report in November 1998. A formal consultation followed and the proposals were warmly welcomed by the disability lobby, whose suggestions for improvements have been reflected in the final design. In particular, the Disablement Income Group described the proposed fast-track gateway as a "very welcome development", and the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation praised the emphasis that the Government are placing on enabling disabled people to remain in work.
  For completeness, I should remind the House that, since it last debated the Tax Credits Bill, the Government have taken two further steps to address the needs of disabled people. We announced on 17 May that, from October 2000, the working families tax credit would include an additional premium for each disabled child in a family receiving the tax credit. That additional premium of £21.90 per week is already payable under the disability working allowance and will continue under the disabled persons tax credit. The extension to the working families tax credit means that extra help will be available to working families with a disabled child, whether or not one of the parents is also disabled. That will no doubt be extremely welcome news to the disability groups who have long campaigned for the disabled child of an able-bodied person to be treated as generously as the disabled child of a disabled parent. I hope that I have explained the details of the new clause to the House. We welcome these changes and support the Lords amendment.
  Mr. Pickles: I shall be brief. It would be churlish not to thank the Paymaster General for giving a brief explanation of the changes. She will recall that this matter concerned all political parties in Committee, and we are pleased that the Government have honoured their undertakings. While we oppose this measure, we have done our best to try to improve it. There was always a thin red line between our co-operation and opposition. If the hon. Lady has been good will hunting, she has certainly found it in this amendment. We recognise that and support the amendment.
  Lords amendment agreed to [Special Entry].
  Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 11 agreed to.
  Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Ms Hazel Blears, Mr. Greg Pope,
  980
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing, Mr. Eric Pickles and Dawn Primarolo; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—
  [Mrs. McGuire.]
  To withdraw immediately.
  Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

  ACCESS TO JUSTICE BILL [Lords] [WAYS AND MEANS]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Access to Justice Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the imposition on professional bodies of requirements to make payments towards meeting the expenditure of the Legal Services Ombudsman and the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner, and

  (b) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

  6.52 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Keith Vaz): Before moving to the formal business, may I take this opportunity to thank all members of the Standing Committee who considered the Bill. Members on both sides contributed to a thorough and useful examination of this important Bill. The House will note that many of the suggestions made in Committee have been taken forward in the amendments to be discussed this evening.
  In particular, I thank the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). I note that the contribution of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough to our debate has resulted in his promotion to observer to the shadow Cabinet as the shadow Attorney-General. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will thank the Government for their part in his elevation.
  As the House knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) was the Minister responsible for guiding the Bill through its earlier stages. I pay tribute to his skilful handling of the Bill and his determination to steer through a piece of legislation that will radically improve access to justice for all our citizens. My hon. Friend's handling of the Bill has brought him well-deserved promotion, as Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster), who was also a member of the Standing Committee, has recently been promoted to become the Attorney-General's Parliamentary Private Secretary. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) has received recognition in becoming the Opposition's spokesperson for the Lord Chancellor's Department.
  The Access to Justice Bill is a landmark piece of legislation. It seeks to modernise justice so as to ensure that the law benefits all our citizens. However, I am not entirely certain that the Government anticipated that the Bill would achieve such success in supporting, enhancing and, indeed, modernising the careers of so many hon. Members who were involved in its parliamentary passage.

  981
  The Ways and Means resolution is necessary to authorise the Lord Chancellor to require the legal professional bodies to pay towards the expenditure of the Legal Services Commissioner and the legal services ombudsman; and to allow the commissioner to levy penalties on professional bodies. We will discuss the substance of our proposals later—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want to hear again the preface to the Minister's speech on Third Reading. It seems slightly misplaced, attached to the Ways and Means resolution.

  Access to Justice Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
New Clause 13

  PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE TO PART I
  '(1) Every person exercising functions in connection with this Part must act, so far as possible, in a way which is compatible with the objectives set out in subsection (2).

  (2) The objectives are:

  (a) that persons have access to legal services and the machinery of justice which they would otherwise be unable to obtain on account of their means;

  (b) that such access is not to be impaired on account of racial grounds, gender, sexual orientation or disability (within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995) or the place in England and Wales where any legal services are sought;

  (c) that legal services and facilities of high quality be available such that disputes may be resolved, and proceedings determined, expeditiously, fairly and with the parties placed on an equal footing;

  (d) that persons obtaining access to legal services under this part shall have the widest possible choice of provider or services.'.—[Mr. Garnier.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I declare an interest to the House. I am a practising barrister. My name on the amendment paper has been marked [R], as have those of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot).
  I thank the Minister for his kind remarks. That will not be said again on Third Reading, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not ascribe the various promotions of my right hon. and hon. Friends to the reasons that the Minister cited, but one does not look askance at kind words from the Government, as they do not come often. I am grateful to my parliamentary neighbour for the kindness that he has just demonstrated.
  While we are in that mood, may I briefly pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), whose shadow office I now hold. He is the longest-serving Law Officer this century, and certainly the longest continuous serving Law Officer. He has given signal service to the House, the law and to the Attorney's chambers over 10 years, and he was in government two years before that in the Department of Social Security. He will be missed on the Front Bench, although his absence today is only temporary, and before long we shall hear much from him from the Back Benches. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath on his promotion.
  I hope to persuade the House that the purpose and intent of new clause 13 is entirely proper and to be welcomed. It was introduced in the other place by Lord Lloyd of Berwick, with cross-party support. It was not an Opposition ambush. The Bill was amended in the other place by new clause 1, as it was at that stage, introduced by a retired Law Lord, a man of great wisdom and humanity. The new clause received all-party support because it was a good thing.

  983
  The Lord Chancellor demonstrated unusual hastiness and churlishness, which we do not often see from that august person, when he described Lord Lloyd's new clause as a gimmick. That was unfortunate and wrong. No intelligent person would have used such language, had he thought about the matter carefully.
  That point is reinforced by the support that the new clause received in another place and in Committee, and which it has now, not only from lawyers, the Law Society, the Bar Council and me as an individual lawyer, but from the Child Poverty Action Group, the Institute of Legal Executives, the Law Centres Federation, Mencap, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—RADAR, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Advice Services Alliance, the Consumers Association, Justice, the Legal Action Group, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, Refuge and the Royal National Institute for Deaf People. That is a cross-section of bodies and interest groups which represent a rather wider alliance than the somewhat party political groups that we find on the Opposition Benches.
  7 pm
  In Committee in early May, with the assistance of the new Minister, who played a silent role, the Government removed the clause. New clause 13 is slightly different from the clause in the Bill when it left the other place in that it widens the anti-discrimination provisions and provides access to the widest possible choice of provider or services.
  There are four fundamental objectives by which to test access to justice—quality, access, choice and funding. New clause 13 is intended to make access to legal services and justice available to those who would otherwise be unable to obtain it on account of their means. That should be a fundamental principle to avoid the possibility that access to justice is available only to the rich.
  The provisions for anti-discrimination should, in themselves, be unexceptionable. The purpose is to make that plain in the Bill, so that those who may otherwise face barriers to obtaining access to justice do not find their access impaired.
  The Government appear, and they appeared on the previous two occasions on which the matter was debated, to object to the clause, both in terms of the principle of whether there should be such a clause at all and in terms of its individual provisions. Placing the parties on an equal footing appeared to the Government to mean that there was no proportionality or limit to the amount of costs. However, what is intended is a clear statement of principle, which is designed to govern part I of the Bill.
  The rules of court already provide mechanisms to ensure that costs are reasonable and proportionate. The issue of principle is to ensure that there is equality of arms between parties to a dispute within the constraints of court management of cases. That does not mean that state-funded lawyers have to be paid the same rate of fees that privately funded lawyers are paid or can attract. It simply means that state-funded lawyers should be able to command fees that attract lawyers of quality to take up a case on behalf of the poor, disabled, elderly or disadvantaged.
  984
  On choice of provider, there may be restrictions on grounds of quality. However, where a provider of services can demonstrate quality and is prepared to work for the fees that the Government allow, there is no clear reason why access to justice should be arbitrarily limited by the Government. Although assurances have been given in some areas of work for the first round of any contracting scheme, those have not yet been extended. The network of services provided by local solicitors is a major asset to their communities. The new clause seeks to ensure the widest possible choice of provider and services. That would include representation not just in court, but in alternative methods of dispute resolution.
  I do not need to take the House through new clause 13. It appears on the amendment paper for all to see and I trust that many will have read it before coming into the Chamber this evening. It is sensible, humane, civilised and does not undermine the Bill's overall purpose. It defies logic that any hon. Member should oppose its re-inclusion in the Bill.
  The new clause had all-party support in the other place and was introduced by a majority of 71. Principles clauses are not foreign to our statute law. Yesterday, the House gave the Food Standards Bill its Second Reading; it has a principles clause. The Financial Services and Markets Bill, currently being debated in the House, has a purposes or objectives clause. Rule 1 of the brand new civil procedure rules, which came into force a couple of months ago, is an objectives rule—a principles rule—setting out precisely what is intended to happen as a consequence of the introduction of those rules.
  I look forward to hearing from the Minister why, in all conscience, he, as a Labour Member, has the nerve, the gall and the indecency, to oppose new clause 13.
  Mr. Charles Wardle:
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on his appointment as Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department. We have sparred cheerfully on other matters in the past, and it is good to see him on the Treasury Bench.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has already reminded the House that an objectives clause seeking to define the Bill's basic purpose was introduced in another place but removed in Committee. It placed clients receiving legal aid on an equal footing with clients who could afford to pay for themselves. The Government, and particularly the Lord Chancellor, have been dismissive of the need for such a clause, as we heard from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough. But their dogmatic attitude means that an important opportunity to reform legal aid in a way that puts all clients on the same basis will have been squandered. As long as legal aid is a matter for the discretion of Legal Aid Board administrators rather than a question of basic entitlement, one law for the rich and one law for the poor will continue to be the norm.
  I support new clause 13 because it would put back into the Bill that clear statement of objectives which an impressive coalition of their lordships, including Law Lords, introduced, but which, as we know, the Government have since removed.
  To illustrate the reasons why I support new clause 13, I wish to draw to the attention of the House Lord Spens's action against the Bank of England, which recently came to an abrupt halt because legal aid was suddenly and inexplicably withdrawn on the eve of the trial.

  985
  I understand that many may associate an hereditary peerage, such as Lord Spens enjoys, with substantial wealth and financial security. That is not always so. It certainly has not applied to Lord Spens for more than a decade. He was a successful and highly paid merchant banker until the mid-1980s when he was arrested over the Guinness affair and put on trial in what became known as Guinness II. In the process of his defending himself, his wealth was soon exhausted.
  On 4 June 1997, I spoke in the House about the unfairness of the inquisitorial nature of Department of Trade and Industry inspectors' inquiries, and I alluded to the Guinness case at some length. The interests that I declared in that debate apply here.
  On that ocasion, I told the House that Lord Spens had been sacked from his merchant banking job because politicians and officials at the DTI and the Treasury were pressing the Bank of England to collect some well-known scalps. At a meeting with Rosalind Wright, who has since risen to the post of director of the Serious Fraud Office, another official, John Wood, said:
  "We don't want rows and rows of defendants. We are looking for major offenders as understood by the media."
  The then Chancellor told the House that the Government would be taking action over the Guinness affair. His private secretary, now the permanent under-secretary at the Welsh Office, communicated with the Bank of England and the following day the Bank told the merchant bank to sack Spens or it would lose its banking licence. Spens was run out of the City and made unemployable. The Guinness II trial collapsed when Spens was about to produce evidence of the interference that I have just described. He was acquitted and awarded his full costs of £2 million, the first £500,000 of which he had raised privately, with the balance coming from legal aid.
  It was common knowledge in the City and in Whitehall that, during a period of six days in January 1987, Bank of England officials had exceeded their powers, making ill-judged and indiscreet demands, because, to use the words of a Minister at the time, the Government "wanted handcuffs put on" ahead of the forthcoming general election.
  Unable to work at his corporate finance trade, and dependent on legal aid, Spens fought on, despite two heart bypass operations. Advised by his solicitors, Russell Jones and Walker, he began proceedings against the Bank of England for unfair dismissal. He engaged Lord Neill of Bladen as his leading counsel. Lord Neill, who succeeded Lord Nolan as chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, assured Spens—
  Mr. Mark Todd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I question the relevance of this to the matter under debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I am certainly hoping that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) can make that very clear very soon.
  Mr. Wardle: I hope to do so and, as I have said, I shall not detain the House for long, but this matter concerns legal aid and the importance of having a principle enshrined in the Bill that will ensure that legal redress is available to people regardless of their means.
  986
  Lord Neill said that he abhorred the abuse of power and predicted a successful outcome. The Bank's attempt to strike out the case failed. Only weeks before the trial, however, Lord Neill was pressed by another member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life to drop Spens's case, on the grounds that he could not reasonably devote so much time to his own legal work and chair the Committee at the same time. Lord Neill saw nothing untoward or ironic about that intervention; he said that he would continue as legal counsel—this is relevant to legal aid—but recommended the engagement of a second counsel to make most of the running, and Russell Jones and Walker made an application for extra legal aid to cover that.
  John Baker, the Legal Aid Board executive who had handled the case for several years, was replaced by David Williams three weeks later, and eight weeks after that, Williams served a show-cause notice on Russell Jones and Walker, placing an embargo on the legal aid certificate against which Lord Neill and Russell Jones and Walker successfully appealed. The same process was repeated in the following month and, at the end of that appeal hearing, the chairman stated that the decision had been taken to reinstate the certificate of legal aid to—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am increasingly unhappy about the trend of the hon. Gentleman's speech. It strikes me that it would be much more appropriate to raise the specific case in an Adjournment debate, or at some other opportunity, rather than tying it, by a very thin line indeed, to the new clause. I must advise him that, if he cannot bring his remarks back within the terms and meaning of the new clause, he should desist.
  Mr. Wardle: I always respect your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, although I feel strongly that there is no more vivid illustration than this of what can go wrong with legal aid and why the new clause should be added to the Bill, I shall conclude my remarks. The unhappy experience of Lord Spens leaves the words spoken about the Bill by the Lord Chancellor on the "Today" programme sounding rather hollow. He said:
  "The highest priority will be accorded to cases in which people allege abuse of power by authority."
  That is precisely what I was hoping to illustrate to the House by referring to the Spens case; it underlines the urgent necessity to enshrine in the Bill the fundamental principle set out in the new clause: people should have access to legal services and the machinery of justice, which they would otherwise be unable to obtain because of their lack of means. That is what the case and the experience of Lord Spens are all about.
  Mr. John Burnett: This is the first opportunity I have had on the Floor of the House to congratulate not only the Minister, but the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on their respective promotions. I hope that, with a new Minister, we will have a new wind, if that is the right expression, and a bit more fresh thinking on this important Bill.

  987
  I support new clause 13, which is important. I remind the House that, in the White Paper "Modernising Justice", the Lord Chancellor set out in his foreword and in chapter 1 his aims and objectives for the Bill. He asserted:
  "It is not enough for people to have rights; they must be confident they can enforce those rights if need be."
  He went on:
  "The justice system should serve everyone, regardless of their means."
  He also said:
  "The disadvantaged and the socially excluded will find help with the issues that affect their everyday lives at the heart of the new service."
  The Government's twin aims are to achieve a significant increase in access to justice and to obtain the best value for taxpayers' money spent on legal services and in the courts.
  Effectively, new clause 13 embodies the Lord Chancellor's aspirations for the Bill. We discussed a similar measure in Committee, but the Government objected that there was no proportionality or limit on costs. The new clause is a statement of principle embodying the Lord Chancellor's own principles for the Bill and it is proportionate in so far as it is qualified, in subsection (1), by the words "so far as possible". The proposal does not invite open-ended expenditure but highlights the important principles stated by the Lord Chancellor himself—quality, access, choice and fair funding.
  7.15 pm
  On quality, the Liberal Democrats have strongly supported the establishment of panels of solicitors with expertise. On 27 January, we debated in Committee the draft Legal Aid (Prescribed Panels) Regulations 1998, which set up a clinical negligence panel within the Law Society. We supported that, and the setting up of other expert panels, because we believe that such expertise is in the public interest and in the interests of those who use the legal system. They will also provide better value for money; indeed, they will save money. The legal professions have rightly become more specialist, and it is not in the interests of clients or of the state to pay for lawyers learning on the job.
  Nevertheless, this objectives new clause will act as vital spur to those administering the Legal Services Commission, which will ensure quality, access, choice and fair funding. That is particularly important in rural towns and rural areas. During the first sitting of the Committee, on 27 April 1999, I intervened on the then Minister and asked whether firms should automatically be entitled to a contract if they achieved the quality standards. The hon. Gentleman ended his response by saying that the Government were looking for the most effective way in which to ensure that there was access to justice throughout the country which will guarantee—I emphasise that word—that those who seek advice receive it from those who are best qualified to do the work. That is the essence of the new clause. It is vital that there should be availability and choice in all geographical areas, including the sparsely populated rural areas. The new
  988
  clause would go some way towards ensuring real access to justice and living up to the aims and objectives for the Bill set by the Lord Chancellor.
  Mr. Vaz: I thank the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) for their kind comments and I associate myself with what was said about the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), who served with great distinction as a Law Officer.
  As the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said, new clause 13 is similar to a clause that was added to the Bill by the other place and deleted in Standing Committee. The original clause was pressed to a vote in the other place, although the Government were proposing their own amendments to set out more clearly the separate purposes of the community legal service and the criminal defence service. Those two purpose clauses are now clauses 4(1) and 12(1) respectively—they are already in the Bill.
  The purpose of the CDS is to provide the advice, assistance and representation that suspects and defendants require in the interests of justice. That is very clear, and the same absolute entitlement that exists now is retained. Briefly, the purpose of the CLS is to secure appropriate legal services, but not only lawyers' services, to meet people's needs effectively, subject to the constraint of available resources and according to priorities.
  The Government have always made it clear that we are sympathetic to many of the concerns underlying this so-called principles new clause. That is why, when we sought to remove the previous version in Standing Committee, we tabled our own amendments to add three specific objectives for the CLS. These measures are in clause 4(4) and include objectives on quality and access—two of the points mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough—and the swift and fair resolution of disputes.
  I find it hard to see what more is needed and, after so many debates on the issue, I am a little disappointed that the proponents of a separate principles new clause have tabled one again. None the less, I welcome the opportunity to explain in more detail to the whole House why the new clause, although mostly laudable in aspiration, is unnecessary and in parts unacceptable.
  Our first objection is that, by seeking to cover two separate schemes with a single set of objectives, a principles clause overarching the whole of part I would undermine the structure of the Bill, which makes a clear distinction between the community legal service and the criminal defence service. This reflects the different policy objectives behind the public funding of legal services in civil and in criminal cases, the different mix of services required—criminal legal aid is, for example, far more court-centred—and the very different factors driving demand and cost.
  Moreover, like its predecessor, new clause 13 expresses some unrealistic aspirations. Subsection (2)(a) states that persons should have access to services
  "which they would otherwise be unable to obtain on account of their means".
  However, there is no mention of any test of merits or priorities, or any indication that the services provided should be appropriate and proportionate to the problems

  989
  that they address. Nor is there any hint that people can obtain legal services other than with their own or the taxpayer's money. No doubt that is because legal expenses insurance and conditional fees did not exist in 1949, when this particular formulation was first used.
  Subsection (2)(b) is intended to ensure that access to services is not impaired by discrimination on grounds of race, sex or disability. The Government fully share that objective, but, having considered the matter carefully, we have concluded that nothing can usefully be added to the Bill. The Legal Services Commission and those whom it engages to provide services are already subject, as employers and service providers, to the provisions of the sex, race and disability discrimination Acts. Moreover, as a public body the commission will be covered by the Human Rights Act 1998, which outlaws discrimination on a wide range of grounds in relation to people's access to their rights under the convention.
  We are determined to ensure that the reformed legal aid system delivers help to those who need it, irrespective of their race, sex or disability. That is why we need flexible machinery that can respond to the changing needs and priorities of the community.
  Under the Bill, for the first time in legal history we shall be able to address the particular needs of any parts of the community—the needs of the disabled, or the needs of people with an ethnic minority background. Clause 6(5) refers to "areas or communities" specifically so that the commission can target non-geographical communities. The Legal Aid Board has directed its regional legal services committees that their strategies for assessing the needs and priorities of their communities should discuss the needs of specific client groups such as ethnic minorities, the disabled, the elderly, carers and remote communities. The board's franchise standard makes it mandatory for firms to have a written equal opportunities policy that is in effective operation. The policy must make it clear that the firm will not discriminate on grounds of race, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation.
  Only last week, the Lord Chancellor instructed the board to report to him by September on its proposals for monitoring the ethnic origin and gender both of the clients receiving services under its contracts and of the providers supplying those services. He said that he intended in due course to direct the Legal Services Commission to take over those monitoring systems, and to include information about the impact of the reform on minority groups in its annual report. The Lord Chancellor also asked the board to report to him, by the end of this year, the options for monitoring the impact of reform on access for the disabled.
  As the hon. and learned Member for Harborough pointed out, subsection (2)(b) of new clause 13 also deals with geographic access generally. It states that access should not be impaired on account of the place in England and Wales where legal services are sought. I have two difficulties with that formulation. First, the emphasis is entirely on physical location. There is not even any recognition that much can be done perfectly well on the telephone. There is no hint of the larger role that information technology could play in future, and no suggestion that a lawyer should ever be troubled to leave his office to visit a client. Secondly, the subsection implies that people who live in rural areas can enjoy the same degree of geographic access as people who live in large cities. That is obviously unachievable.
  990
  The Government have sought to address legitimate concerns about access in clause 4(4)(a), which establishes the objective of promoting improvements in the range and quality of services and in the ways in which they are made accessible to people. We are committed to providing effective access through the community legal service, but without limiting the concept of access to the number and location of lawyers' offices. The ability to tailor contracts to specific circumstances will make it possible to address areas in which access is inadequate now.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I welcome the Minister to his post, but let me take him back a few sentences. Surely a moment's thought would lead him to acknowledge that his argument that the new clause fails to reflect people's ability to obtain legal services on the telephone is nonsense. The new clause clearly does not preclude the person exercising the function from taking that into account. Nothing in the new clause suggests that it concerns the precise geographical location of services; it merely states that that should be taken into account. Surely the Minister must accept that this is a very weak part of his argument.
  Mr. Vaz: No, I do not accept that. I believe that the drafting of new clause 13 means, in effect, that physical location will have to be taken into consideration, which will have exactly the effect that I have described.
  Subsection (2)(c) covers quality, speed and fairness. The Government share those objectives, and have already dealt with them in clause 4(4). To that extent, the new subsection is wholly unnecessary. Subsection (2)(c) also refers to placing the parties on an "equal footing"—I shall deal shortly with what was said by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle)—but the danger of those apparently admirable words is that they might compel the commission to match the spending of a wealthy private party, regardless of the importance or complexity of the case.
  Subsection (2)(d) states that people obtaining legal services should have
  "the widest possible choice of provider or services".
  That goes much too far. As the Opposition know from their experience in government, the task is to balance competing desirable objectives, of which choice may be only one. An overriding objective of providing the widest possible choice would trump consideration of quality or value for money—a point made in the White Paper published by the last Government. It is almost always desirable for an accused person to have a choice—but not necessarily an unlimited choice—of legal representative, as that helps to promote confidence in that person's lawyer and the criminal justice system. Clause 15 already secures that objective.
  In the case of civil litigation, which most people fortunately experience only once in a lifetime, I am not sure that it is particularly helpful to single out the choice of provider as such, as opposed to, for example, access; and it is positively undesirable to have as an objective the widest possible choice of services when the aim of the community legal service is to provide the most appropriate means of dealing with a particular problem.
  The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle mentioned Lord Spens. I must tell him—he knows that I am going to say this—that this is a matter for the Legal Aid Board:

  991
  it is not possible for Ministers to comment on individual cases. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it is possible for people to make representations, and Lord Spens has done so. I think that Lord Spens has done pretty well out of the legal aid fund, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, if he raises the matter on the Adjournment, the debate will be pretty short because I shall not be able to comment on the specific circumstances of the case.
  The Government firmly believe that the Bill already meets the legitimate concerns that underlie new clause 13, and that the new clause would merely add confusion and create unrealistic expectations. I therefore invite the House to reject it.
  Mr. Grieve: I had not intended to speak on new clause 13, as I had already spoken in Committee about a similar clause at the time the Government deleted it. However, I could not fail to respond to the Minister's comments, some of which struck me as extraordinary.
  For example—I shall put this as nicely as possible—the Minister rubbished the suggestion that there was any need for a provision ensuring that access would not be impaired on account of
  "the place in England and Wales where any legal services are sought".
  Of course I acknowledge that one of the matters that would have to be taken into consideration by any person exercising functions is the fact that, with modern communications, access to legal services may be possible even in an area where there are no franchise solicitors dealing with particular matters. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the geographical location of a person seeking legal services in relation to where those services are available will be a relevant matter. The matter greatly exercised the Committee because of anxieties that such legal services would not be available in future.
  7.30 pm
  It strikes me as very odd that we have a Government who, largely with my support, have been prepared to entrust to the United Kingdom judiciary the task of interpreting human rights—notwithstanding the fact that that may require, when the Government choose finally to implement the Human Rights Act 1998, occasionally casting aspersions on ministerial decisions—but who are totally reluctant to accept an aims clause in the Bill because of a deadly fear that, were they to do so, a time would come when, in a judicial review, there would be a challenge to the fact that some of the aims were incompatible with the way in which the Bill's provisions were working, excluding people from access to justice. That was why the aims clause was so important when it was moved in the other place by people who were well versed in how the system worked, and why it had so much to commend it.
  As much as I welcome the Minister to his new post, I very much regret that today the matter should have been dealt with glibly. The Government should have the courage of their convictions. If Ministers believe, as I am perfectly prepared to acknowledge they do, that the Access to Justice Bill will facilitate access to justice, which is what the Minister has been telling us repeatedly, they should have nothing to fear from the aims clause,
  992
  with which the Act should be fully compatible. It fills me with foreboding to see the Government's reluctance to accept the new clause if the Bill will, in fact, do what the Government say it will.
  Mr. Garnier: I have listened with care to what the Minister has said, but I am afraid that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends are not in the least bit convinced by it. I think that the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), too, would agree with me that nothing that has fallen from the Minister's lips answers the questions at all. I therefore invite the House to support the re-inclusion of the provisions of new clause 13 in the Bill.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 146, Noes 313.

  Division No. 215]

  [7.32 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Gray, James

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Green, Damian

  Baldry, Tony

  Greenway, John

  Beggs, Roy

  Grieve, Dominic

  Bercow, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hammond, Philip

  Blunt, Crispin

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Boswell, Tim

  Hayes, John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Heald, Oliver

  Brady, Graham

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Brazier, Julian

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Breed, Colin

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Burnett, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Burns, Simon

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Burstow, Paul

  Butterfill, John

  Key, Robert

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menies (NE Fife)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Chope, Christopher

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Clappison, James

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Leigh, Edward

  Letwin, Oliver

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Collins, Tim

  Lidington, David

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Livsey, Richard

  Cran, James

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Loughton, Tim

  Dafis, Cynog

  Luff, Peter

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Duncan, Alan

  Madel, Sir David

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fabricant, Michael

  Maples, John

  Fallon, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Flight, Howard

  Moore, Michael

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Öpik, Lembit

  Fraser, Christopher

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Page, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Paice, James

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Paterson, Owen

  Gibb, Nick

  Pickles, Eric

  Gill, Christopher

  Prior, David

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  993

  Robathan, Andrew

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Thompson, William

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Tredinnick, David

  Ruffley, David

  Trend, Michael

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Tyler, Paul

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Viggers, Peter

  Sanders, Adrian

  Walter, Robert

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Webb, Steve

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Wells, Bowen

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Whittingdale, John

  Spring, Richard

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Willetts, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Willis, Phil

  Streeter, Gary

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Syms, Robert

  Woodward, Shaun

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mrs. Jacqui Lait.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clelland, David

  Allen, Graham

  Clwyd, Ann

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Ashton, Joe

  Cohen, Harry

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Coleman, Iain

  Austin, John

  Colman, Tony

  Banks, Tony

  Connarty, Michael

  Barnes, Harry

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Barron, Kevin

  Corbett, Robin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Beard, Nigel

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cousins, Jim

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cranston, Ross

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Crausby, David

  Benton, Joe

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Betts, Clive

  Cummings, John

  Blackman, Liz

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Boateng, Paul

  Darvill, Keith

  Borrow, David

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Davidson, Ian

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dawson, Hilton

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dumfries)

  Denham, John

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Browne, Desmond

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Doran, Frank

  Burden, Richard

  Drew, David

  Burgon, Colin

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Edwards, Huw

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Efford, Clive

  Cann, Jamie

  Ennis, Jeff

  Casale, Roger

  Fisher, Mark

  Cawsey, Ian

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Flint, Caroline

  Chaytor, David

  Follett, Barbara

  Clapham, Michael

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Foulkes, George

  Galloway, George

  994

  Gapes, Mike

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Gardiner, Barry

  Livingstone, Ken

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lock, David

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Love, Andrew

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McCabe, Steve

  Godsiff, Roger

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Goggins, Paul

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Macdonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McDonnell, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Grocott, Bruce

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Grogan, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Gunnell, John

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McWilliam, John

  Hanson, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mallaber, Judy

  Healey, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Heppell, John

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hesford, Stephen

  Martlew, Eric

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Maxton, John

  Hill, Keith

  Meale, Alan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Merron, Gillian

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Miller, Andrew

  Hope, Phil

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Morley, Elliot

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Mountford, Kali

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mudie, George

  Hurst, Alan

  Mullin, Chris

  Hutton, John

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Illsley, Eric

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Norris, Dan

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jamieson, David

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Olner, Bill

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Pope, Greg

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pound, Stephen

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Khabra, Piara S

  Purchase, Ken

  Kidney, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Radice, Giles

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Rammell, Bill

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lepper, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rooker, Jeff

  Levitt, Tom

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Roy, Frank

  995

  Ruane, Chris

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Timms, Stephen

  Salter, Martin

  Tipping, Paddy

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Todd, Mark

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Touhig, Don

  Sawford, Phil

  Trickett, Jon

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Vaz, Keith

  Singh, Marsha

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Watts, David

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  White, Brian

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Snape, Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Wills, Michael

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Winnick, David

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Wise, Audrey

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wood, Mike

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Woolas, Phil

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Worthington, Tony

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Stringer, Graham

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 4

  THE COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICE
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Vaz: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in page 4, line 26, at end insert—

  '(8A) The Commission may charge—

  (a)for accreditation,

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

  (c)for authorising accreditation by others:

  and persons or bodies authorised to accredit may charge for accreditation, and for such monitoring, in accordance with the terms of their authorisation.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 88 to 90.
  Mr. Vaz: The purpose of the amendments is to confer on the Legal Services Commission a power to charge for the accreditation and monitoring of providers of legal services and for authorising others to accredit and monitor providers of legal services. The amendments will also allow others who are authorised to accredit and monitor providers of legal services to charge for accreditation and monitoring, in accordance with terms set by the commission.
  The Lord Chancellor will have power to require the commission to discharge its powers to charge for accreditation, monitoring and authorisation and to authorise others to charge in a prescribed manner. That would be by order, subject to negative resolution.
  996
  It is not intended that the commission will exercise its power to charge for accreditation and monitoring in respect of providers of legal services funded by the commission. Providers of services as part of the wider community legal service, funded by other bodies such as local authorities, may need to meet quality standards to secure their funding. In addition, those providing privately funded legal services may also wish to take advantage of the opportunity to obtain accreditation to demonstrate the quality of the services that they provide.
  We believe that it would be wrong to expect the taxpayer to meet the costs of accrediting and monitoring those individuals and bodies who seek accreditation as a means of attracting private business. The power for the commission to charge for those services will ensure that the consumer will have the advantage of assurance of the quality of service without the taxpayer having to foot the bill. The commission will not seek to profit from that power, but simply to recover its costs of providing the service.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 88, in page 4, line 28, leave out '(8)' and insert '(8A)'.—[Mr. Vaz.]

Clause 5

  FUNDING OF SERVICES
  Amendment made: No. 11, in page 4, line 43, at end insert—
  '() The Lord Chancellor shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of every determination under subsection (2)(a).'.—[Mr. Vaz.]

Clause 11

  COSTS IN FUNDED CASES
  The Solicitor?General (Mr. Ross Cranston): I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 9, line 32, leave out
  'cases in which services have been'
  and insert
  'relation to proceedings in which services are'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 13 to 16 and 21.
  The Solicitor-General: This group of drafting amendments is consequential to an amendment made in Committee to what is now clause 11(1). Clause 11 deals with the award of costs between the parties in cases involving community legal service funding. It gives assisted persons broadly the same statutory protection against costs as exists now. Clause 11(1) was amended in Committee to provide for that protection to be disapplied in prescribed circumstances, to make it clear that it applied only when the assisted person was receiving funding, and generally to simplify the drafting of the subsection. The amendments are consequential on that simplification. Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 simply ensure the consistent use of tenses throughout the clause.
  Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 rephrase and reposition clause 11(4)(c), which deals with the payment of costs by the Legal Services Commission to the opponent of an assisted person. At present, a court can order the Legal Aid Board to pay an opposing defendant's costs if he or

  997
  she would otherwise suffer severe financial hardship. Regulations that are contemplated under the Bill will broadly replicate that position although the Government hope to relax the test to plain financial hardship.

  It is necessary to rephrase the paragraph to refer to the costs incurred by the opponent, rather than those ordered against the assisted person; otherwise, the costs that the commission could be ordered to pay would be limited by the protection enjoyed by the assisted person. That anomaly did not arise with the previous drafting of clause 11(1).
  Amendments Nos. 16 and 21 are consequential on the repositioning of clause 11(4)(c). The latter ensures that regulations under that paragraph remain subject to the affirmative procedure.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 13, in page 9, line 36, leave out 'the services were funded,' and insert
  'services are funded by the Commission as part of the Community Legal Service,'.
  No. 14, in page 9, leave out lines 40 and 41.
  No. 15, in page 9, line 44, at end insert—
  '(da) requiring the payment by the Commission of the whole or part of any costs incurred by a party for whom services are not funded by the Commission as part of the Community Legal Service,'.
  No. 16, in page 9, line 46, leave out 'such a party' and insert
  'a party for whom services are so funded'.—[Mr. Vaz.]

Clause 12

  THE CRIMINAL DEFENCE SERVICE
  Amendments made: No. 89, in page 10, line 38, at end insert—
  '(4A) The Commission may charge—

  (a) for accreditation,

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

  (c) for authorising accreditation by others;

  and persons or bodies authorised to accredit may charge for accreditation, and for such monitoring, in accordance with the terms of their authorisation.'.
  No. 90, in page 10, line 40, leave out 'subsection (4)' and insert 'subsections (4) and (4A)'.—[Mr. Vaz.]

Clause 16

  CODE OF CONDUCT
  Mr. Vaz: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 13, line 7, at end insert—
  'and duties on employees who are members of a professional body to comply with the rules of the body.'.
  Amendment No. 17 reflects an undertaking made by the Government in Committee in response to an amendment tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and others. He sought to add to the list of matters which must be included in the code of conduct for employees of the Legal Services Commission who provide criminal defence services. In response, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield
  998
  (Mr. Hoon), now the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said that although it was not really necessary, he was content to introduce an amendment.
  Amendment No. 17, therefore, requires the code specifically to include duties on employees providing criminal defence services who are members of a professional body—they might be barristers, solicitors or legal executives—to comply with the rules of that body.
  The amendment shows that the Government are willing to put into statute sensible amendments such as the one tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, and I am most grateful to him for his suggestion on this issue.
  Mr. Garnier: I thank the Minister for delivering on the undertaking given by his predecessor.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22

  POSITION OF SERVICE PROVIDERS AND OTHER PARTIES
  The Solicitor?General: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 16, line 17, leave out second 'of' and insert 'to'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 19, 20, 22, 45 to 69 and 83.
  The Solicitor-General: This group of amendments clarifies the powers to prescribe the procedures for courts carrying out functions under part I of the Bill, particularly in relation to granting rights to representation in criminal cases. It also includes a number of consequential and drafting amendments. Let me explain.
  Amendment No. 19 provides a general power to prescribe which member or officer of a court is able to exercise the functions of any court or tribunal under this part of the Bill. For example, it would enable regulations to prescribe the procedure for consideration of an application for a right to representation. In the case of the Crown court—assuming a right to representation has not been granted already by the magistrates court—the power might be exercised by a judge, though not necessarily the trial judge. For the sake of flexibility, however, it might be appropriate to provide, as now, for an authorised officer in the Crown court office to consider these applications.
  Similarly for the magistrates court, amendment No. 53 gives the power to prescribe when a single justice or justices' clerk can make decisions about the right to representation. The first part of the amendment would enable the powers of the magistrates court to grant or withdraw a right to representation to be exercisable by a single justice. The general rule-making power in section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 can then be used to delegate this to justices' clerks and their assistants.
  Amendment No. 20 provides the flexibility to prescribe different provisions for different areas, to accommodate, for example, pilot arrangements.
  Streamlining the legislative provisions for delegation in that way will mean that there will be no further need for section 49(1)(j) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which can be repealed when the relevant provisions of this Bill are in force. That is achieved by amendment No. 83.

  999
  Amendments Nos. 61, 66 and 67 clarify the appeal procedure against an order to repay defence costs under clause 17. This is to be by way of judicial review.
  Clause 17 does not expressly provide for a route of appeal. Decisions of the Crown court that relate to a trial on indictment cannot be judicially reviewed or subject to appeal by way of case stated. This has been held to prevent any form of appeal against certain decisions about legal aid contribution orders. Decisions relating to a sentence may of course be appealed to the Court of Appeal, but recovery of defence costs orders should not be seen as part of a sentence. It is possible, for example, that regulations could prescribe for exceptional circumstances in which an order could be made before the end of the trial or following acquittal.
  In order to avoid doubt about the status of an order under clause 17 and the relevant route of appeal, amendment No. 61 makes it clear that these orders are not part of the sentence and therefore not appealable to the Court of Appeal. Amendment No. 66 amends the Supreme Court Act 1981 to allow clause 17 orders to be challenged by way of judicial review or case stated. Amendment No. 67 is consequential on amendment No. 66.
  Further consequential alterations are contained in amendment No. 69.
  Amendments Nos. 49 and 52 are drafting amendments to make it clearer that a right to representation will usually continue through from the magistrates court to the Crown Court.
  A right to representation includes a right to advice and assistance as to an appeal. As currently drafted, it is an open-ended entitlement. Amendment No. 22 would allow regulations to prescribe time limits for the provision of advice on appeal after which the right would lapse. Regulations on the scope of advice and assistance could be made under clause 13 to allow for cases where advice was needed at a later date.
  Finally, amendments Nos. 18, 45 to 48, 50, 51, 54 to 60, 62 to 65 and 68 achieve drafting consistency by always referring to the right as a "right to representation".
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 19, in page 16, line 30, at end insert—
  '(6) Regulations made under subsection (5) may in particular authorise the exercise of the functions of any court or tribunal by any member or officer of that or any other court or tribunal.'.—[Mr. Vaz.]

Clause 25

  ORDERS, REGULATIONS AND DIRECTIONS
  Amendments made: No 20, in page 17, line 29, at end insert '(including different areas)'.
  No. 21, in page 17, line 32, leave out '(c)' and insert '(da)'.—[Mr. Vaz.]

Clause 26

  INTERPRETATION
  Amendment made: No. 22, in page 18, line 5, after first 'and', insert
  ', subject to any time limits which may be prescribed,'.—[Mr. Vaz.]

Schedule 1

  LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 65, line 28, leave out
  ', with the approval of the Treasury,'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 39 to 44.
  The Solicitor-General: You will be pleased to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the purpose of these seven amendments is to remove the requirement for Treasury consent or approval to arrangements for the pay, pensions and compensation of members and staff of the Legal Services Commission.
  The amendments reflect the fact that it is no longer the practice for new legislation to make pay and pensions provisions for non-departmental public bodies subject to Treasury consent. The commission's pay and pensions arrangements will continue to be subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor, who will consult the Treasury as appropriate on issues affecting spending and general policy on public pay, pensions and compensation terms.
  The amendments are technical, designed to bring the relevant provisions in line with current Treasury policy.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 39, in page 65, line 32, leave out
  ', with the consent of the Treasury,'.
  No. 40, in page 65, line 33, leave out
  ', with the consent of the Treasury,'.
  No. 41, in page 65, line 46, leave out
  'and consent of the Treasury'.
  No. 42, in page 65, line 49, leave out
  'and the consent of the Treasury'.
  No. 43, in page 66, line 16, leave out

  'and consent of the Treasury'.
  No. 44, in page 66, line 41, leave out
  ', with the consent of the Treasury,'.—[Mr. Vaz.]

Schedule 2

  COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICE: EXCLUDED SERVICES.
  Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: I beg to move amendment No. 95, in page 68, line 32, at end insert
  'and actions brought by or on behalf of children under 18, patients within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983, persons with disabilities within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and persons in receipt of Income Support, save that services shall not be funded if the Commission is satisfied in any individual case that a conditional fee agreement is available.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 99, in page 68, line 32, at end insert
  'save where compelling reasons exist'.
  Mr. Marshall?Andrews: The purpose of the amendment is to retain legal aid in its present form for actions for damages for personal injury for the classes of people referred to in the amendment.
  Legal aid was an essential part—to use the topical vernacular, it was one of the key or core parts—of the welfare state. It was thought at the time that the poor should have the benefit in actions brought by them of access to the best available legal advice and assistance, and that they should have available to them all the rights of the courts. That was regarded at the time as being as important as access to health and to welfare.
  8 pm
  If the Bill is to become an Act in its unadorned and unamended form, the classes of people to whom I have referred will have no recourse to legal aid for personal injury cases. In all cases, legal aid for actions for personal injury will cease to exist. No matter how weak or disabled the plaintiff; no matter how serious the injury; no matter how powerful the wrongdoer; no matter how culpable or deliberate the wrong, there will be no legal aid for those people.
  This is a reforming Bill with which, in many respects, I agree. Whatever happens to the amendment—I sincerely hope that it will be agreed to even if the Government do not accept it, which I sincerely hope they will—I will support the Bill. There are many aspects of it that I have no difficulty whatever in supporting. I say straight away that the provision of legal aid has become, in certain circumstances, less than perfect. There have been examples in which it has been abused, and there are ways in which it is far too expensive, some of which the Bill redresses.
  There is one aspect of the legal aid system to which that does not apply—the element that funds personal injury cases. Do not take that from me, Mr. Deputy Speaker—under any circumstances. I wish to give hon. Members the full benefit of an opinion expressed in 1996:
  "Supporters of legal aid must never seek to emphasise that this is a highly successful public social service. In civil cases which reached judgment in 1995–1996, there were judgments in favour of the assisted person in 81 per cent. of the cases. The proportion of cases where there was either a settlement or a judgment in favour was 91 per cent."
  The sage goes on:
  "Personal injury litigation as a category was conspicuously successful. Obviously, the greater the success rate, the closer the legal aid system can approach self-funding. These success figures tell against any argument that legal aid is generally granted too readily. It must be remembered that there are a small number of very high-cost cases which account for a large proportion of expenditure."
  That ringing endorsement of the legal aid system, and personal injury legal aid in particular—that luminous prose, with whose every word I agree—fell from the mouth of the Lord Chancellor himself in 1996.
  We do not have the Lord Chancellor here, more's the pity. That is something on which I have a certain view that I have expressed from time to time. He is in another
  1002
  place. We do have my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary here, and I join in the paeans of praise and congratulations to him. What a joy it is to see him on the Front Bench. However, it is not the same. If we are to penetrate what has happened since 1996, we have look through a prism darkly to find out why the Lord Chancellor—the font of the legislation—should have done such a conspicuous volte face.
  It cannot be anything to do with the statistics for this part of the legal aid system, as they speak for themselves. Legal aid in personal injury cases funded 75,000 cases last year; those that were funded recovered £502 million in damages. The cost of that was £224 million. However, 86 per cent. of that was recouped as costs. The cost to the Exchequer of this noble public service was £34 million.
  If one takes into account the VAT that the lawyers paid back into the Exchequer, the net cost of this public service after VAT was recouped—described in the way I have just outlined by the Lord Chancellor—was £1,481,936. If one then takes into account the money clawed back by the Exchequer from damages that had been paid out in welfare payments to those who were successful plaintiffs in these cases, there is a net profit to the Exchequer of £68 million.
  The one argument that does not stand up—I expect I am wasting my breath, as I doubt whether the Parliamentary Secretary will advance it—is that the reform will bring a penny piece back into legal aid which can be reallocated or retargeted to other areas.
  Why are we faced with this Bill? Why is this protection to be taken from the particularly vulnerable categories of people who are referred to in the amendment? What has occurred has been the advent of conditional fee agreements. Conditional fee agreements were introduced in 1995 as an experiment. They are more usually, but inaccurately, referred to as no-win, no-pay agreements.
  The advantage is that lawyers will bear the risk of litigation, and if someone does not win and they do not get their costs back from the other side, the litigant does not pay. No-win, no-pay litigation; something against which the legal profession had set its face for centuries, because it was felt that it was unethical—or at least unwise—that lawyers should have an interest in their clients' damages.
  A system was put into effect in 1995 with various checks and balances. Whereas I acknowledge that there are aspects of conditional fee agreements which may be beneficial to many people—particularly to middle-income England—there are aspects of conditional fee agreements which are positively dangerous to people with disabilities. And there are many other aspects of conditional fee agreements which are, as yet, untried.
  If one is injured, rendered disabled or maimed by accident or design, instead of obtaining legal aid—which would be one's right if one had a prima facie case and a solicitor available to take the case—it is now necessary to trail the coat of one's damages from solicitor to solicitor until it is possible to find one who is holding the right portfolio of risk to take the case. The right portfolio of risk in any individual case will depend on the other cases that any individual solicitor has in his portfolio. That will make it necessary to move from solicitor to solicitor to find one who can take the case.
  It is true that there have been about 30,000 cases under conditional fee agreements, and there is no reason to suppose that they are manifestly unsuccessful, but the

  1003
  only authoritative study pointed out immediately that the overwhelming preponderance were small cases. That is not surprising, because lawyers will generally take small cases in which the risk is limited.
  What happens when the avalanche of the 75,000 cases currently funded under legal aid falls into the system? Whether the provision will exist to cope with the most complex and difficult of those cases is a complete imponderable. The study by the Policy Studies Institute at the end of 1997 concluded:
  "However, on the basis of the evidence currently available, there is serious cause for concern about whether the scheme is operating fairly and consistently. Future research will need to focus on this issue."
  There has been no authoritative research since then.
  The Bill will consign the weakest and most vulnerable in the land to a completely untried no win, no fee system, and they will have no other redress. The more badly injured one is, the more difficult it is to trail one's coat from lawyer to lawyer looking for someone to take the case; and the more difficult and legally complex one's case, with quantum and medical reports and experts, the less likely one is to find a lawyer who will undertake all the disbursements and costs.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: Would it not also be much harder in such cases to define a win?
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Indeed. I will come to that point.
  I am not against conditional fee agreements, because if people come to me or another lawyer and say that they are just above the legal aid framework but have been injured and cannot afford legal fees, I have never had any problem with saying, "Well, now you are destitute, but if the case is won you will be in funds and will be able in due course to pay me; if we don't win, no fee."
  There is, however, an enormous problem in the fact that under the conditional fee system we are allowed to uplift—that is the euphemism for hike—fees up to 100 per cent. It will not surprise hon. Members to know that if lawyers have the facility to hike or uplift their fees, they do it. The assessment of risk on which they hike the fees is their own assessment and not subject to outside expertise or adjudication.
  8.15 pm
  The Policy Studies Institute considered a number of solicitors and a very large number of cases and compared the risk with the uplift. It was in no doubt about its conclusions. It said that there were more low-risk cases than high-risk cases; the weighted number of cases in which the uplift appeared too high was 257, as against 122 in which it appeared low.
  You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would have your wits about you in such circumstances and would be able to analyse with clarity whether the advice that you were getting was accurate; but the more disabled or in need of assistance the plaintiffs—be they children, mental patients or the very poor—the more inarticulate they are likely to be and the less able to analyse whether the uplift is suitable.
  1004
  Under conditional fee agreements, it is necessary to take out insurance against having to pay the defendant's costs. It is a wishful thought that the burden of the premium would be borne by the solicitor, but the plain fact is that, as of now, on the research available, it is being borne by the plaintiff. The more disadvantaged the plaintiff, the less likely it is that he or she will be able to afford the premium.
  At present the premiums are quite small, averaging about £95, but the only analysis is of small cases; the great preponderance are simple and straightforward liability cases: normally motor accidents. What will happen when the brain-damaged child in an occupier's liability case finds a proper solicitor who is not charging over the top for the uplift and is then asked for the insurance premium? In a case in which the damages—for lifelong disability—are likely to be £1.5 million or £2 million and the costs on either side in six figures, the premium will almost certainly be prohibitive.
  The Government's answer to what appears to be a self-evident case for excluding disadvantaged groups from the prohibition on personal injury cases is the hardship fund. A fund is to be created from which it will be possible, in exceptional circumstances, for solicitors to apply for assistance. No criteria have been properly set out on whether the fund will be available in any given case.
  It is completely contrary to the principle of such welfare provision that the exception is made only if one can demonstrate to an official that there is exceptional hardship. The amendment is thus entirely reasonable. It preserves legal aid for such cases at nil cost to the Exchequer, as we have already demonstrated. To show the total reasonableness of our approach, it retains legal aid but provides that, even in such cases, legal aid will not be available if the determining officer is satisfied that a suitable conditional fee agreement is available.
  The effect will be that, faced with those disadvantaged groups, a solicitor will apply for legal aid as of right. The determining officer will be able to ask that solicitor why a conditional fee agreement is not available and the solicitor will say, "Because of the immense complexity of the matters involved."
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I gently remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that he should address the Chair?
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The determining officer will then be able to say, "We will provide money from the hardship fund." Thus the right is preserved, and will be removed only if there is a genuine alternative available. That would retain a perfect system.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: I speak in support of amendment No. 99, standing in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, and also supported by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). I thank the hon. Gentleman and the Minister for their kind congratulations. I am especially pleased that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are in the Chair when I speak for the first time as an official Opposition spokesman, given our mutual links with the town of Bedford and our interest in sport, which may be relevant to one of the cases that I wish to cite on this very serious matter.

  1005
  I also pay tribute to the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). On Second Reading, the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke immediately after me and we found much common ground on that occasion, as on this. Both of us have spent much time representing people in court on the same circuit. In his longer and more distinguished legal career, he has frequently taken up causes such as that which he supports tonight. Although amendment No. 99 is in slightly different terms to amendment No. 95, I know that he will acknowledge that it is to much the same effect. Both of us seek to persuade the Government that it is crucial to protect the rights and the needs of the disadvantaged—those in greatest need.
  In the past in a debate in a previous Parliament, I was the first hon. Member to use the acronym MINELA—or middle income, not eligible for legal aid. MINELAs are a hard-pressed group. Unfortunately, the Government will create many more MINELAs because many more people will not be eligible for legal aid.
  It is a pleasure to me to talk about those with a compelling reason to need legal aid. I pay tribute to many voluntary organisations that have worked with the Law Society and the Bar Council, on whose general management committee I had the honour to serve for several years, in seeking to advance the case of those who will be in need of legal aid in the future, as many people have been in the past. It has been a good campaign, supported by a variety of voluntary groups. The Law Society, in its briefing for the Report stage, mentions support from the Child Poverty Action Group, the Law Centres Federation, Mencap—for whom I was working along with many other hon. Members at an event this afternoon within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster—the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, or RADAR, the Royal National Institute for Blind People, the Advice Services Alliance, the Consumers Association, Justice, the Legal Action Group, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, Refuge, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the Institute of Legal Executives. That is a powerful coalition supporting the arguments that the hon. and learned Member for Medway and myself are putting tonight to try to persuade the Government, even at the last minute, that there are good reasons to keep legal aid available for those in greatest need where compelling reasons exist.
  I recommend the excellent publication The Lawyer to all hon. Members, even if they are not lawyers, because it has highlighted the problems with the Bill sensibly and clearly. It has described cases from the past that show why legal aid should continue to be available in the future. I said that one of those cases involved sport, and it is well known to all hon. Members, being the case of Ben Smoldon, who was just 17 when he tragically broke his neck during a rugby match in 1991. In the case of Smoldon v. Whitworth and Nolan, the principles that affect the control of rugby matches—a game well loved by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and me—were set out. That case, of a 17-year-old injured in a rugby match through no fault of his own, was tragic and there was no doubt that legal aid was vital. Ben Smoldon's solicitor, Mr. Lee of Evill and Coleman said
  "The Legal Aid Board always supported the case even though it knew there was a chance we wouldn't be successful. The prospects of a win were just not high enough for us to take this on a no win, no fee basis."
  1006
  I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Medway will agree that that is the kind of case in which legal aid is vital.
  The next example suggested by The Lawyer is the case of Justice for the Longcare Survivors v. Buckinghamshire County Council. As that case is still pending, I shall not go into any details, but it concerns allegations of child abuse. It is another example of a case in which legal aid for those bringing cases in the civil courts will be vital. Another example is the case of Daniel Burnett suing by his "next friend" in James Potter v. Steven John Duckworth, in which a 17-year-old cyclist was left with severe head injuries after being hit by a car in November 1993. He succeeded in that case in proving the liability of the driver despite completely conflicting statements by witnesses. Daniel Burnett's mother said:
  "My son's life has been ruined through no fault of his own. I just can't imagine what we would have done if we hadn't been able to bring this case."
  Legal aid was vital in enabling them to do so.
  Another case cited was that of Dipesh Parmar v. E Castle. The Lawyer says:
  "Six-year-old Dipesh Parmar was left confined to a wheelchair and in need of permanent artificial ventilation after a lorry attempted a right turn into the path of the vehicle that he was travelling in."
  His solicitor said:
  "Had the family not been entitled to legal aid they would not have been able to fund the medical reports, which would have made the case very difficult."
  That is another case that is an example of the compelling reasons for legal aid to continue to exist.
  Another example is the case of June Hancock v. JW Roberts Ltd. The Lawyer says:
  "In 1996 a dying woman successfully won damages of £65,000 for the effects of asbestos dust in an area where she had played as a child around 60 years earlier."
  Her solicitor worked for the Sheffield firm of Irwin Mitchell, which specialises in personal injury matters, among other things. He said:
  "It was a very, very difficult case, the like of which I doubt I will ever see again. Lots of firms refused to take it, even on a legal aid basis … My fear is that such ground-breaking cases will not be brought forward in the future, because without legal aid support lawyers will not be able"
  to take them on.
  The cases that I have cited are very powerful. I hope that hon. Members on all sides of the House will recognise that a powerful coalition of voluntary organisations supports the proposals contained in the amendments.
  Mr. David Kidney: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will clarify something for me. The Bill allows the Lord Chancellor, by direction, to disapply the bar on personal injury cases, and the explanatory notes state that the Lord Chancellor has in mind cases in the public interest or with high investigative costs. Amendment No. 99 states that the bar would be disapplied
  "save where compelling reasons exist".
  Is that an attempt to insert into the Bill a statutory recognition of the explanatory notes, or will the "compelling reasons" go wider than the classes of case mentioned in those notes?
  Mr. Hawkins: My intention is that the words "compelling reasons" would go wider. The all-encompassing phrase in the amendment is intended to cover the types of cases that I offered as examples, and the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Medway. The amendment goes much wider than the disapplication of the bar proposed in the Bill and explained in the notes.
  Finally, I shall quote from Counsel magazine, a publication covering the work of those who share my profession at the Bar. An article by David Bean QC, a distinguished employment lawyer, discusses the Bill's abolition of legal aid for personal injury actions and calls it puzzling.
  "Puzzling, because it is both unpopular and unnecessary. The success rate for legally aided plaintiffs is very high: the few cases which have been wrongly allowed to proceed could be reduced to a trickle by a more rigorously applied merits test and the new powers under the Civil Procedure Rules to dispose summarily of weak cases."
  The Government are not allowing those new powers to be used. They want the blanket removal of legal aid for personal injury. We think that that is wrong, and that "compelling reasons" should allow legal aid.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Vaz: This has been a good debate, although short. I begin by thanking my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall?Andrews) for ensuring that the House had an opportunity to discuss these matters.
  I have enormous respect for my hon. and learned Friend and have admired him for many years. We are bonded through the threads of history, as we fought elections in the former Richmond and Barnes constituency in successive years. He got 8,000 votes, and I got 3,000, which makes him three times the man that I am.
  My hon. and learned Friend raised some very important issues with his amendment, and I hope that I will be able to deal with them all in the short time available. I know what his views are, as I have read them in The Guardian. In an article published on 23 March, he described the Bill as "good, bad and awful". He made a passionate and eloquent case for the amendment, but I hope to convince him that the Government are as concerned as he is and that he need not worry, as all the groups that he mentioned will be protected under the Bill.
  Amendment No. 95 would ensure that legal aid was available in personal injury cases for children, patients within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983, persons with disabilities and people in receipt of income support, unless the commission decided that a conditional fee agreement was available in an individual case. It has been made clear on many occasions that the Government have decided to withdraw legal aid from the vast majority of personal injury cases because they are satisfied that a conditional fee agreement will be available in that majority of cases. To insist that the commission examine every case individually to ensure that such an agreement is available would create enormous administrative expense, which would lead inevitably to a reduction in the money available to fund deserving cases.
  Mr. Burnett: Who is expected to pay the insurance premiums for after-the-event cover of defendants' costs in respect of the conditional fee agreements?
  Mr. Vaz: As I shall explain, the insurance premium point has been dealt with. The premium is recoverable in the event of a successful action, and practitioners should be able to bear the initial cost.
  1008
  There is no reason why those who lack the legal capacity to act for themselves should not be able to benefit from a conditional fee agreement. I accept that special provision may need to be made for individuals lacking legal capacity in the regulations governing the use of conditional fees. My Department will consult on draft regulations over the summer and will specifically seek views on this issue.
  It is important that a litigation friend acting on behalf of a child or patient should fully understand the conditional fee agreement and any potential liability that he or she is accepting on the child's or patient's behalf. It is sometimes suggested that children and patients are unsuitable—for reasons of age or disability—for conditional fee agreements, because gathering the evidence required to establish whether there is a viable case is lengthy and costly. That may be so, but, as the Lord Chancellor and my predecessor have repeatedly pointed out, help will still be available where the initial investigation is exceptionally expensive. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) cited the cases of Ben Smoldon and others. Under the directions already announced, that case, and most of the others quoted from The Lawyer, would clearly be eligible for legal aid.
  It is asserted that it can be very hard to win cases because a court might not accept evidence from the people to whom I have referred. I acknowledge that that may be true, but I do not accept that we should commit public funds to support a case in which a solicitor knows that an individual—for whatever reason—has a very small chance of success. I would go further: everyone involved should think carefully before placing a vulnerable person in the position of taking forward litigation if they know from the outset that the chances of success are slim.
  Mr. Grieve: The Minister said that the cases cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) would have been eligible for the help that he is describing. He may say that with the benefit of hindsight, but he has also suggested that the help will not be available under the criteria that he will apply. He will deprive the litigant of the assistance required in precisely those cases in which it is most difficult to assess whether they will succeed at trial.
  Mr. Vaz: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman, who is a barrister. He was not listening to me. I said that most of the cases cited by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath would be covered. I also said that a case would be covered if there was a high investigative cost or if the wider public interest applied.
  The amendment would offer similar protection to all individuals who have a disability within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Some of those individuals will be patients under the Mental Health Acts, and I have already dealt with their position. For the rest, it is frankly insulting to assume that simply because a person has a disability, he or she is in some way less capable of running his or her own affairs and reaching an agreement with a solicitor than a person without such a disability would be. The amendment would extend legal aid to all people with disabilities, regardless of their means. That is not the position now, and I do not accept that it should be the position.
  Finally, the amendment would give legal aid in personal injury cases to individuals on income support. It is alleged that many people on income support would

  1009
  be unable to afford even the modest insurance fees charged to support a personal injury case. That may well be so, but as the Lord Chancellor and others have pointed out, we do not expect such individuals to bear the cost of premiums. Insurance premiums and disbursements are generally low in personal injury cases, and we expect solicitors' firms to bear the costs as normal business overheads. Such cases are profitable for solicitors, allowing them to recover a percentage uplift in addition to their usual fee. There is no reason why they, like any other business, should not bear overheads before a profit can be realised.
  I shall tell the House just how inexpensive the majority of cases are. In 1996–97, some 83,852 personal injury cases were funded by legal aid. Of those, 11,868 were clinical negligence cases, which will remain within the scope of the law. Of the remaining 71,984 cases, 89 per cent. cost £6,000 or less, 84 per cent. cost £5,000 or less, and 81 per cent. cost £4,000 or less. Those figures are total costs for the cases—all disbursement costs, including counsel's fees. With all costs included, the vast majority cost less than £4,000. The average amount of disbursements paid out by solicitors in cases costing £4,000 or less was only £304.
  It is clear from the costs that those cases did not require exceptionally large amounts of work or expenditure by the solicitors. Nor were the costs of investigation particularly high. I do not accept that there is any reason why those on income support should be unable to benefit from conditional fee agreements.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: In such cases, where conditional fee agreements were available, people would not be eligible for legal aid under my hon. Friend's amendment. Is that not the case?
  Mr. Vaz: Conditional fee agreements have worked in the cases that I have mentioned, and they will work. Since I took on this job, I have visited several legal aid firms. I have not come across a legal adviser who has not said that the schemes work. It is wrong to commit taxpayers' money for cases that have no chance of success. That is why we cannot accept the amendment.
  On amendment No. 99, to which the hon. Member for Surrey Heath spoke, my predecessor said in Committee that we might have sympathy with such an amendment if it were intended to do no more than signpost the fact that the Lord Chancellor had direction making powers to make exceptions to the exclusions in schedule 2, and that he could be expected to use them. Unfortunately, the amendment would not achieve that. It leaves unclear who is to define what constitutes a compelling reason. It could be the Lord Chancellor, the commission or even the applicant. As drafted, therefore, it is a recipe for confusion with all the scope that that would create for wasteful satellite litigation. In so far as it would allow the Lord Chancellor to define "compelling reasons", it is no more than a signal of our clear intentions and, as such, strictly unnecessary. The Lord Chancellor has frequently said that he will use his powers under clause 6(8) to authorise the commission to fund cases where the initial investigative costs or overall costs are exceptionally high and in cases that raise matters of wider concern.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway mentioned hardship cases. We will consult on the funding code in the autumn. People will have the opportunity to
  1010
  comment on what he described as hardship cases. The commission already has power under clause 6(8)(b) to approach the Lord Chancellor to request him to authorise funding in an individual case, although he intends, quite rightly, to use that power only very exceptionally.
  I stood at the last general election on the same manifesto as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway. There is a belief that if people are cut, they bleed but that Ministers do not, even if they are stabbed in the back. We believe as firmly as he does in the need to protect all the people that he mentioned. The proposal will not prevent anyone who is going to get legal aid from receiving legal aid. We believe that our arrangements, with our approach to the funding code, which allows consultation and means that the funding code will have to come back to this House under the affirmative resolution procedure, will give people an opportunity to put forward their cases. I would not stand here at the Dispatch Box to ensure that any of those people would not get legal aid in such cases.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: In the one minute remaining, may I say that I listened with great respect to my hon. Friend in the hope of being persuaded. I regret to say that I am not. On the core issue, the principle is still the same. The right to legal aid is being removed from the weakest in the land and in its place is being put only the possibility that they may, in individual cases, receive money from the hardship fund. I could not go into the Lobby with him on that basis and I will in due course press the amendment to a vote.
  Mr. Garnier rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question accordingly put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 291.

  Division No. 216]

  [8.44 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Clappison, James

  Allan, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Amess, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Collins, Tim

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Baldry, Tony

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Cran, James

  Bercow, John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Dafis, Cynog

  Body, Sir Richard

  Dalyell, Tam

  Boswell, Tim

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Brady, Graham

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Brazier, Julian

  Day, Stephen

  Breed, Colin

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Duncan, Alan

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Burnett, John

  Evans, Nigel

  Burns, Simon

  Faber, David

  Burstow, Paul

  Fabricant, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Fallon, Michael

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Fisher, Mark

  Chope, Christopher

  Flight, Howard

  1011

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Moore, Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fraser, Christopher

  Norman, Archie

  Gale, Roger

  ÖOpik, Lembit

  Garnier, Edward

  Ottaway, Richard

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Page, Richard

  Gibb, Nick

  Paice, James

  Gill, Christopher

  Paterson, Owen

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Pickles, Eric

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Prior, David

  Gray, James

  Randall, John

  Green, Damian

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Grieve, Dominic

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Hammond, Philip

  Ruffley, David

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hawkins, Nick

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Hayes, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  Heald, Oliver

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Horam, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Hurst, Alan

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Streeter, Gary

  Key, Robert

  Swayne, Desmond

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Syms, Robert

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Leigh, Edward

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Letwin, Oliver

  Trend, Michael

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Tyler, Paul

  Lidington, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Livingstone, Ken

  Viggers, Peter

  Livsey, Richard

  Walter, Robert

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Wardle, Charles

  Loughton, Tim

  Waterson, Nigel

  Luff, Peter

  Webb, Steve

  McDonnell, John

  Wells, Bowen

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Whittingdale, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Willetts, David

  Madel, Sir David

  Willis, Phil

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Wise, Audrey

  Maples, John

  Woodward, Shaun

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Yeo, Tim

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Mates, Michael

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins and

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Mr. Alan Simpson.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Barron, Kevin

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ainger, Nick

  Beard, Nigel

  Alexander, Douglas

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Allen, Graham

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Benton, Joe

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Betts, Clive

  Ashton, Joe

  Blackman, Liz

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Austin, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Banks, Tony

  Borrow, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  1012

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Browne, Desmond

  Grocott, Bruce

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Grogan, John

  Burden, Richard

  Gunnell, John

  Burgon, Colin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Healey, John

  Campbelt-Savours, Dale

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cann, Jamie

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Casale, Roger

  Heppell, John

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hesford, Stephen

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Chaytor, David

  Hill, Keith

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hope, Phil

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hutton, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Coleman, Iain

  Illsley, Eric

  Colman, Tony

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jamieson, David

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cousins, Jim

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cranston, Ross

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Crausby, David

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Dawson, Hilton

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Denham, John

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dobbin, Jim

  Khabra, Piara S

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kidney, David

  Doran, Frank

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dowd, Jim

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Drew, David

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lepper, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Leslie, Christopher

  Efford, Clive

  Levitt, Tom

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Flint, Caroline

  Linton, Martin

  Follett, Barbara

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lock, David

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Love, Andrew

  Foulkes, George

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Galloway, George

  McCabe, Steve

  Gapes, Mike

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Gardiner, Barry

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gerrard, Neil

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McIsaac, Shona

  Godsiff, Roger

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Goggins, Paul

  McNulty, Tony

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  1013

  McWalter, Tony

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McWilliam, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sawford, Phil

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Martlew, Eric

  Singh, Marsha

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Snape, Peter

  Miller, Andrew

  Soley, Clive

  Mitchell, Austin

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Morley, Elliot

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mountford, Kali

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mudie, George

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stott, Roger

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Norris, Dan

  Stringer, Graham

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pearson, Ian

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pendry, Tom

  Timms, Stephen

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pike, Peter L

  Todd, Mark

  Plaskitt, James

  Touhig, Don

  Pollard, Kerry

  Trickett, Jon

  Pope, Greg

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pound, Stephen

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Vaz, Keith

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Purchase, Ken

  Wareing, Robert N

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Watts, David

  Radice, Giles

  White, Brian

  Rammell, Bill

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wills, Michael

  Rooker, Jeff

  Winnick, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Woolas, Phil

  Rowlands, Ted

  Worthington, Tony

  Roy, Frank

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Ruane, Chris

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mr. David Hanson and

  Salter, Martin

  Jane Kennedy.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Schedule 3

  CRIMINAL DEFENCE SERVICE: RIGHT TO REPRESENTATION
  Amendments made: No. 45, in page 69, line 39, leave out first 'of and insert 'to'.
  No. 46, in page 69, line 42, leave out first 'of' and insert 'to'.
  No. 47, in page 70, line 3, leave out first 'of' and insert 'to'.
  No. 48, in page 70, line 5, leave out first 'of' and insert 'to'.
  No. 49, in page 70, line 6, leave out 'before a court'.
  No. 50, in page 70, line 10, leave out first 'of' and insert 'to'.
  No. 51, in page 70, line 13, leave out third 'of' and insert 'to'.
  No. 52, in page 70, line 16, leave out 'the' and insert 'any'.
  No. 53, in page 70, line 18, at end insert—
  '(6) The powers of a magistrates' court for any area under this paragraph may be exercised by a single justice of the peace for the area.
  (7) Any rules under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 which provide for the functions of a single justice under subparagraph (6) to be exercised by a justices' clerk may make different provision for different areas.'.
  No. 54, in page 70, line 21, leave out first 'of and insert 'to'.
  No. 55, in page 70, line 22, leave out 'of' and insert 'to'.
  No. 56, in page 70, line 24, leave out third 'of' and insert 'to'.
  No. 57, in page 70, line 31, leave out 'of and insert 'to'.
  No. 58, in page 70, line 32, leave out 'of' and insert 'to'.
  No. 59, in page 70, line 34, leave out 'of and insert 'to'.
  No. 60, in page 71, line 3, leave out 'of' and insert 'to'.—[Mr. Hill.]

Schedule 4
  AMENDMENTS CONSEQUENTIAL ON PART I
  Amendments made: No. 61, in page 71, line 16, at end insert—

  The Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c.19)
  .In section 50 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (meaning of "sentence"), at the end insert—
  "(3) An order under section 17 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 is not a sentence for the purposes of this Act.".'.
  No. 62, in page 71, line 23, leave out 'of' and insert 'to'.
  No. 63, in page 71, line 33, leave out 'of' and insert 'to'.
  No. 64, in page 71, line 42, leave out 'of' and insert 'to'.
  No. 65, in page 72, line 11, leave out 'of' and insert 'to'.
  No. 66, in page 73, line 40, at end insert—
  '. The Supreme Court Act 1981 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  .In section 28 (appeal by way of case stated from decisions of Crown Court, other than those relating to trial on indictment), at the end insert—
  "(4) In subsection (2)(a), the reference to a decision of the Crown Court relating to trial on indictment does not include a decision relating to an order under section 17 of the Access to Justice Act 1999."
  . In section 29 (judicial review of decisions of Crown Court, other than matters relating to trial on indictment), at the end insert—
  "(6) In subsection (3), the reference to the Crown Court's jurisdiction in matters relating to trial on indictment does not include its jurisdiction relating to orders under section 17 of the Access to Justice Act 1999.".'.
  No. 67, in page 73, line 41, leave out
  'of the Supreme Court Act 1981'.
  No. 68, in page 74, line 5, leave out 'of' and insert 'to'.
  No. 69, in page 77, line 22, at end insert—

  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37)
  . The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 has effect subject to the following amendments.
  . In section 50(2) (procedure at early administrative hearing), for paragraphs (a) to (c) substitute "the accused shall be asked whether he wishes to be granted a right to representation funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service and, if he does, the justice shall decide whether or not to grant him such a right."
  . In paragraph 3(8) of Schedule 3 (matters which may be contained in a report of an application for dismissal of charges), for paragraph (g) substitute—
  "(g) whether a right to representation funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service was granted to the accused or any of the accused."

  The Disability Rights Commission Act 1999
  . In section 8(4)(a) of the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999 (charges to recover costs of assistance in legal proceedings subject to any charge for benefit of Legal Aid Board), for the words from "under" to "Board" substitute "imposed by section 10(7) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 and any provision in, or made under, Part I of that Act for the payment of any sum to the Legal Services Commission".'.—[Mr. Hill.]
New Clause 8

  POWERS OF OMBUDSMAN
  '.—(1) Section 23 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (recommendations of the Legal Services Ombudsman) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1)(c) (written report of investigation to be sent to person with respect to whom recommendation is made), after "subsection (2)" insert "or an order under subsection (2A)".
  (3) In paragraph (e) of subsection (2) (recommendation that costs be paid by person or body to which recommendation under paragraph (c) or (d) applies), for "which a recommendation under paragraph (c) or (d) applies" substitute "pay compensation under paragraph (c) or (d)".
  (4) After that subsection insert—
  "(2A) If after completing any investigation under this Act the Ombudsman considers that, rather than recommending the taking of any action by any person or professional body under paragraph (c), (d) or (e) of subsection (2), he should make an
  1016
  order requiring the taking of that action by the person or body—

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

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

  (5) In subsections (3) and (4) (reports), after "recommendation" (in each place) insert "or order".
  (6) In subsection (6) (duty to have regard to Ombudsman's report), for "subsection (1)(b) or (c)" substitute "subsection (1)(b), (c) or (d)".
  (7) For the sidenote substitute "Recommendations and orders.".'.—[Mr. Vaz.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Vaz: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
  Government new clause 9—Funding of Ombudsman by professional bodies
  Government new clause 10—The Commissioner
  Government new clause 11—Commissioner's functions.
  Government new schedule 1—Legal services complaints commissioner
  Government amendment No. 86.
  Mr. Vaz: The Government have tabled four new clauses and a new schedule to amend the powers of the legal services ombudsman, and to establish a new post of legal services complaints commissioner. New clause 8 will amend section 23 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which established the office of the legal services ombudsman. The ombudsman currently oversees the handling of complaints against solicitors, barristers, legal executives and licensed conveyancers by the professional bodies responsible for setting and maintaining standards of conduct and service within the legal professions.
  The 1990 Act allows for new bodies to come within its remit by order of the Lord Chancellor—for example, when new bodies are authorised to grant rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation to their members. The ombudsman can investigate allegations about the way in which a professional body has handled a complaint against one of its members. Section 23 of the 1990 Act sets out what the ombudsman's powers are once an investigation has been completed. These include, in subsection (2), making recommendations to the person complained about, or to the relevant professional body, or to both. Those recommendations can include the payment of compensation to the complainant, and payment to cover the costs of making the allegation.
  Under the current legislation, the ombudsman can make recommendations to a person or professional body only about the action that should be taken. The recommendations are not enforceable. That has not caused a problem with the professional bodies hitherto: in every case since the ombudsman scheme began in 1991, the professional bodies have complied with the ombudsman's recommendations. There are, however, a few cases each year where lawyers have refused to accept such a recommendation.

  1017
  9 pm
  Under the current legislation, the ombudsman has very little power to take the matter further. She can only publicise the fact that a recommendation has not been followed—usually by taking out an advertisement in a local newspaper—and then recover from the person involved the costs that she has expended.
  The new clause will allow the ombudsman to make a binding order in cases in which she considers that appropriate, which will be enforceable through the courts. Before such a binding determination was made, however, the person or professional body would be entitled to appear before the ombudsman to make representations about the decision.
  This extension to the ombudsman's powers will be a welcome addition to her armoury of powers to tackle those who are not providing an adequate service to their clients. It should assist clients in recovering compensation that is due to them and which they would not otherwise receive. The ombudsman will not be obliged to use the powers, but the reserve power will be of value in appropriate cases. The current ombudsman, Ann Abraham, does an excellent job, and I pay tribute to her. I am sure that the extra powers will enable her to carry out her duties even more effectively in future.
  The clause also makes a minor amendment to section 23, so that the professional bodies have a duty to have regard to the conclusions and recommendations made by the ombudsman in reports. There was an error in the original drafting of section 23(6). In reality that was not a problem, as the professional bodies have always complied with the ombudsman's recommendations, but it is right to take this opportunity to clarify the legislation.
  I shall deal briefly with amendment No. 86, which repeals references in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 to consent of the Treasury being required when the Lord Chancellor determines the amount of pay and pensions for the ombudsman and her staff. That is in line with current Treasury policy.
  New clause 9 inserts a new sub-paragraph into schedule 3 to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. The schedule deals with, among other things, the remuneration, staffing and financial provisions of the office of the legal services ombudsman. The purpose of the new clause is to give the Lord Chancellor the power to require any professional body to make payments to the legal services ombudsman in respect of any of the expenses of the ombudsman. I remind the House that the current relevant professional bodies are the Bar Council, the Law Society, the Institute of Legal Executives and the Council for Licensed Conveyancers.
  The Government do not intend to use this power unless the Lord Chancellor appoints the legal services complaints commissioner; I will speak about that post in detail later. The commissioner will not be appointed unless and until the professional bodies are seen not to be making progress with their complaints systems. It is only right that if the commissioner is appointed, and therefore the professional bodies are failing, they should be required to contribute towards the body that oversees complaints handling. The practice elsewhere is for ombudsman schemes to be financed directly by the professions concerned.
  However, I reiterate that the Government would not use this power unless and until a commissioner were appointed, and then only for those bodies that were
  1018
  subject to his remit. If any professional body were liable to make payments in this regard, those payments would, of course, be proportionate to the size of the body and the number and nature of the complaints generated. The Lord Chancellor will have similar powers to require payments from the professional bodies to fund the commissioner.
  New clause 10 gives the Lord Chancellor power to appoint a legal services complaints commissioner. That is, in part, in response to hon. Members who have been pressing the Government for some time to intervene in the handling of complaints about the legal professions, in particular the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. My predecessor and I have received many complaints including those from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport; the right hon. Member for South?West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley); the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce); my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), and the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). I should point out, however, that the commissioner will not be brought into being by the passing of the Bill. The clause simply gives the Lord Chancellor the power to set up the post, if and when it is necessary. I will explain the reasons for this later.
  The commissioner will have powers to intervene effectively to improve standards of complaints handling by the legal professional bodies. New clause 11—in particular, subsection (2)—sets out in detail the functions and the powers of the commissioner. In addition to the investigatory powers specified in subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b), the commissioner will have powers to make recommendations about the arrangements for the handling of complaints and any aspect of complaints handling. The commissioner will also have powers to impose targets on the authorised bodies for the handling of complaints. Those targets could include the timeliness of the handling of complaints; customer perceptions of the complaints system; and perhaps targets for training lawyers in complaints handling.
  Subsection (2)(e) gives the commissioner power to require a professional body to produce a plan setting out how it intends to improve its complaints handling performance to meet such targets. If a professional body fails to submit such a plan when required to do so by the commissioner, or, having submitted such a plan, it fails to handle complaints in accordance with it, subsection (3) gives the commissioner the power to levy fines on that body.
  Subsection (4) provides that, where the commissioner requires a professional body to pay a penalty, he shall afford the body a reasonable opportunity of appearing before him to make representations. It will be for the House to decide, if and when the commissioner is set up, what the penalty should be.
  The new post will be financed by a levy on the authorised bodies. I will set out the background which I believe justifies these measures. The provisions on the legal services complaints commissioner will, however, come into force only if it appears to the Lord Chancellor that complaints about members of any professional body are not being handled effectively and efficiently. The Lord Chancellor would use those powers only after a great deal of thought and with a great deal of reluctance. We have not spelt out in the legislation precisely the circumstances in which the Lord Chancellor might use those powers. It is impossible to predict all the circumstances in which the

  1019
  public interest might be best served by using these powers. But the professional bodies will, rightly, wish to know what performance is expected of them.
  First, I can assure the House that the Lord Chancellor has no plans to use these powers within 18 months of Royal Assent. In particular, he will want to see the annual report of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors for the calendar year 2000 in spring 2001. These are reserve powers and we wish to give the OSS in particular the opportunity to put its house in order. I shall shortly be seeing the director of the OSS. I know that the Law Society recently published a report from Ernst and Young which set out a blueprint for a more efficient system of dealing with complaints against solicitors.
  Secondly, we intend to tell the professional bodies about the sort of performance that would ensure that the Government will not use these powers. We will meet representatives of the Law Society and the other professional bodies during the next few months to find out how they view their present performance and what improvements might reasonably be expected. In the light of those consultations, the Government will give their view on what performance would persuade the Lord Chancellor not to use his powers.
  These consultations will principally concern the Law Society, which is by far the largest professional body and which generates by far the largest volume of complaints. But we will also consult the Bar Council, the Institute of Legal Executives and the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, to whom the legislation equally applies. We will involve the legal services ombudsman in this process because of her considerable knowledge of complaints procedures and the professional bodies' performance.
  It may be helpful if I explain the background to our proposal to take those powers. The OSS, which is an integral part of the Law Society and which has been set up to deal with complaints of inadequate professional service and complaints of misconduct against solicitors, is at present failing to deal adequately with complaints of inadequate professional service. There is a backlog of 9,000 complaints, and it is increasing.
  Complaints are not allocated to a case officer for six months. The OSS is the most recent attempt by the Law Society to get its complaints systems right. Like the previous attempts—most notably, the Solicitors Complaints Bureau—it has not been seen to deliver any sustained improvement and there is a good deal of public concern. As I said earlier, certain members of the House are well aware of that and have written to me on behalf of constituents who are extremely concerned by their dealings with OSS. Indeed, the matter has been raised on the Floor of the House at Question Time.
  There are arguments that the Government should put the regulation of the legal professions on a statutory basis, perhaps similar to that of the Financial Services Authority or the Immigration Services Commissioner proposed in the Immigration and Asylum Bill. The Government do not accept that argument. Self-regulation remains the best option for the legal professions, whose members must at times oppose the Government strenuously in pursuit of citizens' rights.
  1020
  Nevertheless, there is a public interest in the efficient handling of complaints by the legal professional bodies. That is why the independent legal services ombudsman was set up by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. Although the ombudsman can and does make general recommendations to the legal professional bodies on their complaints handling arrangements, the office exists principally to ensure that individual complaints are effectively dealt with. Its primary remit is to examine and adjudicate on appeals by dissatisfied complainants from the complaints mechanisms of the legal professional bodies. That arrangement is no longer enough. That is why we are introducing legislation to make provision for the new body.
  There are signs that the Law Society wants to put its own house in order. A new scheme for the handling of complaints has been put together by the OSS. The Law Society has also recently increased the budget for the OSS. We are not proposing to appoint a commissioner, and therefore bring those powers into force, unless and until an authorised body is clearly failing to make substantial progress in improving its complaints record. We believe those proposals will encourage the Law Society to ensure that the profession makes real improvements in complaints handling.
  Turning to the detail of the new clause, our view is that, in practice, the new post, if it is necessary to bring it into force, is likely to be held by the person holding the office of the legal services ombudsman, because the commissioner's role overlaps with some functions of the ombudsman. For that reason, the legislation mirrors the provisions in the 1990 Act relating to the appointment of the ombudsman.
  As in the 1990 Act, the proposed legislation provides for the commissioner to be appointed for not more than three years, in accordance with the Nolan guidelines. The commissioner shall be eligible for reappointment on conclusion of that term. As in the 1990 Act, the commissioner may not be a member of the legal profession so that the public can be assured of the impartiality of the postholder. The new clause also gives effect to a new schedule, which makes further provision about practical arrangements of the commissioner's office.
  Hon. Members may be concerned that we have introduced these powers to the Bill at a relatively late stage; that is why I have explained the proposals in details. My justification for doing so is that the deterioration in the performance of the OSS has become far more marked recently, and it has recently become clear that the legal services ombudsman will signal to the Lord Chancellor in her annual report at the end of this month that the OSS has not made sufficient progress.
  In my view, it would be wrong not to act immediately because we have a clearly appropriate legislative vehicle. The new powers will help to achieve better performance in the handling of complaints, which I know is the aim of the Law Society and the other professional bodies. They are proportionate, appropriate and timely and will be welcomed by the Members of the House and the public at large.
  Mr. Garnier: As the Minister said so disarmingly and candidly a moment ago, the new proposals are late, and have been submitted to the public gaze only over the past

  1021
  10 days or so. I acquit the Minister of presenting them late, because he joined the Department only recently. Moreover, he was courteous enough to invite my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and me to his office last week so that we could go through some of the new clauses and amendments that the Government were proposing to table.
  9.15 pm
  Having acquitted the Minister, however, I cannot acquit the Government of not having come to the aid of the public before now. I am not at all convinced that enough has changed between December—when the Bill was introduced in the other place—and now to make the Government's delay acceptable. It is fair to say that the Minister's predecessor trailed on Second Reading decisions about the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors but I am not persuaded that enough has happened since then to allow for such a delay.
  It is fortunate that new clauses 8, 9, 10 and 11 are largely uncontroversial. None the less, it is the duty of an Opposition, and certainly the duty of the House as a whole, to examine carefully amendments to Government legislation that are tabled so late. I therefore propose to take a little look at the new clauses.
  I listened carefully to what the Minister said about new clause 8. I understand that it gives the legal services ombudsman power to make binding decisions, rather than merely recommending that individual lawyers or professional bodies take particular action.
  Although the ombudsman does not at present have power to order solicitors—or other lawyers—or their professional bodies to pay compensation to clients, the ombudsman does have power to require them to place advertisements, at their own expense, publicising the ombudsman's decision. I understand from solicitors that that is an unreal and unsatisfactory situation, and that it would be far more straightforward, and more useful to the lay client concerned, for the ombudsman to have direct power to make binding orders, rather than simply having a power to embarrass the lawyer or professional body.
  The Minister said that the situation at the OSS had changed—had deteriorated—since the Bill first came to public notice. I could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of complaints that I have received in my constituency about the quality of service provided by solicitors since becoming a Member of Parliament in April 1992.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: That is not my experience.
  Mr. Garnier: I appreciate that others may have had different experiences. The hon. Member for Dismore—[Interruption.] Perhaps I should call him Mr. Hendon. Anyway, the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) has clearly had a wholly different experience. Last week, he and I were at a meeting with the director of the OSS, Mr. Peter Ross, at which the hon. Gentleman painted a picture very different from the one that I knew. It was clear that my experience during seven or eight years here differed greatly from his during the two or three years since his election.
  1022
  I appreciate that different Members of Parliament will tell different stories. What I ask the Minister is this: what is his evidence—actual evidence, as opposed to simple assertion—that the position changed so dramatically between the beginning of the year and now that it was appropriate to table the new clauses last week?
  New clause 9 is intended to enable the Lord Chancellor to require any professional body to make payments towards the cost of meeting the functions of the ombudsman. At present, those functions are funded by moneys provided by Parliament.
  The purpose of new clause 9 is to enable the Lord Chancellor to recover from the professional bodies concerned the costs of operating the new functions proposed for the legal services complaints commissioner should it be decided to make such an appointment. The provision for a legal services complaints commissioner and his or her functions are, as the Minister explained, stated in new clauses 10 and 11.
  The Opposition say that it is important that the Bill should make it clear that the power to recover costs is intended to apply only to the new functions. At the very least, it is important that the Government should state their plans for the operation of new clause 9. In any case there is some doubt about the appropriateness of the new clause.
  Does the Minister agree that meeting the costs of the ombudsman and of the proposed complaints commissioner—I agree that there is some debate on whether the same human being should fill both posts, or whether the posts should be filled by two people—out of moneys provided by Parliament, rather than by levying the professional associations, would help to reinforce the independence of the two offices? Recovering costs from the professional bodies would—or at least could—give rise to the public perception that the ombudsman was not wholly independent of them.
  Some people argue that making the professional bodies pay towards the ombudsman's costs would be consistent with the approach taken in other spheres—for example, in the case of the insurance ombudsman. However, that is a false analogy. The insurance ombudsman is the first tier for complaints about individual insurance companies, and the same applies to other ombudsmen in the financial services sector.
  The professions already meet the full costs of first-tier complaints. In the case of the Law Society, the profession spends more than £11 million annually on the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. The legal services ombudsman is a second-tier structure, designed to provide additional public assurance about the operation of the profession's complaints-handling mechanism. It is far more appropriate for such a scheme to be paid for from moneys provided by Parliament than for it to be funded by the professional bodies. I trust that the Minister will be able to help me in addressing my concerns on that issue.
  New clause 11 would enable the Lord Chancellor to ask the legal services complaints commissioner to exercise new powers concerning professional bodies. The powers would include setting targets on the handling of complaints, and requiring professional bodies to pay a penalty when they failed to handle complaints effectively.
  I understand the argument that it is in the public interest that there should be some means of ensuring that the ways in which the professional bodies handle complaints meet reasonable public needs. There is, indeed, a strong case

  1023
  for providing similar assurances for some of the services that the Government themselves provide directly to the public. I also recognise that the concern underlying new clause 11 has arisen primarily from the difficulty that the OSS has encountered in keeping pace with its increased work load.
  As I said, the Law Society already spends £11.6 million annually—about £150 for every practising solicitor—on the OSS. As the Minister said, last February, the Law Society commissioned Ernst and Young, the management consultants, to undertake a review of the OSS's work and to suggest ways forward. The review has now been completed, and paints a very clear picture of how a more effective and efficient complaints-handling system could be achieved. The hon. Member for Hendon and I discussed that matter at our meeting with the director of the OSS.
  Later this week, as a first step, the council of the Law Society will be asked to approve a further £5.7 million of expenditure that is designed to enable the OSS to get on top of its work load.
  Paradoxically, the increased volume of complaints at the OSS comes at a time when the standard of client care provided by the profession as a whole has—I think indisputably—been steadily improving. Solicitors generally take far more care than they did a few years ago to ensure that clients are aware of likely costs at the outset, and that they are informed of progress on their matter. A whole new culture seems to have developed around the way in which legal advisers, both at the Bar and in the solicitors' profession, treat their clients, and that is much to be welcomed.
  Nevertheless, complaints—and the costs of dealing with them—have risen, for two main reasons: increased client expectations about the type of service that they can expect from solicitors; and much-improved information from solicitors about clients' avenues of complaint.
  The Law Society tells me that it recognises that there is still some way to go in bringing all solicitors up to the level of the majority in their dealings with their clients. Another matter that came out at the meeting that the hon. Member for Hendon and I attended last week was that we are talking about a small minority of rotten apples in what is otherwise a well-regulated and well-conducted profession. I notice that the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) is here. He was also at the meeting, and I hope that he will be able to confirm what I say. That small number of malefactors brings not just solicitors but the whole legal profession into disrepute. I understand the public's concerns and the need for the Government to do something to assuage them.
  The Law Society's continuing efforts in education, together with ensuring that appropriate penalties are imposed on those who let the profession down, are the way forward. Dealing with complaints more efficiently requires effort to reduce the number of complaints and to ensure appropriate prioritisation among those that need to be dealt with. Improved client care, including complaints handling by individual solicitors, can reduce the burden on the OSS. The legal profession should deal with complaints early and follow the example of the three major acute hospitals that serve the Minister's constituency and mine by persuading the complaining
  1024
  client or a member of their family that there are two sides to the argument and that it is possible to admit a mistake without admitting legal liability. The way in which a complaint is initially handled can often save a lot of time and money. I trust that solicitors and barristers will increasingly take a more conciliatory attitude towards those who complain about them and that the somewhat draconian measures that the Government are proposing may not need to be implemented.
  The new clause provides for a penalty to be imposed on professional bodies if they fail to provide a satisfactory plan or to deal with complaints in accordance with it. I am instructed by the Law Society that it doubts whether that is appropriate. In any event, the Bill should specify the penalty that might be imposed. I use the term "instructed" because it slips easily from my lips. In my day job, to which I admitted at the start of our debates, I have the advantage—whether my clients consider it such is another matter—of being instructed by solicitors. It simply means that I am provided with information by them. The Law Society has told me about the concern that I am raising. It is only right that the House should take that into account when considering the new clauses. The Minister may be able to give us some help on those concerns.
  I do not intend to debate new schedule 1 or amendment No. 86 and I do not invite the House to disagree with the proposals. However, I chide the Government, if not the Minister, for taking until June 1999 to come up with wording for new clauses which, with a little industry, could have been in the Bill when it was published, or at least introduced in Committee.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Kidney: I shall not detain the House for long. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his position and wish him a long and distinguished career in government. I also declare a slight interest as a non-practising solicitor, as mentioned in the Register of Members' Interests.
  I welcome the new clauses. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gander) mentioned last week's meeting with the director of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. I was there too, so I know that it was a very cosy meeting. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked for evidence to support the late tabling of the amendments and asked why they could not have been drafted earlier.
  It is certainly a breaking story that the Law Society is proving unable to deal with the number of complaints that are made against professionals. We must first go back to the OSS report for the 16 months to the end of December last year. It shows the staggering fact that just over 75,000 solicitors generated more than 44,000 new matters for the OSS to deal with. At the time of the Standing Committee, we heard the rumour that the ombudsman's report this year would say that the OSS was not coping with the present level of new complaints. This week sees the publication of the Ernst and Young report that was commissioned by the Law Society, which paints the chilling picture that the OSS is receiving more new complaints than it is resolving old ones, so there is a great crisis in the handling of complaints.

  1025
  I have personal experience in my constituency of the dissatisfied complainant. Although there are not huge numbers of complaints about solicitors in Stafford, we certainly have a persistent complainant who showed me an example of very poor complaint handling by the predecessor of the OSS and the previous ombudsman.
  It is important to give members of the public—that is who the complainants are—confidence in solicitors as a profession. They must feel that complaints are dealt with properly and that the Law Society is accountable for dealing with them.
  Some of my hon. Friends have tabled an early-day motion in which they seek statutory regulation of the legal profession. They say that there is too great a conflict of interests for the Law Society to deal with complaints. I do not share their view that the Law Society is in some way collaborating with the OSS to support solicitors and do down complainants. In fact, the Ernst and Young report shows that the Law Society has walked away from the OSS, taking its guarantee of independence far too strongly and leaving it to its own devices and unable to cope with the demand on its services. If there is a criticism to be made of the Law Society, it is that it has taken too little interest in, and under-resourced, the OSS.
  I welcome the threat that the new clauses present to the Law Society—telling it to put in order complaints against solicitors. As the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said, a small minority of solicitors are producing a large number of complaints. The Ernst and Young report talks of 1 per cent. of all solicitors producing 10 per cent. of complaints. If that is what it takes, there should be a sword of Damocles hanging over solicitors—that they will pay a penalty for failing to deal with complaints and will pay for the commissioner coming in to impose a system for dealing with complaints in a timely manner.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on introducing the new clauses. I hope that members of the Law Society will recognise that they are certainly in the last chance saloon. This is their last opportunity to clean up their act and deal with complaints in the way that we and every member of the public would expect them to.
  Mr. Vaz: Having wished me a long and distinguished ministerial career, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) has made me redundant. He eloquently put the case that I intended to make, so I really do not have to speak for very long. Having said that, in parliamentary terms that means that I will speak for just a little longer.
  Things are getting worse. The backlog is now 9,000, it takes six months to allocate a case, and new cases are arising at the rate of 90 a week. It is right that, in the first instance, we should leave it to the Law Society and the professional bodies to regulate themselves. The Government are sometimes accused, unfairly, by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) of seeking to take too many powers. The point is that we are not exercising this power because we believe that the Law Society ought to be left to put its own house in order. That is why we welcome the Ernst and Young report, which points a way for the Law Society. There is a commitment for the Law Society to spend an additional £5.7 million on this issue.
  I appear to be the only person involved in the debate who was not at the meeting with Mr. Peter Ross. I feel left out and neglected. I say to the hon. and learned
  1026
  Member for Harborough that he has done his bit in trying to publicise the work of the OSS. He was the host at the launch by the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors of a new hotline for Members of Parliament to ring, and he has been tenacious in his desire to ensure that these matters are publicised.
  We can help members of the public by making sure that they know how to make their complaints. The commissioner—if he or she is appointed—will seek to help firms of solicitors put in place appropriate methods of handling complaints. Like the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, I have not had many constituents complaining to me about solicitors. I think that they go to other agencies to do that. However, they must be complaining to somebody, otherwise there would not be a backlog of 9,000. We are leaving the matter up to the Law Society. We are asking it to read the Ernst and Young report, which it commissioned, and to act on it. We want to work with the Law Society, and we will not compel it to do anything until we know what is happening. That is the right way forward.
  It is right that the professional bodies should pay. They do not have to pay now, and they will not have to pay until the scheme is brought into effect. However, there are precedents for ombudsmen being paid for by those they seek to regulate. It is right that they should be in that position because they are the professional body dealing with those matters. They have a unique opportunity.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford talked about drinking at the last chance saloon. I am a teetotaller, and I do not indulge in such activities. However, the Government want the Law Society to succeed. We desperately want the Law Society to make this work—for itself, for the reputation of our profession and for the public at large. We will give the Law Society the opportunity to succeed. If it wants us to help, it should come and talk to us. That is why I will see Mr. Ross in the near future. His role is important in trying to make sure that the problem is solved.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said, we are doing this now because the report of the ombudsman is coming out soon. Frankly, this is an appropriate legislative vehicle. We cannot just magic out of Committee a new Bill to deal with one specific issue. This is an opportunity. The Lord Chancellor, who is a listening Lord Chancellor, has decided that he will not take the power now. There is to be an 18-month wait, and we will see how it goes. Matters will then be reported back to the House in the appropriate way.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9

  FUNDING OF OMBUDSMAN BY PROFESSIONAL BODIES
  '. In paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (financial provisions relating to Legal Services Ombudsman), for sub-paragraph (1) (Ombudsman's expenses to be defrayed by Lord Chancellor) substitute—
  "(1) The Lord Chancellor may require any professional body (within the meaning of section 22 of this Act) to make payments of such amount as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate to the Ombudsman towards meeting the expenditure incurred (or to be incurred) by him in the discharge of his functions.

  1027
  (1A) To the extent that that expenditure is not met by payments under sub-paragraph (1), it shall be met by the Lord Chancellor out of money provided by Parliament.".'.—[Mr. Vaz.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10

  THE COMMISSIONER
  '.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may appoint a person as Legal Services Complaints Commissioner.
  (2) Any appointment of a person as Commissioner shall be for a period of not more than three years; and a person appointed as Commissioner shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
  (3) At the end of his term of appointment the Commissioner shall be eligible for re-appointment.
  (4) The Commissioner shall not be an authorised advocate, authorised litigator, licensed conveyancer or authorised practitioner (within the meaning of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990) or a notary.
  (5) Schedule (Legal Services Complaints Commissioner) (which makes further provision about the Commissioner) has effect.'.—[Mr. Vaz.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  (7) A penalty under subsection (3) shall be paid to the Commissioner who shall pay it to the Lord Chancellor.
  (8) Where a direction under subsection (1) in relation to a professional body has been given (and not revoked), section 24(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (power of Legal Services Ombudsman to make recommendations about arrangements for investigation of complaints) shall not have effect in relation to the body.
  (9) No order shall be made under subsection (5) unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
  (10) In this section "professional body" has the same meaning as in section 22 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.'.—[Mr. Vaz.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  (5) No provision included in rules by virtue of subsection (1), and no other provision of rules made by the Council about practising certificates, shall have effect unless approved by the Lord Chancellor.
  (6) The Council shall provide the Lord Chancellor with such information as he may reasonably require for deciding whether to approve any provision of rules made by the Council about practising certificates.'.—[Mr. Vaz.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Vaz: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government new
  clause 7—Fees for solicitor's practicing certificates.
  Mr. Vaz: The new clauses relate to practising certificates for barristers and solicitors. Most solicitors are already required to hold practising certificates under the Solicitors Act 1974. The certificates, which are renewed annually, are evidence that the solicitor is properly qualified, and that he or she has abided by the various requirements placed on solicitors, such as having satisfactory insurance arrangements and having paid their dues to the Law Society.
  New clause 6 enables the General Council of the Bar for the first time ever to require barristers to hold and pay for practising certificates on a similar basis. It also limits the purposes to which the Bar Council may apply the income that it receives from practising certificates, which will effectively be compulsory subscriptions.
  The Law Society already has a statutory power to levy fees for practising certificates, but there is currently no statutory restriction on the society's use of its compulsory fee income. New clause 7 enables the Lord Chancellor to limit the purposes for which the Law Society may apply fee income from practising certificates.
  The Government believe that it is right for a regulatory body to be able to charge compulsory fees to those whom it regulates. The Opposition tabled an amendment in another place that would have enabled the Bar Council to charge compulsory fees. That amendment was flawed, but my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor said that active consideration would be given to tabling a suitable amendment at a later stage.
  The Bar Council carries out a regulatory function in relation to barristers, which is comparable to that exercised by the Law Society in relation to solicitors but, unlike the Law Society, the Bar Council has no statutory power to enforce the payment of subscription fees by its members. It is estimated by the Bar Council that 10 per cent. of practising barristers currently do not pay their subscription fees. The Government agree that it is unfair that some barristers should not contribute to the costs of the regulation from which all barristers benefit.
  The new clause will also enable the Bar Council to require barristers to pay what amounts to a training levy to support pupil barristers or to provide other training. At present, many new barristers, after attending the Bar vocational course and being called to the Bar, are unable to obtain pupillages, and their careers fall at the first fence.
  The Government hope that the Bar Council will choose to exercise its new power. It should be a potent means of ensuring more meritocratic entry to the Bar, which suffers from an excessively middle-class image. In short, it is not at present open to all the talents.
  The Dearing review made it clear that individuals and professions should be expected to pay for such postgraduate vocational training. At present, neither the year in which the professional qualification is gained, nor the pupillage year, is grant aided. That operates as a powerful deterrent against entering the profession for people from ordinary backgrounds.
  Mr. Grieve: I have no objection to the new clause, but I would not want it to go unsaid that, as the Bar currently operates, a large number of chambers supply substantial grants to their pupils to help them to complete their pupillage year.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is right to remind us that they do that, and it is not only wealthy personages who are able to come here and become barristers. Those training opportunities are very important. I believe that the funding would help to ensure for the future that more people not from privileged backgrounds are able to rise to success at the Bar.
  On the detail of the clause, subsection (1) will enable the Bar Council to make rules requiring the payment of compulsory fees for practising certificates for those barristers who provide legal services to the public or to an employer. Subsection (2) provides that the rules on practising certificates may set different fee levels for different classes of barrister, for example according to whether they are employed, non-practising or in private practice or according to the length of time since they were called to the Bar. Subsection (2) also provides that the total amount of money generated from the payment of those fees should not exceed the Bar Council's total expenditure on the regulation, education and training of barristers and would-be barristers.
  The Government have considered whether the total amount of fees from compulsory subscriptions should also be available for use on what might be described as the Bar Council's trade union activities. Our view is that they should not. The Government have no intention of creating a closed shop, requiring individual barristers to fund activities which they may not support and may, in fact, be contrary to their interests. Of course, it will be open to the Bar Council to raise money from barristers on a voluntary basis for those purposes, but the days of pre-entry closed shops are ended for trade unions and should not apply to other bodies either.
  Nevertheless, the Government accept that there may be other purposes for which it would be appropriate for the Bar Council to use money generated from subscriptions. In considering that possibility, the Government would be guided by the wider public interest. Subsections (3) and (4) therefore enable the Lord Chancellor to add by order to the purposes in subsection (2). The order would be subject to prior consultation with the Bar Council and to affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament.
  Subsection (5) requires that the Bar Council's rules on practising certificates be made with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor who, under subsection (6), may, when deciding whether to approve such rules, request additional information from the Bar Council.
  The chairman of the Bar Council, Dan Brennan, has welcomed the proposed introduction of new clause 6. His view is that the clause
  "safeguards the income that is essential to our work in regulating the profession in the public interest, and will protect the future of high calibre training and education for the Bar. It is appropriate in our view that all members of the Bar, who enjoy the benefits and services which the Bar Council provides, should pay their fair share of the cost incurred in providing these services."
  I want to place on the record the Government's thanks to Dan Brennan and the Bar Council for all the work they have done to facilitate the formulation of this change.
  On new clause 7, at present, under section 11(3) of the Solicitors Act 1974, fee income may be applied in any manner that the Law Society may think fit. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), who is in his place, tabled an amendment that

  1031
  sought to apply the same restrictions to the Law Society as the Government intend to apply to the Bar. That would have had the effect that practising certificate fees could be used only for the regulation, education and training of solicitors. A large number of other hon. Members expressed their support for the purpose of that amendment. In replying, my predecessor, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), said that there was a strong case for such a restriction, but that the Government needed to consider the position carefully before disturbing an arrangement that had been in place for many years.
  The Government's initial view, which they conveyed to the Law Society, was that the restriction should be imposed in the same way as for the Bar Council. As I explained in relation to the new clause on Bar practising certificates, our belief is that it is right in principle to define how a professional body may spend money generated from compulsory subscriptions. The Government therefore support a restriction. I am aware that many solicitors would welcome such a move and feel that it would help to ensure that the Law Society remained answerable to the profession. Furthermore, there is a strong argument that the Law Society should be placed on an equal footing with the Bar Council.
  Mr. Kidney: I was not one of the large number of hon. Members who expressed support for the new clause in Standing Committee. The new clause would limit what the Law Society could spend its members' money on. At its best, the legal profession is effective in its communication, fearless in its independence and passionate in its defence of liberty and democracy. If the Law Society used those skills in defence of an existing law that the Government wanted to change or to promote a law reform that the Government resisted to such an extent that it became embarrassing for the Government, will my hon. Friend assure me that that would not be a reason for the Government to exercise the power proposed in the new clause?
  Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend should wait to hear what I have to say, but I can assure him that we have thought very carefully about the matter. The challenge is as much for the Law Society as for any other organisation. There is no question of trying to prevent the Law Society from doing what it wants to do. However, it is right that it should put up a case for the way in which that income should be spent.
  There was pressure on the Government to introduce the power in the new clause immediately, and that pressure was evident in the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for, Test. We did not do so, because we listened carefully to what the Law Society had to say. Indeed, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor met the president of the Law Society, Mr. Michael Mathews, to discuss the Government's position. I was present at that meeting.
  Mr. Mathews made some extremely important and useful points at the meeting, some of which related to what my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said, and some of which have been incorporated in new clause 7. I want to thank Mr. Mathews for the cool, intelligent and thoughtful way in which he approached this issue and deployed his arguments.
  1032
  As a result, the Government accept that immediate change could be disruptive and unhelpful. We have taken into consideration the full flexibility that the Law Society currently enjoys in the use of its income. The new clause therefore makes no immediate change to the position of the Law Society, but enables Parliament to decide what restriction might be appropriate when the Government—and the Law Society—have had time to consider the issues fully.
  Indeed, that debate has started already. It is not for me to intrude on the Law Society's private arrangements, but candidates in the on-going presidential election have rightly started to debate this matter already, albeit in rather colourful language.
  We have asked the Law Society to state, within the next 18 months, what activities it believes should be paid for out of compulsory fee income and what activities should be properly funded on a voluntary basis. Therefore, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, the challenge is with the Law Society. The Government would be prepared to consider proposals that went beyond the regulation, education and training of solicitors if they were clearly in the public interest or had the overwhelming support of Law Society members. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor would then be in a position to put fully considered proposals to Parliament.
  It is perfectly possible that Parliament may decide to allow the Law Society to raise fees for a wider range of activities than is currently proposed for the Bar Council.
  Mr. Grieve: In a sense, the Minister has already answered my question. A little while ago, he said that he was intending to put the Law Society on the same footing as the Bar Council. However, a comparison of the minutiae of new clauses 6 and 7 shows that that will not happen unless or until the order has been laid before Parliament.
  Mr. Vaz: When the hon. Gentleman looks at Hansard tomorrow, he will see that I did not say that. I said that that was one of the options. He was too busy chatting to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) to give proper consideration to what I was saying. I said that the Government will be prepared to consider the proposals, which went beyond the regulation, education and training of solicitors, if that was clearly in the public interest and if the overwhelming majority of Law Society members favoured such a scheme. I added that it is perfectly possible that Parliament may decide to allow the Law Society to raise fees for a wider range of activities than is at present proposed for the Bar Council. The new clause on Bar practising certificates would enable Parliament to place the Bar's use of fees on the same basis, if that were considered to be the proper outcome.
  Subsection (1) of new clause 7 enables the Lord Chancellor to make an order to amend section 11(3) of the Solicitors Act 1974 to restrict the purposes for which the Law Society may apply its fee income. That would leave the regulation, education and training of solicitors, and would-be solicitors, at an irreducible minimum. Subsection (1) would also enable the Lord Chancellor to add to those purposes other purposes that are considered appropriate.
  Subsection (2) requires that any order made by the Lord Chancellor should be subject to prior consultation with the Law Society and the Master of the Rolls, and to approval by affirmative resolution of both Houses of

  1033
  Parliament. I hope that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) are reassured that those processes will have to be completed before the matter is finally determined.
  The Government cannot support a situation in which Law Society members are compelled to join a closed shop in order to practise. At the same time, we have no wish to stifle the many useful functions that the society currently performs in the public interest. The Government have listened to the Law Society's concerns and to the issues raised by hon. Members. The clause is an appropriate means of dealing with them and I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Garnier: I shall be brief because the timetable motion requires the debate to finish by 10.15 pm. My brevity should not be taken as wholehearted support for what the Government are doing.
  The chairman of the Bar may well have wanted new clause 6, but I suspect that he wanted it for reasons different from the Minister's. It would be interesting to compare the words of Mr. Daniel Brennan with those of the Minister to see whether they matched.
  Mr. Vaz: They were his words.
  Mr. Garnier: They were not only his words. I dare say that the Minister used some of Mr. Brennan's words, but he also used his own, or at least those of his civil servants, which he may have read for the first time this afternoon.
  New clauses 6 and 7 cause me concern. New clause 7 seems to be a direct consequence of the Law Society's advertising campaign in March and April, when the Lord Chancellor was stung into conducting a rather ill-tempered debate on Radio 4's "Today" programme. He used fairly intemperate language either in a discussion with Mr. Mathews, the president of the Law Society, or shortly after Mr. Mathews had spoken on the radio.
  New clause 7 is the result of pique. It has been produced by a Government and a Lord Chancellor who will brook no criticism. The Lord Chancellor is not prepared to have debated in public any matter of which he disapproves. He—like the Government—finds it uncomfortable to be disagreed with. New clause 7 is the result, introduced out of pique.
  Mr. Vaz: The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely obsessed with the Lord Chancellor. I shall arrange a meeting for him so that he may see that the Lord Chancellor cares deeply for the professions. None of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said about the Lord Chancellor fits my noble Friend. The hon. and learned Gentleman can take my word for it that new clause 7 has nothing to do with any Law Society advertising campaign.
  10 pm
  Mr. Garnier: I believe that the Minister believes that to be the case, but I do not accept that it is credible. No one who heard the Lord Chancellor, or saw his reactions to the advertising campaign, could marry up the arrival of new clause 7, or the threat of such a clause, with what the Minister says. I do not doubt his sincerity or that he believes what he has just told us, but he is being naive.
  1034
  I have a further complaint about new clause 7, because it could amount to a denial of freedom of expression. Article 10 of the European convention on human rights, to which the Government attach so much importance that they passed the Human Rights Act 1998, allows freedom of expression. If solicitors, through their Law Society, wish to express themselves in a way that is antipathetic to the Government's policies, what right have the Government to intervene to stop them? That is the hidden agenda, if not the effect, of new clause 7, and it is much to be deprecated.
  We are used, of course, to this Government bullying and arrogantly trying to wish their demands on the population. We are used to their ignoring Parliament and we have become used in discussing the Access to Justice Bill to them giving themselves and the Lord Chancellor huge executive powers through secondary legislation, some by negative and some by positive resolution. This coat-hanger Bill gives the Lord Chancellor huge executive powers. The new clause is yet another example, introduced at a late stage. It is reasonable to comment on the fact that we know that the motive for introducing it is quite different from what the Minister fondly believes. That is much to be deprecated. I shall not press it to a vote, bearing in mind the time, but it is right to signal our disapproval of how the Government go about such things, as evidenced by new clause 7.
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) in welcoming my hon. Friend the Minister to his new duties. I wish him a long and adventurous career in his new post. I also need to declare an indirect interest. I think that I am almost unique in the Chamber in not being a lawyer.
  Mr. Martin Linton: No.
  Dr. Whitehead: There is one other non-lawyer. However, my wife is a salaried local authority lawyer and does a very good job.
  Far from giving rise to the concern expressed by the Opposition, new clause 7 results directly from new clause 22, which I tabled in Committee. I commend the Minister for putting into the new clause the principle that I advanced in Committee. As he pointed out, section 11(3) of the Solicitors Act 1974 states:
  "All fees received by the Society under subsection (1) shall be applied in such manner as the Society may think fit for the purposes of the Society".
  Each year, that fee is charged for a practising certificate. The Law Society has the sanction of the law to charge it. Lawyers are required to pay it even if they do not join the Law Society, and the society can add various levies to it that are also enforceable by law. As far as I know, that is unique. No other professional society, trade union or organisation has such a power enforceable in law in the United Kingdom. I cannot believe that that is right.
  I can believe that it is right and admirable that the Law Society charges a fee for the good work that it does. Everyone accepts that it does good work in setting professional standards, maintaining them, training the profession and, above all, regulating it. Those are wholly appropriate things for which to charge a fee, but the society should not have a power in law to do anything else that it wants to. It has been suggested that to say that

  1035
  this unique position needs to be examined is somehow an attack on the raison d'être of the Law Society. That is nonsense. It is within the power of any society to levy a charge on its members for purposes for which it wishes to raise money. Indeed, I imagine that that is what, after discussion, the Law Society will do.
  Mr. Dismore: We heard some talk earlier of the Law Society's anti-legal aid reform campaign. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the Law Society is not the only trade union operating in the legal profession. I am a member of the GMB, which is recognised by a number of law firms. If the GMB had been so stupid as to try to run a similar campaign, it would have had to pay for it out of its political fund, which is the subject of a separate ballot of members, a right to opt out and a separate levy identified as part of the subscription.
  Does my hon. Friend agree that it is peculiar that the Conservative party justifies the position of the Law Society under the present arrangements, bearing in mind the strong attitude that it took when in government to trade union political funds?
  Dr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point that I do not now need to make. It is suggested that the Law Society has immunities, privileges and powers in law that are not available to trade unions and which have been the subject of extensive debate in the House. Yet restrictions on trade unions' powers in this respect were advocated by the Conservative party.
  In summary, the reason why I tabled the proposal in Committee was to bring to the Government's attention the principle that the Law Society should not be above the law, as it were. The Law Society should be subject to the same conditions as are assumed to apply to other professional societies. I am glad that the Government have discussed that suggestion with the Law Society. I am pleased to hear that the Law Society has listened carefully to it and appears to be willing to discuss with the Government exactly how such changes might be made.
  So the conclusion to the new clause is a happy one. Somewhat to my surprise, I have had a postbag containing letters from solicitors who think that this is a long overdue reform which puts right a wrong that they perceived to be inherent in the Solicitors Act 1974. Despite the protestations of various solicitors, I think that we will eventually achieve a method of regulation for both the Law Society and the Bar Council, which are similar; this anomaly will be rectified, and it will be done in a civilised and straightforward way. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on putting the principle of what I suggested into a new clause and amendments which will work in the interests of all concerned in a way guaranteed to enhance the legal profession rather than to preserve indefensible anomalies.
  Mr. Burnett: In view of the time, I shall make just a few points about new clause 7. It is deeply to be regretted that the Bill time and time again operates to arrogate more powers to the Lord Chancellor. Is there no area of the law that the Lord Chancellor does not seek to control and dominate? He is a prominent and powerful member of the Executive and the legislature, and he is the senior judge
  1036
  in the land. He now seeks to undermine the independence of the Law Society, taking powers to take control of many of its affairs.
  I have had the privilege of serving on the Law Society's revenue law committee for some 12 years. In opposition and in government, Labour Members have had every reason to be grateful to that specialist committee and to the other specialists committees of the Law Society, which do excellent work in the public interest. That is an example of one sphere of the work of the Law Society over which the Lord Chancellor wants to take control.
  It is fundamental to the constitution of any free country that the legal profession be independent. Liberal Democrats strongly oppose new clause 7; it is a vindictive measure against the Law Society for, rightly—I stress, rightly—opposing the removal of legal aid for personal injury cases. The measure will save no money and will prejudice the poor and the vulnerable.
  Mr. Vaz: Goodness gracious, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know what has become of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). Where has he been? What has he been taking? There is no reason to get all worked up about this measure. We are not doing anything to the Law Society; we have merely put a challenge to the society that it should justify its use of compulsory fees, over and above what we have proposed. There is plenty of time for people to consult, to put up a case and to put forward their views.
  At the moment, the hon. Gentleman is busy discussing tactics with the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we introduced the measures because we believed it right to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) made several points—incidentally, I too pay tribute to my hon. Friend's wife; I am sure that she does an excellent job. He raised the whole issue of whether the measure seems to conflict with the European convention on human rights. It could be argued that an unfettered power to raise compulsory subscriptions conflicts with that fundamental human rights convention.
  As to whether the measure is a vindictive act in a great conspiracy in which we sit in darkened rooms in the House plotting the downfall of the Law Society—that is, of course, rubbish. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough reminds me of the character from the film "In the Line of Fire" who is obsessed by a particular person. If we broke into his upstairs room, we should see cuttings of the Lord Chancellor pasted on the walls of that darkened room. The fact is that the new clauses are carefully thought out; as my hon. Friend the Member for Test said, they have received widespread support. I am certain that they will be welcomed.
  I know that the Bar welcomes the new clauses. Members of the Bar have a responsibility, and they too face a challenge. At my last meeting with the chairman and the vice-chairman of the Bar—the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) is a former member of the Bar Council and will be aware that it has been campaigning for these changes for many years—they were happy to rise to the challenge and to put forward a case.
  Of course, the Bar and the Law Society still have access to voluntary funds and will be able to use them to fund the activities that have been referred to. As I have made clear, nothing will happen for 18 months. They will have an

  1037
  opportunity to put up a case and to rise to the challenge. I am confident that all the articulate, intelligent, clever and hard working members of the Law Society and the Bar Council will be able to enter a dialogue with the Government. That is all we seek to do.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7

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

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

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

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

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

  (b) a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Vaz.]

  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4
  CODE OF CONDUCT
  '. In the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, after section 39 insert—

  Code of conduct for members etc
  39A.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may prepare a code of conduct to be observed by—

  (a) members of magistrates' courts committees; and

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

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

  Noncompliance with code
  39B.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may make an order under subsection (2) below if he is of the opinion that—

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

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

  has, without reasonable excuse, failed to observe the code.

  (2) An order under this subsection shall state that the Lord Chancellor is of the opinion mentioned in subsection (1) above and may provide either or both of the following—

  (a) that, on the making of the order, the person is to cease to be a member of the committee or selection panel
  1038
  concerned or to cease to be such a member for a specified period; or

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

  (3) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision for the purpose of establishing whether persons have failed to observe the code.
  (4) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by virtue of subsection (3) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'.—[Mr. Vaz.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

  RECOVERY WHERE BODY UNDERTAKES TO MEET COSTS LIABILITIES
  '.—(1) This section applies where a body of a prescribed description undertakes to meet (in accordance with arrangements satisfying prescribed conditions) liabilities which members of the body or other persons who are parties to proceedings may incur to pay the costs of other parties to the proceedings.
  (2) If in any of the proceedings a costs order is made in favour of any of the members or other persons, the costs payable to him may, subject to subsection (3) and (in the case of court proceedings) to rules of court, include an additional amount in respect of any provision made by or on behalf of the body in connection with the proceedings against the risk of having to meet such liabilities.
  (3) But the additional amount shall not exceed a sum determined in a prescribed manner; and there may, in particular, be prescribed as a manner of determination one which takes into account the likely cost to the member or other person of the premium of an insurance policy against the risk of incurring a liability to pay the costs of other parties to the proceedings.
  (4) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Lord Chancellor by statutory instrument; and a statutory instrument containing such regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (5) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, prescribe as a description of body one which is for the time being approved by the Lord Chancellor or by a prescribed person.'.
  '.—(1) This section applies where a body of a prescribed description undertakes to meet (in accordance with arrangements satisfying prescribed conditions) liabilities which members of the body or other persons who are parties to proceedings may incur to pay the costs of other parties to the proceedings.
  (2) If in any of the proceedings a costs order is made in favour of any of the members or other persons, the costs payable to him may, subject to subsection (3) and (in the case of court proceedings) to rules of court, include an additional amount in respect of any provision made by or on behalf of the body in connection with the proceedings against the risk of having to meet such liabilities.
  (3) But the additional amount shall not exceed a sum determined in a prescribed manner; and there may, in particular, be prescribed as a manner of determination one which takes into account the likely cost to the member or other person of the premium of an insurance policy against the risk of incurring a liability to pay the costs of other parties to the proceedings.
  (4) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Lord Chancellor by statutory instrument; and a statutory instrument containing such regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (5) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, prescribe as a description of body one which is for the time being approved by the Lord Chancellor or by a prescribed person.'.—[Mr. Vaz.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
  10.15 pm
  MR DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

New Clause 12

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

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

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

  the coroner shall, in the absence of any exceptional reason to the contrary, adjourn the inquest and, if a jury has been summoned, may, if he thinks fit, discharge them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  (6) Where a coroner does not resume an inquest which he has adjourned in compliance with subsection (1) above, he shall (without prejudice to subsection (2) above) send to the registrar of deaths a certificate under his hand stating any findings of the public inquiry in relation to the death."
  (2) In section 8(4) of that Act (power to summon jury), for "either before he proceeds to hold an inquest" substitute "before he proceeds to hold an inquest, on resuming an inquest begun with a jury after the inquest has been adjourned and the jury discharged".
  (3) In the sidenote to section 16 of that Act (adjournment of inquest in certain cases), for "certain cases" substitute "event of criminal proceedings".'.—[Mr. Vaz.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 14

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

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

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

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

  "relevant international court" means—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  (7) A statutory instrument containing an order made under subsection (5) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Vaz.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 1
  SCHEDULE

    LEGAL SERVICES COMPLAINTS COMMISSIONER
    Provision for discharge of functions
    1.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may give general directions concerning the discharge of the functions of the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner.
    (2) Any such directions shall be published by the Lord Chancellor in such manner as appears to him to be appropriate.
    (3) Subject to any such direction and to the provisions of this Act, the Commissioner may make such provision as he considers appropriate for the discharge of his functions.

    Delegation of functions
    2.—(1) The Commissioner may delegate any of his functions to such members of his staff as he thinks fit.
    (2) All reports prepared by or on behalf of the Commissioner must be signed by him.

    Remuneration
    3.—(1) The Lord Chancellor shall pay to, or in respect of, the Commissioner such amounts—

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

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

    (2) If—

    (a) the Commissioner ceases to hold office, and

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

    the Lord Chancellor may pay to him such sum as the Lord Chancellor may determine.

    Staff
    4.—(1) The Commissioner may appoint such staff as he thinks necessary for the discharge of his functions.
    (2) Appointments shall be made by the Commissioner on such terms and conditions (including terms as to pensions, allowances and gratuities) as he may, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, determine.
    (3) The reference in sub?paragraph (2) to pensions, allowances or gratuities includes a reference to pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation to or in respect of any of the Commissioner's staff who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments.

    Annual and other reports
    5.—(1)The Commissioner shall make an annual report to the Lord Chancellor on the discharge of his functions during the year to which the report relates.
    (2) The Commissioner may, in addition, report to the Lord Chancellor at any time on any matter relating to the discharge of the Commissioner's functions.
    (3) The Commissioner shall provide the Lord Chancellor with such information relating to the discharge of his functions as the Lord Chancellor may see fit to require.
    (4) The Lord Chancellor shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of any annual report made to him under sub-paragraph (1).

    Accounts and audit
    6.—(1) The Commissioner shall keep accounts with respect to his receipts and expenditure and shall prepare a statement of accounts with respect to each financial year.
    (2) The accounts shall be kept, and the statement of accounts prepared, in such form as the Lord Chancellor may, with the approval of the Treasury, direct.
    (3) The accounts shall be audited by persons appointed by the Lord Chancellor in respect of each financial year.
    (4) The auditors shall send to the Lord Chancellor a copy of the statement of accounts and of their report.
    (5) The Lord Chancellor shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of every statement of accounts and auditors' report sent to him under this paragraph.

    Financial provisions
    7.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may require any professional body in relation to which a direction under section (Commissioner's functions) of this Act has been given (and not revoked) to make payments of such amounts as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate to the Commissioner towards meeting the expenditure incurred (or to be incurred) by him in the discharge of his functions.
    (2) To the extent that that expenditure is not met by payments under sub?paragraph (1), it shall be met by the Lord Chancellor out of money provided by Parliament.
    (3) The Commissioner may, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, pay fees or allowances to any person who, in the Commissioner's opinion, is qualified to assist him in the discharge of his functions and who so assists him.

    Parliamentary disqualification
    8. In Part III of Schedule 1 to—

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

    (b) the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975,

    (disqualifying offices), insert (at the appropriate place in alphabetical order)—

    "The Legal Services Complaints Commissioner."

    Parliamentary Commissioner
    9. In Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (which lists the bodies subject to the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner), insert (at the appropriate place in alphabetical order)—
    "The Legal Services Complaints Commissioner."

    Acting Commissioner
    10.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may appoint a person to exercise the functions of the Commissioner where—

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

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

    (2) A person so appointed shall have the powers of the Commissioner but shall act only in accordance with the terms on which he is appointed.
    (3) The Lord Chancellor may pay to any person so appointed such remuneration as he may determine.'.—[Mr. Vaz.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  Clause 27

    CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENTS
    Mr. Vaz: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 18, line 14, after
    'but', insert (subject to subsection (5))'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 24 to 32.
    Mr. Vaz: This group of amendments consists largely of technical amendments, either to ensure that new sections contained in clause 27 have the effect intended, or to make consequential drafting changes to amendments made earlier in the Bill's passage through Parliament.
    I shall deal first with amendments Nos. 23 and 26. Part of the purpose of the changes that we have made to definitions of what constitutes a conditional fee agreement is to bring into statute two decisions of the courts from last year. The two cases in question are Thai Trading Co. v Taylor and Bevan Ashford v. Yeandle. The full implications of the two judgments have been set out earlier in the Bill's passage and are described in the explanatory notes, so I will not recite them again at this hour. However, the present draft of the proposed section 58 in clause 27 goes further than simply taking those judgments into statute. It would have the effect of making unlawful agreements that are otherwise sanctioned by statute, known as non-contentious business agreements.
    This type of fee agreement is intended to provide a way that lawyers can offer to work for clients who have business that will not come, or is unlikely to come, before the courts. There are very many services that lawyers undertake other than litigation in the courts, and the way in which they choose to offer their services—particularly the way in which their fees are calculated—was never intended to be encompassed by the provision in clause 27.
    In moving the amendment, I recognise that there is great disquiet that non-contentious business agreements are used to allow solicitors to offer to undertake cases before the employment tribunals on the basis of a contingency fee. Contingency fees are payable only if the client is successful and are calculated solely by reference to the amount of the award made by the tribunal. They allow the lawyer to share in the proceeds of the action. This kind of fee would be unlawful and unenforceable if it were used to fund a case before the courts. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has clearly set out his views: he does not believe that that kind of a fee should be used in employment tribunals. It is a quirk of the law that the work of this tribunal falls within the definition of non-contentious work.
    The Government will be considering further whether such fees should be lawful in the employment tribunal as part of a review of the practices, rules and procedures of all tribunals that is designed to ensure that they meet the requirements of European Union law and comply with European convention rights. As regards the employment tribunal, it will inevitably require consideration of the present provisions that do not allow the award of legal costs—except in exceptional circumstances—to successful parties.
    I think that I can deal fairly quickly with amendments Nos. 24, 25, 27, 29 and 31, which are to the same effect as those urged on the Government in Committee by the
    1044
    hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier)— I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber to hear me lavish praise upon him. He sought a change in the proposed sections 58 and 58A of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 in clause 27 of the Bill. He asked—in a most eloquent manner—that, in place of the term "enhanced fees", we use the term most usually adopted to describe the additional payment due under a conditional fee agreement in the event of success: namely, a "success fee".
    In committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) said that he had considerable sympathy with the hon. and learned Gentleman and agreed to seek parliamentary counsel's views. It was 11 May, and clearly a good day for the hon. and learned Member for Harborough because we accepted two of his proposals. As far as parliamentary counsel can see, it is possible to replace the term "enhanced fee" with "success fee". The change does not alter the substance, only the terminology.
    Amendment No. 28 is little more than a drafting amendment, and follows on from changes made earlier in the Bill's passage to the new section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 contained in clause 27.
    In response to concerns about the definition of the parties to a conditional fee agreement, which largely drew on the present definition in section 58(1), the proposed section 58(2)(a) was amended in another place. This subsection as currently drafted defines conditional fees solely in terms of the provider of services under the agreement, not the consumer. The subsection therefore encompasses the kind of collective agreements that membership organisations are likely to use when securing legal services on behalf of members. Amendment No. 28 to new section 58A(6) will ensure consistency with the revised section 58(2)(a).
    Finally, amendments Nos. 30 and 32 are technical amendments to bring the language of the two clauses into line with the changes in name brought about by the introduction of the civil procedural rules on 26 April 1999.
    I commend the amendments to the House.
    Mr. Hawkins: In the temporary absence of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), it would be churlish if I did not acknowledge the praise lavished on him by the Minister. We spoke on another occasion about the fact that the term "garnishee order" is familiar to all lawyers. I know that the Minister referred to this as the Garnier amendment.
    I am delighted that the Government have accepted the suggestions of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough. The Bill has undoubtedly been improved, as the term "success fee" will be more readily understood than the phrase "enhanced fee", which was open to possible misinterpretation.
    On thanking the Minister earlier for his congratulations and welcome to me, I omitted to welcome him to his new post, as so many other hon. Members have done. May I remedy that omission by welcoming him warmly? I know that we shall have many amenable exchanges, even though we may disagree on some points of substance.
    Mr. Burnett: I have made my views on conditional fee agreements known on many occasions during the passage of the Bill. Such agreements are riven with conflicts of

    1045
    interest. Does the Minister believe that it should be incumbent on any solicitor acting in a conditional fee agreement to disclose that to the solicitor to the other side—not just the existence of the conditional fee agreement, but the amount or the extent of the uplift in such an agreement?
    Mr. Vaz: If the solicitor wishes to do so, I do not see why he or she should not.
    Mr. Burnett: I am grateful to the Minister. Does he agree that it should be compulsory to make such a disclosure?
    Mr. Vaz: The detail of whether or not that should be incumbent on a solicitor will, I hope, be one of the issues considered in the consultation process during the summer months. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks will be taken into consideration. I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman is back to his usual statesmanlike approach.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: I shall intervene briefly, as this is the only part of the discussion that is directly linked to conditional and success fees. I declare an interest. It is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests that I gave expert depositions in some civil liability cases in the United States, where I have seen the most appalling misuse of the courts process by lawyers.
    I must be a little careful, as one case is still running. It has been said by others that there has been appalling misuse of the legal process by people who have enormous sums to gain. I do not think that that will happen to the same extent in this country.
    I have a brother-in-law who is one of the pro bono solicitors who have been willing to take on cases that most others would not because their lawyer firms have a tradition of doing such work. The idea that we will find sufficient solicitors able to take on conditional fee work in such a way that will replace present legal aid is wrong. I have a current case in my constituency of an elderly woman, who is not the kind who wants to go money grubbing after an accident, who is finding it difficult to find a solicitor to take on her case.
    I am not saying that all that would be solved by the amendment and I understand the sincerity of what the Minister has put forward, but many debates on amendments on Report are not just about what is going into present law but are about putting down markers for the next change.
    What we are being asked to approve in terms of change to legal aid and the further opening up of success fees and conditional fees will have some benefit. In some ways it will help to restrict the unrestricted growth of legal aid. But it will also have many penalties and consequences which I hope that the Government will monitor. If they do that in association with the professional bodies, there will be much more to gain the next time the House returns to the subject. At the moment, few people would argue that consideration is fully satisfactory.
    Mr. Vaz: I thank the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) for his thoughtful and valuable contribution which was sincerely felt. He may have misunderstood the system in America. It has an advanced
    1046
    case of contingency fees, as opposed to conditional fees, which is what Britain has. I, too, have similar reservations to contingency fees being used, but not to conditional fees. These arrangements have proved successful and they can focus the client and the solicitor on issues in a much more productive way. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Lord Chancellor and I would not be proposing the changes if we were not satisfied that the agreements do work and will work. However, I shall certainly take on board the thoughts that the hon. Gentleman has expressed today.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 24, in page 18, line 22, leave out 'enhanced fees' and insert 'a success fee'.
    No. 25, in page 18, line 37, leave out 'enhanced fees' and insert 'a success fee'.
    No. 26, in page 18, line 47, at end insert—
    '(5) If a conditional fee agreement is an agreement to which section 57 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (non-contentious business agreements between solicitor and client) applies, subsection (1) shall not make it unenforceable.'. [Mr. Hill.]
    Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 98, in page 19, line 3, after 'proceedings', insert
    'save those brought under Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990'.
    This is an important amendment. I hope that the House will bear with me if I take a little time to explain why not only we, but the Law Society and the crucial campaigning charitable organisation, Shelter, think so too. We hope to persuade the Minister and the Government that, even if they cannot accept the amendment today, they can, nevertheless, reflect on it further.
    The Law Society strongly supports the amendment. It is intended to ensure that the decision of the Court of Appeal in Thai Trading Co. v. Taylor, reported in The Times on 6 March 1998, to which the Minister referred briefly when dealing with the previous group of amendments, is incorporated in full. The Court of Appeal's decision in that case overruled a previous decision of the divisional court in British Waterways Board v. Norman. It thus permits legal representatives to act in housing disrepair cases in magistrates courts for tenants of low means.
    All hon. Members will be well aware of the crucial importance of housing disrepair cases involving tenants of low means. Many of us have acted in such cases during our own legal practice and, even more so, non-lawyers will have had such cases referred to them in their constituency surgeries.
    10.30 pm
    Legal aid is not available to such tenants because proceedings under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 are technically criminal proceedings; they therefore rely on lawyers who are prepared to work on their behalf on a speculative basis. The exclusion of all criminal proceedings from Thai Trading-type conditional fees thus bars those speculative arrangements. That is why we, as well as Shelter and the Law Society, think that the present position is unwise and unhelpful. The amendment would ensure that the rights given by Parliament in the 1990 Act, which was introduced by the previous Conservative Government, are not effectively removed by the Bill.

    1047
    The Law Society points out—this is bound to be of concern to Members on both sides of the House, but perhaps to Government Back Benchers in particular—that, without that change being made, it will be not at all clear whether the Minister can properly confirm, as he and the Lord Chancellor have sought to do, that the Bill will comply with our obligations under the European convention on human rights. That is also our view.
    The Government have incorporated the European convention on human rights into British law and they have to certify that every Act of Parliament will comply with it. That includes the Bill, but we respectfully agree with the Law Society that the Lord Chancellor and the Minister may have grave difficulty in certifying that, unless the amendment is accepted. A similar amendment moved by Lord Goodhart in the other place was withdrawn only after the Government said that they would consider the issue further and, if appropriate, table their own amendment. We therefore find it somewhat surprising that they are not prepared to accept our amendment, or table one very similar, today.
    I was a member of the Standing Committee, which debated amendment No. 49 on the afternoon of 4 May. The Minister's predecessor—the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon)—said that he could not accept an amendment that would make public funds available for representation for summary complaints, which are technically criminal proceedings because they require a complaint to a magistrates court to be issued. He argued that the risk of costs not being paid by a defendant was slight and went on to say:
    "I believe that other methods of funding such as no-win, no-fee agreements of the type that we constantly discuss can be used and the non-availability of legal aid does not prevent a complainant from taking a reasonable case to court."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 4 May 1999; c. 160.]
    It was, therefore, with considerable surprise that members of the Law Society heard the then Minister say in Committee:
    "We believe that it would be imprudent, and possibly unjust, to make a single exception of that kind without fuller consideration of all the issues of the principle and practice raised by doing so."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 11 May 1999; c. 256.]
    The Law Society says that it is not clear why the Government so changed their approach in the week between 4 May and 11 May, and assumes that some lobbying or some departmental interventions might have taken place. Who can say? Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us. However, the consequence is that, unless the amendment is accepted, Parliament will give people a right to take action in respect of housing disrepair and certain other nuisances even though it intends to deny those affected the means to enforce their rights.
    Sadly, tenants of houses in disrepair are, by definition, likely to be of limited means. As the Minister must know from his constituency case work, it is extremely rare for such tenants to have the means to fund the legal cost of taking enforcement action. Magistrates court proceedings are an effective means of securing a remedy in such cases. The Law Society rightly says that tenants usually rely on solicitors being willing to take a case in the knowledge that, if unsuccessful, the tenant will be unable to pay their costs.
    1048
    Many such cases are taken by law centres, and the Government are rightly at pains to say how much they support them. As the Minister knows, law centres are not allowed to charge their clients. Legal aid has never been available for such proceedings. Many may be entitled to free legal advice under the green form scheme, but as the Minister well knows, that cannot cover representation in court proceedings.
    The Government propose to clear up any doubt about whether solicitors can act on such a basis by giving statutory force to the Court of Appeal's decision in respect of Thai Trading. That is very welcome. However, the bar on such agreements in criminal proceedings rules out their availability, and the Act will make them unenforceable unless it is changed.
    As the issue raises considerable implications relating to the European convention on human rights—Parliament is expressly prohibiting the only kind of arrangement whereby such actions could be funded—the rights given to tenants under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 by the last Government would become meaningless. The Bill is called the Access to Justice Bill, but, as the Law Society rightly says, there will be no access to justice for such tenants if it is left unamended. Certainly the Government would be very unwise if, in a Bill that they have entitled the Access to Justice Bill, they denied access to justice in a way that has previously applied.
    In Thai Trading Co v. Taylor, the Court of Appeal expressly overruled the decision of the divisional court in British Waterways v. Norman, which was itself a housing disrepair case. In that case it was held that, in effect, solicitors could not recover costs in successful cases when they had acted speculatively. We want the Government to think again.
    I found it particularly moving that a fax briefing that I received from Shelter on this matter drew attention—it was blocked in black—to the fact that Shelter's president had been the late great Cardinal Hume, to whom Members on both sides of the House have paid tribute, and who will be sadly missed in this country. I hope very much that, in tribute to Cardinal Hume if for no other reason, the Government will pay careful attention to what the organisation of which he was president for many years has said about clause 27.
    Shelter is absolutely committed to supporting our amendment. It points out that it
    "provides a range of legal services for people with housing problems",
    and that its advisers
    "provide legal advice and assistance on housing matters through our nationwide network on housing aid centres."
    It has
    "a legal team with a wealth of experience of taking housing cases through the legal system."
    It considers the amendment to be vital. It points out that its clients
    "are often disadvantaged citizens in urgent housing need,
    and says:
    "It is vital that such people have access to justice and that their cases are dealt with speedily by the courts."

    1049
    As Shelter says,
    "Section 82 prosecutions provide",
    currently,
    "a vital remedy for many of our clients, particularly in the social housing sector"—
    I am sure that that is important in the constituencies of the vast majority of hon. Members—
    "who otherwise have no effective means of combating conditions that may jeopardise the health of their families."
    Shelter's housing aid centres deal with numerous cases of that kind every year, helping clients to bring prosecutions when, for example, unscrupulous landlords fail to deal with condensation, dampness or unsafe electrical circuitry. Shelter says:
    "Without legal aid or conditional fee agreements to fund these cases, many of them would not be brought."
    Shelter says that it hoped that the Government would
    "return to its original thinking on this issue by restoring the position to that following the Court of Appeal's judgment in Thai Trading Co v Taylor by making a suitable amendment to the Courts and Legal Services Act during the passage of the Access to Justice Bill."
    That, it says, was its understanding—as well as the Law Society's understanding—of the statement made by the Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Ashfield, in Committee on 11 May.
    Shelter does not accept the Government's argument—nor do I, and nor do my hon. Friends—that an exception should not be made to the general principle that conditional fee agreements are not appropriate in criminal proceedings. It says:
    "By neither making legal aid available nor allowing conditional fees to fund these cases, many of our clients will be denied access to justice and essential works to improve their living conditions will not be carried out."
    This is an important matter, and I strenuously urge the Minister to think again. If he cannot do so tonight, it is still not too late for the Government to indicate firmly that they intend to correct the position. It is not too late for them to accept our amendment—or a very similar proposal—to ensure that people have the opportunity to bring vital cases, and that the rights that they have enjoyed since the Conservative Government's 1990 Act will continue.
    Mr. Vaz: I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) for his kind comments, although we should now draw a line under all the congratulations from both sides of the House—or, in 100 years, people reading today's Hansard might think that there was something of a love-in going on. His congratulations, for which I thank him, must be the end of it. I thank him also for moving amendment No. 98 in the way that he has—although I had to pinch myself, as I never thought that I would see the day when a Conservative Front-Bench spokesman quoted Shelter in defence of his case.
    As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said, the amendment would allow conditional fee agreements to be used in bringing criminal prosecutions under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
    A similar amendment was tabled in Committee. As my predecessor said then, section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides for summary criminal proceedings by someone complaining of a statutory nuisance. Proceedings under section 82 are criminal
    1050
    proceedings. As such, in principle, they would be excluded under the general exception in section 58(10) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 of criminal proceedings from proceedings in which conditional fees may be used.
    I accept that part of the effect of the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Thai Trading Co. v. Taylor—a case decided last year, in which the Court of Appeal ruled that lawyers may agree with their clients that they will charge less than their normal fees, or no fee at all, if they are unsuccessful on behalf of their client—was to approve the use of conditional fee agreements in cases under section 82.
    As the House will know, the decision in Thai Trading overturned an earlier decision, in the case of British Waterways Board v. Norman. In the latter case, an agreement between the solicitor and the client that, if the prosecution under section 82 were unsuccessful, the solicitor would not seek to recover costs against the client was held to be unlawful and unenforceable.
    The question, therefore, is whether, in bringing the effect of the decision in Thai Trading into statute, we should reflect that decision in its entirety or make it subject to the general principle that conditional fees, with or without enhanced fees, may not be used in criminal proceedings.
    There had been some concern, in Committee and elsewhere, about the need to restrict the scope of conditional fee agreements. For that reason, having given the matter very careful thought—and I mean very careful thought; I am sympathetic to what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said—we have concluded that it would not be right to breach the general principle that conditional fees are not appropriate in criminal proceedings.
    Amendment No. 98 proposes a single exception for criminal cases under section 82 of the EPA. There is nothing unique about that provision. There may well be provisions elsewhere in the criminal law with similar effect so that conditional fees might be a possibility. If we are to consider breaching the general principle, it is important that that is undertaken on a logical basis and is not piecemeal. Moreover, such a breach can be undertaken only after very careful thought about the impact of conditional fees—regardless of whether enhanced fees are being sought—in the criminal justice process.
    The Government do not believe that such a careful consideration of the issues is possible in the time that the Bill will be considered by the House. We believe that it would be most inappropriate, and possibly unjust, to make a single exception of that type.
    The hon. Member for Surrey Heath should not look so sad, because the Government are not unsympathetic to the concerns that lie behind the amendment or to concerns that tenants should be able to ensure that statutory nuisances are dealt with. However, we have to balance those concerns with the potential effect of allowing conditional fees in criminal cases.
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: I understand the argument that my hon. Friend the Minister is making, but perhaps I could press him on one matter. How does he anticipate that those rather important cases brought under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will be financed in future?
    10.45 pm
    Mr. Vaz: In the way in which they are financed at present. Several agencies, including law centres, could help people in that position. My hon. Friend does not have to press me too much, because we are sympathetic, but we do not feel that it is appropriate to breach the general principle now.
    I do not accept that the Bill would result in people ceasing to have access to the remedy afforded by section 82. Those with a strong case will continue to be able to prosecute successfully the person or body causing the statutory nuisance and to obtain a costs order in their favour, perhaps using the agencies that I have mentioned. There may be other remedies in the civil courts that they could pursue, for which conditional fees would be available. The procedures put in place by all local authorities that allow their tenants to have defects to their property put right remain.
    The issue is raised in my constituency case bag and I am sure that other hon. Members have the same experience. I have set out the Government's view. We are not unsympathetic to the points that have been made, but we are concerned that if we breach the general principle, we shall find ourselves in all kinds of difficulty. In view of the sympathetic comments that I have made, I invite the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to withdraw the amendment.
    Mr. Hawkins: I thank the Minister for expressing sympathy with the principles of the points that I have made and with the comments of the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas), who is also concerned about the matter. The Minister has promised to continue to look at the issue carefully, and has said that the Government may find another legislative opportunity soon to deal with that and other aspects of the criminal law to allay the concerns of the Law Society and organisations such as Shelter. In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: No. 27, in page 19, line 25, leave out 'enhanced fees' and insert 'a success fee'.
    No. 28, in page 19, line 38, leave out from beginning to 'any' in line 42 and insert
    'A costs order made in any proceedings may, subject in the case of court proceedings to rules of court, include provision requiring the payment of'.
    No. 29, in page 19, line 43, leave out
    'the payment of enhanced fees'
    and insert 'a success fee'.
    No. 30, in page 19, line 45, leave out 'taxing' and insert 'assessment'.
    No. 31, in page 19, line 47, leave out
    'the payment of enhanced fees'
    and insert 'a success fee'.—[Mr. Vaz.]

  Clause 28
    LITIGATION FUNDING AGREEMENTS
    Amendment made: No. 32, in page 21, line 19, leave out 'taxing' and insert 'assessment'.—[Mr. Vaz.]
  Clause 32

    RECIPIENTS OF DISABILITY WORKING ALLOWANCE
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 22, line 4, leave out 'disability working allowance' and insert 'disabled person's tax credit'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 82.
    The Solicitor?General: These technical amendments arise from the inter-relationship between this Bill and the Tax Credits Bill. As currently drafted, clause 32 of this Bill amends the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 to allow advice and assistance to be provided, without a means test or contributions, to recipients of disability working allowance. That is already the case for recipients of family credit. It is also already the case for recipients of both benefits in England and Wales.
    The Tax Credits Bill, which we considered earlier today, provides for family credit and disability working allowance to be replaced by the working families tax credit and the disabled persons tax credit. That Bill also makes consequential amendments, including to the 1986 Act in relation to family credit.
    Amendment No. 33 replaces the term "disability working allowance" with the term "disabled person's tax credit" in clause 32. Amendment No. 82 is a transitional provision to allow for the possibility that this Bill will come into force before the Tax Credits Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 36

    RIGHTS OF AUDIENCE: EMPLOYED ADVOCATES
    Mr. Vaz: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 24, line 31, leave out 'an advocate,' and insert
    'a Crown Prosecutor or in any other description of employment,'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 35 to 37.
    Mr. Vaz: The purpose of the amendments is to clarify the drafting of clause 36, which enables all employed advocates, including Crown Prosecutors, to appear as advocates in the higher courts if otherwise qualified to do so. It disapplies any professional rules designed to prevent them from exercising rights of audience because of their status as employed advocates.
    Amendments Nos. 34 and 37 make it clear that the clause applies to all employed lawyers, not solely to those employed principally as advocates. If suitably qualified, an employed lawyer may exercise rights of audience on even the most occasional basis.
    Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 clarify an issue that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor addressed in another place. The word "capacity" in subsection (2)(a) could be interpreted as enabling an employed advocate to offer their services direct to the public or to the clients of their employers, as distinct from their employers themselves.

    1053
    Although the Government do not rule out that option in future, as the Lord Chancellor has explained, it is not our intention to authorise that development by means of this clause. The word "capacity"—as the amendments now make clear—was intended to strike down those professional rules which prevent an employed lawyer from appearing as the sole or leading advocate in a substantive case on behalf of his employer.
    This is an important clause and is at the heart of the Government's policy on rights of audience. The amendments will help to ensure that the policy cannot be misinterpreted or mistaken.
    Mr. Hawkins: It gives me great pleasure to respond to the Minister's helpful clarification of the amendments. As I declared in Committee, when I spoke from the Back Benches, I am a former chairman of the corporate counsels' organisation—the Bar Association for Commerce, Finance and Industry—and in that capacity I welcomed the Government's long-awaited removal of the bar on employed counsel and employed lawyers generally appearing in court on behalf of their employers. It is something for which the organisation that I used to chair campaigned for many years and it is a welcome change.
    Some will wish the Government to go even further, and I am grateful to the Minister for indicating that they may be prepared to do so in future legislation, but at this stage the employed Bar generally has got a great deal of what it has long sought.
    I think I am right in saying that I am the first corporate counsel ever to be either a Minister or a shadow Minister in any of the legal Departments, and it is therefore with a sense of humility that I speak in that capacity from the Front Bench. Having campaigned for these changes for many years, as a committee member and during my chairmanship of the Bar Association for Commerce, Finance and Industry, I have particular pleasure in welcoming them and the helpful clarification that the Minister has given this evening.
    Mr. Dismore: I very much welcome the amendments, particularly those extending rights of audience to employed advocates, particularly solicitors. I am pleased that the clause as amended would get rid of restrictive qualifications, regulations and rules of conduct, but in this context I would highlight the rules relating to court dress, particularly wigs. Unless we have equality of court dress between different advocates there is a risk that although rights of audience may be extended, judges and those trying cases will discriminate between one variety of advocate and another. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister to address that issue.
    Mr. Burnett: We support the amendments and the increased rights of audience for the Crown Prosecution Service. In some parts of the country, notably Cornwall, the CPS has enjoyed rights of audience in Crown courts for many years. We also welcome clause 41, which is applicable to all exercising rights of audience, providing for an overriding duty to the court to act with independence in the interests of justice.
    1054
    The Minister will be aware, however, that we oppose a state defender system. Can he confirm to the House that at the very least the Crown Prosecution Service and the criminal defence service should not come under the aegis of the same Department of State?
    Mr. Grieve: The Government are addressing two matters in these amendments. First, they have sought to clarify that employed advocates should appear only on behalf of the person or group employing them and should not sell their services. I am sure that the Minister will find common ground with us in approving of that clarification.
    On the second issue, I have one reservation to raise. I do so conscious of the fact that it could also apply to anyone who practises infrequently, whether or not they are employed. The whole thrust of the amendment to allow employed advocates to practise is on the basis that large numbers of highly qualified, employed people are not practising in solicitors' firms or at the Bar, but have all the requisite qualifications to appear in court and should therefore not be denied the opportunity of doing so.
    With the change of emphasis introduced by the Parliamentary Secretary and the removal of the word "advocate", it has become quite clear that anyone who may, at one time, have obtained the qualification required to become a barrister or solicitor and who has continued to pay their subscription will be able to appear in court—even if an interval of 30 years has elapsed since they previously did so.
    It can equally be said that that problem may arise with people who purport to have practised at the Bar or to have worked for a firm of solicitors and who may not have appeared in court during that period. However, there has at least been the merit of a certain amount of self-regulation or self-criticism within the solicitors' and barristers' profession, which may tend to make it less likely that such people would appear long after their qualifications had become redundant.
    The amendment has highlighted the fact that there may well be individuals who will be able, quite easily, to exercise a right of audience in future, claiming all the panoply—including whatever robes may happen to be advocated by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore)—to appear in court, when they are massively poorly qualified to do so, and in circumstances where their employer may not have any capacity to scrutinise their ability to present a case properly.
    If we are to go down this road, we will have to start thinking creatively about continuous assessment for barristers and solicitors. Once we get to the point which the Parliamentary Secretary has advocated and almost welcomed, real difficulties will be seen to arise with people who have the nominal qualification, but one that is so old and unused and is being deployed on behalf of so uncritical a client that it will bring the professional qualification into disrepute.
    Mr. Garnier: I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one question. Is it the Government's intention—it may be made clear elsewhere in the Bill—to allow employed lawyers to appear in court on behalf of third parties; that is, for people other than their employer? [Interruption.]

    1055
    The Solicitor-General appears to be saying no. If that is the case, I will be satisfied. However, the language of the amendments was not as clear as it might have been, although it became marginally clearer as I listened to the Minister, However, the amendments do not deal with the point that I have addressed. If the Minister can give that simple assurance, I will be most grateful.
    Mr. Vaz: I am happy to give the hon. and learned Gentleman that assurance.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on his genius in bringing up wigs in the middle of discussions on this amendment. He is incredibly frustrated because his amendments were not called, and he is trying to tempt me down the road of court dress, to which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) also alluded. I will not go down that road. My hon. Friend and I can have many happy discussions about wigs, but there is no change at the moment.
    The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) is trying to drive a wedge between my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and me. My hon. and learned Friend is responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service, and the Lord Chancellor will be responsible for the criminal defence service. There is no empire building. Of course an Order in Council could change the way in which Departments operate, but the Government have absolutely no plans for that and it would be daft of any Government to want to do that in the future.
    11 pm
    I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) for his comments, although I said that I would stop thanking and congratulating him. He is very knowledgeable about these issues and I know that during his time as a member of the Bar Council he campaigned hard for these measures. In a spirit of generosity, as we have named some provisions after the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and the inquest provision is named after my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, we will name this provision after him.
    Mr. Grieve rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already made a contribution to this debate.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 35, in page 24, line 37, leave out 'or capacity'.
    No. 36, in page 24, line 39, leave out 'as advocates' and insert
    'or limit the circumstances in which that right may be exercised by them by requiring them to be accompanied by some other person when exercising it'.
    No. 37, in page 24, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 25 and insert 'employed.'.—[Mr. Vaz.]

  Clause 46

    PUBLIC NOTARIES: ABOLITION OF SCRIVENERS' MONOPOLY
    Mr. Peter Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 94, in page 27, line 36, at end insert—
    '() No person shall take or use any name, title or description implying that he is certificated as a notary by the Incorporated Company of Scriveners of London unless he is qualified to practise as a Scrivener notary in accordance with the rules and ordinances of that Company.
    () A person who contravenes the preceding subsection shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale'.
    I immediately declare an interest as a former client of two firms of notaries which, prior to the Bill, were among those to enjoy the central London monopoly. In 1964, I employed the first in Portuguese when I was married by proxy in Brazil. A third of a century later, I employed the other in Spanish when I was a trustee of an archaeological-ecological project in the Andes in Peru. That said, the hour obliges me to speak telegraphically.
    My interest in this debate is a constituency one, but in more senses than one. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), now the shadow Attorney?General, on which I richly congratulate him—if the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department does not rule me out of order—served as a harbinger of my speech when he spoke on the subject in Committee. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for having written to me on the strength of that speech.
    I apologise to right hon. and hon. Members who may have been caught in the crossfire between two of my constituents, the Association of Solicitor Notaries of Greater London and the Incorporated Company of Scriveners of London, although members of the former have acknowledged to me that they have done most of the firing, some of which, including one inaccurate allegation about myself, has been mildly disobliging. The most vehement address, admittedly from someone who is not my constituent, has asked hon. Members to vote against any amendment that I might table, whatever its terms, which seems—I remark neutrally—an eccentric index of notarial professionalism.
    The issue of the monopoly came up last year during consideration of the Competition Bill, provoking the Lord Chancellor's Department into accelerated consultation. I do not quarrel with the Lord Chancellor's conclusion, but I hope that he would not quarrel with my observation that the scale of the consultation was limited and that, judging by the parliamentary answer given by the then Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department on 2 March, those who were consulted did not include the users of notarial services in my constituency. It was because the consultation was slenderish that I tabled the amendment.
    The amendment draws attention to the specialist role of the scrivener notaries, who have long had an interface with continental law; so much so that the society was admitted to the International Union of Latin Notaries at a ceremony in Buenos Aires last September—the first body in the world from a common law jurisdiction to be admitted to the union, which represents something of a triumph for the United Kingdom. The company sets similar admission requirements to those of its European counterparts.

    1057
    Like many livery companies, the Worshipful Company of Scriveners has been the guardian of the art and mystery of its calling and has played a notable part in education in the profession. The faculty office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, discharging a responsibility in the profession that goes back to legislation in the reign of Henry VIII—an era that coincided with the alternative reign of Cardinal Wolsey—has made much use of the society in the devising, preparation and marking of notarial examinations. It is an irony that in that regard the society may have worked itself out of a job, because examining is passing into other hands and clause 46 will likewise remove it from the role of regulation in my constituency and more widely in central London.
    The society's professional expertise has been recognised by the Lord Chancellor's Department which has expressed the view that, if its members have a professional edge, they will be able to demonstrate it in the marketplace. Branding is a reasonable challenge to the society, including perhaps the development of a kite mark, but the world outside—including Europe—has for centuries associated notarial activity in the City of London with the scrivener role, and it is therefore important that the definition and significance of that role can be protected against anyone seeking to arrogate to themselves the renown of scriveners by borrowing the name without justification or, in particular, membership of the company; if not, continental clients may cease to turn to London for those skills.
    I said that I did not argue with the Lord Chancellor's conclusion. Ironically, the competition that he is ushering into central London in this regard may be matched by competition provided by the society's member firms outside central London, the society having hitherto felt that its role as a regulator in central London precluded it from competing outside. All would thus be winners, including clients of the various firms.
    I hope that the Solicitor-General will indicate that he understands that the strength of the City of London is its multi-layered resource of skills and that that cannot be preserved if, in promoting competition through an afterthought to the Bill—as I am sure he will acknowledge—one risks tarnishing the family silver by removing the reasonable, traditional and honourable hallmarks of quality. The provision in amendment No. 94 should be welcomed as a protection for users. It in no way impedes the legitimate provision of notarial services at any level or description in the City or elsewhere.
    Mr. Grieve: I welcome amendment No. 94, because it both meets the issue that the Lord Chancellor was trying to address in removing the monopoly, which appears to be archaic and unnecessary, but at the same time provides some measure of protection to the Incorporated Company of Scriveners in maintaining its identity in so far as the marketplace wishes that identity to be maintained.
    The information provided by the Incorporated Company of Scriveners suggested that there are different roles for the notary public and the scrivener notary. In those circumstances, there is a clear entitlement for that distinction to be protected in their titles. I hope that the Government will accept amendment No. 94 because it appears to satisfy the company's just desire that people should not be misled about the different roles.
    The Solicitor-General: It is always a pleasure to listen to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and to learn a little more history, both generally and about the Brookes. However, the Government will resist the clause. I should explain briefly the background to the issue as it may not be familiar to every hon. Member.
    Notaries authenticate certain legal documents, mainly for use abroad, by signing and sealing them. They may also prepare legal documents for use abroad, undertake conveyancing and probate work, translate foreign legal documents, administer oaths and take affidavits.
    The Incorporated Company of Scriveners currently holds a monopoly over notarial work in the City of London and the surrounding three miles. Clause 46 will end that restrictive practice and, we hope, increase competition.
    I have three general points to make in relation to the amendment. First, I emphasise that the Government's proposals go no further than abolishing the monopoly. They will not prevent notaries from being members of the scriveners' company if they wish, nor will they prevent members of that company from offering a competitive service compared with other notaries. There will be nothing to prevent notaries from advertising their adherence to the company, if they believe that that is an assurance of quality to the public. Those clients who want the specialist services that scrivener notaries provide will continue to be able to obtain them.
    Secondly, I am not convinced that the public could be protected only by the creation of a new offence. Due to the specialist nature of the notarial work, scriveners' clients are not an uninformed group. They include financial and banking institutions and other large commercial organisations. If such clients had any doubt about whether someone was a scrivener notary, it would be open to them to check with the incorporated company.
    Moreover, there are existing safeguards for the public against those who seek to misrepresent their position. I make particular reference to section 14 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, which covers false or misleading statements as to services. One of the leading cases under that section is Queen v. Breeze, which involved a person claiming to be an associate of the Royal Institute of British Architects. That was not true, and the Court of Appeal found that an offence had been committed under the 1968 Act; so the incorporated company may be able to take advice on the protection afforded by that section.
    My third general point may be of interest to the House. The titles of "barrister" and "legal executive" are not protected. Under the Solicitors Act 1974, there is an offence similar to the one proposed. It covers people who pretend to be solicitors. However, it applies generally to solicitors, not to any single group. It does not apply, as would the amendment, to a special group of notaries.
    Finally, there is no hard evidence that non-scriveners provide any lesser service than scriveners. The Archbishop of Canterbury's faculty office oversees the entire notarial profession and has made it clear that all notaries are qualified to do all notarial acts. The scriveners' monopoly is geographical and limited to certain areas of London. I therefore urge the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster to withdraw the amendment.
    Mr. Garnier: I seek clarification from the Solicitor-General. Did he say that section 14 of the Trade

    1059

    Descriptions Act 1968 protects members of the company as a matter of law, or simply that they should take advice about whether it does? I think that we are entitled to the Solicitor-General's opinion.
    The Solicitor-General: I give advice to the Government, not to private individuals. However, I urge the society to examine that section of the 1968 Act closely, as its authority bears directly on the matter raised.
    Mr. Grieve: The Solicitor-General has advised the House to reject the amendment. One of his reasons is that the protection that it offers is not needed because another is available. In the circumstances, that opinion appears rather pertinent.
    11.15 pm
    The Solicitor-General: I cited a leading Court of Appeal decision, which the hon. Gentleman should read closely.
    Mr. Garnier: Is there a reference?
    The Solicitor-General: Yes, it is 1973, Queen's Bench. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) should receive reassurance from that.
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for his response. He may not be aware that he made a mild slip of the tongue at the beginning of his speech when, instead of saying that he would resist the amendment, he said that he would resist the clause. As I had graciously said that I would not do so, I thought that position slightly perverse. I mention it merely to show that I was hanging on his lips throughout his speech.
    I am grateful for the reference to the Solicitors Act 1974. I had been tempted to include a reference to the definition of solicitors, but the Solicitor?General clearly would have rebuffed me, and I have saved my breath intelligently. I am grateful for the spirit in which he has addressed the society's predicament and for the pointer that he offered, even if he came under sniper fire from elsewhere in the House about the possible paradox or contradiction in his advice. What he said will be helpful to my constituents, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Ordered,
    That clause 54 be transferred to end of line 32 on page 33.—[Mr. Vaz.]
    Ordered,
    That clause 59 be transferred to end of line 5 on page 31.—[Mr. Vaz.]
    Ordered,
    That clause 60 be transferred to end of line 32 on page 33.—[Mr. Vaz.]

  Clause 70

    ENFORCEMENT OF COMMUNITY ORDERS
    Amendment made: No. 1, in page 39, line 14, leave out from '(which' to 'has' in line 16 and insert
    'makes provision about the enforcement of community orders by the Crown Court)'.—[Mr. Cranston.]
    Ordered,
    That clause 70, as amended, be transferred to end of line 32 on page 33.—[Mr. Vaz.]

  Clause 74
    GREATER LONDON MAGISTRATES' COURT AUTHORITY
    Amendment proposed: No. 100, in page 44, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 10 on page 46 and insert—

    'Funding
    59B.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may pay grants to the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority in respect of the Authority's expenditure.
    (2) Grants under this section shall be paid at such times, in such manner and subject to such conditions as the Lord Chancellor may with the concurrence of the Treasury determine.
    (3) Each London local authority shall pay to the Authority such amount in respect of—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (5) The Lord Chancellor may with the consent of the Treasury make provision by regulations made by statutory instrument as to how any kind of the Authority's expenditure is to be determined.
    (6) Subject to any such regulations, the Lord Chancellor may direct that in determining any kind of the Authority's expenditure there shall be taken into account or disregarded, to such extent as may be specified in the direction, such items as may be so specified.
    (7) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by virtue of this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Vaz.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 101 to 103 and 105 to 118.
    Mr. Garnier: I rise merely to ask—perhaps it should have been a point of order—why the Minister considers it appropriate to move these lengthy amendments formally.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. If the Minister chooses to move them formally, that is a matter for him. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to debate the amendments, he may do so.
    Mr. Garnier: I merely seek an explanation from the Minister about what he intends. The Government have

    1061
    proposed legislation and Ministers are present. It is their duty to explain to the House, and therefore to the public, what they propose to do.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the Minister, but he has chosen to move the amendment formally.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 101, in page 46, line 14, after 'The' insert 'Greater London Magistrates' Courts'.
    No. 102, in page 46, line 38, leave out from 'fund;' to 'arrangements' in line 42 and insert 'and
    (b) make'.
    No. 103, in page 46, line 45, after 'applying' insert—
    '(a) Part VIII of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (financial administration); and
    (b)'.—[Mr. Vaz.]

  Clause 98

    COMMENCEMENT
    Amendments made: No. 91, in page 62, line 16, leave out '61,' and insert
    '61(2), section 70 and Schedule 10 and section (Adjournment of inquest in event of judicial inquiry),'.
    No. 3, in page 62, line 17, after & 75' insert
    (Code of conduct)'.—[Mr. Vaz.]

  Clause 99

    EXTENT
    Amendment made: No. 104, in page 62, line 28, after 'Sections' insert
    '(Judges holding office in European or international courts),'.—[Mr. Vaz.]

  Schedule 7

    POWERS OF LAW SOCIETY
    Amendments made: No. 92, in page 88, line 28, leave out 'necessary' and insert 'appropriate'.
    No. 70, in page 88, line 29, leave out 'the rules' and insert
    'the provisions of rules made, or of any code or guidance issued, by the Council,'.
    No. 71, in page 88, line 30, at end insert'. In—
    (a) section 32(4) of that Act (power of Council of the Law Society to disclose report or information about solicitor's accounts to Director of Public Prosecutions for investigation and prosecution of offences), and
    (b) paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (corresponding provision in relation to accounts of incorporated practices),
    omit "to the Director of Public Prosecutions" and ", if the Director thinks fit,'.
    No. 72, in page 88, line 31, leave out
    'After section 33 of that Act'
    and insert
    'In the Solicitors Act 1974, after section 33'.
    No. 73, in page 88, line 43, leave out
    'to the Director of Public Prosecutions'.
    No. 74, in page 88, line 45, leave out
    ',if the Director thinks fit,'.
    No. 75, in page 89, line 4, leave out '(incorporated practices)'.
    No. 76, in page 89, line 10, leave out
    'to the Director of Public Prosecutions'.
    No. 77, in page 89, line 11, leave out
    ', if the Director thinks fit,'.
    No. 78, in page 89, line 13, at end insert—

    'Intervention for breach of rules on practice, conduct and discipline
    In Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 (intervention in solicitor's practice), in paragraph 1(1) (circumstances in which Law Society may intervene), in paragraph (c) (failure to comply with rules made by virtue of section 32 or 37(2)(c)), after "section" insert "31,".'.
    No. 79, in page 89, line 15, leave out 'the Solicitors Act 1974' and insert 'that Act'.
    No. 80, in page 89, line 45, at end insert
    'and
    (b) whichever of the Society and the Tribunal made it may at any time revoke it.'.
    No. 81, in page 90, line 9, at end insert—
    '. In section 44(2) of that Act (breach of order by solicitor), for the words from "an order" to the end of paragraph (b) substitute "an order under section 43(2) is in force in respect of a person".'.—[Mr. Cranston.]

  Schedule 10

    ENFORCEMENT OF COMMUNITY ORDERS MADE BY CROWN COURT
    Amendment made: No. 4, in page 106, leave out lines 11 to 13.—[Mr. Cranston.]
    Ordered,
    That Schedule 10, as amended, be transferred to end of line 36 on page 91.—[Mr. Cranston.]

  Schedule 11

    GREATER LONDON MAGISTRATES' COURT AUTHORITY
    Amendments made: No. 105, in page 106, line 20, leave out from beginning to '(definition' in line 19 on page 107 and insert—
    'The Public Works Loans Act 1965 (c.63)
    . In section 2(1)(a) of the Public Works Loans Act 1965 (authorities to which Public Works Loans Commissioners may make unsecured loans), after sub-paragraph (iv) insert "and
    (v) the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority;".

    The National Loans Act 1968 (c.13)
    . In paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 4 to the National Loans Act 1968 (authorities to which local loans may be made), after sub-paragraph (iv) insert "and
    (v) the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority,".

    The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c.53).
    . In section 82(2A) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988'.—
    No. 106, in page 107, line 22, at end insert—

    'The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c.42)
    . The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 has effect subject to the following amendments.
    . In section 39(1) (authorities to which provisions about revenue accounts and capital apply), after paragraph (e) insert—

    1063
    "(ea) the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority;".
    . In section 67(3) (authorities to which provisions about interests in companies apply), after paragraph (g) insert—
    "(ga) the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority;".'.
    No. 107, in page 107, line 24, leave out second 'of' and insert 'to'.
    No. 108, in page 107, line 40, at end insert—

    'The Local Government Finance Act 1992 (c.14)
    .In section 19(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (exclusion of Crown exemption in relation to certain authorities), after paragraph (e) insert—
    "(ea) the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority;".'.
    No. 109, in page 108, line 1, leave out
    'of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997'.
    No. 110, in page 108, line 6, leave out
    'of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997'.
    No. 111, in page 108, line 14, at end insert—
    '. For section 50 substitute—

    Pensions of employees of GLMCA
    50.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may, with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service, make provision by order made by statutory instrument for section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 (pensions of civil servants etc) to apply to persons employed by the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority (and may make such provision by amendment of that Act).
    (2) An order under subsection (1) above may provide for the Authority to pay to the Minister for the Civil Service, at such times as he may direct, such sums as he may determine in respect of the increase attributable to such provision in the sums payable under the Superannuation Act 1972 out of money provided by Parliament.
    (3) Where an order under subsection (1) above is made, the Minister for the Civil Service may, to such extent and subject to such conditions as he thinks fit—

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

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

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

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

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

    (7) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (1) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'.
    No. 112, in page 108, line 15, leave out
    'of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997.—[Mr. Cranston.]

  Schedule 12

    FUNCTIONS TRANSFERRED TO JUSTICES' CHIEF EXECUTIVES
    Amendments made: No. 5, in page 109, leave out lines 25 to 28 and insert—
    '2.—( l) Section 13 of the Evidence Act 1851 (proof of previous conviction by copy of record certified by clerk) is amended as follows.
    (2) Number the existing provision as subsection (1) and for the words from "under the hand" to "such clerk or other officer," substitute "by the proper officer of the court where such conviction or acquittal took place".
    (3) After that subsection insert—"
    (2) In subsection (1) "proper officer" means—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    No. 6, in page 109, line 39, at end insert
    '(but that section as modified in relation to Northern Ireland by section 11 of that Act is not so amended)'.
    No. 7, in page 134, leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert—
    '172.—(1) Section 68 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (power to summon witness) is amended as follows.
    (2) In subsection (4) (particulars of fine to be given to clerk), for "clerk" substitute "proper officer".
    (3) After that subsection insert—
    "(4A) In subsection (1) above "proper officer" means—

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

    (b) in relation to a magistrates' court in Northern Ireland, the clerk of the court.".'.—[Mr. Cranston.]

  Schedule 13
    TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
    Amendments made: No. 82, in page 137, line 45, at end insert—

    'Legal aid in Scotland
    .If section 32 of this Act comes into force before section 1 of the Tax Credits Act 1999, the reference in section 32 to disabled person's tax credit shall, until section 1 of the Tax Credits Act 1999 comes into force, have effect as a reference to disability working allowance.'.
    No. 8, in page 141, line 6, leave out
    'coming into force of section 74 of this Act,'
    and insert
    'Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority becomes the magistrates' courts committee for Greater London,'.
    No. 9, in page 142, line 10, leave out
    'begins to act as a magistrates' courts committee,'
    and insert
    'becomes the magistrates' courts committee for Greater London,'.
    No. 10, in page 142, line 12, at end insert—
    '(2) For the purposes of sections 39A and 39B of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 (inserted by section (Code of conduct) of this Act) the Authority shall be treated as a magistrates' courts committee until it actually becomes the magistrates' courts committee for Greater London.'.
    No. 113, in page 143, line 4, at end insert—

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

    (a) on any scheme under paragraph 32, or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    and shall not apply in relation to any instrument on which, by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), stamp duty is not chargeable.'.
    No. 114, in page 143, line 29, at end insert—

    'Pensions of inner London court staff
    .—(1) The Lord Chancellor may by order made by statutory instrument make provision about the provision of pensions for or in respect of persons who are or have been members of the inner London court staff.
    (2) An order under this paragraph may include provision for, or in connection with—

    (a) enabling persons to participate, or continue to participate, in any pension scheme and requiring their employers to make contributions under that scheme, and

    (b) the administration or management of pension schemes or pension funds.

    (3) Provision of the kind specified in sub?paragraph (2)(a) may—

    (a) with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service, include provision for section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 (pensions of civil servants etc) to apply to persons who are or have been members of the inner London court staff, or

    (b) include provision for persons who have been members of the inner London court staff but who are employees of the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority by virtue of a scheme under paragraph 32 to be regarded as continuing to be members of the metropolitan civil staffs for the purposes of section 15 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967 (pensions of metropolitan civil staffs).

    (4) An order under this paragraph containing provision of the kind specified in sub?paragraph (3)(a) may also contain provision for such body or person as may be specified in the order to pay to the Minister for the Civil Service, at such times as he may direct, such sums as he may determine in respect of the increase attributable to such provision (so far as referable to that body or person) in the sums payable under the Superannuation Act 1972 out of money provided by Parliament.
    (5) Where an order is made under this paragraph containing provision of the kind specified in sub?paragraph (3)(a), the Minister for the Civil Service may, to such extent and subject to such conditions as he thinks fit—

    (a) delegate to any person the function of administering a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972, so far as relating to persons who are or have been members of the inner London court staff, or

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

    (6) A person to whom the function of administering a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 is delegated under sub?paragraph (5)(a) may, to such extent and subject to such conditions as he may determine, authorise the exercise of that function by, or by employees of, any person.
    (7) Where a person is authorised under sub?paragraph (5)(b) or (6) to exercise the function of administering a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972, anything done or omitted to be done by or in relation to him (or an employee of his) in, or in connection with, the exercise or purported exercise of the function shall be treated for all purposes as done or omitted to be done by the person who authorised him.
    (8) Sub?paragraph (7) does not apply for the purposes of—

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

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

    (9) An order under this paragraph may provide that any enactment repealed by this Act shall continue to have effect for any purpose specified in the order with such modifications as may be so specified.
    (10) A statutory instrument containing an order under this paragraph shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
    (11) In this paragraph the "inner London court staff' means—

    (a) the justices' chief executive employed by the magistrates' courts committee for the area consisting of the inner London boroughs,

    (b) any justices' clerk for that area, and

    (c) staff of the magistrates' courts committee for that area.'.—[Mr. Cranston.]

  Schedule 14

    REPEALS AND REVOCATIONS
    Amendments made: No. 83, in page 145, line 54, at end insert—

    '1998 c. 37.

    The Crime and

    Section 49(1)(j).

    Disorder Act 1998.

    Section 50(5).

    In Schedule 8, paragraph 67.'.

    No. 84, in page 146, line 12, column 3, leave out from 'section' to end of line 14 and insert
    '32(4), the words "to the Director of Public Prosecutions" and the words ", if the Director thinks fit,".'.
    No. 93, in page 146, line 36, column 3, at beginning insert 'Section 9(2)(g).'.
    No. 85, in page 146, line 37, column 3, after '2,' insert
    'in paragraph 3, the words "to the Director of Public Prosecutions" and the words ", if the Director thinks fit," and,'.
    No. 86, in page 147, line 24, Column 3, at end insert—

    'In Schedule 3— in paragraph 3, in sub-paragraph (1) the words "with the approval of the Treasury" and, in sub-paragraph (2), the words ", with the consent of the Treasury", and in paragraph 4(2) the words "given with the consent of the Treasury", and paragraph 9(3), the words "with the approval of the Treasury".'.

    No. 115, in page 155, line 21, at end insert—

    '1965 c. 63.

    The Public Works Loans Act 1965.

    In section 2(1)(a), the word "and" at the end of sub-paragraph (iii)

    No. 116, in page 155, line 24, at end insert—

    '1968 c. 13.

    The National Loans Act 1968.

    In Schedule 4, in paragraph 1(a), the word "and" at the end of sub-paragraph (iii).

    1971 c. 56.

    The Pensions (Increase) Act 197.

    In Schedule 6, paragraph (d).'

    No. 117, in page 155, leave out lines 27 to 35.
    No. 118, in page 155, leave out line 44.—[Mr. Cranston.]
    Ordered,
    That Part IV(5) (Enforcement of community orders) of Schedule 14 be transferred to end of line 27 on page 148.—[Mr. Vaz.]

    Title
    Amendment made: No. 119, line 4, leave out from 'appeals' to 'court' in line 8 and insert ', courts, judges and'.—[Mr. Cranston.]
    Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
    11.21 pm
    Mr. Vaz: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    The Bill has been before Parliament since December and has made good progress. We have already paid tribute during its course to the various people who have contributed to it both here and in another place, but I add my personal thanks to the excellent officials of my Department.
    As the Lord Chancellor has said, the Bill aims to improve access to justice. We are determined to build structures and to provide services that go further towards meeting people's needs than legal services do at present. That is the purpose of the community legal service. That is why we are introducing contracting for legal services with quality assured suppliers, extending the use of conditional fees and rights of audience, and reforming the magistrates courts system.
    Many clever, dedicated, hard working people do their best to meet the needs of legal services. However, the existing system does not meet the needs of ordinary people, those with little money or run-of-the-mill cases. We want to re-orient legal services to make them more customer focused and to base them on a real assessment of need. To that end, the Bill sets up the community legal service, which will have the dual tasks of considering the need for civil and family legal services and putting in place the services required to meet those needs, as far as available resources will allow.
    We are creating a criminal defence service to replace criminal legal aid. Publicly funded criminal defence services will continue to be available in all cases where the interests of justice require it. We are making success fees, conditional fee arrangements and insurance premiums recoverable in costs. We intend to extend the use of no win, no fee agreements. No hon. Member has successfully demonstrated that they are not the best possible way to extend access to justice in many cases. They will open up the law to many people to whom legal aid is currently not available.
    We are reforming rights of audience by giving full rights to all lawyers who are suitably qualified and we are setting up a system to encourage the regulation of the legal professions to change with the times. We have put in place this very evening a means to encourage professional legal bodies, and in particular the Law Society, to handle complaints from customers much better. We hope never to use them but we would have failed in our duty if we had not acted. We are ensuring that civil appeals will be held at the right level and dealt with in a way proportionate to their weight and complexity.
    Lastly, we are changing the organisation and management of magistrates courts, the better to serve the public and help our plans for better co-ordination in the civil justice system. I think that hon. Members will see that this is an impressive agenda for change. The creation of a community legal service is the most innovative part of the Bill and I believe that it will prove to be the most far-reaching proposal. The legal aid system was set up in a different world where recourse to law was far less frequent. The system has since grown substantially in real terms.
    A Government bent on modernising and improving the whole range of public services must also look to see whether legal aid is being used in the right way. The

    1069
    striking feature of our legal aid system is that it is not based on an objective assessment of what is needed. Nor do we know whether the outcome of the expenditure is the best that could be achieved. Of course, many worthwhile cases are supported and will continue to be supported, but other cases are supported in which there must be doubt as to whether pursuing them represents good use of public money. I, for one, would not wish to see taxpayers' money spent on funding legal services where alternatives are available.
    Our reforms will enable resources to be concentrated on the greatest need and will maximise the benefit from the money that is spent on legal aid. The use of contracts of civil, legal and family legal services will pay great dividends. For the first time, we will have quality assured suppliers for all those who use legal services. At the moment, those who use publicly funded legal services, indeed all who use legal services, have little way of finding out which suppliers have provided good service and which provide a less good service. Those who use publicly funded services should get the best possible service.
    The Access to Justice Bill will enable us to improve legal services in the interests of those who use them. Those who oppose the Bill are lending their support to inflexible services, which do not best meet the needs of those whom they are meant to serve, and to those elements who wish to keep everything as it was. We want, and I believe that we have with the Bill, a modern system of justice for the new millennium. I commend it to the House.
    11.26 pm
    Mr. Garnier: I join the Minister in congratulating all who have taken part in our debates on keeping their temperature moderate. We had an amusing and sometimes constructive time in Committee and we have had a sometimes enjoyable, sometimes illuminating, but always good-tempered time this evening.
    The Minister can be forgiven for much that is in the Bill because he has only recently been able to get his fingers on it. During the Committee stage, when the Bill was amended by the Government and, I am happy to say, at least twice by the Opposition—or at least our suggestions were incorporated in Government amendments that have been made this evening—the Minister played a rather silent role by virtue of his then post as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Attorney-General. So he cannot be accused of playing a willingly silent role. He was unable for the same reason to speak on Second Reading.
    Mr. Vaz: I did speak on Second Reading.
    Mr. Garnier: The Minister is right. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) complained that this radical Government were allowing this radical Member to speak to a Bill that belonged to his master's Department. Perhaps the Government could not find a single Back Bencher prepared to speak in favour of the Bill. The Minister was the first member of the parliamentary
    1070
    Labour party to speak in favour of the Bill. Every other Back-Bench contributor spoke sceptically or with qualified support for the Bill.
    Mr. Dismore rose—
    Mr. Garnier: Here we go: the man with the spring in his back. I am glad to see that he is still on form and the spring is still working.
    Mr. Dismore: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made that joke before and it was not particularly funny then. I simply point out to him that several Labour Members spoke in favour of the Bill on Second Reading and many more wished to speak, but there simply was not time for them all to be called.
    Mr. Garnier: If the hon. Gentleman remembers, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) was the first Back Bencher to speak. It may have been—
    Mr. Vaz: I was very senior.
    Mr. Garnier: Oh, and very senior too. Top Minister speaks—I am very happy to hear it. I do not think that we need spend too much time on this little history of the Access to Justice Bill. I shall return to one or two of the points that I intended to make.
    During the two years since the Government came into office, I have been impressed by the fact that they were full of high intentions—there have been hugely powerful speeches and much rhetoric. However, they have little understanding of what they are doing.
    I suggest that all the Government's reforms—both those introduced in the Bill and those introduced outside by the Lord Chancellor and his Department—can simply be described as economically illiterate, politically inept and intellectually confused. Nothing that we have heard during the Bill's passage through the House or during today's debates has persuaded me that my descriptions are inaccurate. Those views were merely reinforced as I watched the Government stumble from day to day. Indeed, there was yet another piece of chaotic business management this afternoon, as a rebellion emerged among Labour Back Benchers that could not be quashed by the Government. The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall?Andrews) persuaded many of his fellow Back Benchers—I think there were 49, including himself—to sign his early-day motion criticising the removal of personal injury cases from legal aid. A considerable number of those Labour Members joined the hon. and learned Gentleman in the Division Lobby this evening. The Government can claim no credit for producing a Bill that is either popular or right; they have managed to do precisely the opposite.
    In his remarks, the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department appeared to be attempting to sell anything—it could have been a vacuum cleaner, dog food or some other goods that one could find in a supermarket—but if one thought that he was describing the contents of the Access to Justice Bill, one would justifiably have been confused. As I have said before, the Bill is a Christmas tree or a coat hanger; it contains a huge number of additional powers that the parliamentary Labour party is lamely giving the Lord Chancellor.

    1071
    There will be a huge number of executive powers to make law through secondary legislation. I realise that the Government find it boring when I make such remarks, but the job of the Opposition is to point out to the public that the sniggerers on the Government's Front and Back Benches are doing a huge disservice to the public whom they were elected to serve.
    The Bill is called the Access to Justice Bill and, as I have said on several occasions, if I were a frivolous person, I should find that hugely amusing, because it is not an access to justice Bill but a denial of access to justice Bill. When one reads read Parts I, II and III even a casual glance shows that, once those clauses, and the amendments to those clauses and the new clauses that have been discussed today, become law—we are fortunate that a House of Lords still exists and is prepared to reconsider the Bill when it leaves this place—some of them will be deleterious to the interests of justice, damaging to the interests of our constituents, and leading increasingly to a denial of access to justice.
    When Labour Members walk into the Division Lobby tonight, some of them may never have read the Bill and some may not have had the advantage of hearing the Minister trying to explain what the Government are about. At their advice surgeries, those Members will learn shortly—although not necessarily next Saturday, or even this year, but next year and the year after—when the number of solicitors providing legal aid has been reduced from approximately 11,000 to 3,000, that solicitors are not available in their towns, cities and villages to assist their most vulnerable constituents.
    Labour Members do not need to accept all the blame for that, but in the remaining minutes of the debate, I urge them to think carefully about what they are about to do. They may think that the Bill causes difficulties for lawyers. So what? Any Bill that causes difficulties for lawyers is to be applauded. This, however, is a Bill that will destroy access to part of the welfare state. If the Labour party was elected to do that, it could have fooled me. Many of those who voted in May 1997 for the glorious new regime of this Prime Minister can also justly claim to have been fooled—and judging from the grunts and the groans that I hear emanating from the Treasury Bench, I suspect that many Ministers have been fooled also.
    I can demonstrate the damaging effect of the Bill by considering only a few of its aspects. While we support the creation of the community legal service in clause 4, the Opposition are concerned about the Government's total inability to realise the mistake that they are making in failing to investigate and assess what is necessary to make that service work properly. The least able and the most vulnerable in our society must have some chance to fend for themselves by bringing actions in law with the assistance of the state.
    The hon. and learned Member for Medway pointed out that personal injury cases funded by the state make the Government a profit. This self-righteous Government are destroying the ability of litigants in certain categories of personal injury cases to access state funds. The Government think that they are doing a good thing but the opposite is true. Personal injury cases cost the Government nothing, yet this Treasury-driven Bill is designed to save the Government money.
    1072
    In clause 12, the Government have decided to introduce a criminal defence service that will allegedly be a mirror image of the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS had teething troubles and goodness only knows what will happen with the criminal defence service. That will create a situation that used to exist only in communist China and Soviet Russia, where the state prosecutes and defends people.
    If Government Members think that is a matter for levity, they should heed the words of Sidney Kentridge, a member of the South African Bar and a distinguished member of the Bar of this country. In a recent lecture, he pointed out that in apartheid South Africa the only thing that stood between the oppressive state regime and the independence and freedom of citizens was the independent Bar and the criminal defendant's knowledge that the lawyer representing him was free from the influence of the state.
    This charming new Labour Government are trying to persuade their followers that a criminal defence service, comprising state-employed lawyers, will not be influenced by the need to kow-tow to its employer or by the fact that the next promotion depends on pleasing the Government. The Government cannot pretend that that will not have a damaging effect upon the service's ability to act fiercely and freely as an advocate on behalf of its clients.
    On part II of the Bill and the dangers associated with the conditional fee arrangements, the Government claim that conditional fee arrangements are the complete answer to the destruction of legal aid. The Conservative party does not oppose the introduction of conditional fee arrangements—indeed, we introduced them ourselves. However, we are concerned about the gay abandon with which the Government have abolished legal aid and replaced it with conditional fee agreements. They know—or they should know—that the use of conditional fee arrangements, without proper insurance and a mature insurance market to support them, will simply not work.
    It is no good saying that legal aid helped the poor, and those with discretionary income could make their own decisions, but middle England was unable to get to the courts. It is no good the Government saying that they have corrected that problem if, in so doing, they have created another by taking away from the poor, the vulnerable, the elderly, the injured and the disabled the ability to get hold of a conditional fee agreement.
    In the circumstances that the Bill will create, conditional fee agreements will not be available for all to use. It is unthinkable that the people who now use legal aid will run up and down the high streets of England and Wales market-testing conditional fee agreements or checking the portfolio of risk of one firm of solicitors against another. That is naive and unreal.
    Having outlined some of our concerns, may I make it clear that we agree with parts of the Bill? Parts IV, V, VI and VII are largely uncontroversial. Although they have not received the scrutiny that some of the more controversial parts of the Bill have been given, they have been considered, and I hope that they will be further considered in the other place when the Bill returns to it.
    My overriding complaint about the Bill is that it seeks to do the wrong thing in the wrong way. It seeks to persuade the gullible hon. Members who will support it that it creates no problems for which they need feel in the

    1073
    least bit responsible. Let me warn them that over the next two years the Bill will turn their majorities to dust. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends and others of good will in the House to join us in voting against Third Reading.
    11.42 pm
    Mr. Dismore: I should to declare an interest as a solicitor who has practised in the field of personal injury law for 20 years or more.
    I welcome the extension of conditional fees and the proposals for the recovery of the success fee and insurance premium. Unlike most of those who have criticised the extension of success fees and related matters, I have practical experience, and I am sure that the provisions will be successful. I also welcome the assurances given today by my hon. Friend the Minister on the fallback position—the protections that will remain for personal injury victims in the legal aid scheme for cases that are expensive to investigate or are in the public interest. I look forward to seeing that protection even more fleshed out in the funding code that is in the Bill.
    I welcome the debate that we had in Committee on Queen's counsel, and I claim a mini-triumph—I see from the Government amendment for which I have been lobbying that QCs are to pay the full cost of administering the QC system through the more generous application fees that they will have to pay. I acknowledge the Government's response to the concerns that I expressed in Committee about the way in which QCs are remunerated, and the assurance that the Government are prepared to consider further steps to end the fat-cattery, perhaps turning the dangerously obese lawyers into those who are merely seriously overweight. We have already discussed proportionality, double manning and the rate for the job.
    I welcome one of the new clauses introduced tonight, which there was no time to debate and which my hon. Friend generously called the Hendon clause. That is the one that relates to the telescoping of the inquest and inquiry procedure, following major disasters. For too long we have put the relatives of victims through far too much distress, duplication of hearings, delay and expense by making them relive the same experiences over and over again.
    Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend knows that QCs throughout the country quiver when they hear his name. He also knows that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has made a number of improvements to the silk system and will always try to find ways to improve it further.
    Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that assurance. No doubt we can continue our dialogue in an attempt to sort out the issue of remuneration, even if I cannot quite convince my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor that QCs should be abolished altogether.
    The new clause on inquiries is important. It means that we can now look after victims' relatives and victims themselves far more effectively. This is the first stage in that regard and I look forward to further reforms in due course.
    11.45 pm
    Mr. Burnett: I congratulate and thank all those who have taken part in the debates on the Bill leading up to tonight, and especially officials of the House.
    I have highlighted tonight and at earlier stages of the Bill Liberal Democrats' grave misgivings with parts of it. The abolition of legal aid for personal injury cases except criminal negligence is a grave mistake and the Government will have much time to rue the day that they railroaded the provision through the House. It saves no money and it prejudices the poor and vulnerable.
    I hope that the Minister will find some time to read the paper so ably and clearly written by Matthias Kelly, secretary of the Personal Injuries Bar Association, entitled "The cost of legal aid in personal injury litigation in England and Wales". It demonstrates clearly and unambiguously that the provision will not save money. Rightly, many conscientious Labour Members have opposed the measure.
    Another regrettable feature of the Bill is the power, often unfettered, which it gives the Lord Chancellor to set up the criminal defence service. That is another example of the inherent conflict of interest which also characterises conditional fee agreements.
    We have to ask whether quality legal services and access to justice will be available throughout the country when the Bill is enacted, which no doubt it will be. We shall have to wait and see, but I have my doubts. The Bill is deeply flawed and we shall vote against it.
    11.47 pm
    Mr. Grieve: I, too, preface my remarks by saying that the Bill's passage through its various stages has been an education, during which a number of changes have been made to it. Moreover, the presenter of the Bill has changed from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), with his academic cynicism and discourse, to the present Minister who, with his courteous emollience, has brought it finally to its close before the House.
    If ever there has been a missed opportunity, it is this Bill. There are aspects of it that I can welcome, just as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) did, but there are also aspects where we have grievously failed to address some of the principal issues which concern the difficulties over access to justice.
    Bearing in mind conditional fee agreements, which we have debated again this evening, and the problems of legal aid, especially for the most disadvantaged, it is extraordinary that the whole area of contingency legal aid, despite having been touched on in Committee, and despite the fact that there has been a hint at times that it may be considered in future, and that it might provide a real alternative for ensuring that all could obtain access to justice on the same principles as those that existed in terms of accessibility under the old legal aid system, even though there might be some financial forfeit, has never been properly considered. Instead, we have gone down a road which, while it may bring certain advantages to some, will undoubtedly be a massive disadvantage to the most vulnerable within our society. I deeply regret that. If anything makes this legislation flawed, it is that.

    1075
    I reserve my gravest reservations for the principle of the criminal defence service. We have moved progressively towards a situation where the provision and the services of the justice system are, in a curious way, being nationalised.
    It is extraordinary that, although the Labour party has apparently embraced the idea that privatised services may be of some benefit, we are moving towards a continental criminal justice system—which, taken to its ultimate expression, existed in the old communist countries. The lawyer was simply the state functionary who was sent off to represent one element or other—whether as a prosecutor or a defender—and was always regarded as a lowly cog in the machine.
    I simply do not see where the advantages lie in establishing the criminal defence service and it was made clear in Committee that there might be circumstances in which individual choice in respect of getting a lawyer from outside the CDS would be restricted. That fills me with foreboding. That measure has been introduced by the Government who had the courage to incorporate the European convention on human rights into our law, which strikes me as shocking. One can conclude only that the Government have absolutely no regard for civil liberties or the rights of accused people in respect of the criminal justice system. That seems to have been emphasised by the suggestion that there is worse to come with the denial of the right to trial by jury for certain categories of offence. I deeply regret that.
    Those are the principal reasons why I cannot lend support to the Bill, even though parts of it have much to commend them. The Government will come to regret the way in which they were driven down this road, whether by financial considerations or simply by lack of any regard for established systems. Although those systems may be imperfect, they have nevertheless delivered justice of good quality.
    I have always acknowledged, however, that there have been problems over expense. As I said on Second Reading, we have started to throw the baby out with the bath water and I am afraid that we will regret having passed the Bill.
    11.52 pm
    Mr. Hawkins: I shall speak briefly before the Minister concludes the debate. On behalf of the official Opposition, I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) described the Bill as being either a Christmas tree or a coat hanger. I prefer to call it an attempt by the Government at a portmanteau Bill.
    There was much debate in Committee about the combination of Henry VIII clauses, which we deeply regret and opposed, and the fact that the Lord Chancellor has often been compared with Henry VIII's ultimately most unsuccessful Lord Chancellor, Cardinal Wolsey. The Bill attempts to combine the worst features of Henry VIII and Cardinal Wolsey, which is a feat in itself. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough rightly said that some of the Bill fits in with what George Orwell called newspeak, in which words mean exactly the opposite of what the Government claim.
    1076
    On Second Reading, I referred at length from the Back Benches to the criticisms of the Bill made by Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, the distinguished Labour lawyer, in the other place. None of her concerns about the Government's proposals for a criminal defence system adopting the worst excesses of the United States public defender system have been addressed at any stage.
    When the Solicitor-General wound up the debate on Second Reading, he said, rather desperately:
    "On the whole, my hon. Friends welcome the Bill."—[Official Report, 14 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 321.]
    He said that even though almost every Labour Back Bencher who had spoken had attacked him and the then Minister.
    As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough said, we welcome some aspects of the Bill—in particular, in respect of the inquest point referred to by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), which we did not have time to debate at length—but there are still a lot of bad things in it. As my hon. and learned Friend said, this is a denial of access to justice Bill in so many regards. I invite the 20 Labour Members who voted with us on the personal injury matter to join us, and hon. Members from both sides of the House, in the Lobby to vote against the Bill's Third Reading.
    I ask the Minister to correct an uncharacteristically ungracious remark that he made earlier. He said that it was surprising to hear a Conservative spokesman using the arguments of a charity such as Shelter. That remark was not characteristic of him and I invite him to withdraw it. I encourage hon. Members of all parties who have a conscience to oppose the Bill.
    11.54 pm
    Mr. Vaz: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    This is the right Bill at the right time. We have a radical and reforming Lord Chancellor, and the Bill will help us to modernise justice in Britain. I commend it to the House.
    Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 151.

    Division No. 217]

    [11.54 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Boateng, Paul

    Ainger, Nick

    Borrow, David

    Alexander, Douglas

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Allen, Graham

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Austin, John

    Browne, Desmond

    Banks, Tony

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Barnes, Harry

    Burden, Richard

    Barron, Kevin

    Burgon, Colin

    Bayley, Hugh

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Beard, Nigel

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Cann, Jamie

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Casale, Roger

    Benton, Joe

    Cawsey, Ian

    Blackman, Liz

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    1077

    Chaytor, David

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Clapham, Michael

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Heppell, John

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hill, Keith

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hoey, Kate

    Clelland, David

    Hood, Jimmy

    Clwyd, Ann

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hope, Phil

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Cohen, Harry

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Coleman, Iain

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Colman, Tony

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Connarty, Michael

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hurst, Alan

    Corbett, Robin

    Hutton, John

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Illsley, Eric

    Cousins, Jim

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Cranston, Ross

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Crausby, David

    Jamieson, David

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Cummings, John

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Darvill, Keith

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Davidson, Ian

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Dawson, Hilton

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Denham, John

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Khabra, Piara S

    Doran, Frank

    Kidney, David

    Dowd, Jim

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Drew, David

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Efford, Clive

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Lepper, David

    Ennis, Jeff

    Leslie, Christopher

    Fisher, Mark

    Levitt, Tom

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Flint, Caroline

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Follett, Barbara

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Linton, Martin

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Foulkes, George

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Galloway, George

    Lock, David

    Gapes, Mike

    Love, Andrew

    Gardiner, Barry

    McAvoy, Thomas

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    McCabe, Steve

    Gerrard, Neil

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Macdonald, Calum

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    McDonnell, John

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    McIsaac, Shona

    Godsiff, Roger

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Goggins, Paul

    McNutty, Tony

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    McWalter, Tony

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    McWilliam, John

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Grogan, John

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Hanson, David

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Martlew, Eric

    Healey, John

    Maxton, John

    1078

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Meale, Alan

    Singh, Marsha

    Merron, Gillian

    Skinner, Dennis

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Miller, Andrew

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Mitchell, Austin

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Snape, Peter

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Soley, Clive

    Morley, Elliot

    Spellar, John

    Mountford, Kali

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Mudie, George

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Mullin, Chris

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Norris, Dan

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Stott, Roger

    Olner, Bill

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Stringer, Graham

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Pearson, Ian

    Pendry, Tom

    Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Pike, Peter L

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Plaskitt, James

    Timms, Stephen

    Pollard, Kerry

    Tipping, Paddy

    Pope, Greg

    Todd, Mark

    Pound, Stephen

    Touhig, Don

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Trickett, Jon

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Purchase, Ken

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Vaz, Keith

    Radice, Giles

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Rammell, Bill

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Raynsford, Nick

    Wareing, Robert N

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Watts, David

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Rooker, Jeff

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Rooney, Terry

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Roy, Frank

    Wills, Michael

    Ruane, Chris

    Winnick, David

    Ruddock, Joan

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Wise, Audrey

    Salter, Martin

    Wood, Mike

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Woolas, Phil

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Sawford, Phil

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Sheerman, Barry

    Mrs. Anne McGuire and

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Mr. Clive Betts.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Allan, Richard

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Amess, David

    Burnett, John

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Burns, Simon

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Butterfill, John

    Baldry, Tony

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Beggs, Roy

    Bercow, John

    Cash, William

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Chope, Christopher

    Blunt, Crispin

    Clappison, James

    Body, Sir Richard

    Collins, Tim

    Boswell, Tim

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Cran, James

    Brady, Graham

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Brazier, Julian

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Breed, Colin

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    1079

    Duncan, Alan

    Norman, Archie

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Öpik, Lembit

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Ottaway, Richard

    Evans, Nigel

    Page, Richard

    Faber, David

    Paice, James

    Fabricant, Michael

    Paterson, Owen

    Fallon, Michael

    Pickles, Eric

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Prior, David

    Flight, Howard

    Randall, John

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Rendel, David

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Robathan, Andrew

    Fraser, Christopher

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Gale, Roger

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Garnier, Edward

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Ruffley, David

    Gibb, Nick

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Gill, Christopher

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Sanders, Adrian

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Gray, James

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Green, Damian

    Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

    Greenway, John

    Soames, Nicholas

    Grieve, Dominic

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Spring, Richard

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hammond, Philip

    Steen, Anthony

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Streeter, Gary

    Hawkins, Nick

    Swayne, Desmond

    Hayes, John

    Syms, Robert

    Heald, Oliver

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Tredinnick, David

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Trend, Michael

    Key, Robert

    Tyler, Paul

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Viggers, Peter

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Walter, Robert

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Wardle, Charles

    Lansley, Andrew

    Waterson, Nigel

    Leigh, Edward

    Webb, Steve

    Letwin, Oliver

    Wells, Bowen

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Lidington, David

    Whittingdale, John

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Loughton, Tim

    Wilkinson, John

    Luff, Peter

    Willetts, David

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Willis, Phil

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Madel, Sir David

    Woodward, Shaun

    Malins, Humfrey

    Yeo, Tim

    Mates, Michael

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Moore, Michael

    Mr. Stephen Day and

    Moss, Malcolm

    Mrs. Jacqui Lait.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

    NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
    Ordered,
    That—
    (1) the matter of the Review of the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee for its consideration;
    (2) at the sitting on Thursday 8th July—

    (i) the Committee shall take questions for oral answer and shall then consider the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above;

    (ii) the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings at 5 o'clock; and

    (iii) at the conclusion of those proceedings, a Motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, pursuant to Standing Order No. 116(5).—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Metropolitan Police
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
12.8 am
Mr. Charles Wardle: In this debate I intend to question the accountability of the Metropolitan police over their arrest of Mohamed Al Fayed last year. I shall also question the accountability of the security services, which influenced the decision to arrest him because he had openly challenged their role over the death of his son in Paris. I shall also touch in passing on his citizenship application, but only in so far as it is linked to the arrest.
The subject is highly controversial. I hope that the Minister will allow me to take a few moments to place my involvement in context and explain how I came to write to Sir Paul Condon about these matters last year. I have already referred a Home Office official to my letter to Sir Paul and I apologise to the Minister if that did not filter through to her.
On 4 June 1997, I introduced an Adjournment debate on the unfairness of Department of Trade and Industry inquiries. One of the case studies that I used to demonstrate the inequities of the system was the House of Fraser inquiry. I said that the inspectors' investigation into the House of Fraser takeover had been so contaminated by the late "Tiny" Rowland's lies and interference that the Fayed brothers had been well and truly stitched up. The interests that I declared in that debate apply here.
After the debate, the Home Office decided to drop its previous objections to the Fayeds which arose directly from the discredited House of Fraser report, but not before I had taken the opportunity to impress on Ministers and officials the depth and extent of Rowland's corrupt influence. After the debate, Mohamed Al Fayed asked to meet me at the House of Commons, and protested about Rowland's malign influence. I then presented my own analysis of various facets of the Fayeds' citizenship case at a private meeting with the Home Secretary at Queen Anne's gate.
Thereafter, I began a voluntary intermediary role between the Home Office and Al Fayed and his lawyers—mainly, but as it turned out not exclusively, concerned with the DTI inquiry. This ended when the Home Secretary approved Ali Fayed's citizenship application, having set aside the DTI findings, but refused Mohamed Al Fayed. Throughout the exercise I reported my meetings and correspondence to Sir Gordon Downey and then to Ms Filkin and briefed parliamentary colleagues and Lobby journalists whenever they expressed an interest.
Having been directly involved in the Home Office's earlier consideration of the applications, I was not in a position to make my own recommendations. At no stage did I try to lobby anyone, as the Home Office will confirm, but I will tell the House what I told the Home Secretary privately after he announced his decision. I said that, whereas I could not comment on his interpretation of the cash-for-questions issue, I disagreed most emphatically with his eleventh hour objection to Al Fayed's alleged lack of probity over Rowland's vicious little scam involving stolen gems that never were in a safety deposit box. It is Rowland's safety deposit
1082
box snare and the subsequent behaviour of a few senior Metropolitan police officers who engineered the deliberately public arrest of Al Fayed, prompting a jamboree of media speculation and hostility that I wish to address first, as it raises clear questions of accountability.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Wardle: No. I have no intention of giving way, as my hon. Friend did not approach me beforehand.
Well before that arrest was made, those senior police officers and the Crown Prosecution Service had in their possession clear evidence that Rowland had paid hundreds of thousands of pounds into the Jersey bank account of the key prosecution witness and his common-law wife, but the police refused to consider that evidence until after the extremely damaging and high-profile arrest of Al Fayed. Shortly before he died, Rowland admitted his covert payments to the key witness in the discovery process for the civil action that he began after the police case collapsed.
Al Fayed's counsel, a former first Treasury counsel who regularly prosecuted for the Crown, insisted that the payments should first be investigated, on the ground that, if there had been payments, they would jeopardise the entire validity of the prosecution and no arrest should properly be made. Burton Copeland, Al Fayed's solicitor, showed Scotland Yard that Rowland's allegations that valuables had been stolen from his deposit box were weak in the extreme. Rowland was unable to verify that he had ever owned what he claimed to be stolen—let alone that he had placed it in the box 30 years earlier. Burton Copeland gave Scotland Yard the details of Rowland's payments to Robert Loftus, a disaffected ex-employee of Harrods, but the police deferred the investigation of payments to Loftus, arrested Al Fayed and released him on bail which was periodically renewed amid frenzied media speculation.
The safety deposit box scam developed into a tributary inquiry of my intermediary role. I am a lifelong admirer of the police and I was proud to assume responsibility in the House of Commons for police business as a Home Office Minister, but the blatantly unfair conduct of the safety deposit box inquiry prompted me to speak to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and to write to him on 27 February last year in the following terms:
"I am sure your officers will do their job with absolute fairness. But if their actions give rise to public humiliation and the allegation of theft turns out to be unfounded, I shall return to the subject with the vigour you would expect of me."
Hence this debate.
Why did the police, who had done little or nothing about Rowland's patently false allegation from May to November 1997, suddenly acquire fresh enthusiasm for the case at the end of that year? Why did they arrest Al Fayed with a prior tip-off to the media in March 1998, despite having known for weeks about the bribery of the key witness, to which Rowland himself later admitted?
Burton Copeland voiced the same concern in a letter of 5 May 1999 to Assistant Commissioner Veness, who was in charge of the case. He wrote:
"Your officers were investigating an allegation that was dependent on the evidence of Messrs. Loftus and Rowland. On 29 January 1998 your officers were given information indicating

1083
that Rowland was secretly paying vast sums of money to Loftus.… Having been put on notice, as your officers were, for them to ignore the material and its potential ramifications and to proceed with arrests and interviews would in any case, I submit, be perverse and unreasonable, let alone in a case of such obvious sensitivity with such a dubious backdrop. My clients might be forgiven for thinking that the prime objective was to put them, and Mr. Al Fayed in particular, through the indignity and public humiliation of arrest."
Significantly, Al Fayed' s solicitors now have in their possession a note from Rowland's solicitors, Cameron Markby Hewitt, reporting that Rowland told them on 2 February 1996 that he had been involved in activities for MI6 immediately after the war and had committed various unlawful acts.
The Scotland Yard and Home Office grapevine—which no one in Whitehall will discount—makes no secret of one interpretation of events. It is that Al Fayed had incurred the wrath of the Security Service, and its stringers in the press and elsewhere, after the tragic deaths in August 1997 of Diana, Princess of Wales, Dodi Fayed and their chauffeur Henri Paul. Al Fayed had given offence by his increasingly vocal protest that the Security Service—with which Veness has liaison responsibility at Scotland Yard—had not been sufficiently open about its activities in Paris when the tragedy occurred. The grapevine quotes a top police officer as saying:
"I don't care what the evidence is. I want that man arrested."
Eventually, the Metropolitan police admitted to Al Fayed's solicitors that the only offence they could find had been criminal damage to a paperclip. Bail was lifted and proceedings dropped, but the media humiliation had served its purpose. The press hatred and dishonesty had known no bounds. It had been open season for the media, thanks to Rowland's lies in the DTI inquiry and then the safety deposit box scam leading to Al Fayed's arrest.
The Home Office official in charge of the Fayed citizenship applications, Andrew Walmesley, said that he had followed the safety deposit box saga and, in the end, had discounted it. On the telephone last October, he told Al Fayed's citizenship solicitors D.J. Freeman that the criminal investigation and civil proceedings were no longer of concern. Yet when the citizenship file came before the Home Secretary this year, the safety deposit box incident—disregarded by Walmesley—re-emerged as a question of probity. That was particularly surprising in view of Christopher Can QC's demolition of the probity argument in the re-submission to the Home Office.
It was as if the dropping of the discredited DTI report as evidence against Al Fayed had to be balanced by the late inclusion of the safety deposit box affair—a second barrel, along with the debatable objection to cash for questions, with which to shoot down the application. After a delay of 15 months, the Home Secretary had complied with Lord Woolf's Appeal Court ruling that reason for refusal be given by declaring that the safety deposit box was such a reason.
Whether that would have seemed to the Home Secretary a really convincing reason had it not been for Al Fayed's arrest and prolonged bail and the media onslaught is an interesting question. If the alleged want of probity marked another reason for refusal—namely, the antipathy of the Security Service and others towards Al Fayed—the Home Secretary should have said so openly if he was not to fall foul of Lord Justice Woolf. However, that is a question for the courts, and not for me.
1084
The accountability of the Metropolitan police for their perverse conduct of the criminal investigation should be a matter of concern to this House. There are other sources of information that indicate a cover-up of events before and after the Paris tragedy that raise questions of accountability for the Security Service as well.
I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories. I draw no conclusions about what happened on that fateful day. I have no inclination to question the conduct or anticipate the outcome of a French judicial inquiry into a car crash in France. Judge Stephan has proved to be more than a match for the British press by declaring that the Mercedes was travelling at 62 mph, and not 113 mph as was previously reported as fact in Britain. It is possible, but not certain, that the judge will admit fresh evidence that throws doubt on Henri Paul's blood test. It is not known whether the final report, which is likely to be published in the early autumn, will be detailed or not.
It is surely inconceivable that once the French report has been produced, there will not be an opportunity in this country as well to explore questions about the circumstances leading to the sudden and violent death of the Princess of Wales and the man the entire world could see was her lover. The overwhelming public response at Diana's funeral could leave no doubt about the natural justice of allowing some form of British inquiry. The hostile response from some quarters to awkward questions about the Paris tragedy can never put the lid on worldwide demands for a thorough explanation of events.
It would be better for Parliament to treat with the questions and deliver the answers than to allow suspicion to fester and speculation to grow. It is in this context that other sources of information should be considered, in so far as they throw light on accountability.
The first of these additional sources which challenge Security Service accountability was the Princess herself. As with the other sources that I shall list, there have been those who devalue what she had to say. Her detractors have already called her manipulative and obsessive, but it would be unwise to dismiss what she said on holiday in the south of France.
I told the Home Secretary in my letter of 23 July last year that Al Fayed's much-publicised ideas about a conspiracy in Paris originated from what Diana repeatedly said to him of her fear and resentment at the way she was treated. I have no reason to doubt what I have heard of what Diana said in St. Tropez. In any case, there are many others in whom she confided in a similar vein—for example, Andrew Morton, Martin Bashir, Maggie Rae, Debbie Frank and so on.
Diana's remarks to Al Fayed concerned the royal household's antipathy to her; its habitually close links with the security services; the manipulation, interference and control, as she saw it, exercised by officials of the household; her conviction, based on what she said that she had been told, that Barry Mannakee's death was not an accident; and her apprehension that she, too, would be assassinated.
Three other sources of information could easily be discredited as disreputable, unreliable witnesses, but it may be short-sighted to ignore what they have to say, because they cast doubt on key questions of accountability. One is James Hewitt, in a recorded, but not televised, interview with Nick Owen. Major Hewitt's

1085
shabby reputation will count against him but his remarks relating to the Princess of Wales cannot be dismissed altogether.
Hewitt said that he received threats to his life. Patrick Jephson, a private secretary, said that his safety could not be guaranteed. Members of the household told him that his safety would be in peril if he did not back off. Anonymous telephone calls warned him that he would meet the same fate as Barry Mannakee. He said that the Princess of Wales took the threats seriously and told him that Mannakee had been murdered.
Another such source is David Shayler, also in recorded but not televised remarks to Nick Owen. He said that Henri Paul could well have been a paid agent and that assassination attempts were certainly made by the security services. He said that MI6 is less accountable, with less supervision, than MI5, operating abroad with very different personnel from those who work for MI5; that MI6 regularly uses journalists and photographers as agents or stringers; and that MI6 operations and plans are by no means always communicated to Ministers—not even the Prime Minister.
Finally, and most controversially, there is Richard Tomlinson, a fugitive from Britain. I know little about his dispute with the security services but I have seen his sworn affidavit to Judge Stephan's inquiry in Paris, in which he asserted that MI6 files recorded an informant at the Ritz, almost certainly Henri Paul. He named—I shall not—two experienced, undeclared MI6 officers in Paris at the time of the crash. He also named an MI6 officer who in 1992 had a fully typed plan attached to a yellow minute board outlining a plan to kill Slobodan Milosevic in a tunnel car crash. The document was circulated to four other MI6 officers whom he named, but I shall not.
Tomlinson said that MI6 used part-time agents from UKN for surveillance and photography, including paparazzi who routinely followed the princess. He said that as well as routine MI6-royal household contact via the Foreign Office there was regular unofficial direct contact between senior MI6 officers and the household.
If there is to be clear accountability, there are many questions to be answered. For example, what prompted Scotland Yard to arrange the much-publicised arrest of Al Fayed when it already knew that Rowland had bribed the key witness? Did Veness discuss the safety deposit box allegations with the security services? Have the security services recorded with the Home Office an opinion about Al Fayed's citizenship re-submission? If so, what did they say and when? Has the royal household ever expressed a view to the Home Office about Al Fayed's citizenship?
Do records exist of the royal household's communications with the security services relating to the Paris tragedy? Why was Mannakee transferred out of royal protection duty and what is known about the circumstances of his death? Which members of the royal household made threats to Hewitt? What reasons does Jephson give for his advice to Hewitt? Was Henri Paul employed by MI6? Are there assassination plans on file at MI6?
To whom and to what extent does MI6 account for its operations? What were the operational duties of the undeclared MI6 officers in Paris at the time of the tragedy? Were any of the paparazzi pursuing the Mercedes employed by MI6? What records of telephone
1086
messages, telegrams and memorandums exist on MI6 files concerning the events before and immediately after the Paris tragedy?
There are a great many more pertinent questions that should be dealt with openly and frankly in some form of parliamentary inquiry, to be conducted either by the Intelligence and Security Committee or by a special Select Committee appointed for the purpose.
There will be people who will try to rubbish as unreliable the sources of information that I have disclosed to the House, but if the Government or Parliament itself do not launch an inquiry, they will be shutting the door on precisely the sort of openness about the security services already advocated by the Liaison Committee and now being recommended by the Home Affairs Committee, and making a mockery of the Government's enthusiasm for freedom of information. Worse still, if an inquiry is refused and factual evidence implicating the security services in any way in the Paris tragedy trickles out later, the House will be seen to have failed in its responsibilities.
12.24 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) on securing an Adjournment debate on the accountability of the Metropolitan police service and other services, and on using it to draw the House's attention to a matter in which he has taken a long-standing interest.
I shall set out the general arrangements for accountability for the police service. As the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle will know, policing in England and Wales is undertaken within the framework of the tripartite relationship of the chief officer, police authority and Home Secretary. The framework has proved resilient and capable of accommodating changing demands. It provides a service that is efficient and effective, but also accountable.
The chief officer is responsible for the direction and control of the force. He or she has operational independence and has flexibility in how the local police service is delivered. However, the chief officer must operate with regard to the policing plan, which is owned by the police authority.
The authority oversees the police force, holding the chief officer to account for his or her actions and monitoring performance as necessary. The police authority also provides local democratic accountability through its members, the majority of whom are local councillors.
The Home Secretary is answerable to Parliament and the public for the provision of an effective and efficient police service. He has a strategic role in setting ministerial priorities for the service and performance targets for those priorities. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle referred a great deal to the Metropolitan police service; the present arrangements for the accountability of that service are somewhat different. In particular, the Home Secretary is also the police authority.
The House will know that we have plans to bring the arrangements in London closer to those that apply in the rest of England and Wales, through the Greater London Authority Bill. Although it is clear that the arrangements

1087
for the democratic accountability of the Metropolitan police service can be improved, there is already a substantial degree of effective accountability.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle made many allegations and raised several points, and I am sure that he would not expect me to reply to them all this evening. It is also worth pointing out that matters relating to the security services are the direct responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, the hon. Gentleman raised, among other questions, the issue of whether the Metropolitan police have operated objectively and fairly in deciding whether to investigate certain allegations, and in the conduct of the subsequent investigations.
I must emphasise that the police retain, as they must, independence in such operational decisions. That is necessary in the interests of the impartial maintenance of the law. However, it is vital that the police should be properly accountable for their operational decisions and investigations. They are, of course, answerable to the courts, but there are also special arrangements in place for making complaints against the police and for the investigation of such complaints.
I cannot comment on the questions about reported operational decisions and actions by the Metropolitan police. The conduct of operations is and must be a matter for the police in London under the direction of the Commissioner. Subject to that, I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was made aware of the concerns of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle about the safety deposit box scam, as he calls it. My right hon. Friend, in a letter of 26 February, explained to the hon.
1088
Gentleman that he had drawn those concerns to the Commissioner's attention, and that the Commissioner had assured my right hon. Friend that every endeavour was being made to balance the needs of the investigation with scrupulous fairness.
In subsequent correspondence, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary also confirmed that the Commissioner was fully aware of the representations made by Al Fayed's solicitor about the security box investigation. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle promised that he would return to the subject with vigour if the actions of officers in the Al Fayed investigations gave rise to public humiliation and the allegation of theft turned out to be unfounded. True to his word, he has done so tonight in this debate.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle knows that special procedures exist for making complaints about the police. He and others may wish to consider those procedures, and he will know that the Government at present are acting on many of the suggestions made by the Select Committee on Home Affairs. We hope to bring about changes in the police complaints process as soon as possible.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle will appreciate that I cannot give an answer tonight to a number of the matters that he has raised. However, I shall draw this debate to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I am sure that we shall write to the hon. Gentleman about any matters that have not been covered fully this evening.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to One o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to negotiate a share of the EU population coverage under the urban strand of Objective 2 of the EU Structural Funds for the United Kingdom which reflects the degree of urbanisation in the United Kingdom. [87786]

  Mr. Wills
  A maximum of 18 per cent. of the European Union's population will be covered by the new Objective 2. The suggested breakdown by strand for Objective 2 of 10 per cent. to industrial areas, 5 per cent. to rural, 2 per cent. to urban and 1 per cent. to fisheries is purely indicative across the EU.

  The UK's overall population coverage under Objective 2 is defined by the safety net which limits the reduction in coverage to one-third of the existing Objective 2 and 5b population.

  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure that areas designated in the United Kingdom under the urban strand of Objective 2 of the Structural Funds will be densely populated areas made up of contiguous units with a minimum population of 100,000. [87787]

  Mr. Wills
  The public consultation on the determining UK areas for Objective 2 eligibility ended on 25 May. The Government are carefully considering all the submissions received and the eligibility criteria suggested.

  Before the UK propose their Objective 2 areas to the Commission, the Government will define, through discussions with the Commission, the geographical unit to be used to express urban areas within the UK.

  Small Business Service
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress made to establish the Small Business Service. [87797]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government announced plans to set up the Small Business Service in the Budget statement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry reinforced this in his Post-Budget statement to the House on 10 March 1999,Official Report, columns 367–79.
  316
  We will be publishing a consultation document in the near future on the specific role and functions of the Small Business Service. I will be pleased to hear the views of all interested parties.

  National Minimum Wage (Riding Schools)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effect of the national minimum wage on riding schools and equestrian centres; and if he will make a statement. [87810]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I have made no such assessment. We have asked the Low Pay Commission to evaluate the impact of the national minimum wage, with particular reference to the effect on pay, employment and training. They will soon be gathering evidence and will no doubt invite this sector, along with many others, to provide information.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will exempt riding schools from the national minimum wage. [87811]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  No. Under the provisions of the National Minimum Wage Act, individual sectors of employment cannot be excluded from coverage.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Car Park Charges
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if the Commission will introduce workplace car park charging within the Parliamentary Estate. [87611]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The Commission has no plans at present to introduce charges for parking in the parliamentary estate. But the Greater London Authority Bill contains provisions which would allow the authority or the London borough of Westminster to introduce a levy on parking in the Palace of Westminster. The Commission will consider the position if and when either authority makes proposals for the introduction of a levy.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Church Land (GM Trials)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what his policy is in respect of the use of church land to grow trial genetically modified crops. [87608]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The issue of whether Government trials of genetically modified crops should take place on land owned by the Commissioners is being initially considered by the Church's Ethical Investment Working Group (EIWG), which develops a co-ordinated ethical investment policy for the Church. The EIWG is made up of representatives of each of the central Church investing bodies and the General Synod's Board for Social Responsibility.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Maria Bamieh
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the case of Maria Bamieh and the Crown Prosecution Service. [87808]

  The Attorney-General
  The decision of the Employment Tribunal in the case brought by Maria Bamieh against the Crown Prosecution Service is long and detailed and needs to be studied carefully. The Crown Prosecution Service takes the decision very seriously and is giving it urgent consideration.

  Hayes v. Attorney-General
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Attorney-General what were the terms of settlement of the case of Hayes v. Attorney-General; and if he will make a statement. [87807]

  The Attorney-General
  The proceedings brought by Ms Hayes were of historical interest only. I had put in hand a review of the system of appointing barristers to act for the Crown, with the intention that it should be made more open and transparent, before Ms Hayes commenced her proceedings. I have followed this wholly new system for making appointment, since July 1998. Settling the case has brought the matter to a close and has saved further expenditure of public money on a lengthy hearing.

  The terms of my agreement with Ms Hayes were as follows:

  Appointments Procedure

  1. The Attorney-General confirms that he will maintain the principles of transparency and open competition followed since July 1998 in appointments to the Panels of Treasury Counsel, including First Junior Counsel to the Treasury, namely:

  (a) that vacancies are advertised:

  (b) that applications and written references are considered by a selection board who make recommendations to the Attorney-General on the basis of those applications and references only;

  (c) that the Attorney-General does not appoint any candidate who has not been recommended to him by the selection board;

  (d) that the Attorney-General does not seek opinions from persons other than the selection board and the candidate's referees.

  Jurisdiction

  2. In the event of any future dispute, the Attorney-General will accept the jurisdiction:

  (a) of an employment tribunal in the case of appointments as First Junior Treasury Counsel (Common Law) and First Junior Counsel to the Treasury (Chancery);

  (b) of a county court in the case of appointments of other counsel.

  The Applicant's Case

  3. The Attorney-General does not accept that the Applicant or any other prospective appointee has, in fact, been subjected to discrimination. Nevertheless, he readily accepts that it was unsatisfactory that, until he changed the appointments system in 1998, although several women barristers had been appointed to the Supplementary Panels and as standing counsel to other departments, only one had been appointed to the main Chancery and Common Law panels of Treasury Counsel. Informal consultation may have a tendency to result in the recommendation of people known personally to the consultees and the purpose of the new system set up by the Attorney-General is to end such consultation. He recognises
  318
  that the system of appointments which was previously in place may have contributed to the under-representation of women on the main panels. In recognition of this, he has agreed to make a donation of £5,000 to the Fawcett Society.

  4. On the above basis, the parties agree that the Applicant will:

  (a) withdraw her county court claim;

  (b) withdraw her application to the employment tribunal in each case with no order as to costs.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Attorney-General what measures he proposes to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service communicates with families affected by their decisions in child abuse cases. [87456]

  The Attorney-General
  Currently, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) provides to the police information about prosecution decisions for them to forward to victims, or their families, as appropriate. How much information can be given may depend on the circumstances of individual cases. The CPS must balance openness with victims with the interests of others in the case. In particular cases senior CPS lawyers will be available to meet with victims and their families to explain in general terms reasons for CPS casework decisions.

  I am aware that a particular case of child abuse in the hon. Member's constituency has prompted this question and that the local Chief Crown Prosecutor will be meeting the victim's family to explain the decision to discontinue proceedings.

  As to the generality of cases in the future, the CPS is presently considering whether or not to take from the police the responsibility for informing victims of the reasons for CPS prosecution decisions. This stems from one of the recommendations of Sir lain Glidewell's report into the Crown Prosecution Service on which I intend to make a statement shortly.

HEALTH

  CJD
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement regarding the safety of medical appliances in respect of the transmission of CJD. [86030]

  Ms Jowell
  Measures are in place to minimise the risk of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease of any type in known and suspect sufferers being passed on to other patients via surgical instruments. These are set out in the joint guidance of the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens and the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee published in April 1998 entitled "Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies: safe working and the prevention of infection". This guidance says that no instruments used on a known or suspect patient, whatever the procedure, should be re-used. In addition, for patients regarded as potentially at risk of CJD (for example recipients of human pituitary derived growth hormones), instruments used in procedure involving brain, spinal cord or eye cannot be re-used. This is kept under constant review and new findings are assessed as a matter of priority.
  319
  We have commissioned research into ways of detecting proteins on surfaces and improving decontamination and inactivation techniques. Meanwhile, current procedures give a high degree of protection and people should not be deterred from undergoing surgery where this is clinically necessary. The benefit to the patient must be weighed against any theoretical risk from CJD.

  Junior Doctors
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the rest requirements for an on-call rota for junior hospital doctors, pursuant to the Health Service Circular 1998/240; and if he will list those health authorities and hospitals in which the requirements of that circular are being observed. [86708]

  Mr. Denham
  Doctors employed on an on-call rota are contracted to work a maximum average of 72 hours per week, 40 standard hours and up to 32 additional duty hours, with the expectation that they should not actually work more than 16 of the additional duty hours.

  Health Service Circular 1998/240, issued on 23 December 1998, provided further national guidance to trusts on rest requirements. Doctors should spend at least one half of the out-of-hours duty period at rest between 5pm and 9am Monday to Friday or 9am to 9am Saturday and Sunday. Within these periods there should be a minimum continuous 5-hour rest period between the hours of 10pm and 8am.

  We have not collected specific data on compliance solely within the terms of HSC 1998/240. However, trusts who comply fully with the New Deal are entitled to apply for accreditation. As at 31 March 1999, out of a total of 343 trusts in England, 67 trusts have been granted accreditation, and 77 are under consideration for accreditation.

  Paediatric Cardiac Care (Bristol)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the implications of the costs of (i) participation in the inquiry into paediatric cardiac care in Bristol and (ii) any consequent compensation for the resources available to the United Bristol Healthcare Trust and the Avon Health Authority. [86358]

  Mr. Dobson
  The costs of participating in the Bristol inquiry, like unforeseen costs which affect other large trusts, fall to be borne by the United Bristol Healthcare Trust. The majority of likely implementation costs will, however, be borne by funds set aside nationally to meet such settlements and are likely to be spread over some years.

  Cancer
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will invite cancer research bodies to plan and share research and expertise. [87368]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government are currently considering plans to take this forward. Details will be announced shortly.
  320
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will set up a national survey of cancer patients' experiences. [87365]

  Mr. Hutton
  Officials are currently working with the relevant professional and patient groups to design a survey to take place later this year.

  Royal Commission on Long-term Care
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plans for the implementation of the report of the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care. [87627]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 4 May 1999,Official Report, columns 360–61.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take measures to ensure the uniform availability of infertility treatment from all health authorities. [87848]

  Ms Jowell
  We have pledged to tackle unacceptable levels of geographical variations in access to IVF treatment and have set in motion a programme of work to achieve that aim. A Departmental survey of current health authority infertility service provision is taking place at the moment to enable the cost implications of any policy changes to be estimated. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists aim to complete their third, and final, set of evidence-based clinical guidelines on infertility this autumn and these will indicate the circumstances in which infertility treatment can be most clinically effective. We can then move towards fairer access to National Health Service infertility services, where those most able to benefit from such treatment receive it.

  NHS Regions (Chairman)
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the appointments to the posts of chairman of the eight NHS regions once the terms of office of the incumbent comes to an end. [88062]

  Mr. Dobson
  The terms of office of the chairmen of the eight National Health Service regions end on 1 November 1999. Professor Alasdair Breckenridge has already agreed to stand down to concentrate on his role as chairman of the Committee on the Safety of Medicines. Philip Hammersley, chairman of Trent Region has indicated that he does not wish to be considered for re-appointment.

  Of the remaining chairmen, I have re-appointed the following for a further three-year term:

  Ian Mills: London Region

  Janet Trotter: South West Region

  Sir William Wells: South East Region.

  The following have been re-appointed for a four-year term:

  Zahida Manzoor: Northern and Yorkshire Region

  Rosie Varley: Eastern Region

  Clive Wilkinson: West Midlands Region.

  321
  The rigorous, open and transparent appointment procedures set down by the Commissioner for Public Appointments are followed for these posts, although they do not fall within the Commissioner's remit. Advertisements will therefore be placed in the national press shortly to recruit new chairmen for the North West and Trent Regions.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of the Medicines Control Agency. [88110]

  Mr. Denham
  We have published the report of the Quinquennial Review of the Medicines Control Agency (MCA). Copies have been placed in the Library. The Review confirms that the MCA is a world leader in its field, with an international reputation for professional excellence. It has performed well against its targets, and has secured more work under the European licensing system than any other national authority. The Review also shows that the MCA has used Executive Agency status well, and recommends that it should retain that status. We accept that recommendation.

  In the light of the Agency's excellent performance, we are pleased to announce that Dr. Keith Jone's appointment as Chief Executive of the MCA has been extended for a further three years.

PRIME MINISTER

  Joint Consultative Cabinet Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will bring to an end the Joint Consultative Cabinet Committee. [87631]

  The Prime Minister: No.

  Lords Lieutenant (Appointment)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will describe the process by which Lords Lieutenant are chosen; and what are the qualifications required, the responsibilities involved and the length of time for which an appointment is made. [87960]

  The Prime Minister
  The prime duty of Lords Lieutenant is to be The Queen's representatives in their county or area. Other than in four Scottish cities (where the Lord Provost is Lord Lieutenant by virtue of his/her office) Lords Lieutenant are appointed under the Royal Prerogative by The Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister of the day. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the consultations that precede an appointment are carried out by the relevant territorial Department. In England, consultations are carried out by the Prime Minister's Secretary for Appointments. Those appointed as Lords Lieutenant are people of standing in their local communities, most frequently on account of their record of voluntary activity for the good of the community. Lords Lieutenant may serve until they are 75 years of age.

  Pro-euro Campaign
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will be attending the forthcoming launch of the pro-euro campaign. [87822]

  The Prime Minister
  My forward diary will be announced in the usual way. The Government's policy on membership of the single currency remains as set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in October 1997. The determining factor is whether the economic benefits to the UK from joining are clear and unambiguous.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Chief Superintendent Barry Mason
  Mr. Corbyn:
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will place in the Library a transcript of the trial at Birmingham Crown Court of former West Midlands Police Chief Superintendent Barry Mason in April. [87701]

  Mr. Vaz
  No. Parties in cases may place an order for transcript (at their own expense) with the court reporters responsible for taking the verbatim record of the case. The contractor can provide transcripts to anyone else only once they have received approval in writing from the court. In this case the transcript runs to about 70 pages and would cost approximately £350.

  Hayes v. Attorney-General
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the implications of the case of Hayes v. Attorney-General for the secret soundings system in the appointment of silk; and if he will make a statement. [87806]

  Mr. Vaz
  There is no 'secret soundings' system for the appointment of silks, and the Hayes case has no implications for the silk system.

  The vacancy for Treasury Junior, for which Ms Hayes complained that she should have been considered, was not advertised. Applications for silk, however, are openly invited by published advertisement and all applicants are judged equally, on their merits alone, according to published criteria. The list of successful applicants is published, together with a complete statistical breakdown of applications and appointments. Unsuccessful applicants are invited to speak to a senior member of the Lord Chancellor's Department for feedback on their application; nearly 140 have already taken up this invitation this year. In addition, officials are always willing to discuss the principles, policies and procedures of the silk system.

  The information which, together with the application forms, informs the Lord Chancellor's decisions on silk is gathered through a comprehensive and detailed consultation system. The guide for consultees is publicly available; this explains the Lord Chancellor's policies and criteria, according to which consultees are asked to comment. A list of all those whom the Lord Chancellor consults is also published, and applicants may nominate additional consultees if they feel that the wider consultation community is not able to give the Lord Chancellor

  323
  sufficient information about their suitability for silk. Almost all consultation is carried out in writing, to ensure that consultees focus on the published criteria. As an indication of the scale of this exercise, this year's silk round involved consultation with over 425 general consultees and correspondence with over 500 nominated consultees, who in total submitted over 4,600 comments to the Lord Chancellor.

  The silk system is not, therefore, secret. The comments are, of course, confidential, for reasons which Parliament accepted in the Home Affairs Select Committee Report on Judicial Appointments Procedures in 1996 and in the Data Protection Act 1998. Even given that, however, applicants will be invited to respond to any comment which alleges misconduct, even if this involves identifying the accuser (if the accuser is unwilling to stand by his accusation in this way, the Lord Chancellor will ignore the allegation). In addition, the substance of the comments will, while respecting their confidentiality, be freely discussed with unsuccessful applicants who ask for feedback on their application.

  Joint Working Party on Equal Opportunities in Judicial Appointments and Silk
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the members of the Joint Working Party on Equal Opportunities in Judicial Appointments and Silk. [87801]

  Mr. Vaz
  The membership of the Joint Working Party on Judicial Appointments and Silk is currently as follows:Lincoln Crawford Esq. OBE (Chairman, Bar's Race Relations Committee)
  Mrs. Pamela Bhalla (Equal Opportunities Officer, Bar Council)
  Mrs. Kathryn Hamylton (Equal Opportunities Officer, Bar Council)
  Raj Joshi Esq. (Society of Black Lawyers)
  Gelaga King Esq. (African, Caribbean and Asian Lawyers' Group)
  Ms Margaret McCabe (Barrister—Woman Lawyer Forum founder)
  Oba Nsugbe Esq. (African, Caribbean and Asian Lawyers' Group)
  Miss Eileen Pembridge (Council of The Law Society)
  Miss Jacqueline Perry (Association of Women Barristers)
  Ms Jenny Staples (Association of Women Solicitors)
  Miss Sangita Unadkat (Society of Asian Lawyers)
  John Cavanagh Esq. (The Bar's Sex Discrimination Committee)
  Richard Wilson Esq. (African, Caribbean and Asian Lawyers' Group)
  Ms Marcia Williams (Equal Opportunities Officer, The Law Society).

  The Working Party's secretariat is provided by officials of the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  The representation of some of the groups has changed during the life of the Working Party.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on progress of the work of the Joint Working Party on Equal Opportunities in Judicial Appointments and Silk. [87803]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Joint Working Party on Judicial Appointments and Silk was initiated by the legal profession, not by the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Chancellor has no direct control over its progress.
  324
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects the Joint Working Party on Equal Opportunities in Judicial Appointments and Silk to report. [87805]

  Mr. Vaz
  I understand that the Joint Working Party is producing a report for submission to the Lord Chancellor. The timing of the report is a matter for the Joint Working Party itself.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he proposes to publish the report of the Joint Working Party on Equal Opportunities in Judicial Appointments and Silk. [87809]

  Mr. Vaz
  The decision as to whether or not to publish its Report would be a matter for the Joint Working Party itself, not for the Lord Chancellor.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the dates on which the Joint Working Party on Equal Opportunities in Judicial Appointments and Silk met. [87802]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Joint Working Party on Equal Opportunities in Judicial Appointments and Silk has met on the following dates:

  23 July 1997

  22 September 1997

  20 October 1997

  3 December 1997

  28 January 1998

  28 April 1998

  9 June 1998

  16 July 1998

  22 September 1998

  27 October 1998

  17 May 1999.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for what reasons the Joint Working Party on Equal Opportunities in Judicial Appointments and Silk was set up. [87804]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Joint Working Party on Equal Opportunities in Judicial Appointments and Silk was set up at the instigation of the Bar. The Lord Chancellor agreed to officials of his Department taking part in the Working Party's deliberations and providing its secretariat.

  The purposes of the Joint Working Party are to consider and propose action to increase the number of applications for judicial appointment and Silk from women and black and Asian lawyers with the appropriate seniority and relevant experience; to consider and propose possible changes to judicial appointments and Silk procedures for further consideration by the Lord Chancellor; and (where appropriate) to advise and assist in the implementation of action.

TREASURY

  European Taxation (Veto)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the use of the veto in relation to European taxation measures. [86587]
  325
  Dawn Primarolo
  All EC proposals on tax require unanimity before they can be adopted. We will not accept any proposals which are not in the national interest.

  German EU Presidency
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress made on tax and currency matters during the German Presidency of the EU. [86610]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Under the German Presidency of the EU the emphasis has been the need to make tax systems in Europe more employment-friendly and to combat harmful tax competition.

  Brazil (Financial Assistance Package)
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review and audit the UK contribution to the financial assistance package for Brazil; and if he will take into account the impact of the adjustment policies agreed by the Brazilian Government in negotiations with the IMF on the poor and vulnerable. [87585]

  Ms Hewitt
  Financial tensions in Brazil have eased significantly, following the IMF-led international financial support package agreed last year. The UK Government will continue to play an active role in monitoring Brazil's performance under its IMF programme. Continued adherence, under the IMF programme, together with an appropriate contribution from private sector creditors, underpins the BIS co-ordinated credit line, to which the UK has also contributed.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has consistently stressed the importance of preserving investment in the health, education and social programmes which are essential for growth and poverty reduction. He has pressed for the World Bank's work on good practices in social policy to be drawn upon by the World Bank and the IMF when designing adjustment programmes. In Brazil, the IMF and the World Bank and the INTER American Development Bank worked together closely to ensure that the impact of the adjustment programme on the poor and vulnerable was minimised. Both banks have undertaken a number of projects in Brazil with a social dimension. Economic recovery in Brazil should benefit all sections of society.

DEFENCE

  Research (GM Organisms)
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the research projects which have been commissioned by his Department from(a) universities, (b) research institutes and (c) industry which involve genetically modified organisms since 1995 indicating the places involved and the value and purpose of the contracts. [84211]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.
  326
  Letter from John Chisholm to Joan Ruddock, dated 22 June 1999 I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question about research involving genetically modified organisms as part of the research programme which the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) undertakes on behalf of the Ministry of Defence (MOD) uses techniques of this nature.
  The Chemical and Biological Defence (CBD) sector of DERA, which is based at Porton Down, uses genetic modification techniques as a scientific research tool to develop protective measures for the UK and its Armed Forces in the event of exposure to biological weapons. CBD also commissions other research establishments to undertake some of this work. Since 1995 seven universities and six institutes have been involved in this type of work at a total cost of some £4291000. To provide details of the universities and institutes taking part in this research may break confidentiality agreements. I am, therefore, withholding this information under Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Operational Areas
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the operational areas opened since 1 May 1997 indicating the impact on the defence budget in each case; and if he will make a statement. [86443]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Details of expenditure by operational area since 1 May 1997 are set out in the following table. In both financial years the impact on the defence budget has been offset by claims on the Government's Contingency Reserve, in accordance with established practice.

  £ million

  Operational area

  Outturn Financial year 1997–98

  Provisional outturn Financial year 1998–99

  Bosnia

  180.9

  147.1

  Gulf/Iraq

  15.6

  35.4

  Kosovo

  —

  23.2

  Total

  196.5

  205.7

  Relief from Reserve

  178.0

  85.0

  Chinook Helicopters
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the incidences of failure of FADEC systems which have caused safety-critical accidents in Chinook helicopters. [86445]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Since the Chinook's introduction into service, there have been no accidents caused by malfunction of the FADEC units.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will assess the Computer Weekly investigation report into the Chinook helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre, a copy of which has been supplied to him; and if he will make a statement. [86444]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Although I have yet to receive an official copy of the report from Computer Weekly themselves, my officials have obtained a copy of the document from the internet and are analysing its content.

  327
  Once this work is complete, I will write to the hon. Member with our findings and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent review his Department has undertaken of the FADEC software fitted to Chinook helicopters; and if he will make a statement. [86378]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  FADEC, like any other in-service component, is subject to regular review to ensure it remains reliable and supportable throughout its service life. As a result of this process, MOD has recently initiated a software update which incorporates a number of minor changes in order to maintain the software's long-term supportability.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports have been(a) made and (b) assessed by his Department relating to the computer FADEC used on Chinooks since Air Vice Marshall Jenner's statement to the Defence Committee last year; and if he will make a statement. [86438]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Since the HCDC evidence session in March last year, there have been no reports from RAF personnel expressing flight safety concerns over FADEC.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what grounds his Department took legal proceedings against Textron Lycoming in respect of the FADEC computer system. [86362]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  MOD took legal action against Boeing Helicopters and Textron Lycoming who were both responsible for an engine overspeed during ground testing of a pre-production FADEC system at the Boeing facility in Wilmington, Delaware which resulted in damage to the MOD owned Chinook helicopter on which the FADEC had been fitted. Following the Wilmington incident, the FADEC software was redesigned before it was introduced on to the Chinook Mk2 and it was therefore of a very different standard from that installed on ZD576 which crashed on the Mull of Kintyre.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received requesting the reopening of the inquiry into the loss of the RAF Chinook on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994; and if he will make a statement. [86393]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Since the beginning of this year, there has been a representation from the Lord Chalfont and, following some recent media coverage, my officials have also received a handful of letters from members of the public.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will seek to ascertain if United States or other NATO forces, other than those from the United Kingdom, used depleted uranium weapons in Kosovo. [87412]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The United States has confirmed that it used depleted uranium based ammunition during the Kosovo air campaign. Whether or not other nations used such ammunition is a matter for them.
  328
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many pieces of ordnance were used by UK forces in the Kosovo conflict. [87814]

  Mr. George Robertson
  UK aircraft used a total of 1,005 bombs and missiles in operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I am withholding details of UK cruise missile firings under exemption 1a of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the proportion of the ordnance used in Kosovo which has been millennium non-compliant. [87821]

  Mr. George Robertson
  None of the ordnance used by UK forces in recent operations in the Balkans has been affected by Year 2000-related problems.

  AWE Aldermaston
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on how AWE Aldermaston intend to treat and dispose of the plutonium-contaminated rainwater that has accumulated on-site following heavy rainfall on 19 May. [87709]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 22 June 1999 I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the treatment of contaminated rainwater at AWE Aldermaston. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  During a storm on 19 May, an inch of rain fell within an hour taking up about one third of the capacity of the North Ponds Water Management System. It is standard procedure for the contents of full tanks to be analysed before discharge and on this occasion, low levels of plutonium were detected in two of them.
  The silt suspended in the water has now had time to settle and it has become apparent that while the silt does contain low, but detectable, levels of plutonium, the water itself is not contaminated. AWE intend to decant the water from the two tanks and then retest it. Once they are satisfied that the water is clean, it will be discharged. The silt remaining at the bottom of the tanks will be collected and dealt with by proven methods. This will be done with the approval of the Environment Agency.
  This incident has proved that the North Ponds system works as intended, in allowing flood water to be collected on site, then tested and, where appropriate, treated before discharge.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many gloveboxes are in storage at AWE Aldermaston awaiting treatment and disposal. [87711]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 22 June 1999 I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about storage of gloveboxes at AWE Aldermaston. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  There are at present forty two gloveboxes stored at AWE Aldermaston awaiting treatment and disposal.
  329
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the plant for conditioning the plutonium-bearing sludges currently stored in stainless steel tanks at AWE Aldermaston commenced operations. [87708]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 22 June 1999 I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence which asked about operation of plant for the conditioning of plutonium-bearing sludges at AWE Aldermaston. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  Options for dealing with the plutonium-bearing sludges are still being evaluated by AWE. In the meantime, the sludges remain safely in the tanks, whose integrity is regularly monitored. The tanks are made of rubber lined mild steel rather than stainless steel.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much storage space for intermediate and low-level nuclear waste awaiting a final repository will be left at AWE Aldermaston once the unsuitable waste stores have been emptied and the plutonium-bearing sludge has been conditioned and stored. [87712]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 22 June 1999 I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about storage space for intermediate and low-level nuclear waste at AWE Aldermaston. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  There are currently nine ILW stores at AWE and all are fit for purpose. However, two of the stores were converted from laboratories and these will be emptied and their contents transferred to modern facilities in a programme scheduled to start in September. A contract has recently been placed for a new store which is expected to be brought into service in 2001. This will enable the contents of an ageing store to be emptied and the building decommissioned. Seven stores will remain in use and will provide sufficient capacity for holdings of ILW, and such Low Level as cannot be disposed of to the BNFL site at Drigg, for the period up to 2005/2006.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the submarine nuclear emergency plan that covers berths in Gibraltar. [87710]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Gibraltar Public Safety Scheme, which provides background information and guidance on the action to be taken in order to protect the public in the event of an accident involving the reactor of a nuclear powered submarine in Gibraltar. A copy of this document is already held in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to publish the results of his Department's review of its decommissioned nuclear submarine storage and disposal policy. [87713]
  330
  Mr. Spellar
  The outcome of the initial phase of the review into options for the interim storage of the decommissioned nuclear submarines should be announced later this year. The purpose of this initial phase is to review all practical options and determine the most viable. During the next phase of the review, these options will be developed, involving industry experts as appropriate, and detailed costing work will be undertaken.

SCOTLAND

  Women's Organisations (Consultations)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the women's organisations which have been consulted over proposed legislation by his Department during this session; and if their responses have been published. [86995]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government are committed to making sure that policies are inclusive and take full account of the needs and experience of all those affected by them including the assessment of the potential for differential impact on particular groups in society. In Scotland full use is made of consultation, research projects and disaggregated statistics to identify the impact of policy upon women. The Scottish Office Good Practice Guidance on consultation advises including the Women's National Commission in all consultations. In addition we have set up the Women in Scotland Consultative Forum whose members cover a wide spectrum of women's organisations and which regularly meets officials and Ministers.

  We have also developed a database now numbering over 600 organisations with a women's issues remit who are available for consultation. For example our Action Plan on Violence Against Women was sent to all organisations on the database. All responses to Scottish Office consultation papers are made publicly available unless the respondent has indicated otherwise.

  Genetically Modified Fish
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what advice he has received concerning the farming of genetically modified fish in Scotland; [87260]

  (2) which organisations he has consulted in connection with the licensing of farming of genetically modified fish in Scotland. [87261]

  Mr. Macdonald
  None. No applications for consent to release GM fish into the environment have been made under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992 (as amended). Unless there is a consent to release, any work with GM fish would have to be undertaken in contained premises which had been notified under the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 1992 (as amended).

  Further Education
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will publish his report on the discharge of his duties in relation to Further Education in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [87989]
  331
  Dr. Reid
  My report on Further Education in Scotland for 1998 was published today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  The Report, entitled "Further Education in Scotland 1998: Report by the Secretary of State for Scotland", details this Government's commitment to widening access to further education and providing lifelong learning opportunities for all.

  During 1998 that commitment was backed by a Comprehensive Spending Review settlement identifying an additional £214 million for investment in further education over three years. We also set a new target for the expansion of FE provision. In three year's time the Government expects to see at least 40,000 more students embarking on courses in further education colleges, and from groups which to date have been under-represented among student numbers.

  New initiatives and new resources will help both to stabilise and modernise the FE sector, ensuring that it can fulfil its role at the heart of the Government's lifelong learning agenda for the new millennium.

  Our vision for further education is focused and clear. So too is our expectation that the FE colleges will work together in partnership in rising to meet the challenges which lie ahead.

WALES

  CADW
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which committee within the National Assembly for Wales will be responsible for the activities of CADW; and if he will issue revised guidelines on its responsibilities. [85541]

  Mr. Michael
  This is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in his Department and its associated bodies and agencies have benefited from the introduction of a National Minimum Wage. [86091]

  Mr. Michael
  Eighty five casual Welsh Office staff had their pay increased as a result of the introduction of the National Minimum Wage.

  Information about salary levels in NDPBs is not collected centrally.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hospital beds in Wales are occupied by patients of pensionable age who could be discharged from hospital if alternative care provision existed; and if he will make a statement. [86843]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The latest available information relating to delayed discharges from hospital is shown by NHS trust in the following table. An age breakdown is not available. Information relates to a chosen day in January 1999 (usually 31 January 1999), as reported 332
  in local authority responses to the Survey of Delayed Discharges from Hospital. The survey requested information on the number of hospital patients known to local authority social services departments, who were medically fit to be discharged, but were still occupying a hospital bed. All patients medically fit to be discharged are counted; this may include patients whose delay came within agreed timescales for the discharge process.

  NHS trust

  Number of delayed discharges January 1999

  Bridgend and District

  5

  Cardiff Community Healthcare

  8

  Carmarthen and District

  12

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales

  4

  Clwydian Community Care

  17

  East Glamorgan

  1

  Glan Clwyd General Hospital

  16

  Glan Hafren

  111

  Glan-y-MÖr

  31

  Gwent Health Care1

  27

  Gwynedd Community2

  26

  Gwynedd Hospitals

  7

  Llandough Hospital

  12

  Llanelli Dinefwr

  20

  Morriston Hospital

  69

  Nevill Hall and District

  31

  North Glamorgan

  28

  Pembrokeshire and Derwen

  5

  Powys Health Care

  12

  Rhondda Health Care

  32

  Swansea

  38

  University Hospital of Wales Healthcare

  68

  Velindre

  1

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital

  9

  Total

  590

  1As reported by Caerphilly County Borough Council on post April 1999 trust basis

  2Includes 6 patients with delayed discharges at February 1999

  Following the transfer of functions this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Women's Organisations (Consultation)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the women's organisations which have been consulted over proposed legislation by his Department during this session; and if their responses have been published. [87187]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government are committed to making sure that policies are inclusive and take full account of the needs and experience of all those affected by them. Guidelines on Policy Appraisals for Equal Treatment published in November 1998 commit policy makers to assessing how proposals affect different groups of people.

  Application of the guidance has been the responsibility of individual departments. Within this Department we are making use of consultation, research projects and disaggregated statistics to identify the impact of policy upon women. On the transport side, for example, we are conducting an audit of women's transport requirements

  333
  and developing a checklist for transport providers. Similarly, in housing, we are reviewing the support and accommodation provided by local authorities to households experiencing domestic violence to see if it fits women's needs. This project has an advisory group with representation from women's groups.

  Rent and Service Charges
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the average rent and service charge for registered social landlord housing in the south west for(a) general needs rented housing, (b) shared ownership housing, (c) sheltered housing and (d) supported or special needs housing in 1998–99. [87616]

  Mr. Raynsford
  For all self-contained general needs properties (including sheltered housing) owned by registered social landlords (RSLs) in the south-west region the average weekly rent and service charge as at 31 March 1998 (the most recent data available) was £54.24. These data are collected by the Housing Corporation in the Regulatory and Statistical Returns completed by RSLs.

  Information about rents and service charges for shared ownership and supported or special needs housing is not currently collected for all lettings. Average rents and service charges on all new shared ownership and supported housing lettings during the year ending 31 March 1998 will be published shortly in the CORE Annual Report. The most recent data available from CORE show that the average monthly rent on new shared ownership properties in the South (which includes south-east and south-west regions) during the period April to September 1998 was £114.00; and the average weekly rent and service charge on new supported housing lettings in the south west during the period April to September 1998 was £110.91.

  Housing Grants
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much(a) social housing grant, (b) supported housing management grant and (c) local authority social housing grant, was paid to registered social landlords in the south-west in 1998–99. [87615]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Housing Corporation paid the following amounts to registered social landlords in the south-west region for the financial year 1998–99:

  £million

  Social Housing Grant

  42.29

  Supported Housing Management Grant (SHMG)

  111.5

  Local Authority Social Housing Grant

  46.09

  1This figure includes all projects which were entitled to claim SHMG. A few of these projects will not have claimed SHMG during 1998–99 because they were still in development. They will claim as soon as the schemes are occupied by tenants.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent meetings he has had with officials of the Environment Agency to discuss(a) implementation of the Agency's
  334
  corporate plan, (b) concerns over employment conditions raised by staff trades unions and (c) levels of resources available to support the Agency's statutory responsibilities. [87496]

  Mr. Meacher
  I shall be meeting the Chairman, Chief Executive and other officials of the Environment Agency shortly to discuss the Agency's corporate plan for 2000–01 and I will be raising employment conditions and levels of resources at these meetings.

  MOX Plutonium Fuels Plant (Sellafield)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library copies of the documents submitted(a) to and (b) by his Department in response to the recommendation by the Environment Agency that Government departments should be involved in considering the wider national and international matters arising from the proposal to operate the new MOX plutonium fuels plant at Sellafield. [87502]

  Mr. Meacher
  On 11 June, my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced the go-ahead for uranium commissioning and a further round of consultation into the economic case for the Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication plant at Sellafield. A final decision on the full operation of the MOX plant will not be made until after the consultation finishes on 23 July and all responses have been considered.

  Once a final decision has been taken on the operation of the MOX plant, we will place it in the Library of the House:

  (a) all documents on the MOX plant submitted to my Department in response to our further consultation on the plant's economic case, except those which we have been specifically requested not to make public; and

  (b) all documents published by my Department as part of that final decision.

  Oil and Fat Waste
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the extent of oil and fat waste being put down sewers and drains. [87622]

  Mr. Meale
  The Department has not commissioned any research on this issue and has no plans to do so.

  Genetically Modified Oil Seed Rape
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what permission has been given to grow genetically modified oil seed rape at Stanton, Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement. [87508]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 18 June 1999]No consent to release a genetically modified crop has been issued in respect of Stanton, Gloucestershire.

  Dioxins
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the revised World Health Organisation tolerable daily intake for dioxins (1–4 pg TEQ/Kw bw day). [87843]

  Mr. Meale
  The Department of Health Advisory Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) has not yet had the opportunity to review the data used by the recent WHO consultation which recommended the Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) for dioxins of 1–4 pg TEQ/kg bw/day. Therefore this TDI has not been adopted formally by the Government. The COT will undertake a review when a full report of the consultation is available. In the interim, current exposure data will be considered using both the current UK TDI (10 pg TEQ/kg bw/day) and the recently recommended WHO TDI.

  TCDD
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the conclusion of the International Agency for Research on Cancer at their meeting in Lyon, February 4 to 11, 1997, on the classification of TCDD as a known human carcinogen. [87842]

  Mr. Meale
  The Department of Health Advisory Committee on the Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COC) reviewed the conclusion of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to classify 2,3,7,8-TCDD as a known human carcinogen in 1998. The COC concluded that there are insufficient epidemiological and toxicological data on TCDD to conclude a causal link with cancer in humans, but it would be prudent to consider TCDD as a 'probable weak human carcinogen'. A copy of the full COC statement is being deposited in the Library of the House.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many new lettings, in the most recent 12 months for which figures are available, by(a) local authorities and (b) other social landlords were to (i) lone parents and (ii) teenage lone parents. [87777]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested for local authorities is not collected centrally. For other social landlords the information for England in 1997–98 is as follows:

  General needs accommodation

  Support accommodation

  Total lets to lone parents of which:

  33,048

  4,992

  Lone parent aged 16–19

  2,656

  394

  Source

  Housing Corporation Continuous Recording (CORE) system administered by the Joint Centre for Scottish Housing Research (JCSHR).

  GM Poplars (Zeneca)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment of potential environmental impact he undertook before permission was given to Zeneca to plant genetically modified poplar trees near Bracknell. [87604]

  Mr. Meacher
  Two consents have been issued to Zeneca Ltd. to plant small scale trials of genetically modified poplar trees in the Bracknell area. Each application included a pre-planting environmental audit and risk assessment that were assessed by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. The trees for both trials are derived from female clones and will not therefore produce pollen. The trees will be coppiced after four years to ensure that they remain in a juvenile phase and do not flower and the trials will be terminated prior to flowering after a further four years. In addition there is specific monitoring at both sites for precocious flowering each spring and any flower buds are removed to prevent pollination. A copy of the consent documents and the environmental risk assessment is available on the public register at the Department.

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the maximum percentage of lead permitted in unleaded petrol. [87606]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Directive 85/210/EEC limits lead in unleaded petrol to a maximum of 0.013 grammes per litre. This limit will be lowered to 0.005 grammes per litre from 1 January 2000 in accordance with directive 98/70/EC.

  Rented Dwellings
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of new dwellings to be completed for(a) housing association rent and (b) local authority rent in each London borough in (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01. [87818]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Department does not forecast the volume of new housebuilding at local level.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the proportion of social housing on new developments in each London borough in the current year; and if he will make a statement. [87820]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The latest available information on the proportion of housebuilding completions that were of social housing in each London borough is for 1998–99, as follows:

  London borough

  Percentage

  Barking and Dagenham

  1—

  Barnet

  11

  Bexley

  9

  Brent

  37

  Bromley

  1—

  Camden

  19

  337

  London borough

  Percentage

  City of London

  0

  Croydon

  58

  Ealing

  27

  Enfield

  45

  Greenwich

  25

  Hackney

  45

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  15

  Haringey

  72

  Harrow

  3

  Havering

  10

  Hillingdon

  51

  Hounslow

  3

  Islington

  17

  Kensington and Chelsea

  21

  Kingston upon Thames

  0

  Lambeth

  57

  Lewisham

  46

  Merton

  54

  Newham

  58

  Redbridge

  5

  Richmond upon Thames

  1

  Southwark

  1—

  Sutton

  6

  Tower Hamlets

  1—

  Waltham Forest

  73

  Wandsworth

  4

  Westminster

  15

  1Not available

  Source

  Local authority P2 returns; NHBC

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of single people who are unable to be placed on local authority housing waiting lists and are in need of affordable rented housing in each London borough. [87816]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No estimates are held centrally.

  Private Hire Vehicles (Plymouth)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what steps he is taking to persuade Plymouth City Council to adopt the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 in its regulation of Plymouth-based private hire vehicles;[87824]

  (2) what discussions his officials have had with Plymouth City Council officers in the past six months concerning the regulation of Plymouth-based private hire vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [87825]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The decision as to whether to adopt the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 is a matter for the City Council. They will no doubt take into account the fact that (once the relevant provisions of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 have come into effect) adoption of the 1976 Act will enable private hire vehicles licensed by the City Council to pick up passengers in London. My officials have corresponded this year with officers of Plymouth City Council about these issues.

  Housing Revenue Account Consultation Paper
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the 338
  response was to the consultation paper, "A New Financial Framework for Local Authority Housing: Resource Accounting in the Housing Revenue Account"; and if he will make a statement. [88061]

  Ms Armstrong
  Our proposals for reforming the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) were intended to make local authority housing management more efficient. Responses to the consultation generally welcomed the proposals to introduce resource accounting. I confirm that we intend to move to a new form of accounts with:a cost of capital charge, linked to stock values, showing the resources tied up in local authority housing;
  a major repairs (or depreciation) allowance, paid through the subsidy system, to meet the costs of keeping the stock in good condition; and
  a requirement to prepare a business plan as the framework for managing the stock.

  The proposal to remove rent rebates from the HRA, making it a pure landlord account, was also welcomed in principle. This will go ahead, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary legislation. We will then have to redistribute surpluses to ensure that resources go to councils with the greatest need. We will be consulting on the detailed arrangements later in the year.

  Other areas on which we will be consulting further include: the method by which valuations are to be carried out, the calculation of the major repairs (or depreciation) allowance, business plans and the detailed form of accounts. In response to points made in consultation, we intend to make the new form of accounts simpler.

  On the question of the basis to be adopted for valuing housing stock for the cost of capital charge in the account, respondents overwhelmingly favoured existing use value as social housing, rather than open market value. I confirm that this will be the basis for valuation.

  Authorities expressed concern that the timetable for moving to the new system was too ambitious. So we are now giving them some extra time to prepare. Authorities will be required to keep the HRA in the new form (including business plans) from 2001–02. As long as they have completed the necessary preparatory work satisfactorily, including producing satisfactory business plans, they will be eligible for additional subsidy for the major repairs allowance from that year. Rent rebates will be removed from the HRA at the same time or, if the necessary legislation has not been passed by then, as soon as it is in place.

  Authorities were also concerned about the costs of the work needed to prepare for the changes, particularly valuations and the preparation of business plans. We will be making an extra £15m available through the HRA subsidy system in 2000–01 and a further £15m in 2001–02 to help with these costs, and will consult authorities on proposals for doing so later in the year.

  I am grateful to all those who responded to the consultation paper. I am placing a list of the respondents, excluding any who requested confidentiality, in the House Library together with a report providing an analysis of the responses. The list and specific responses are available in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Library, Ashdown House, 123 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6DE, telephone 0171 890 3039. We will shortly be writing to authorities setting out our response

  339
  and the next steps in more detail. I believe that, working with local government, we can move forward to a new financial framework for local authority housing which is more suitable for the modern, high-quality tenant-focused service which we want to see.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the cost of exempting all university students aged over(a) 21 and (b) 25 years living in (i) Scotland, (ii) Wales, (iii) Northern Ireland and (iv) England from tuition fees. [84063]

  Mr. Mudie:
  [holding answer 13 June 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 10 June 1999, Official Report, column 385.

  Special Measures
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the schools in England currently under special measures, identifying for each school(a) how long it has been under special measures and (b) the percentage of its pupils receiving free school meals. [87018]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 15 June 1999]Information for each school on special measures at 21 April 1999 is shown in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  In June last year the Government announced a tough new policy to stop prolonged failure in schools. Since September 1998, schools which fail an Ofsted inspection must be turned around by local education authorities within two years. If a school is not out of special measures within two years it must be given a fresh start or closed. There are too many schools which failed under the previous administration and are still failing over two years later. We have made it clear that this must not continue and of the 46 such schools on the list provided, 12 have published or had closure proposals approved (three of which will close and Fresh Start schools open), and a further nine have been removed from special measures during the Summer terms already. The rest are now making good progress and we expect virtually all of them to be removed from special measures either this term or next.

  The decisive action we have taken to tackle failure in our schools since May 1997 has cut the average turn-around time from 25 months to 18 months. We are moving from laying the foundations for improvement to delivering the benefits.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for improving employment opportunities for people with disabilities. [86625]

  Ms Hodge
  Disabled people are already benefiting from the New Deals and other changes that the Government have introduced in the last two years. The New Deal for Disabled People is piloting a range of 340
  initiatives, to help disabled people and those with long-term illness on incapacity benefits into work and training through the Government's Welfare to Work approach, at a cost of £195 million. In addition there are a range of existing employment programmes targeted at people with disabilities. They include the Supported Employment Programme, Access to Work and the Job Introduction Scheme. Last October my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that a further £30 million would be spent over 3 years to expand these programmes. This will bring planned spending on specialist disability measures to some £570 million for the next three years.

  Higher Education Funding
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to announce funding for higher education in England for year three of the Comprehensive Spending Review settlement 2001–02. [87360]

  Mr. Mudie
  The guidance to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) on 8 December 1998 announced £250 million for investment in capital and research in 2001–02, and told the Council to plan on the basis that funds would be made available in that year to sustain quality and standards, and to provide for continuing growth in student numbers.

  The Department will provide further details of the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review for 2001–02 in due course.

  Drugs Education
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools had policies on drug education in line with his Department's guidance at the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [87440]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The latest figures, which are provided by Ofsted following a survey in 1997, show that 86 per cent. of secondary schools and 61 per cent. of primary schools have drug education policies. We strongly encourage those schools who have not developed an agreed policy to join those who have already taken that step. Our drug education good practice guidance, issued in November last year, provides important advice on the value of schools developing such policies and guidance on the key components for those policies.

  Technology College Status
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the next round of applications for technology college status is to be invited; and what advice and guidance is to be offered to previous unsuccessful applicants to assist resubmission of their applications. [87630]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The closing date for the next round of applications for Technology College status is Friday, 8 October 1999. A new guidance document for schools wishing to apply in the autumn competition will be available to schools in July. Schools unsuccessful in the March competition will be sent the guidance automatically. These schools receive feedback on the main reasons why they were not approved and a wide
  341
  range of advice and support is available to applicant schools from the Technology Colleges Trust which is grant aided by the DfEE.

  Further Education Funding Council
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects the Further Education Funding Council to inform colleges of the amount of access funds to be made available for students for 1999–2000. [87140]

  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 18 June 1999]The Further Education Funding Council plan to issue their Access Funds circular, including allocations to colleges, later this month.

  Science Teaching
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to raise standards of teaching in the sciences(a) in schools and (b) in higher education establishments. [87366]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The initial teacher training National Curriculum for primary and secondary science, which comes into effect this September, will ensure that all newly qualified teachers are fully prepared to teach science. We are also encouraging more specialist science graduates to apply for teaching through the £5,000 financial incentive announced last October.

  The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education is testing new procedures for assessing quality and safeguarding the standards of all higher education qualifications, including science qualifications. The new Institute for Learning and Teaching will accredit training programmes for higher education teachers, including science teachers.

  Academic Salaries Review
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he plans to publish the Bett review on academic salaries. [87841]

  Mr. Mudie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) on 8 June 1999,Official Report, column 316.

  Islington revenue and capital funding

  £ million

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Education SSA of which

  80.442

  81.095

  81.230

  87.980

  91.713

  Nursery/Primary/Secondary

  70.883

  72.211

  73.145

  80.035

  84.257

  GEST/Standards fund

  1.143

  1.375

  1.589

  2.473

  6.274

  Nursery education grant

  —

  —

  2.076

  0.343

  —

  Capital

  ACG/SCA/VA grant

  —

  0.250

  0.531

  0.588

  1.210

  NDS capital

  —

  —

  0.296

  1.174

  0.656

  Energy efficiency

  —

  —

  —

  0.049

  —

  Total capital

  0.000

  0.250

  0.827

  1.811

  1.866

  Note:

  1997–98 figures were reduced by £2.068m in respect of nursery voucher scheme.

  Family Responsibilities (Employment)
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the benefits to the economy of policies which allow employment to be combined with family responsibilities. [86503]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 17 June 1999]Family-friendly policies can help to boost the economy by increasing the number of skilled people in the labour market, and increasing the numbers returning to education and training. These policies can enhance financial independence—specially for women—both immediately as they benefit from a higher standard of living, and after retirement as a result of building up a better pension entitlement. And these policies can help increase the sustainable level of employment, and improving productivity, leading to an increase in overall living standards.

  Islington Education Service
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what monitoring he is undertaking of the Islington Education Service; and what meetings he has held with representatives of the education service; [87817]

  (2) what is the expenditure by his Department on the contracting out of part of Islington Education Service. [87819]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department and Islington Local Education Authority have commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers to advise on contracting out of most or all services to Islington schools and their pupils, to draw up specifications for such services and to advise on the suitability of interim arrangements. Officials are in regular contact with the authority's officers, and I met head teachers in Islington on 16 June. The Department will contribute towards the cost of PricewaterhouseCoopers' consultancy but has made no payments to date.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much(a) revenue support and (b) capital allocation was provided to Islington Education Service for education up to the age of 16 years in each of the past five years. [87815]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table gives, for each financial year from 1995–96 to 1999–2000, the amounts allocated to the Islington local education authority for revenue support and for capital.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Ministerial Meetings (Ireland)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on how many occasions Ministers in his Department have held meetings with Ministers and officials of the Irish Government since 1 January 1998 indicating the dates and locations, the Ministers involved and the names of the Irish Ministers and officials in each case. [87430]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I met the Irish Culture Minister, Sile de Valera, on 17 June 1999 at my office—at the Department. She was accompanied by Tadhg O hEalaithe, Secretary General to the Department for the Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands.

  My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting met Seamus Brennan TD, Government Chief Whip and Minister of State at the Taoiseach's office, on Monday 5 October 1998, again at the Department. Mr. Brennan was accompanied by Richard Holland from that office.

  My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport met Chris Flood, the Irish Junior Minister for Sport, at the Annual Dinner of London GAA (Gaelic Athletic Association) at the Emerald Rooms at the Emerald Gaelic Grounds, West End Road, Ruislip on 13 February 1999, and Dr. James McDaid, the Irish Minister for Sport, at the Sports Industry Exhibition, Earls Court on 24 February 1999. My hon. Friend met Dr. McDaid again at the EU Sports Ministers conference in Paderborn on 31 May 1999.

  Millennium Dome (Voluntary Work)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures will be taken to enable voluntary organisations to promote their activities within the Dome. [86932]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 14 June 1999]The New Millennium Experience Company receives many requests from a very large number of different organisations concerning events in the Dome. It is not possible for the company to accede to all these requests, but it is considering how some voluntary organisations might be incorporated during the millennium.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps will be taken to promote the issue of volunteering within the Dome. [86933]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 14 June 1999]The New Millennium Experience Company is finalising details of a National Programme initiative that addresses issues of volunteering in the broad context of good citizenship. An announcement will be made in due course.

  Lost Theatre
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with Hammersmith and Fulham Council regarding the future of the Lost Theatre; and if he will make a statement. [87812]
  344
  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have not discussed the future of the Lost Theatre with representatives from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.

  BBC
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 15 June 1999,Official Report, column 88, if he will place in the Library copies of the external audit reports on BBC Worldwide and BBC Resources for the years 1997–98 and 1998–99. [87823]

  Janet Anderson
  The 1998–99 Annual Reports of BBC Worldwide and BBC Resources have been placed in the Libraries of the House. The Reports will include opinions by the external auditors on the financial statements and on corporate governance matters. Publication of the full external audit reports on BBC Worldwide and BBC Resources is a matter for the BBC.

  BBC Worldwide's 1997–98 Annual Report was laid before Parliament on 14 July 1998. The 1998–99 Annual Report is the first for BBC Resources.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Kosovo
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact of the demands of relief aid in Kosovo and Albania upon other areas of development support. [83277]

  Clare Short
  The Government have recently announced a further commitment of up to £50 million for humanitarian aid to Kosovo bringing the total commitment to £90 million. This is in addition to our share of EU assistance.

  The commitment for Kosovo, and for any other major humanitarian emergencies later in the financial year, will be found from the Department for International Development's Contingency Reserve and from the Government's Central Reserve.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what resources, additional to existing commitments, will be made available by the United Kingdom for mine clearance and education about mines in Kosovo. [87375]

  Clare Short
  Mines are a serious problem in Kosovo and could prove a severe constraint to refugee return. Twenty or more incidents have been reported in the first few days alone—resulting in several casualties.

  As part of the Government's recently announced package of£50 million for humanitarian and rehabilitation assistance for Kosovo, £5 million has been allocated for mine clearance and mine awareness education. We have provided grants and practical assistance for UN Mines Advisory Service (co-ordination and oversight), Halo Trust (region wide survey), and clearance teams from Mines Action Group.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what programmes have been curtailed as a result of the £50 million extra money for Kosovo. [87590]
  345
  Clare Short
  No programmes have been curtailed. The £85 million of the £90 million commitment to the needs of Kosovar refugees has been funded from the Department for International Development contingency reserve and the Government central reserve. The remaining £5 million was already committed to the area.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans her Department has for giving aid to those households in Macedonia and Albania which are currently housing Kosovan Albanian refugees. [87401]

  Clare Short
  Our humanitarian assistance during the Kosovo crisis has included support for communities and families in the region who are hosting refugees in their own homes, with priority given to the poorest and most vulnerable.

  DFID is helping to fund a range of international organisations and NGOs. We have given £2.5 million to the Red Cross movement, whose work includes provision of support to host families. In Albania, we are funding Children's Aid Direct and Catholic Relief Services to provide education for both refugees and the local Albanian population. In Macedonia, DFID is funding CARE to provide assistance for vulnerable people, mainly elderly and handicapped, among both refugees and host families. Although many refugees are now returning to Kosovo, I have made it clear that DFID will continue to honour the commitments it has made to the local communities and the refugees that remain in Albania and Macedonia.

  Women's Organisations (Consultation)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the women's organisations which have been consulted over proposed legislation by her Department during this session; and if their responses have been published. [87191]

  Clare Short
  We have proposed no legislation during the current session. But we make strong efforts to ensure that our international development work priorities women's interests and views.

  Written Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to her Department for written answer on a named day since 15 April; and what percentage of them received a substantive response on that day. [87323]

  Clare Short
  Sixty-two parliamentary questions have been tabled to my Department for written answer on a named day since 15 April 1999. 71 per cent. received a substantive response on that day.

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the current percentage of GDP spent on overseas aid; and if she will make a statement. [87422]
  346
  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to my written answer on 11 June 1999,Official Report, column 413, for details.

  Genetically Modified Terminator Seeds
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact of genetically modified terminator seeds in Third World countries; and if she will make a statement. [87567]

  Clare Short
  We are commissioning a study to assess the potential impacts on developing countries of so-called "terminator" gene technologies. The study will examine the potential effects which such technology can have on economic, social and environmental aspects of farming systems important to poor people. We recently published a Background Briefing on genetically modified organisms and developing countries. Copies are in the Library of the House.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Women's Organisations (Consultation)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the women's organisations which have been consulted over proposed legislation by his Department during this session; and if their responses have been published. [87190]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Home Office consults regularly with a wide range of organisations on both proposed changes to legislation and the development of policy. It also issues public consultation documents on which both organisations and individuals are invited to comment. One such document is "Supporting Families" and, on 8 June, I published details of the responses to it.

  Europol/Interpol Co-operation
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on promoting co-operation between Europol and Interpol; and if he will make a statement. [87449]

  Kate Hoey
  Once Europol takes up the full range of activities, we hope it will be able to quickly establish formal co-operation arrangements with non European Union members and bodies such as Interpol as outlined in Article 42 of the Europol Convention. We are encouraging close co-operation between the two organisations, with both of whom the United Kingdom has good working relations.

  Conventions on Refugees
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to propose changes to the international conventions on refugees; and if he will make a statement. [87381]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government have no present plans to propose changes to the main international instruments on refugees. We are strongly committed to the principle of protection for those genuinely fearing persecution. In the longer term, it will be nece0073sary to ensure that the totality of international law and
  347
  agreements continues to support this principle effectively, taking account of the many developments since the Geneva Convention of 1951, in particular the growing problem of false claims for protection being used to circumvent legitimate controls on immigration.

  Drugs (Repeat Offending)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current level of repeat offending among drug-misusing offenders; and if he will make a statement. [87439]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The most recently available relevant information relates to reconvictions in samples of prisoners discharged from prison in 1995 and of offenders commencing community penalties in 1995.

  Reconviction rates for offenders sentenced for drugs offences1 within two years for prisoners discharged from custody in 1995 or commencing community penalties2 in 1995

  Original disposal

  Custody

  Community penalties2

  Total sampled

  3,377

  1,556

  Percentage reconvicted3

  36

  50

  Percentage reconvicted for any drugs offence1

  17

  29

  1All indictable drug related offences. The offence categorisation is based on the most recent offence recorded on the Offenders Index prior to discharge from prison or commencement of a community penalty.

  2Combination orders, community service and probation. Figures relate to offenders sentenced in the first quarter of the year.

  3All standard list offences, this includes all indictable offences and some of the more serious summary offences.

  The source of this information on reconvictions is the Home Office Offenders Index. This does not contain information on cautioning of offenders. It should be borne in mind that this information relates to reconviction rather than reoffending and is restricted to offenders who have been sentenced to custody or a community penalty. It also relates to offenders convicted for drugs related offences, rather than offenders who commit other forms of crime to pay for drugs.

  Base line levels of repeat offending among drug misusing offenders are currently being established. The targets set recently by the United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator include reducing levels of such offending by 50 per cent. by 2008 and 25 per cent. by 2005.

  Prostitute Cards
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his consultations on the placing of cards in telephone boxes by prostitutes. [87595]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have asked for comments on our consultation paper "New Measures to Control Prostitutes Cards in Phone Boxes" by 18 August 1999.

  Prisoner Employment
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners held in each of the London prisons were employed within the prison on a daily basis as at 1 June. [87453]
  348
  Mr. George Howarth
  The information my hon. Friend requested is contained in the table.

  Name of prison establishment

  Number of prisoners employed as at 1 June 1999

  Belmarsh

  1580

  Brixton

  214

  Holloway

  414

  Pentonville

  2335

  Wandsworth

  854

  Wormwood Scrubs

  443

  1 No prisoners actually attended for work on I June as a result of lightning striking, although 580 were scheduled to attend and normally did so before and after this interruption.

  2472 prisoners were normally employed at Pentonville around this time. There was reduced work on 1 June following the bank holiday.

  Cycling Convictions
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been convicted of riding a bicycle without lights in each of the last three years. [87452]

  Mr. Boateng
  Available information for the years 1995 to 1997 is given in the table. 1998 data will become available later this summer.

  Number of persons cautioned or convicted for pedal cycle lighting and reflector offences1, England and Wales, 1995–97

  Disposal

  Year

  Cautioned

  Convicted

  1995

  339

  293

  1996

  379

  333

  1997

  406

  377

  1 Offences under Road Traffic Act 1988 s81 and Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989

  Cleveland Police
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will extend his investigation into police integrity to include Cleveland Police Force; and if he will make a statement. [87572]

  Mr. Boateng
  We are not conducting an investigation into police integrity. However, I was pleased to launch Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary's (HMIC) report on police integrity on 14 June. That report dealt with integrity in its widest sense, encompassing issues such as fairness, probity, behaviour and equal treatment. Its 11 recommendations, in areas such as training, recruitment, vetting, management and financial accounting, are relevant to all forces including Cleveland.

  The practical guidance offered by the HMIC report gives us a framework in which chief officers can tackle integrity problems and ensure corrupt and unacceptable practices are rooted out.

  Paedophiles
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what restrictions apply to the distribution of information between departmental Agencies on paedophiles about to be released back into communities. [87413]
  349
  Mr. George Howarth
  Section 115 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 put beyond doubt the power of any person to disclose information, where necessary or expedient for any provision of the Act, to a chief officer of police, a police authority, local authorities, probation service or health authority. Such disclosure is, however, not a duty and must take account of the common law duty of confidence and statutory restrictions on disclosure, including date protection legislation.

  Last year, the Home Office and the Data Protection Registrar issued a joint statement on information sharing under the Act.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what role is played by(a) local area child protection committees, (b) local authority social services, (c) the Probation Service, (d) the Prison Service, (e) Customs and Excise, (f) the NSPCC and (g) the Police in (i) sharing of information on and (ii) measures taken against predatory paedophiles. [87497]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Multi-agency co-operation is essential for the proper assessment and management of the risk that sex offenders pose in the community, the working of area child protection committees and risk assessment panels and the setting up of written protocols for protecting the public. The composition of these bodies can be agreed locally and may include a wide range of organisations.

  Section 115 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 gives an explicit power to disclose information for the purposes of the Act, and we are currently working with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), the Association of Chief Officers of Probation (ACOP) and others to produce guidance on the disclosure of information about sex offenders who might pose a risk to children and others.

  Released sex offenders are supervised by the probation service within a national framework. Such offenders may also be monitored by the police. The Crime and Disorder Act empowers courts to impose an extended period of supervision and provides for a sex offender order where the present conduct of a released sex offender gives rise to concern.

  Drug Treatment Programmes
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people, including prisoners, participated in publicly funded drug treatment programmes in the latest period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement; [87442]

  (2) how many people in drug treatment programmes reported (i) injecting drugs and (ii) sharing needles in the latest period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [87441]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the six month period ending 31 March 1998, 23,916 people were reported to the Regional Drug Misuse Databases in England as presenting for treatment at drug misuse agencies in the community. It is not possible to give precise figures for only those participating in publicly funded drug treatment programmes. However, it is estimated that around two thirds of those reported as
  350
  presenting for treatment attended statutory services; most of the remainder attended voluntary services, although a small number attended private agencies.

  Of those 23,916 people, 46 per cent. of drug users whose injecting status was known had injected in the previous four weeks. Of those who had injected in the previous four weeks, 15 per cent. of drug users whose sharing status was known had shared injecting equipment in the previous four weeks.

  No information is yet available centrally on prisoners participating in drug treatment programmes. A monitoring system to record such information is being established as part of the Prison Service's implementation of its Drugs Strategy.

  The questions relate to the United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator's First Annual Report and National Plan. A statement was made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office in the House on 25 May 1999, Official Report, 161–63. New research is to be commissioned to establish more robust baselines this year.

  Hillgrove Farm Cattery
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on the treatment of cats at Hillgrove Farm, Oxfordshire. [87673]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I have received a number of letters via hon. Members and directly from members of the public; I have received a petition calling for the establishment to be closed; and I have answered a number of questions in this House on this subject.

  The scientific community has also made its concerns known to me with regard to:

  (i) the damage that could be caused to important medical and veterinary research should the establishment close; and

  (ii) the increased welfare costs to cats if they have to be obtained from overseas sources.

  I understand that representatives of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have visited the establishment, have seen the animals and have reviewed copies of some of the breeding records sent to them by members of the public. They have not made any formal representations to me on this issue.

  Animal Procedures Committee
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the latest annual report of the Animal Procedures Committee. [88129]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I have placed the committee's annual report for 1998 in the Library today. I am grateful to the committee for its valuable work over the year and welcome this latest report. I wish the committee well in tackling the continuing agenda of work which the report identifies.

  Communications (Interception)
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish his proposals for updating the legislation on interception of communications. [88130]
  351
  Mr. Straw
  I announced last September that I had put in hand a comprehensive review of the interception regime and that a consultation document would be published in due course. The review is now complete and I am today publishing a consultation paper "Interception of Communications in the United Kingdom" in which our proposals are laid out in detail. A copy has been placed in the Library (copies are available in the Vote Office).

  The extraordinary pace of change in the communications industry, particularly in the last decade, has revolutionised communications and brought benefits to us all. This new technology, however, brings new opportunities for criminals and terrorists, which they have been quick to exploit. The law has not kept pace with these developments. We need to bring our interception law up to date to ensure the continued success of this essential investigative tool.

  There are also some areas in which we need to improve the protection offered to the individual. There is currently no basis in law, for example, for the interception of communications on private telephone networks. We intend to put such interception on a statutory footing for the first time. This will ensure that the privacy of those who use these networks is respected, and that they have a means of redress if their communications are intercepted unlawfully.

  The Government are committed to building a safe, just and tolerant society. In the field of interception, there is a difficult balance to be struck. I believe our proposals strike the right balance and will be grateful for views on any of the proposals in the consultation paper.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  RUC (Portadown)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which units of(a) the Army and (b) the Royal Irish Regiment were available for call out by Portadown RUC Sub-Division to assist with security problems between 11 p.m. on Saturday 26 April 1997 and 4 a.m. on Sunday 27 April 1997. [85500]

  Mr. Ingram
  Soldiers from three Royal Irish and one Argyll and Southern Highlanders would have been the most immediately available for call out by Portadown RUC Sub-Division during the period in question. Military assistance was not requested, however, as sufficient police resources were available.

  Robert Hamill
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the progress of the Royal Ulster Constabulary investigation into the murder of Robert Hamill. [86272]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]The RUC interviewed a number of people suspected of being involved in the murder of Robert Hamill. Although charges against five were subsequently withdrawn at the direction of the DPP, a sixth man was convicted of affray and sentenced to four years' imprisonment. The RUC have advised that all available lines of inquiry have been 352
  pursued fully. Whilst the investigation remains open, further progress is dependent upon new information or evidence coming to light.

  Rosemary Nelson
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the present role of the Chief Constable of Kent Constabulary in the police investigation into the murder of Rosemary Nelson. [86175]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]The Chief Constable of Kent continues to provide advice, when requested by Deputy Chief Constable Colin Port, who is directing and controlling the investigation. Mr. Port speaks to him on a regular basis.

  Internet Public Service Website
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the submissions to the Patten Commission that have been posted on the internet public service website for press releases. [87484]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 21 June 1999]Publication of submissions to the independent Commission on Policing on the internet or otherwise is a matter for it and those making the submissions.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures she will take to encourage a public debate on the future of policing in Northern Ireland by means of the NIO internet public service website. [87485]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 21 June 1999]The independent Commission on Policing has been established under the Good Friday Agreement"to make recommendations for future policing arrangements in Northern Ireland including means of encouraging widespread community support".

  The Commission has consulted widely and has its own website at: www.belfast.org.uk

  The e-mail address is: PolComm B @ belfast.org.uk

  The Commission's report will be made available on the
  internet.

  Higher Education Places
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will provide details of the allocation to each college of further and higher education of the 600 additional full-time higher education places to be made available over the next two years. [87886]

  Mr. McFall
  The additional 600 full-time higher education places over the next two academic years have been allocated to further education colleges as follows:

  College

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Total

  Belfast Institute of F&HE

  62

  62

  124

  North West Institute of F&HE

  26

  26

  52

  North Down and Ards Institute of F&HE

  33

  33

  66

  Lisburn Institute of F&HE

  13

  13

  26

  Upper Bann Institute of F&HE

  22

  22

  44

  Newry and Kilkeel Institute of F&HE

  48

  48

  96

  353

  College

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Total

  North East Institute of F&HE

  45

  45

  90

  East Antrim Institute of F&HE

  14

  14

  28

  Fermanagh College of F&HE

  12

  12

  24

  NI Hotel and Catering College

  13

  13

  26

  East Down Institute of F&HE

  12

  12

  24

  Total

  300

  300

  600

  Omagh Bombing
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals have been charged with offences in connection with the bomb explosion in Omagh, County Tyrone on 15 August 1998. [87891]

  Mr. Ingram
  On 24 February, Co1m Murphy was charged in the Republic of Ireland with membership of an illegal organisation and with conspiracy to cause an explosion between 13–16 August 1998. The RUC and Garda Siochana continue to co-operate fully in their painstaking investigations. I pay personal tribute to both police services for their complete dedication and tenacity in this investigation.

  Ministerial Visits (RUC)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the visits she has made to(a) RUC Headquarters and (b) RUC stations since she took office as Secretary of State stating the duration of each such visit; and if she will provide the same information in respect of each of the Ministers in her Department. [87597]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) RUC Headquarters:

  Private office have details of two visits to RUC Headquarters; one by Mr. Ingram on 12 May 1997 which was scheduled to last 1 hour and one by Mr. Murphy which took place on 8 January 1998, lasting one hour.

  (b) RUC Stations visited

  Station

  Date

  Duration

  Secretary of State

  Strand Road

  9 May 1997

  30 mins

  Lurgan

  17 June

  30 mins

  Newtownabbey

  26 September 1997

  40 mins

  Dungannon

  8 October 1997

  30 mins

  Musgrave Street, Belfast

  24 October 1997

  30 mins

  Balleymoney

  7 November 1997

  30 mins

  Enniskillen

  13 February 1998

  30 mins

  Waterside

  13 March 1998

  30 mins

  Strand Road

  12 May 1998

  45 mins

  Antrim

  18 May 1998

  30 mins

  Mahon Road

  10 July 1998

  30 mins

  Coleraine

  10 February 1999

  1 hr

  Woodbourne

  18 May 1999

  40 mins

  Cookstown

  24 May 1999

  40 mins

  PRRT Maryfield

  7 June 1999

  30 mins

  Mr. Ingram

  Shantallow

  6 June 1997

  45 mins

  Edward Street, Portadown

  25 June 1997

  2 hrs 20 mins

  Garnerville

  3 July 1997

  3 hrs

  Lisburn Road, Belfast

  22 September 1997

  50 mins

  Magherafelt

  20 November 1997

  40 mins

  Castlereagh Holding Centre

  26 January 1998

  1 hr 30 mins

  Bangor

  9 March 1998

  15 mins

  Aughnacloy

  27 April 1998

  Joint Visit

  Ballygawley

  1 hr 30 mins

  Coleraine

  11 May 1998

  2 hrs

  Armagh

  20 May 1998

  3 hrs

  Newtownards

  26 May 1998

  45 mins

  354

  (b) RUC Stations visited

  Station

  Date

  Duration

  Downpatrick

  26 May 1998

  30 mins

  Hillsborough

  7 November 1998

  15 mins

  Castlecourt Post

  16 December 1998

  30 mins

  Omagh

  8 March 1999

  1 hr 15 mins

  Strandtown

  19 May 1999

  1 hr

  Newcastle

  17 June 1999

  45 mins

  Downpatrick

  17 June 1999

  40 mins

  Mr. Murphy

  Oldpark

  9 January 1998

  20 mins

  Ballymena

  30 April 1998

  30 mins

  Omagh

  21 May 1998

  30 mins

  Tennent Street

  3 June 1999

  Joint visit

  Antrim Road

  1 hr 25 mins

  Mr. MCFall—Nil return

  Lord Dubs—Nil return.

  It should be noted that the durations shown have been taken from the programme schedules arranged prior to each visit, as opposed to exact times on the day (which are not readily available). Visits of this kind regularly exceed the arranged times.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is Her Majesty's Government's policy that Kosovo should remain a part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. [86589]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), column 917.

  Russia (Anti-semitism)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on anti-semitism in Russia. [86593]

  Ms Quin
  We continue to be concerned at anti-semitic incidents in Russia. But it is the anti-semitic comments by Duma deputies Makashov and Ilyukhin last year which caused outrage in Russia and beyond. At our instigation the EU Presidency made representations to the Russian authorities on this subject in January and my right hon. Friend raised the issue with the Russians during his visit to Russia in March. We remain ready to take further action if necessary, including in co-ordination with our EU partners.

  Qualified Majority Voting
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to seek to extend the scope of qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement. [86594]

  Ms Quin
  The possible extension of qualified majority voting will be one of the subjects covered in the Inter-Governmental Conference starting in early 2000. We will look at options on a case by case basis. Where it makes practical sense to extend QMV, we will support it. But where key national interests need to be protected,
  355
  such as on border controls, Treaty change, taxation, defence and social security, we will insist on retaining unanimity.

  Middle East Peace Process
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress with the middle east peace process. [86597]

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the prospects for the middle east peace process. [86606]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), column 913.

  Entry Clearance Officers (Training)
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what training is given to entry clearance officers on issues relating to the sexuality of applicants for visas. [86598]

  Mr. Hoon
  One of the main objectives of the initial three-week training course for Entry Clearance Officers is to ensure that they treat all applicants with courtesy and respect, and without any form of discrimination or prejudice. This course includes guidance on the handling of Settlement applications under the same-sex concession.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Kosovo. [86599]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  KFOR initial deployments are complete. There are now about 19,000 KFOR forces in Kosovo. The Serbs have complied with the Military Technical Agreement and all Yugoslav and Serb forces have now withdrawn from Kosovo. Sergio Vieira de Mello, the UN Interim Special Representative in Kosovo, is now in Pristina and is developing arrangements for the interim civilian administration. According to UNHCR, 73,500 refugees returned to Kosovo last week from Albania and Macedonia.

  However, there is still much to be done to ensure a secure environment in Kosovo and to help returning refugees and internally displaced people to rebuild their lives. Britain will continue to take a leading role in these efforts.

  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the US Secretary of State to discuss developments in Kosovo. [86604]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is and will remain in very regular contact with the US Secretary of State, Mrs. Madeleine Albright, about Kosovo.

  Mr. Martin Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the prospects for refugees from Kosovo being able to return to their homes. [86605]
  356
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  An estimated 140,000 refugees have returned spontaneously to Kosovo from Albania and Macedonia to date and the flow of refugees back to Kosovo continues. The UNHCR will shortly begin a programme of organised returns, once they are sure that the areas to which the refugees are returning are safe. Her Majesty's Government will continue to work closely with the relief agencies to assist the return process.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to protect the historic Serb religious and cultural sites in Kosovo. [87254]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  UN Security Council Resolution 1244 provides that after the withdrawal of Yugoslav and Serb forces from Kosovo, an agreed number of Yugoslav and Serb military and police personnel will be permitted to return to Kosovo to perform certain functions. These functions include maintaining a presence at Serb historic, religious and cultural sites.

  More generally, KFOR has been tasked with establishing a secure environment throughout Kosovo.

  Iran
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to visit Iran to discuss the upgrading of diplomatic relations. [86601]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are no immediate plans for the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to visit Iran.

  Indonesia
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department has to assist progress towards democracy in Indonesia; and if he will make a statement. [86602]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), column 917.

  Economic Reconstruction (Balkans)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his plans for economic reconstruction in the Balkans. [86603]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Her Majesty's Government are actively pursuing, with partners, a range of initiatives to promote stabilisation and prosperity in south eastern Europe. The offer of new Stabilisation and Association Agreements for the countries of the region, once they meet the conditions, will help accelerate the EU integration process and make it more inclusive.

  We actively supported the EU presidency initiative for a Stability Pact for south-east Europe, which was launched on 10 June and will provide a new form of co-operation, including on reconstruction issues. We warmly welcome current EU and World Bank efforts to assess the reconstruction needs in Kosovo and the impact of the crisis on the neighbouring region. We will continue

  357
  to play our part in all efforts designed to overcome the consequences of the crisis and bring the countries of the region into the European mainstream.

  European Common Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with European counterparts about the future development of common foreign and security policy. [86607]

  Ms Quin
  I have regular meetings with my European counterparts, at which the future development of the Common Foreign and Security Policy has been a frequent topic of discussion.

  European Union (Reform)
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the President of the European Commission to discuss the reform of European Union institutions. [86608]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last discussed institutional reform with Mr. Prodi when he presented his plans for reform of the Commission to the Cologne European Council on 3–4 June. Like us, Mr. Prodi sees a need to overhaul financial and personnel management within the Commission. We shall work with him to help him achieve his plans.

  Kashmir
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the situation in Kashmir; and if he will make a statement. [86609]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge), column 920.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will assess the impact on the territorial integrity of(a) Pakistan and (b) India of Kashmir becoming an independent state; and if he will make a statement. [87670]

  Mr. Hoon
  Such an exercise would not be helpful. It is for India and Pakistan to find a solution to this issue. Any lasting solution must involve, and reflect the views of, the people of Kashmir.

  West Bank (Human Rights)
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the latest human rights situation in the occupied territories of the west bank. [86611]

  Mr. Hoon
  We follow closely the human rights situation in the Occupied Territories. We have repeatedly expressed our concern to the Israeli Government about settlement activity, house demolitions and land confiscation. These activities are in breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention, an obstacle to peace and worsen the climate for final status negotiations.
  358
  We have also supported a project to promote human rights within the Palestinian community through the Palestinian Rights Programme, which has been funded by the FCO Human Rights Project Fund and managed by the British Council.

  European Parliaments
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts on improving communication between the national parliaments of Europe. [86578]

  Ms Quin
  The Government believe the national Parliaments have a crucial role to play in giving the European Union legitimacy, and in ensuring that Europe's agenda is set by concerns of Europe's citizens. Improving communications between the national Parliaments will help them to play that role more effectively.

  The Amsterdam Treaty has enhanced their role. We welcome the new six-week minimum scrutiny period for EU legislation, and for a new consultative role for COSAC. These steps will complement the steps we have taken to improve our own scrutiny system.

  In particular, we have extended the scheme for hon. Members to visit EU institutions to include visits to the national Parliaments of our European partners.

  These improved links will help Westminster's voice be heard more clearly in Europe.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 19 April 1999,Official Report, column 405, on special advisers, if he will give the total travel cost of each occasion when (a) departmental and (b) non-departmental advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity since 2 May 1997 and the place visited. [82413]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  For the period 2 May 1997 to 24 April 1999, special advisers in my Department have travelled overseas in an official capacity on 31 occasions. The total cost of travel amounted to £28,475. On most of these visits, special advisers, accompanying Ministers, travelled aboard charter RAF flights at no extra cost to Her Majesty's Government.

  All travel complied with the requirements of the ministerial code and the Civil Service Management code.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Government Ministers have visited Gibraltar since May 1997. [87290]

  Ms Quin
  Since May 1997, the following Government Ministers have visited Gibraltar: Mr. Doug Henderson, the then Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (7–8 October 1997); Mr. John Spellar, Under-Secretary of State for Defence (16–17 October 1997).

  I am planning to visit Gibraltar on 22–23 July. My visit was originally planned for 13–14 May, but was postponed following the tragic death of the right hon. Derek Fatchett MP.
  359
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed issues concerning Gibraltar and Spain with the Spanish Government; and if he will list the issues discussed. [87287]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend has regular contact with the Spanish Foreign Minister. We last discussed such issues on 22 March in the margins of the General Affairs Council and 24–25 March in the margins of the Berlin European Council. We covered border delays, allegations of criminality, and preparations for the UK/Spain summit.

  EC Research Projects
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library project summaries on European Communities research contracts(a) SOE1-CT95–1005, (b) SOE2-CT95–3004, (c) SOE2-CT95–3009, (d) SOE2-CT96–3006, (e) SOE2-CT97–3042, (f) SOE2-CT97–3045, (g) SOE2-CT97– 3048, (h) SOE2-CT97–3050,(i) SOE2-CT97–3059 and (j) SOE2-CT97–3060, indicating their sponsoring DGs in each case and the reason for the project's commissioning; how many research projects are currently funded by the Communities; and if he will make a statement. [87380]

  Ms Quin
  The project reference numbers provided are not familiar. If the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) would care to provide further details, I will endeavour to answer his question in full.

  Strategic Export Controls
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to publish the 1998 Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls. [87448]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We will publish the Report as soon as possible.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to assist in measures to reduce the level of corruption in Zimbabwe. [87699]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Department for International Development, through its projects with the Zimbabwe Republic Police, the Ministry of Local Government and the Privatisation Agency, is assisting in measures to combat corruption in Zimbabwe; and will continue to support initiatives aimed at improving accountability and tackling corruption.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Government support and advice is provided to police forces in Zimbabwe to assist and encourage them to (i) police by consent and (ii) maintain a politically neutral position. [87767]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Under a project funded by the Department for International Development, the Zimbabwe Republic Police receive support and advice from British police forces on many issues, to help them protect individual rights and improve public confidence in police services.
  360
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the level of political violence in Zimbabwe; what representations he has made to the Government of Zimbabwe on this matter; and if he will make a statement. [87700]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I receive regular reports of political developments in Zimbabwe from our High Commission in Harare. We made representations to the Government of Zimbabwe over the illegal arrest and torture of two newspaper journalists in January 1999. I raised our concerns about human rights with President Mugabe when he visited London in December 1998 and when I visited Harare in February 1999.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Government support is provided to the Zimbabwean human rights organisation ZimRights. [87698]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Government supported an organisational/development conference for ZimRights in December 1997. The Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which is largely funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, is currently supporting a three-year ZimRights education programme for domestic and commercial farm workers.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports have been received from the EU-funded election monitoring programme in Zimbabwe(a) in general and (b) on the preparations for this year's urban elections; and if he will make a statement. [87697]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The EU is funding an election monitoring training programme in Zimbabwe, run by the non-governmental organisation, ZimRights. They started work in May 1999. The main objective is to build a team of independent national election monitors to be in place for the 2000 General Election and the 2002 Presidential Election. The team will also monitor by-elections and local council elections. They have not produced any reports yet.

  FCO Establishment (Morwenstow)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the purpose of his Department's establishment at Morwenstow, Cornwall. [87601]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Composite Signals Organisation Station at Morwenstow is part of GCHQ. It is longstanding policy not to provide details about the operations of the security and intelligence services.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to visit the Falkland Islands to discuss the recent talks with Argentinian officials. [86579]
  361
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I visited the Falklands in April last year and have made no plans for a further visit. British and Argentine delegations met in London on 25–27 May to discuss South Atlantic issues. Talks were held on issues such as air links, Argentine access to the Falklands, and our common interest in combating illegal fishing.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases involving claims for jobseeker's allowance in the Lancaster and South Cumbria district Regulation 13(b) of the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996 was applied. [85490]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Foster to Miss Geraldine Smith, dated 17 June 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Minister of State has asked Leigh Lewis to reply direct to your question concerning the number of cases involving claims for Jobseeker's Allowance in the Lancaster and South Cumbria district where the provisions of Regulation 13(4) of the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996 have been applied. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to Mr. Lewis as Chief Executive of the Employment Service. I am replying in his absence.
  I regret that the information you have requested is not available. Details of decisions given by Employment Service Adjudication Officers on labour market questions are recorded in a quarterly summary—the 'Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions', a copy of which is held in the Library. The statistics include the number of decisions made in respect of jobseekers who restrict their availability to less than 40 hours a week. Unfortunately, decisions where the only consideration was whether the provisions of regulation 13(4) applied are not recorded separately. Nor are figures separately recorded for individual Employment Service Districts.
  I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the additional cost to public funds of increasing the level of weekly earnings which are defined as gainful employment for the purpose of claiming invalid care allowance to(a) £55, (b) £60,
  (c) £65, (d) £70, (e) £75 and (f) £100. [86850]

  Mr. Bayley
  It is not possible to cost any of these measures as sufficiently accurate data are not available.

  Housing Benefit (South-West)
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much housing benefit was paid for the tenants of housing associations, local housing companies and other registered social landlords living in the South West in 1998–99. [87614]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.
  362
  The estimated Housing Benefit paid for tenants of housing associations for the South West area in 1997–98 is £155 million.

  Note:

  The data used refer to Housing Association tenants only but may include data for local housing companies and other registered social landlords.

  Sources:

  1. Housing Benefit Management Information Systems Data (May 1997 and May 1998)

  2. Local Authorities' final subsidy claims (1997–98).

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the income levels are of those current incapacity benefit recipients who first made their claim after April 1995 and who have been excluded from the transitional protection provided to former invalidity benefit claimants. [87587]

  Mr. Bayley
  When Incapacity Benefit was introduced transitional arrangements allowed those already in receipt of Invalidity Benefit to continue to receive their previous rate of benefit. This is standard procedure following a major change in Social Security legislation.

  It is not possible to provide figures on income levels just for Incapacity Benefit recipients whose claims began after April 1995. Such information as is available is in the table.

  The number and percentage of all Incapacity Benefit recipients (including those formerly on Invalidity Benefit) in each quintile of the income distribution

  Income quintile

  Number in quintile (BHC)

  Percentage in quintile (BHC)

  Number in quintile (AHC)

  Percentage in quintile (AHC)

  Bottom

  330,000

  19

  350,000

  20

  2

  570,000

  34

  550,000

  32

  3

  390,000

  23

  380,000

  22

  4

  290,000

  17

  300,000

  17

  Top

  130,000

  8

  150,000

  9

  Notes:

  1. BHC = Income quintiles calculated before adjusting for housing costs. AHC = Income quintiles calculated after adjusting for housing costs.

  2. Columns may not sum due to rounding.

  3. These figures are estimates for the latest year available, which was the financial year 1996–97. The data has been derived from the Department of Social Security's Households Below Average Income dataset, which in turn is based upon the Family Resources Survey for the same period.

  4. The income figures are based on household income, adjusted for household size and composition. This reflects the commonsense notion that a household of five adults will need a higher income than a person living alone in order to enjoy the same standard of living. The process of adjusting income in this way is known as equalisation and is needed in order to make sensible income comparisons between households. Each income quintile contains 20 per cent. of the population of Great Britain.

  5. The equivalence scales make allowance for factors such as household size and the age of any children but not for any extra costs that people with disabilities may have. Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance, which are paid to help with the extra costs of disability are included as income in these estimates. Removing Attendance and Disability Living Allowance from income reduces the proportion of Incapacity Benefit recipients in the top half of the income distribution by about 5 or 6 percentage points.

  Retirement Age
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to equalise the retirement age for men and women; and if he will make a statement. [87421]

  Mr. Timms
  The Pensions Act 1995 equalised State pension age for men and women from a future date. Women's State pension age will be increased gradually from 60 to 65 between the years 2010 and 2020. State pension age will be equalised at 65 for both men and women from 6 April 2020.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Service Appointments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office since 1 May 1997, how many(a) Grade One, (b) Grade Two and (c) Grade Three equivalent civil servants have been appointed; how many in each category came from (i) within the Civil Service and (ii) outside the Civil Service; and if the posts were advertised in media available outside the Civil Service. [87600]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Since 1 May 1997, 19 former Grade 1 and 54 former Grade 2 equivalent appointments have been made.

  At Grade 1 six appointments were filled through open competition advertised in the press (two from outside the Civil Service and four from within). The other 13 appointments were made through internal arrangements.

  At Grade 2 equivalent ten appointments were filled through open competition advertised in the press (four from outside the Civil Service and six from within). One appointment was made on secondment. The other 43 appointments were made through internal arrangements.

  Figures are not held centrally for all appointments made at former Grade 3 level. However, 33 appointments at this
  364
  level were filled through open competition advertised in the press. Twenty of the appointees came from outside the Civil Service and 13 from within.

  Class A Drugs
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) if he will estimate the current average age of first use of class A drugs; and if he will make a statement; [87436]

  (2) what estimate he made of the number of 11 to 16-year-olds who use class A drugs; and how many reported so doing in the latest year for which figures are available. [87438]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  There are no reliable figures at this time which relate to illegal drug use specifically for Class A drugs in this age group. We are commissioning new research to establish robust baselines this year.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what proportion of people under 25 years reported using (i) heroin, (ii) cocaine and (iii) any illegal drug in the last(a) month and (b) year for which figures are available. [87437]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  There are no reliable figures at this time which relate to illegal drug use specifically among the under 25 age group. We are commissioning new research to establish more robust baselines this year.

  The 1996 British Crime Survey (England and Wales) percentage figures for 16 to 19-year-olds and 20 to 24-year-olds who indicated they had taken these drugs are as shown.

  Heroin

  Cocaine

  Any Drug

  Last Year

  16–19

  under 0.5

  1

  31

  20–24

  under 0.5

  2

  27

  Last Month

  16–19

  0

  under 0.5

  19

  20–24

  under 0.5

  under 0.5

  18

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

Lord Trotman
Sir Alexander James Trotman, Knight, having been created Baron Trotman, of Osmotherley in the County of North Yorkshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Renwick of Clifton and the Lord Butler of Brockwell, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Strategic Rail Authority
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to reorganise the rail network.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, we are committed to legislating to set up the strategic rail authority and to establish more effective and accountable regulation. The authority will ensure that the railways are run as a coherent whole, not just a collection of different businesses. It will mean an integrated network with the interests of passengers and freight safeguarded.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that Great Western Trains was once known as "God's wonderful railway"? Now, according to the rail regulator, it has the worst record of delays in the whole of Britain, yet annual subsidies to the industry are running at £2 billion—twice the pre-sel-off level. Has the Minister also noticed that Railtrack recently announced an annual profit of £428 million while failing to meet the regulator's targets for capital investment and reducing delays on the crumbling infrastructure? Does the Minister agree that this is an extremely serious situation? I shall be glad to know what the Government are doing about it.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as my noble friend will know, regulators are exerting their powers in this respect. It is true that not long ago Great Western was one of the worst performers in relation to reliability. It has improved its reliability over the past year and we hope that that improvement is sustained. Nevertheless, I recognise that in relation to both the operations and the track in the Great Western zone there remain serious problems. I am sure that the franchising director and subsequently the strategic rail authority will be looking at those.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Islwyn identified the bad reliability of the Great Western
778
zone of Railtrack. According to Railtrack, other zones have a much higher reliability. Does my noble friend agree that it would be a good idea to suggest to the rail regulator that Railtrack should split up its zones into separate companies, as was done in the gas industry, so that there can be some benchmarking of best practices and a little bit of competition between them?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this is primarily a matter for the regulator. As my noble friend will know, there will shortly be a new regulator who will look at the management performance of Railtrack and its reliability—and, indeed, its access charging. Therefore, all of these things could be subject to review. At this stage, I do not consider it sensible to make such a recommendation from government; the regulator will have to consider it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as the Government are worried about congestion on the roads, will they do everything that they can to revive the motor rail service to enable cars to be carried for longer distances by rail?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the number of motor rail services has indeed been reduced over recent years. There are some services which are still running and which are both profitable and attractive. However, I have to say that the price involved must be quite a disincentive, unless one is taking one's car somewhere for a long period of time. As a contribution to reducing the very substantial amount of traffic on our roads, it would be a relatively minor one. Nevertheless. everything helps. It is important, therefore, that rail companies should, where appropriate, consider this means of transporting cars in a way which is off the road.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, I travel regularly to Kingham on the Hereford line. It is a very good line and punctual. However, is the Minister aware—and, if he is, I wonder whether he thinks it odd—that on the train which arrives at Hereford at 8.30 p.m., the bar is closed at 6.15 p.m.?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I deeply regret the inconvenience caused to the noble Lord of which I was, unfortunately, unaware. I assume that the bar closes because there is insufficient custom. I am sure that the noble Lord and his fellow passengers could see to it that perhaps a larger demand ensured that such catering facilities made a profit.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how the rate of subsidy to the rail network in the UK compares with that in other countries in the European Union?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords; not instantaneously. The figures are complex because we have a very diffuse and privatised rail network, whereas in most European countries there is still a single operator which, in most cases, is either state owned or partially state owned. I shall look at the relative figures. I suspect that the

779
noble Earl will discover what he believes to be behind his question. However, until I see the figures I shall not venture an opinion, but I shall write to him.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, as a business, Railtrack has wide experience of signalling. Will that experience be brought to bear on London Underground and, if not, why not?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I believe we announced last week, Railtrack is in discussions with London Underground about the sub-surface lines. Clearly use will be made of expertise of all kinds. Experience of signalling systems that are appropriate to the Underground is not necessarily unique to Railtrack. As the noble Earl will know, major advances in technology are now available which could involve many companies and areas of expertise in improving the signalling system on the Underground network.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the privatisation of the rail network was one of the most grievous mistakes of the post-war era? Will not the Government consider some kind of committee of inquiry to look into the situation and to make recommendations on the future organisation of the rail network?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in terms of examining history I am not sure that a committee of inquiry could throw up anything we do not already know; namely, that the privatisation was rushed, botched and too expensive, and was carried out under a political deadline which all of us—probably even the Opposition—regret. We are left with the results of that. As I said in response to the first Question from my noble friend, the strategic rail authority will be set up to consider a more strategic approach for the future of our railways, which the country richly deserves.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if you regret something the answer is to change it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is precisely what we intend to do with the establishment of the strategic rail authority.

Sports Clubs: Rating Assessments
2.51 p.m.
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many rating assessments on sports clubs have been reconsidered and reduced to reflect ability to pay since November 1996.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, assessments for rateable value are made by the Valuation Office Agency. In November 1996 it issued guidance notes on the assessment of sports clubs which identified the cases in
780
which the ratepayer's ability to pay should be reflected in rateable values. I understand that several appeals were made to reduce assessments following this guidance, but we do not hold centrally information on the number of appeals made by sports clubs or the results of the appeals.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Will he join me in congratulating Camp Hill Old Edwardians Cricket Club in Solihull on obtaining a reduction in the club's rateable value from £3,800 to £1,500? Does the noble Lord know whether tribunals have been reminded that they must take account of the fact that a sports club may be the only possible occupant of a property, as the Court of Appeal has directed? Will the Government publicise the need for clubs which suffer from an excessive valuation at the present time to apply for refunds of rates immediately as the deadline for doing so is approaching?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as is the case with other organisations, sports clubs can at any time contact their local valuation office about their rating. As the noble Viscount will be aware, the guidance provides for the valuation office to take account of a ratepayer's position where there is no market for his property as a sports club is the only conceivable occupant of that property. In that situation the valuation office needs to take account of the rates that are paid for such a building, and thus, indirectly, the occupant's ability to pay. Valuation offices follow that procedure. I believe that sports clubs are aware of that procedure.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that as sports clubs, particularly amateur sports clubs, provide an important social function and also an increasingly important part of the physical education in this country, there is a strong case for removing them from the rating system altogether?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I should make it clear that I am talking about non—commercial sports clubs in this connection. A significant number of sports clubs—including many gyms—make a profit and therefore are not covered by this exemption. As well as approaching the valuation office for a reduction in rateable value, there is the possibility of applying to the local authority for discretionary rate relief. I understand that a number of sports clubs are among the non-profit-making organisations which apply to local authorities for that benefit.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend said that there was a deadline before which applications for revaluation had to be made. Will the Minister kindly tell us what that deadline is so that this can be in the record and widely distributed?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it relates to the previous valuation. The new valuation will be made in the year 2000. Appeals against rateable values are re-evaluated every five years. This modification relates to the

781
previous valuation. The next one will occur in the year 2000. We shall shortly consult on the basis for that new valuation.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am sorry but I did not get out of that when the deadline is in relation to the earlier valuation.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the deadline applies for as long as that valuation lasts. The new valuation will occur in the year 2000.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, will the Minister inform the House whether there is any guidance to rating authorities on the use of their discretion in cases of small sports clubs, which so often—particularly in the more rural parts of the country—provide more of a social service than a sporting facility?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, every valuation office has the guidance and the Valuation Office Agency has worked closely with the Central Council for Physical Recreation to ensure that sports clubs in general know that the facility exists. Although we do not have a comprehensive list of those clubs which have benefited from the measure, I understand that a significant number of them are village clubs in rural areas.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, with regard to the question of my noble friend Lord Elton, is it not true that appeals for amendment for the period between 1990 and 1995 have to be lodged by 5th August this year?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord may well be right. However, those appeals relate to a valuation which was established five years ago.

Ofsted Inspection Teams: Lay Leaders
2.57 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the use of lay persons as leaders of Ofsted inspection teams.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the registration of inspectors who conduct school inspections contracted out by Ofsted is a matter for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England. He has opened a route for experienced lay inspectors with appropriate skills to progress from team member to team leader. To date, 16 lay inspectors have successfully completed the rigorous process of selection and training and are now registered inspectors.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. However, does she not agree with me that professional judgment is at the heart of any credible system of inspection? To use lay people without any professional experience of teaching, or any professional qualifications, to make judgments
782
which can affect the future of a school. and indeed the careers of the teachers and the pupils within it, is an insult to the teaching profession and to HMI. Does she not also agree that to use lay people to make professional judgments is to take away from them the value which put them on the team in the first place; namely, that of being independent of professionals?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, on this matter. I think that lay people can make a good contribution to inspections. I have to remind the noble Baroness that it was the previous government who introduced lay people to inspections. The 16 lay people who have become registered inspectors have been through a rigorous selection process. Rather more than a quarter of those who went through the process failed to make the grade. Those who have led inspections have been carefully monitored by professionals in HMI and have emerged with flying colours. The view is that the inspections they have undertaken as team leaders have been well conducted.
Baroness Young: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Government's new policy of naming and shaming schools based on inspectors' reports aids much greater force to the point raised by my noble friend Lady Perry? The effect will be to damage future careers, particularly those of young teachers. Does the Minister accept that the principle of teams being led by lay inspectors casts doubt on the value of the inspection system as a whole? I accept entirely that lay members being a part of a team is different.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we should keep this in perspective. Out of a total of 2,100, there are only 16 lay registered inspectors; they are a tiny minority. As I said, they are people who have all demonstrated a great deal of relevant knowledge and experience. As to the noble Baroness's comment about naming and shaming, that is not a term the Government ever use. Our policy is to put children first. They have only one chance of a good school education and it is very important that we work to raise the performance of schools that do not come up to scratch after inspections.
Lord Tope: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the survey commissioned by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers which was published last week? It shows that 48 per cent of teachers feel that they do not gain anything professionally from dialogue with Ofsted inspectors. Can she explain to the House how the appointment of lay members to lead the inspection teams will increase the confidence that teachers have in those teams?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the evidence from the ATL survey does not in any way line up with other evidence we have. Our evidence is that nine out of 10 schools are satisfied with their inspections. Of course there is a minority of schools that are not. The Government do not wish to be complacent; we are working all the time to try to improve the inspection

783
process. We are working with Ofsted—which of course has responsibility as an independent inspectorate—to do just that. I do not believe that there is any evidence that teachers have been critical of the small number of lay inspectors who have taken on the responsibility of being team leaders.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister tell us about the rigorous training of inspectors that she mentioned? Who conducts the training? How long does it last?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I shall have to write to my noble friend about who conducts the training. I think it is conducted by HMI and carried out by people who are already inspectors and who therefore have the kind of experience necessary. I shall also let her know the precise length of time. I think that it varies quite considerably, depending on the particular needs of those who have put themselves forward. I should say to my noble friend and to the House that the Government and Ofsted are not taking on any more lay inspectors as team leaders. We now have a sufficient number of registered inspectors for the foreseeable future.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the answer the Minister gave to the last question flies in the face of her earlier answer that the training is rigorous. If the noble Baroness does not know how long the training takes, who carries it out and to what quality, how can she say that the training is rigorous and of good quality? Secondly, perhaps the noble Baroness will cast her mind back to when the Bill was passing through the House. Does she agree that the intention was for lay members to provide an independent voice on inspection teams and that it was never envisaged that they should lead teams or replace, or substitute for, the professionals? Does she further agree that 16 people trained in this way brings them into the ranks of professionals but without their qualifications?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, again, the noble Baroness is not putting the matter into perspective. The contribution of professionals to inspections will continue. Where a lay team leader leads an inspection, there will be more professionals. This is to ensure that the number of professionals carrying out an inspection is adequate.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one person's perspective is another person's distortion?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, is it not the case that the professions in this country too often have it their own way in regulating their own professions? Would it not be in the interests of both good professional standards and the quality of education
784
received by our children if there were a higher commonsense lay input into the inspection process rather than one which seems now to be pegged?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. However, we should have a balance between the valuable contribution that lay people can make and the professional background and experience of those who have worked in the education service in various different roles for a very long time. That is exactly what Ofsted is seeking to attain.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the report in The Times Educational Supplement of 27th December 1996 is accurate? The report states:
"OFSTED has confirmed that lay inspectors with 'significant experience' of school inspections will be invited to take a four-day training course next year, and that lay inspectors should be taking charge of some inspections by September".
If that is accurate, does the Minister regard a four—day training course as adequate?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I never believe what I read in the newspapers, including The Times Educational Supplement.

Balance of Trade Deficit
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures, if any, they are proposing to take to counter the growing deficit in the balance of trade.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, the global downturn has had a significant impact on UK trade performance, with lower exports to South-East Asia accounting for more than half of the widening in the UK trade in goods deficit last year. However, other areas of UK trade have continued to perform strongly, with record surpluses on both trade in services and investment income in 1998. The Government are continuing to encourage policies underpinning economic stability so that all businesses, including exporters, have a firm platform for long-term sustainable growth. They are also pursuing a wide range of measures to help increase UK competitiveness and promote UK exports.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Is he aware of the depth of the problem? The current deficit on the balance of trade is £27 billion; it is forecast to be more than £30 billion next year, 5 per cent of GNP. Large areas of this country are still dependent on manufacturing industry and it is on manufacturing that our trade depends. Is not the Minister concerned about the degree to which the high level of the pound is currently dividing the country between the haves and the have-nots and about the deprivation that that is causing in some areas which are

785
losing jobs rather than gaining jobs? Is he not also concerned about the long-term effect this may have upon growth in this country?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct. There are always regional disparities within a national economy. As I said in my Answer, while we are aware of the difficulties that the high exchange rate is causing exporters, particularly to Europe and South-East Asia, we wish to ensure that the long-term stability, low inflation rates and sound public finance that the country desperately needs are achieved. I, as a former industrialist, know that we need to achieve that. We do not want to take short-term palliatives which will blow us off that fundamental course. There are many ways in which we can help the regions without losing our overall approach to stable economic management.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that our balance of trade depends largely upon the value of the pound and that if we replace the pound by a common European currency the Government will lose a large part of their power to help our balance of trade?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not agree. My memory of industry is that our exports largely demand skills on the part of people, quality goods, great marketing, and a great deal of enthusiasm and technical knowledge. To rely on the exchange rate of the pound is a chimera that is long past.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, as regards imports, does the Minister know of timber and wooden products entering this country at prices that constitute dumping?
Lord Simon of Highbury: No, my Lords, I am not aware of that particular sectoral problem. If there ever is evidence of that being the case, the courts, and indeed the European courts, are the places to look on issues of dumping policy. I should be happy to accept a letter if there is evidence of that kind, and we shall take the case forward.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that, in 1972, manufacturing in this country accounted for 32 per cent of GDP, and in 1997 the percentage was 20.7? Is he aware that that enormous, and serious, reduction in the capacity of our manufacturing industry has taken place against the background not of a rising pound, but in general of a falling pound? Is it not therefore merely an excuse on the part of manufacturers and traders that the high pound is hurting their export potential, when in fact a little more effort on their part would achieve a lot more?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, there is something in what my noble friend says. It is clear that in almost all sophisticated industrial regions, whether the USA, the UK or continental Europe, the share of manufacturing and the total GDP is now broadly around the 20 per cent mark as manufacturing has shifted to lower cost areas; and, as I said, we have had great
786
success in developing service industries. There is no doubt that our manufacturing will always need to rely on greater flexibility, better products, better quality, better sales abroad and sustained investment. The greatest weakness in our manufacturing sector has been too little investment, which has come about largely because we have not had the stable economic environment that our policies now seek to maintain in place.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is not the Minister just a tiny bit worried about the decline in manufacturing industry, given that closures and job losses are still being reported, including one this morning? Despite the Minister's previous answer, will he agree that the high value of sterling is at least one of the factors? Will he share with the House his view on the remarks made by Sr. Prodi in Italy regarding the likelihood that Italy may have to consider leaving the euro and the consequence of the continuing weakening of the euro, leading to a further increase in the value of sterling and causing yet more damage to manufacturing industry?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that I am always concerned where we appear to lack competitiveness. Manufacturing is a sector where our relative competitiveness, not as far back as 1972 but certainly over the past 20 years, has been a worry to all of us. So I share the noble Lord's concerns. Much of our competitiveness White Paper and the sustainable economic policy that we are putting in place are aimed precisely at rectifying our weaknesses. Like the noble Lord, I am aware that a strong pound does not help. However, I am absolutely certain that a weak pound would not be the answer to that problem. We have to work on the constituent parts of competitiveness in a much more effective way in the partnership that we have set up between management and the workforce throughout the country.
As to Sr. Prodi, his remarks were in Italian and were addressed to the chemical industry. The noble Lord's grasp of Italian chemical knowledge may be better than mine. I believe that Sr. Prodi was saying that the Italians, too, require long-term sustainable growth and that double the inflation rate in the rest of Europe would not be a good position for Italy over the long term. I fully agree. His comments were reported quite differently—but then my Italian is also specious.

House of Lords Bill
3.14 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report. —(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 [Exception from section 1]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert —
("() If a vacancy arises by reason of the death or disqualification of an elected hereditary peer excepted from section 1 the vacancy shall be filled—

(a) until the end of the first Session of the Parliament after that in which this Act is passed, by the unsuccessful candidate who obtained the highest number of votes in the election at which the deceased or disqualified peer was elected; and

(b) for any subsequent Session of Parliament, by the holding of an election conducted in accordance with provision made by virtue of this section.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first of an important series of amendments which will be moved from the Front Bench. Perhaps I may crave the indulgence of the House to mention them briefly.
Amendment No. 21 has been tabled to insist on the long-term replacement of what we now call the Weatherill Peers in a by-election. Secondly, Amendment No. 25 would bring in an independent appointments commission—something that the Government have promised for over two years but have not yet delivered. Then, possibly next Wednesday, we shall debate a related amendment, Amendment No. 52, which would limit the size of the House to 659, the same as another place, and so place a cap on the overall extent of patronage. I also commend to the House Amendment No. 46 in the names of my noble friends Lord Mancroft, Lord Goschen and Lord Renton of Mount Harry. The amendment would limit the ability of any future Prime Minister to flood the House in a bid to extend the life of a Parliament.
I must say at the outset that none of these amendments threatens the Bill. Taken together, they do not cut across its objectives, certainly not in the way that the Weatherill amendment, which has already been agreed and commended to the House by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, did. They do not delay the Bill. They do not modify the composition of the House. They simply place safeguards around the exercise of patronage by any future Prime Minister. They also—and this applies particularly to Amendment No. 21—ensure that we do not find ourselves drifting down a slow road to an appointed House. That could happen if the principle of replacement is not included on the face of the Bill.
In the interim House, taking into account the Bill as amended and last weekend's creations, there will be some 218 Conservative Peers and 236 Labour and Liberal Democrat Peers, taken together—a Lib-Lab majority. It is also true that there will be 150 or so Cros-Benchers. But it will be far easier than we may now assume for the Government, who are creating a primarily appointed House, to gain control of procedure and the workings of the House. It would be wrong for the radical step of the creation of an appointed House to be brought about by sleight of hand through Standing Orders. Such an extraordinary step, which would create a hand-picked Chamber, almost unique in the world, should only come about openly, in the full glare of public debate, by primary legislation.
The original Bill before the House was such a Bill. It was universally condemned by commentators, right, left and centre, as a quango too far. So the Government retreated. They accepted the Weatherill amendment; and so, in honour, as I, like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, feel bound in honour, there they should stay.
I do not think that there is a disagreement in principle between this side of the House and the party of government on this amendment. There should not be. We have always made it clear that we should have preferred a single stage Bill. "No stage one without stage two" was not only a good slogan; it was a good constitutional principle. But that battle is now gone. We have this dismal johnny of a Bill before us and we have to deal with it.
I accept that the noble and learned Lord and the Government intend to move on to a second stage Bill. But his and the Government's lips are sealed on what that second stage should be, and those of his colleagues likewise. So do they want to shake the comfortable nest that they will be taking over as life Peers by bringing in elected Peers? I look across the Chamber and do not see a reformist stage two gleaming in Members' eyes.
I accept the good intention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in that regard, but he is not immortal in his high office and cannot necessarily command a future Cabinet, a future House of Commons or a future Parliament. So we must treat the Bill as a stand-alone Bill, one that may last 10, 20 or even, as the current proposals have done, nearly 90 years. That means that if we are not to drift into the quango House that no one wants, we must have a system of replacing the 92 hereditary Peers as they die off.
In my amendment I have given the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or my colleagues in the next Conservative government time to move on to stage two; time to pass a Bill in the first Session of the next Parliament. In that time I have gone along with the noble and learned Lord's view that empty places be topped up from the election roll of 1999. But I have added the tiny insurance policy of writing it onto the face of the Bill. In the long term—and we must conceive of the long term—the top-up scheme is not a secure or stable system. Shall we say, for example, in 2020 that Lord X must come into the House because he was 132nd on the Cross Bench list in 1999? That is a nonsense and we all know it.
The best way to fill a Weatherill place in the long term is to follow the practice the House has had the wisdom to use twice previously for the Irish and Scottish representative Peers. That is by election. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has himself referred to the greater authority that will come to hereditary Peers who remain in this place because they have been elected. Those who come here afterwards by election will have the same authority. The system will have the logic and certainty that the House requires.
I have made my view clear that I would prefer by-elections in future to involve the whole group of hereditary Peers in the party college so that they are truly representative of the hereditary peerage. In

789
Committee, the noble and learned Lord appeared to hint that he might favour what the Romans called "adlection", election from the body of hereditary Peers by those hereditary Peers already in the House. I am less attracted to that approach, but I do not rule it out.
Those kinds of matters are far better resolved by the Procedure Committee and ultimately, of course, the House. They are matters which would fall to be debated and decided on the report of the Procedure Committee when it comes to your Lordships' House.
On behalf of these Benches, I must say how grateful I am for the firm assurance given by the noble and learned Lord in Committee that the debate on the Procedure Committee will be held before Third Reading. That was a wise and statesmanlike undertaking. The amendment is therefore simple. It does not seek to anticipate the details of a by-election system in the long term. That will be for your Lordships on another day. It is also non-prescriptive. It goes with the grain of all that is implicit in the Weatherill arrangement. It is common sense, and it provides, as a wise revising Chamber must, for stability in the long term if stage two never arrives.
I hope that the Government's response will be positive and that they will think carefully on the matter. I was disappointed to read the words of some unnamed spin doctor who claimed that the Weatherill Peers would be excluded if the House insisted on the amendment. I would like to think that that spin doctor was not speaking with the authority of the Government in this House.
I know that there are those outwith the House who do not understand the duty of the House to improve legislation and to guard against every eventuality, however unlikely it might appear. I know that there are those who do not understand the will of the House to be satisfied on the point. The amendment goes to the heart of sustaining the Weatherill arrangement and avoiding a totally appointed House if the second stage never arrives. I hope, therefore, that the Government can reflect on it. I hope that they understand its importance and that the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box this afternoon with a positive reply. If the noble and learned Lord cannot do so, I must warn him and the Government that I shall be obliged to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I wish to associate myself with the words of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition. I made it clear during the course of some of the debates in Committee that this was one of the matters in my recollection which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and I had raised but had deferred as matters for consideration in further detail. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will also be able to confirm that as his recollection. It is a matter of detail, but, I submit, of extremely important detail.
I shall once again trespass on your Lordships' patience by reminding the House of what I saw as the purpose of the agreement I came to with the noble and learned Lord and the Prime Minister. The purpose was to try to pour some sand into the Government's shoe. It
790
would be an irritation to them. Those of us who suspected—no doubt entirely wrongly—that the Government all along wanted to stick at a stage one nominated House saw it as an incentive to ensure that that intention never materialised.
It is against that background that I suggest we should consider my noble friend's amendment. If the Government mean what they say—and I have absolute confidence in the noble and learned Lord when he says it—that they intend to proceed with all due dispatch to stage two reform, I suggest that there is no difficulty from the Government's point of view in accepting my noble friend's amendment. After all, by the time of,
"the first Session of the Parliament after that in which the Act is passed",
according to paragraph (a) in Amendment No. 21, if that time comes, and the Government mean what they say, it seems to me that we shall be well on the way at least to incorporating stage two on to the statute book. If that is not so, we would have accomplished it. So if the Government mean what they say, they would surely not be taking any risks in terms of by-elections. There would be no call for by-elections.
However, if the Government resist the amendment. it would confirm in the unfortunately suspicious minds of some of us that there are some elements of the Government—I am sure, not the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—who have always wanted an entirely nominated Chamber. They could clearly not get it by passing the Bill in its original form. That is something which they accepted would prove enormously difficult in the absence of the compromise which your Lordships have approved in principle.
It would imply that they could also not rely on the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Wakeharn. Those suspicious spirits might feel that he could have been relied upon by the Government to recommend an entirely nominated Chamber. Your Lordships have been repeatedly assured by my noble friend, as is no surprise to those of us who know him, that a nominated Chamber is only one of the options that his Royal Commission will consider and that of course he will be entirely open as to his reasoning behind any recommendations he gives.
So, if the suspicious are right, then the Government would not be able to achieve a wholly nominated Chamber by that route either. If the Government were to resist this by-election amendment, the suspiciously minded would then be driven to the conclusion that if the first two routes had failed they would be driven to a third expedient, and that expedient would take a little longer than they had originally planned but they would still get there in the end. The phrase that has come to be recognised to represent this tactic in your Lordships' House is "withering on the vine". Clearly, if no by-elections were to be held, and this stage one Bill were not to be replaced by a stage two Bill, it would be clear that the 92 would be allowed to wither on the vine and the Government eventually would manage to have achieved their nominated Chamber. In fact as the withering took place, the nominated Chamber would

791
become increasingly a reality, as those of your Lordships who were lucky enough to be elected as members of that group of 92 gradually died off.
It seems to me therefore that what is at stake here is the Government's credibility. I have no doubt at all, as I have said before, that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has bent over backwards to be honourable in keeping to the agreement that he and I came to. I have already said that this detail was one over which we did not agree and which we merely raised in passing, as I understood it, for future agreement. Nevertheless, for the reasons I have given, it seems to me that this is a detail of considerable importance. If the Government really do mean to go to stage two, there seems to be no necessity to oppose my noble friend's amendment, because the by-elections will never be called upon to take place. If, on the other hand, they do not mean to proceed to stage two, then the sand in the shoe will become an ever2014;present reminder to whatever government are in place at the time of by-elections that something must be done to complete the process which Parliament has started in the present Session.
I would submit to your Lordships that this amendment is integral to the tactic which lay behind our motives in coming to this agreement. If Your Lordships do not accept the amendment, then the whole reasoning behind the Weatherill amendment begins to fail. I would suggest to Your Lordships that this will prove to be a test which it is only sensible for your Lordships to set the Government. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will take my remarks in the spirit in which they were intended.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for repeating the arguments that he made on an earlier occasion on this amendment. I find the amendment rather curious. The argument is made that, if we are going to have a reformed Chamber and a second stage, then this amendment is harmless and that therefore we should accept it; but if it is not going to be like that and the transitional House will last a long time, then of course it is absolutely crucial, and the Government must accept it.
I would say exactly the opposite. If noble Lords are right and we accept the Weatherill amendment in order to entice or encourage the Government to have a stage two and stage two is going to happen, the amendment is unnecessary. So why burden the Bill with an unnecessary amendment? If, however, for some reason or another, we are going to have a long transitional stage, which will change the nature of this House in the much longer run, we need to think very carefully about how we will replenish the numbers in that continuing House.
One argument I would make, which is a very strong one, against putting such a provision in the Bill is that at present the rules for electing the 90 are not on the face of the Bill; they are in the Standing Orders. Any amendments to those rules should be left to the
792
committees of this House in the future rather than be put on the face of the Bill, which would allow another place to amend them. We do not want another place to determine by what rules we elect Members of this House. In order to do that, we must leave this question off the face of the Bill. That is one argument for rejecting the amendment.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I voted for the amendment to Clause 2—the so-called Cranborne/Weatherill compromise—for three reasons: first, it will provide some continuity with the existing House; secondly, it will retain in the House more knowledge, experience and diversity than would otherwise be available; thirdly, it will provide an elected element and therefore greater authority for the Peers who are elected and for the House as a whole. Those seem to be substantial reasons in favour of the amendment. Therefore, I judge all amendments, including this one, by one test: is the amendment in keeping with the compromise or not? In my judgment, the amendment moved by my noble friend is in keeping with it. In fact, I believe that, without the provision for by-elections, the amendment which your Lordships' House accepted in Committee will not be wholly effective.
I realise that the Government will say that provision for by-elections is not required because the second stage reform is coming quickly. I do not doubt for one moment that the Government are genuine in their belief, but I do suggest to your Lordships that both time and political imperatives will be against them. The Royal Commission is due to report by the end of the year. That is a very tight timetable. There is no guarantee that it will achieve that timetable. After that, the Government, to their credit, have promised a Joint Committee of both Houses. Anyone who has studied the history of House of Lords reform will realise how difficult it will be for that Joint Committee to achieve agreement. It will certainly need a good deal of time to deliberate. After that, there will be the reaction from the Government. Who has ever heard of a Government coming up to a general election and introducing a Bill for which there is little demand in the country? Of course, the Government will inevitably say—any Government would say it in such circumstances—"We are far too busy with legislation for which there is great demand among the public and legislation which will stand us in good stead for the next general election". Any government would do that and no-one can blame them for so doing.
I suspect that, when we reach that stage, the Government will say, "We are very sorry but we do not have time to introduce the Bill in this Parliament". Then, of course, the general election will take place. Who will win it? Who knows? What will be the form of the next Government and the next Parliament? What will be their attitude to stage two? No one knows. It is at least possible—I say probable—that the interim House will last for a very long time. It is for this reason that

793
I believe we should legislate for that possibility, and I strongly support the amendment moved by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I had no intention of taking part in this debate for a variety of reasons, but a misunderstanding may well have emerged. It has already been stated twice that this particular amendment, which may be good or bad, is a crucial part of the agreement. I am perfectly prepared to give way to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, if he seeks to deny that.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as usual, obviously I have not made matters clear to the noble Lord in particular and the House in general. What I hoped I had made clear was that I regarded the question of by-elections as a crucial detail. However, if my memory serves me right, that was not a matter upon which the Lord Chancellor and I were at one during the course of agreeing the overall Weatherill amendment. That matter was left for future resolution.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, then there is obviously no need to make the point that I intended to make. This amendment may be good or bad, but it certainly was not agreed by some parties to the Weatherill amendment. Notice of that was given to both sides some weeks before the Bill ever entered the House.
Having risen to my feet, I should like to say a few words about the amendment. One fear that has run throughout the debate is that the Government have some reason for wanting to kick the ball into touch and move to a wholly appointed House. I and many other noble Lords are very much in favour of a largely appointed House. Other noble Lords take a fundamentally different view: for example, that it should be overwhelmingly an elected Chamber. That is precisely the key issue on which the Royal Commission has been set up to make recommendations. It seems to me to be, sensible to wait until that point before we decide.
How valid is this fear? We are talking of the possibility of a considerable number of those who remain being struck down by bubonic plague or some other illness. One by one they go down like skittles until we run out of people to whom we can turn. But everybody in the House knows that—I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition agrees—the likelihood is that the Conservative Party will win the next election. In that case there will be no problem. Even in the unlikely event that the Conservatives did not win the next election and the Labour Government were returned with their majority, together with the Liberal Democrats who support them on this issue, cut to less than 100, for what possible reason could they fail to proceed with the intentions of the Bill?
Scottish and Welsh devolution arid the Greater London Bill would be out of the way and this one issue would remain. Would the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Baroness the Leader of the House come before the House and say that they were terribly sorry but they could not do anything further about the removal of hereditary Peers from the House of Lords because the Scottish (No. 2) winter feed-stuff
794
Bill was holding up the programme? They would have to deal with it. Therefore, I believe that this is a false issue.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, almost invariably in this debate I have agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. However, on this occasion I believe that his normal lucid grasp of affairs has slightly slipped. Harold Macmillan said, "Events, dear boy: events, clear boy". The 1911 Act was supposed to lead to proper reform. I take noble Lords through the following possible scenario. The Royal Commission is split. Historically, Royal Commissions have not always been unanimous. That holds up the matter. A joint committee of both Houses then considers the matter. As has been said, such committees are not renowned for being smooth-talking bodies that produce agreements fairly easily. It does not happen like that.
I try my hardest not to make any party-political points. I am interested only in what comes after me. I want the future House to command respect and authority and be able frequently to kick any government where it hurts most. If the then government have to use the Parliament Act, so be it; let them. If this House in its new form can throw out delegated legislation, so be it. The government will then have to justify themselves.
As I understand it, the reform of the House is intended to give this place greater authority. My noble friend Lord Cranborne has done his country an enormous service in ensuring that stage one will have more authority. Noble Lords opposite will not be able to say that all the hereditary idiots like Onslow—there are lots of others, but I shall not name any names—are in the House. This is the sand in the shoe if they do not proceed with it.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said at Committee stage that he did not like the Weatherill amendment but saw it lasting. The Government have nothing to lose either by accepting the amendment or giving a rock solid undertaking to put a proper by-election procedure into Standing Orders. I see the force of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, about putting the matter on the face of the Bill. There is much greater force in putting the commitment to a by-election procedure on the face of the Bill. That does not go against anything that anybody has said before. I hope that Fabius Maximus Cunctator does not have to come out of retirement, but I remind noble Lords that the football season starts fairly soon.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am surprised by the confidence of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that a second stage Bill will follow shortly after the passage of this legislation. I am now allowed to refer in debate to what has been said in another place during this Session. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, perhaps has not read the report of the debate in another place on 9th June. Mr Robert Sheldon, a former colleague of the noble Lord, is a man of enormous experience in these matters. Those of us who were in the other place in 1968 will clearly recall how Mr Sheldon was one of those who engineered the government's discomfiture and forced them to abandon

795
all progress on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. Perhaps we should consider what Mr Robert Sheldon said in the other place:
"My view of the proposed legislation, as it comes back from the House of Lords, is that it would produce a transitional House; these are the first steps. My expectation is that that temporary scheme is likely to become permanent. I am sorry to disagree with some of my colleagues, but, as time goes on, the enthusiasm for constitutional reform is not likely to increase. In my experience—I have seen a fair amount of such matters in my time—that enthusiasm is likely to terminate fairly early on".—[Official Report. Commons; 9/6/99: col. 668.]
Noble Lords would be very foolish not to heed the words of that acknowledged expert.
When we are considering all the amendments before the House, we should proceed on the assumption that, whatever may be the intentions of the Government, there is no way in which the Government can guarantee that there will be a second-stage Bill because the matter is not entirely in their hands; and there are a great many experts in the other place and here who have experienced Bills designed to bring about constitutional reform who recognise the difficulties with which the Government will be faced, and know perfectly well that governments tend to have other priorities. I therefore support the amendment.
Noble Lords: The Lord Chancellor!
Lord Lucas: My Lords, this is Report stage.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, in the light of the contributions your Lordships have made, and with the leave of the House, it might be for the convenience of the House—I shall not give way at the moment—and of assistance to the House to know the position that the Government are minded to adopt.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord is not making a winding-up speech because, this being Report stage, if it is a winding-up speech no one can speak after it, so the debate could not continue after the noble and learned Lord speaks.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may repeat for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, I think that it may be for the convenience of the House if I were to indicate the position that the Government are minded to adopt in the light of the various useful speeches that have been made.
Let me make some things absolutely plain. As I have said many times before, the Weatherill amendment is a purely transitional measure. It was on that basis that the Government supported it; and if the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, will forgive me, no matter how loudly he may whistle in the wind, it is to be hoped that that is the position. He may find that activity of whistling in the wind sustaining for the present, but I can assure him that it will not sustain him for very long.
I also have explained that Clause 2 of the Bill is not about keeping open the principle of hereditary membership of your Lordships' House. That is why, as
796
a matter of principle—and I want to make this absolutely plain at the outset—we do not accept by-elections in which all the hereditary Peers, including those by then excluded from the House, could vote. But perhaps it would be convenient if I indicated my position in relation to what the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said.
All that we ever agreed in terms of replacements was fastest losers. We did not get further than that. So I can confirm that what the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has said is correct. We did not proceed in our discussions beyond that stage. We did not discuss a point in time when fastest losers might cease to be an effective proxy for contemporary popularity, precisely for my part because I contemplated, and do contemplate, phase two preceding that time. It is not for me to say what was in the noble Viscount's mind, but I can confirm that we did not discuss the subject matter of this amendment.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could also confirm that at a later stage we discussed in principle the matter of by-elections, but came to no conclusion.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if the noble Viscount recalls that, I would not call it in question. Certainly we arrived at no agreement about by-elections.
The question therefore arises: if on the expiry of the first Session of the next Parliament there has been no stage two, then the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition says fastest losers by then surely cease to be an effective proxy. Let that be. The Government are willing to proceed on that hypothetical assumption. So let us look carefully at what the amendment says. It recognises the topping-up procedure currently provided for in the draft Standing Orders as an acceptable scheme to generate replacements until, and only until, the end of the first Session of the next Parliament. Thereafter, it provides that replacements should be decided by means of by-elections.
The noble Lord suggested that fastest losers may by that time no longer be considered by their hereditary colleagues to be the most suitable candidates for the post. I am willing to accept that that is a reasonable proposition on the assumptions on which it is based. I do not need to share the assumptions in order to accept that it is a reasonable proposition based on these assumptions, and that by-elections would be a reasonable alternative to fastest losers after the lapse of a few years. I have no objection to the suggestion that the end of the first Session of the next Parliament is a suitable cut-off point. This is a matter of judgment, of course. The contrary could be argued. But for myself and for the Government, the noble Lord's judgment on this appears to be reasonable and therefore one that we can accept.
The Standing Order, as presently drafted, does not rule out by-elections; and of course the Standing Orders have the great advantage of allowing the House maximum flexibility in the matter of replacements, both in deciding the method to adopt to replace excepted Peers once there are no available runners up, and in

797
deciding the right time when to introduce a new method for replacement. That is why we have always believed, as a matter of principle, that such matters are far better dealt with in Standing Orders. But the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has explained that he wants a measure of certainty; that he wants on the face of the Bill an express provision for by-elections to kick in at a predetermined point in time.
As for the detailed mechanics of the by-elections, the amendment appears to reflect the Government's view that the mechanics, the details of the by-elections, are not matters for the face of the Bill because the amendment which the noble Lord has brought before the House appears to envisage that the detailed provisions should be made elsewhere; and that, of course, is in Standing Orders.
So the Government's position is this. Against the possibility, which we do not accept will become reality, that the transitional House will last for longer than on many occasions I have indicated that it will last, and because we are persuaded to accept the proposition that after the passage of the period of time denoted in the noble Lord's amendment, by-elections are a reasonable alternative to the initial topping-up procedure for filling vacancies, we could be persuaded in favour of an amendment in relation to by-elections, but we could only accept an amendment coupled with Standing Orders which provided that hereditaries outside the House may of course stand, and only they may stand, but that they may not vote in the by-elections.
I want to make that point absolutely clear because it is the key to our willingness to entertain any amendment along the lines proposed on the face of the Bill. What we propose is that there will be in-House by-elections and no excluded hereditary Peer will have a right to vote in them.
The voters in a by-election to fill a vacancy arising among the 75 Peers elected in the first instance by the four party and Cross-Bench groups will be the excepted hereditary Peers in the relevant grouping. Thus this matters remains exclusively within this House.
By contrast, the voters in a by-election to fill a vacancy arising among the 15 elected to stand ready to serve as office-holders will be, as in the initial election for the 15, all Members of the House, in this case all life Peers and all excepted hereditary Peers. That is the rational and logical constituency, since any replacement in this category will be expected to stand ready to serve the whole House.
In the light of what I have said I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will accept my assurance that the Government themselves will bring forward at Third Reading an amendment which gives effect to the proposition that I have outlined, I hope clearly, to the benefit of the House, and that he will therefore, when the time comes, withdraw his amendment. I can further assure the noble Lord that if this course is acceptable to him, then, once the amendment is in draft, we will discuss its terms with him.
The proposition that I have outlined, to be reflected in that amendment to be brought before the House by the Government on Third Reading, will of course also
798
need to be reflected in draft standing orders to be considered by the Procedure Committee, and I would hope that that state of affairs could be achieved before Third Reading.
Those are the fullest assurances that I can give the noble Lord to encourage him to withdraw his amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will accept that a large number of noble Lords on this side of the House have genuine fears that the interim House might go on very long indeed. We are very grateful for the assurance that the 92 hereditary Peers will carry on until stage two eventually comes.
Just suppose that that House goes on for a very long time and the party opposite get fed up with it. If it wanted to get rid of those 92 before stage two came, and it hit on the idea of getting rid of them by giving them all life peerages, although that would no doubt fulfil its commitment in its manifesto, I believe that it would be a breach of the Weatherill agreement. Does the noble and learned Lord agree?
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor responds to the point that has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, perhaps I may put this to him.
I had not intended to participate in the debate, but I listened with some concern to my noble and learned friend's response to the amendment before us, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. It seems to me that there is a simple solution that would meet the point made by the noble Lord in his amendment and the feeling that seems to pervade the House. I refer to the principle that we in the Labour Party follow in the election of Members to the Council of Europe and the Western European Union and the appointment by the Conservative Party of Members to serve on those two bodies. We select so many pool Members and so many alternate Members.
I think that the Conservative Benches are to elect 42 Members to continue in the interim House. It seems to me a simple proposition that they should also elect 42 alternate Members at the same time. Then when it was necessary to consider a replacement the replacement would come from the 42 alternate Members who were elected at the same time as the substantive Members.
I think we are drifting into very difficult waters, when a very simple solution could be introduced on Third Reading. I ask my noble and learned friend to consider it before that stage.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Ewing is aware that an alternate Member does not exist only to inherit a membership. but has the right to participate in the proceedings of assemblies, or a board, because he or she is the alternate

799
and can therefore participate in the proceedings prior to any death, resignation or whatever. That obviously is not what anybody wants.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I say, with great respect to my noble friend Lord Mishcon, that my experience of alternate Members in Europe is that they replace those who are absent. And there is no more certain absence than the certainty of death.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, are we still continuing with a mini-debate, or have we returned to the main debate?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should like to respond to the two points that have been made, dealing first—
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Goodhart asked a question which is very relevant to the ability of other noble Lords to participate further in the proceedings. There was considerable concern in all parts of the House when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor rose, as Members believed that that might put an end to the debate under our rules of order. I understood him to say that that was not the case, and that he was intervening. I should like to have this absolutely clear, so that there will be no further misunderstandings. When the noble and learned Lord has said what he wants now to say, will other Members of the House be free to speak in the normal way, if they wish? I understand that the Chief Whip is nodding assent. If that is confirmed, there will be no further problem.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I thought that it was clear to everyone in the House that that was the position, and I see that everyone is nodding agreement. On the other hand, it might be of assistance to the House if, before other contributions were made, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, felt able to indicate whether the course of action that I propose is acceptable to him. That, of course, does not shut out other noble Lords, but it might persuade them to abbreviate their contributions if I have secured a favourable response from the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition.
Of course, I say out of courtesy to my noble friend Lord Ewing that I will consider his proposition of an alternate system, but, for the reason given by my noble friend Lord Mishcon, I think it is an unnecessary complication; it is not proposed by anyone by way of an amendment; and it steps completely outside what has already been agreed in the Weatherill amendment, that there should be a defined number. The notion that that defined number could be represented by an equal defined number of alternates to participate in our debates does not appeal to me.
Nothing I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, can bind a future Parliament, nor, indeed, a future Government. That is obvious. But I say quite clearly
800
that it is the Government's intention that the position of the excepted Peers shall be addressed in phase two reform legislation.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to give a response to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
The House is very full this afternoon. We have witnessed a most extraordinary event, one which I think will become extremely memorable. The dramatic entry of the noble and learned Lord in this debate was extraordinary, but most welcome. One of the excitements of this House is the unpredictable nature of interventions from the Front Bench. I have to say that I suffered a frisson of excitement as the noble and learned Lord spoke and he has given me great pleasure. If I had known that he was to reply quite so quickly, I should have asked for a lot more!
I believe that the noble and learned Lord has come to a statesmanlike conclusion. It is sensible. It is consistent with the arrangements in new Clause 2, on which this House has already voted. It is a victory for common sense. I understand that the noble and learned Lord has committed the Government to coming forward with an amendment at Third Reading. It will be discussed between the Government and the Opposition so that a format can be agreed. He has accepted that there should be on the face of the Bill an assurance that any replacement for the 90 Peers will be by election and that there should be agreed Standing Orders to ensure that those elections can take place.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, for the sake of the record, all that is correct, but upon the expiry of the first Session of the next Parliament.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I agree with that. It was contained in my amendment and I welcome confirmation of it. However, the noble and learned Lord would not want to see the whole of the hereditary peerage being part of the electorate, although they could all be candidates. That is an important consideration. The electorate would be the limited 90 or 75 Peers as per the arrangement in Clause 2.
Of course, I should like to consider that in greater detail and discuss it with the noble and learned Lord. However, I hope that the House, and particularly Members behind me from my own party, will recognise that it would be churlish to take the matter further. I very much welcome the words of the noble and learned Lord and, on that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Goodhart: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord is out of order because the Companion states

801
clearly that on Report only the mover of the amendment speaks after the Minister, save for short questions for elucidation before the Minister sits down. My noble and learned friend has sat down. However, where the Minister wishes to speak early, that does not prevent subsequent debate.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, that is completely consistent with what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said. He said that he was making a brief intervention.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House is always flexible in its procedures. The Question has not yet been put. I suggest that we hear only briefly from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the Question should then be put.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that from the Cross Benches I had wanted to make a brief point and I had understood that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition was making an early intervention. I had one brief comment to make and I had not expected the debate to be wound up quite so quickly and abruptly.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it will obviously be worth hearing one or two Members of this House speak to the amendment. In that case, I shall withdraw my withdrawal of the amendment so as to hear those valued contributions. However, perhaps I may indicate to the noble and learned Lord that I have no intention of pressing the matter to a Division.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, on a point of order, all this has been extremely satisfactory and everyone is quite content. However, almost everything that has happened has been out of order! At Report stage, no noble Lord can speak more than once and there should be no interventions. There have been a great number of speeches from various noble Lords on the same subject and I suggest that if we stick to the rules of order, we shall get on very much quicker.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, what we have just seen in the past few minutes, in a somewhat peculiar procedure, is a cosy get-together of the two Front Benches. I regret to say that I have to be the bad fairy at the wedding.
As has been made perfectly clear, the by-elections were no part of the Cranborne/Irvine concordat. So far as we are concerned, as we made clear during the debate on recommitment, we oppose the filling of vacancies. If they must be filled, we accept filling by runners-up. We cannot accept the by-election system. To begin with, it is pointless in principle. The 90 Weatherill Peers would no doubt be those who are currently active. They will stay until they die or until stage two. Certainly, for up to 10 years it will be practicable to use runners-up to fill the vacancies. Eventually, there will be difficulties, but so what?
802
The purpose of the Weatherill amendment is to put pressure on the Government to proceed with stage two; as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, graphically put it, it is the sand in the shoe. If, in 20 or 30 years' time, we still have not reached stage two, it will mean that the whole purpose of the Weatherill amendment has failed and that successive governments will have found it easy to ignore the sand in their shoe. We believe that there is no justification for keeping the Weatherill amendment alive by a system of by-elections. That would simply be keeping it alive on a lire-support machine without any hope of recovery. It is better to let it die with dignity.
There are, of course, questions about how the by-elections would work. Who would be the electorate'? Who would be the candidates? One point which is not unimportant but has not been considered is the position of the 15 who are to be elected by the whole of your Lordships' House on the footing that they are willing to serve as Deputy Speakers or Chairmen of Committees. The candidates for those 15 vacancies will obviously not be serving Members of your Lordships' House. but will have to be willing to serve as Deputy Speakers or Committee Chairmen. How can someone who has not been in your Lordships' House for years, may perhaps never have been in your Lordships' House, be qualified to serve? How will their ability to serve be tested? Will it be by some kind of election campaign or by a mock Sitting of your Lordships' House to test the capacity of the candidates to chair it? That is completely absurd. I suggest that it is quite impossible to have by-elections for the 15.
As regards the party group Peers, we have been told by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the electorate will be the hereditary Peers who belong to the party group in which the vacancy occurs. That would be unworkable in the case of the noble and learned Lord's own party where, on the death of one of its two elected Peers, the survivor would simply have a right to nominate the successor to the other. It is almost equally unworkable in the case of my own party, where we have three. There would be two survivors. Given that even among the Liberal Democrats there are from time to time disagreements, if those two were to disagree the system would become totally unworkable.
The alternative favoured by the Official Opposition—election by the body of hereditary Peers connected with the party—is unworkable in any circumstances. Who would the candidates be? Would they include those who succeed to their peerages after the Bill comes into force? Presumably they would. But if their successors can be candidates, it means that some man, or very occasionally some woman, who had never been a Member of your Lordships' House could stand for election to your Lordships' House simply as a representative of a section of the hereditary peerage. How would the candidates be elected? Clearly, the group which would be elected among the Conservatives would be far larger and more diverse than the pre-1968 electorate for the representatives of the Scottish Peers or pre-1921 electorate for the representatives of the Irish Peers.

803
Even if we accept that there will be 90 Weatherill Peers, even if we accept the election of 90 Weatherill Peers with reserves, we cannot accept a system of by-elections. In practice, by-elections must mean that if stage two is deferred for any length of time, there will be brought into your Lordships' House hereditary Peers who have not previously sat here. Once we start looking at the mechanism for these by-elections, the absurdity of the idea becomes obvious.
I repeat that the purpose of the Weatherill amendment is to shame a recalcitrant government into proceeding with stage two; and if that does not work within 10 years, there is no reason why it ever should. By-elections to fill the vacancies will not be needed to make the Weatherill amendment work; they will prove that it has not worked. It is arguable that some hereditary Peers should continue to sit until stage two, but I can see no argument for bringing in their successors who have no experience of this House. They will be merely phantom Members of your Lordships' House, elected by a phantom electorate. This is a stitch-up between the two Front Benches in which we have no part and wish to have no part.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, what experience do new life Peers have when they come to this House?
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, life Peers come here because they have had experience in many capacities in public service.
The Earl of Errol: My Lords, I wish to make one point. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to 75 Peers. I suspect that there will be some difference as to whether there are 90 or 75. The House should continue to have the option of being able to elect 15 hereditary Peers who probably have a greater sense of tradition and ceremonial because some of us take part in it every day or in our general lives. That option should be kept open. We should not be talking about 75 Peers only being included in a by-election. I disagree with everything that the previous speaker said.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not believe that there is very much more to add after the response of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to my question. On the basis that I have said everything that I need to say, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank moved Amendment No. 21B:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
("() If Standing Orders provide for any people to be excepted from section I in consequence of an election the method of election shall be determined by each party group and by the Cross-bench peers.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, having listened with great interest to the debate on the previous amendment, I have to tell your Lordships that there
804
have been no exciting overnight meetings between myself and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. At the same time, I hope that his accommodating position on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will be regarded as a precedent and that he will have no great difficulty in accepting in the same kind of spirit the amendment which is now before the House.
During the course of the Report stage and Third Reading, we on these Benches do not intend to re-open the central issue of principle or detail of the Weatherill amendment. We have made our position very plain indeed. The House has decided and we do not intend to re-open those matters on which the view of the House has been plain, even where we have disagreed with it.
I believe it has been clear from our debate so far today that there are matters which were not covered by the agreement between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. This amendment deals with one aspect of that.
In the course of the debate in Committee on 25th May, I referred briefly to the matter. That was the day when the Bill was recommitted, with the Weatherill amendment becoming Clause 2. I explained then that, on the evidence available to me, it was clear that there had been no agreement between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. Therefore, it was a matter to be settled by the House without the noble and learned Lord saying, "We fully understand that it was part of the agreement, whether or not the House likes it and whether or not I believe that it is sensible. This is part of the agreement and I am sticking by it". That is a perfectly tenable position, even though an unsatisfactory one from the point of view of most of us.
As I say, this matter does not fall into that category. In the course of my brief intervention in that debate, I referred to two papers. I wish to refer to them again today. As the House will recall—certainly those who follow these matters in detail will—earlier this year, sometime after the Weatherill amendment had been promulgated but long before it was included in the Bill, the Lord Chancellor very reasonably convened a meeting of what was known as the "O" Committee under the principal official concerned in the Cabinet Office, Sir Quentin Thomas. The instructions of the committee—I am not in any way disputing them—were to try to decide how the framework and the detail of the Weatherill agreement could be embodied in Standing Orders if that seemed to be the best way to proceed. They were the terms of reference and, in effect, they formed the text from which the "O" Committee worked.
I have before me a paper Lords Reform: Cross-Benchers' Amendment: Description of Material for a Resolution. That paper was prepared at the behest of the Lord Chancellor. It was put before the "O" Committee on or about 15th February for discussion by the group at its first meeting, which was later in the month.
Paragraph 4 of the paper said quite plainly that,
"The method of election may be determined by each party group".
What is not in dispute is that the elections within each party group will now be by the hereditary Peers. That is not what we prefer, but that is what the House decided. That is not in dispute and I do not require any comments from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on that.
What is also not in dispute—it was the purpose of another paper to which I shall soon refer—is that, whatever form the elections take, they would be supervised by the Clerk of the Parliaments and his staff. That is not in dispute either. The point at issue is very simple: should the three parties and the Cross-Benchers decide for themselves what the method of election should be?
I have referred to the paper prepared for and put forward by the Lord Chancellor. In confirmation of that, I wish to refer to another paper circulated by the Clerk of the Parliaments on 24th February. In paragraph 4 on the conduct of elections he said:
"Two approaches to the elections of the 75 party peers are possible. One is that each party should conduct its own elections according to its own rules and inform the Returning Officer of the result. The other is that the Returning Officer should conduct all the elections according to common rules".
In each of those alternative propositions there are two ideas. The first is the role of the returning officer and whether the groups should conduct their own elections and inform the returning officer of the result; or whether he should conduct the elections. I have made it absolutely clear that the view from these Benches is that the returning officer should conduct the elections.
The second idea contained in paragraph 4 of the Clerk of the Parliament's paper is whether the election should be conducted according to common rules or whether groups and the Cross Benches should decide how they want to choose. The hereditary Peers should decide how they want to choose those who are staying on.
That is the point at issue. All I have sought to establish so far is that these were not masters determined by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. These are outside that territory. All those on all sides of the House who may have had reservations in the past as to whether they could vote against anything that was included within the agreement need not fear on that account. These matters are outside the agreement.
In the debate to which I referred earlier I hoped that, following my intervention—I refer to the day on which the Bill was recommitted—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would reply and make clear the position. But he did not reply during the course of the debate. I waited for some time because, following the normal practice of your Lordships' House, Ministers often write to us from time to time saying, "You raised a matter during the course of the debate and here is your reply". But one day and then another passed and the Lord Chancellor did not reply. There is no suggestion of discourtesy. I can only believe that it was an oversight.
So on 10th June I wrote to the noble and learned Lord drawing his attention to what I had said at cols. 839 to 840 of the Official Report of Tuesday, 25th May 1999. I ended by saying,
"I would be very grateful if you could let me know before next Tuesday"—
that was Tuesday of last week—
"how you now see these matters".
The noble and learned Lord did not reply. I do not believe for a moment that that was through a lack of courtesy. I do not believe that it was through oversight. The noble and learned Lord is highly competent, as the whole House knows, in the conduct of his affairs and he has a distinguished staff to serve him. I believe the only reasonable assumption is that the answer to my question is, "Yes, you are right and, yes, it is for the House to decide that matter." I do not believe that there is anything that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can now say that would persuade me otherwise, in view of the passage of time—a full month—since I raised the matter in the House.
The question is a simple one. I hope that your Lordships will feel able to deal with it in a relaxed manner. Should the House dictate, should the House determine, should the Lord Chancellor instruct each group—the Conservative Party, his own ranks, the Cross Benches and the Liberal Democrats—should the House instruct us, on the way in which we should elect our hereditary Peers? Or should there be some degree of freedom?
This is a rare occasion when the House can make a legitimate decision on this important Bill in a painless way. My view is that the House should say, "Live and let live. Do it the way you want, subject only to making sure that events are conducted by the returning officer in such a way as to satisfy the natural criteria". The amendment says that. I hope very much that the House will be sympathetic to it. It does no harm to anyone. It does not infringe the Weatherill amendment. I t stands on its virtue and I hope that your Lordships will believe that it deserves to be supported.
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as so often happens, when listening to the noble. Lord, Lord Rodgers, I am for a moment seduced by the power and charm of his argument, particularly his peroration this afternoon. However, in spite of the seductive way in which he put his argument, I find myself in strong disagreement with the spirit and the letter of the amendment. As the noble Lord said, the "O" Group made clear in its report that there were two ways of approaching this question: whether the parties should be left to decide how they would elect the hereditary Peers to represent the hereditary peerage in your Lordships' House during the transition phase, or whether the House as a whole should agree on one method of election that would be followed, slavishly, no doubt, as the noble Lord may think, across all four categories—the three main parties and the Cross Benches.
I believe that before pursuing his amendment the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, may want to consider the distinction between election to a party organisation and

807
election to a House of Parliament. It seems to me that election to a party organisation is of no moment except academically or for purposes of derision by any other organisation. It is a matter exclusively for the party. However, at stake here is membership of a party group but a party group that is part of a House of Parliament. I believe that there is a crucial distinction between a party which is an important part of the political mechanics of the way in which we conduct our affairs in this country and the integral part of the constitution which is how we select people to serve in either House of Parliament.
Therefore, it seems to me sensible that in another place there should be one way of electing people. In the past I have been attracted, and still am, to the idea of once again introducing university members, but I let that pass.
The approach in your Lordships' House has been more eclectic in that we have more than one way of selecting people for membership of this place: by virtue of hereditary peerage, by another method introduced in 1958 of life peerages, and by the way in which Bishops serve in the House. None the less, it is clear that no matter what the political allegiance of the membership of your Lordships' House, whichever route is chosen should be a route that is common to all Peers of that particular category, which does not take account of their party allegiance.
Therefore, that is an important distinction which is worth preserving. It is not election to a party committee, but election to membership of your Lordships' House during a transitional phase, which all of us hope will be short, but nevertheless must be taken seriously while it lasts. For that reason alone—there are other reasons—I feel that the first option, so rightly pointed out and described by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, should be rejected.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will agree that when we discussed this matter during the course of our conversations in the run-up to concluding our agreement—the degree of harmony of our conversations has been the most agreeable feature of our debate so far—he and I agreed that this was an overwhelming reason for rejecting the first option and that all Members of your Lordships' House elected under these transitional arrangements should be elected in the same way. I hope that your Lordships will see that there is force in that argument, and that in spite of the seductiveness of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, noble Lords will nevertheless reject his amendment.
Lord Desai: My Lords, while the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is a reasonable one, in the light of what happened on the previous amendment, and especially considering what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said, it becomes somewhat anomalous. If I have understood what my noble and learned friend said, a consequence of this Bill will be to disenfranchise the hereditary Peers who are not excepted by Clause 2 from voting in further elections to this House. If that principle is accepted, and
808
it has to be accepted, the matter cannot be left to the individual parties to choose the method of election because they may choose to violate that principle. It would be open, for example, to the Liberal Democrats to decide, whatever the Lord Chancellor says, that they want to have the non-excepted hereditary Peers as part of the electorate. We cannot have that.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, no.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I understand that the spirit of the amendment is to enable the life Peers to be elected. My proposition may be carried out by the Conservative Party. If we accept what my noble and learned friend said, that restricts the freedom of parties to choose how they elect other hereditary Peers.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I just correct the noble Lord, Lord Desai? If he looks carefully at the amendment he will see the words "the method of election", not "the electorate". It does not go wider than the simple question of the method of election.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have been puzzled by this amendment. I thought I understood it when I read it initially, but clearly I must be too stupid or something to have understood it properly. However, I am satisfied that I am not too stupid when I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, shares my puzzlement. When I read this, I thought that "the method of election" meant not just whether it would be by proportional representation or whether all hereditary Peers would have a vote, but that it might mean that life Peers would also be allowed to vote along with the hereditary Peers. So I listened with some interest as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, if I may say so, narrowed down his amendment. I understand now what he means, but I suspect that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may say that this amendment is defective and that it goes a good deal wider than the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, seemed to imply in his speech. If the noble and learned Lord does say that, I have to say that I agree with him. I had come prepared to discuss whether or not we life Peers ought to have a vote in our respective parties. Now I am told that the amendment does not call for that, although I actually think it does—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, if the noble Lord would be good enough merely to read the amendment, he would see that the point he is making is nonsensical—
A noble Lord: So there!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I accept the reprimand that I am not being sensible but I am afraid that, like the noble Lord, Lord Desai, I actually interpreted the phrase "the method of election" rather more widely than the originator of the amendment intended. I am just making a simple point; I do not need

809
a little lecture from the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I think that the amendment goes much wider. However, I will narrow the issue to the method. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, did not explain to me why his amendment wanted the possibility of different methods. He did not explain what different methods would be available, and that has left me in some difficulty to understand what he is seeking to do here. It seems to me that certainly the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not going to dictate to us—to the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the Cross-Benchers—how they should actually conduct the election. The people who are going to dictate that are the Members of the Procedure Committee and the House. As an election would be an election to the House, I think it is right that the House should decide the method of election.
I am not going to argue which method should be chosen. I think the method should be the same for all the parties involved. I agree with my noble friend Lord Cranborne, that although it is perfectly right for a party inside its own organisation to decide on its own different methods to elect party executives and to choose election candidates, when it comes to the actual election—for example, to the other place—the electoral procedure is the same for all who stand. All those who stand will participate in a first-past-the-post election or, if I may just whisper it, an extraordinary list system like the one we have just adopted for the European Parliament. Everybody has to stand on the same basis. I could not say during the European parliamentary elections that I did not approve of the system and so would it be possible for the Conservatives to have a different electoral system. That would not work. When it comes to elections to this House, although I understand that we can argue about what method should be used, it should be a common method and therefore I hope that the Government will not be minded to accept the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this amendment, as I understand it, replaces an earlier one which said that any elections provided for in Standing Orders under Clause 2 must be conducted by the single transferable vote system. Presumably, the noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches decided that STV was unlikely to gain the support of the House—I rather think they are right on that score—and instead proposed to allow each grouping a choice of electoral systems.
I have to say, speaking for myself, that the answer offered by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is absolutely correct. This is plainly a matter for the Procedure Committee. I would be astonished if the Procedure Committee supported the proposition that each party or grouping could go it alone. I confidently predict that a uniform election procedure will emerge from the Procedure Committee, if for no other reason than to ensure that each individual excepted Peer chosen by the respective groupings has precisely the same legitimacy as all the others, having been elected by the same means. I really think that a common system of election is required, and that is what
810
is reflected in the Standing Orders as currently drafted. Also, from the point of view of practicality, I do not: believe it would be fair to impose on the Clerk of the Parliaments the burden of administering possibly four different electoral systems. I would suggest that this is really not on, from the point of view of principle and practicality.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, in going through his paper trail on this matter, demonstrated that he would have made a rather good member of the Bar had he chosen that vocation. But let me do the best that I can from my own recollection. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and I certainly discussed at length the composition of the electorate. We came to the view that it would be right that the election should be by hereditaries of hereditaries for hereditaries.
I entirely accept that there is a reasonable argument on the other side, which is that life Peers should have the opportunity also to vote in an election for who their hereditary colleagues should be. I do not reject that argument as an unreasonable one: it can be reasonably entertained and there are equally strong arguments the other way, on which the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and I agreed.
My recollection is that since we took the view that there should be symmetry in the matter of the electorate, we contemplated that there would be overall symmetry because of the principal justification for that: namely, that Members of a House of Parliament are being elected, and there should be a uniform method of election. I am sure that is what we contemplated. I cannot recall any detailed discussion about it, and so I am not saying that those who want to maintain the contrary view are precluded from doing so by reason of the agreement. Those, on the other hand, who maintain the contrary view, whether on the amendment or any part of the agreement, are not precluded from testing the opinion of the House—although of course I do not invite them to do so.
Certainly, it is the case—and I reproach myself for the fact—that I did send to the various parties concerned, which includes all the political parties and the other groupings, a paper prepared by the Constitution Secretariat, which included the paragraph to which the noble Lord referred, which stated that the method of election may be determined by each party or group. I am afraid that I simply did not spot that one line in the paper, but I can certainly say chat the noble Viscount and I contemplated symmetry across the groupings, as evidenced by our clearly expressed agreement in relation to the electorates. For my part. I see no reason why we should agree symmetry for the electorates and not contemplate identity of electoral methods and procedures.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for the fact that by today, 22nd June, I have not replied to his letter dated 10th June. If he will retire with me to my room, he will see the size of my in-tray and will perhaps forgive me for saying that his letter has not yet reached the top of it. I looked at the reference in Hansard where the noble Lord raised this point. If he checks cols. 839–840 of 25th May, he will see that he did not ask me

811
the question which in fact he asked in his letter of 10th June. However, I apologise for not replying to it formally before now.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, there is no great point in pursuing the final remarks of the noble and learned Lord in relation to the circumstances in which he did not respond on this matter; that is now part of history. I had hitherto believed that he took the closest interest in matters of detail. I know from experience that he is extremely good at replying to letters. If he looks back to the Hansard to which we have both referred, he will discover that I gave him the opportunity over the dinner hour to reflect on what I had said so that he could tell the House the outcome of his thoughts when the House reconvened. However, we all make mistakes and fall short from time to time and I would not hold that against a Member of this House.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said that there was a distinction between election to a party or organisation or to a parliament, though he did not make clear precisely what that distinction was except in the most routine and obvious way. However, I remind the noble Viscount that during a period in which he was in government, the United Kingdom chose to elect its representatives to the European Parliament by the first-past-the-post method, while most of the other members of the European Union elected Members by proportional representation.
I am not saying what is right or wrong. I shall be happy to give way to the noble Viscount if I am wrong about the issue and if he can point to an occasion when he spoke out against that arrangement, but if he is not disposed to contradict my understanding on those points, I shall continue.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I will be corrected by the noble Lord, but can he say whether all the countries which elected Members of the European Parliament by proportional representation used the same method of proportional representation? I would infinitely prefer that they were all elected by the first-past-the-post system. It would be much more sensible. I have always made clear that that is my view.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, the noble Viscount has always made it clear that he prefers the first-past-the-post method. But what is absolutely plain is that the government of which he was a distinguished member—this applies also to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish—were not only happy with, but were intent on maintaining, a first-past-the-post system of election to the European Parliament where all our partners took a totally different view.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I was seeking information. Do all the other members use the same method of proportional representation?
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I did not say that. My point—I shall not repeat it more than a
812
third time—is that the government of which the noble Viscount was a member were happy to maintain a quite different method of election, knowingly, from that of our partners in the Community. Nor am I aware that he protested about any differences between the methods of election used by other members of the European Union.
It is true, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, that at one stage we thought of an amendment which might require all groups to elect their members by STV. But that was an unreasonable proposition. We saw it to be unreasonable and decided, on the contrary, that we would prefer every group to choose for itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, asked what methods might be available. It would be for every group to choose. I would not want to anticipate what my noble friends might prefer. But whatever may be the case, I do not believe that it would be an unnecessary and unreasonable burden on the Clerk of Parliaments to proceed with one different system from those used by other groups. That is not an argument which stands up.
The Lord Chancellor said that this was a matter for the Procedure Committee and that he would confidently predict what would emerge. He may be right. But that is a matter, first, for the Procedure Committee to decide and, secondly, for your Lordships' House. In the meantime, though it may well be that your Lordships are not immediately attracted by the amendment, I intend to press for the opinion of the House.
4.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 21B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 335.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McNally, L.

Avebury, L.

Maddock, B.

Bath, M.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Clement-Jones, L.

Newby, L. [Teller.]

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dholakia, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Ezra, L.

Razzall, L.

Falkland, V.

Redesdale, L.

Gage, V.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Geraint, L.

Rochester, L.

Goodhart, L. [Teller.]

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Grey, E.

Russell, E.

Hampton, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Hamwee, B.

Sandberg, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Swansea, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L,

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Jacobs, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Leathers, V.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Thurso, V.

Ludford, B.

Tope, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Tordoff, L.

McNair, L.

Wigoder, L.

813

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Ackner, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Acton, L.

Cranborne, V.

Addison, V.

Crawley, B.

Ahmed, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Aldenham, L.

David, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Davidson, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Davies of Coity, L.

Alli, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Amos, B.

Denham, L.

Ampthill, L.

Derwent, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Desai, L.

Annaly, L.

Diamond, L.

Annan, L.

Dixon, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Donegall, M.

Arlington, B.

Donoughue, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Astor, V.

Dubs, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Dudley, E.

Attlee. E.

Dundonald, E.

Bach, L.

Dunrossil, V.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Eccles, V.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Barnett, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Elles, B.

Bathurst, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bearsted, V.

Elton, L.

Bell, L.

Erroll, E.

Belstead, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Berkeley, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Berners, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Blackstone, B.

Exmouth, V.

Blatch, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Blease, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Feldman, L.

Blyth, L.

Ferrers, E.

Borrie, L.

Fisher, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Foley, L.

Bragg, L.

Fookes, B.

Brentford, V.

Forbes, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Bridges, L.

Gainford, L.

Brightman, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Bristol, Bp.

Garel-Jones, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Geddes, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Glanusk, L.

Burlison, L.

Glenamara, L.

Burnham, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Burns. L.

Glentoran, L.

Buscombe, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Butterworth, L.

Goschen, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Goudie, B.

Campbell of Croy. L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Carew, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Grantchester, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Gray, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Gray of Contin, L.

Chalfont, L.

Gregson, L.

Chandos, V.

Grenfell, L.

Chorley, L.

Hacking, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Hanningfield, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Elanworth, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Hardie, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hardy of Wath. L.

Clitheroe, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Cobbold, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Haskel, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Haslam, L.

Coleridge, L.

Hawke, L.

Colwyn, L.

Hayman, B.

814

Hesketh, L

Morris of Manchester, L.

Higgins, L.

Mountevans, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Moyne, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Mutton of Lindisfarne, L.

Holderness, L.

Naseby, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Hooper, B.

Newall, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Nicol, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Norrie, L.

Hoyle, L.

Northbourne, L.

Hughes, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Hylton, L.

Onslow, E.

Inchyra, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Orme, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Islwyn, L.

Palmer, L.

Jakobovits, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal]

Patel, L.

Paul, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Peel, E.

Jeger, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Perth, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Peston, L.

Jopling, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Judd, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Kennet, L.

Plumb, L.

Kenyon, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Kingsland, L.

Prior, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Prys-Davies, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Puttnam, L.

Kintore, E.

Radnor, E.

Kitchener, E.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Knollys, V.

Rawlings, B.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Lockwood, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Long, V.

Romney, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Lucas, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

St. Davids, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Savile, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Sawyer, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Seccombe, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Selsdon, L.

Mancroft, L.

Sempill, L.

Marlesford, L.

Serota, B.

Marsh, L.

Sewel, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Shepherd, L.

May, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Simon, V.

Merrivale, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Mersey, V.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Simpson of Dunkeld, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Slim, V.

Milverton, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Mishcon, L.

Somerset, D.

Molloy, L.

Stair, E.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Stallard, L.

Monkswell, L.

Stewartby, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Monson, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Strange, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Montrose, D.

Sudeley, L

Moran, L.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Swinfen, L.

815

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Vinson, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Waddington, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Tenby, V.

Warner, L.

Teynham, L.

Waterford, M.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Weatherill, L.

Thornton, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Thurlow, L

Westbury, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Whitty, L.

Townshend, M.

Wilcox, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Trenchard, V.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wolfson, L.

Tryon, L.

Wynford, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Young, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

Uddin, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Varley, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before we proceed with the rest of the Report stage, I have been asked by a number of your Lordships to remind noble Lords of the rules for speaking on Report. On Report, no noble Lord may speak more than once to an amendment, except the mover of the amendment in reply; or a noble Lord who has obtained the leave of the House, which may only be granted to a noble Lord to explain himself on some material point of his speech. no new matter being introduced, or to a Minister of the Crown.
Only the mover of an amendment speaks after the Minister on Report, save for short questions for elucidation to the Minister before he sits down; except that, where the Minister wishes to speak early, this does not prevent subsequent debate. Arguments which have been fully deployed in Committee of the Whole House should not be repeated at length on Report.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 21C:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
("() Standing orders of the House shall provide that the 90 excepted hereditary peers shall consist of the following categories—

(a)(i) 2 peers elected by the Labour hereditary peers;

(ii) 42 peers elected by the Conservative hereditary peers;

(iii) 3 peers elected by the Liberal Democrat hereditary peers; and

(iv) 28 peers elected by the Cross-bench hereditary peers; and

(b) 15 peers, elected by the whole House, from among those ready to serve as Deputy Speakers or in any other office as the House may require.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am speaking to Amendment No. 21C. I see from the grouping list that Amendment No. 58D has been grouped with it. However, apart from the fact that both amendments are tabled in my name, I cannot see much connection between the two. Therefore, I propose to speak only to Amendment No. 21C this afternoon.
I can explain in one sentence why I propose that this one significant part of the Weatherill amendment at least, if no other, should be on the face of the Bill. To reserve to Standing Orders provisions which relate to
816
the election of Members of a House of Parliament would be a constitutional aberration, a direct assault on the rights of the other place and an affront to the parliamentary government of this country.
I have received a note to the effect that Amendment No. 21C is, prima facie, hybrid in the opinion of the Public Bill Office. It is right, therefore, that I should say a few words on this topic, although I suspect that others more knowledgeable and learned than I may dwell on it, and rightly so, at greater length. According to Erskine May,
"The Speaker has defined a hybrid Bill as 'a public Bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interest of other persons or bodies of the same category or class"".
In this case the private interest in question is, as I understand it, that of a person, a hereditary Peer, to be elected to be a Member of this House by one of four electoral colleges according to his political allegiance, or, as the case may be, his lack of allegiance. This would give, for example, an independent Peer a different chance of successful election than a Conservative Peer, notwithstanding that we are told that one-tenth of each electoral college will be eligible for election. This fine point seems to me to be very much on a par with the question: how many angels can dance on a split hair?
I have my own doubts as to whether agreement to the amendment should make the Bill hybrid. I have had no advice and I put my doubts before the House as a complete amateur. But I find it peculiar indeed that the right of a Peer to sit in this House of Parliament is considered, "a particular private interest". If any right was a matter of solely public interest in the context of this Bill, I should have thought that this right was. But there you are. That particular reservation on my part, I hasten to add, has no bearing at all on this debate, for the purposes of which I freely acknowledge the full import of the Clerks' advice. What is relevant is that the hybridity rules are for the protection of private interests, so that it can be no proper objection to this amendment that agreement to it might make the Bill hybrid unless it can be shown that there are no compelling reasons why the amendment should not be pressed.
The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, who I do not see in his place, when he introduced his amendment in Committee said,
"why have we left so much to Standing Orders? We did so because we envisaged that the arrangements would be temporary and that this would be the most convenient way of making provision. This method has the advantage that more detailed provision on the face of the Bill would have to be agreed by another place, which would therefore have as great a say in determining the process as the House of Lords. Of course, another place could be trusted but in this way we order our own affairs in the matter".—[Official Report, 11/5/99; cols. 1091–92.]
I cannot accept this analysis. Thirty months cannot properly be described as a temporary period. The retention of some hereditary Peers in this House by virtue of their hereditary peerages for even 30 months—which is my best estimate of the time after which the Weatherill amendment will be shown to have been spent—should not be dealt with by transitional provision. This is not a transitional measure.
But what concerns me most is the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, that the other place should not be concerned with the election of hereditary Peers under his amendment. That seems to me to be not just a gratuitous insult to the other place, of which he was for many years the distinguished Speaker, but an affront to Parliament itself and to parliamentary democracy.
I need hardly point out that if this amendment is not on the face of the Bill, it will be technically possible for a later change in the Standing Orders of the House to change the political balance of this House.
I shall not detain the House further except to add that White's is but one of a multitude of clubs of which I am not a member. But to put it in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, put it is to treat this House as a club. Of course, a club can order its affairs, but this House is a House of Parliament and provisions affecting the election and political balance of about a sixth of our present membership can and must be decided by Parliament itself and by the Sovereign. They should not be dismissively treated as mere tedious administrative detail, suitable for rules and regulations. I ask your Lordships to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this is a perfectly sensible amendment in principle but I have one or two problems with the idea of putting it on the face of the Bill. I have always believed that many of the Weatherill propositions should go on the face of the Bill, particularly those which concern the by-elections that we discussed earlier this afternoon. However, I wonder whether the specific numbers in the current compromise are ones that the House would want to fix for all time, or until that day—mythical perhaps—when stage two will be delivered. This may be one matter that is best left to Standing Orders which can be changed only by leave of the House.
However, it is always good to have an opportunity to debate these matters. That is why I laid the whole draft Standing Order for debate in Committee, although I regret that few noble Lords took part on that occasion. But it may well be that before the course of stage one and a half is run, there will be good reasons to change the numbers or the political balance between the parties. There may be other reasons for that, for example—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a simple question. In what circumstances would he imagine it right—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend the Chief Whip earlier read out the rules for Report. We should follow them.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, with great respect, I was merely asking a question in the course of a debate in which I had not spoken. I feel I am entirely right to ask the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, a very simple question. In what circumstances does the noble Lord think it would be right to change the proportion of party and Cross-Bench representation in the House?
818
I do not necessarily disagree with him in terms of his conclusion about the amendment. Nevertheless, I am a little puzzled by what he is saying.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, a situation one might envisage is if, in many years to come, there is a complete collapse of the Liberal Democrat Party. It might then be difficult to justify it having three seats at all. There might be an arrangement to renegotiate the position. The same would apply, of course, to other parties.
Another issue with which the noble Lord might have some sympathy is the future of the 15 above the 75 who are now to be selected as Deputy Speakers. For example, they could be subsumed into the rest of the 90; the House might want to consider that in four or five years' time. For my part, I see some attraction in that.
My noble friend should consider those points carefully before pressing the amendment any further. We are looking for an element of flexibility. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was probably agreeing with me about that. It is worth discussing these matters but, on this issue, the Standing Orders are a good place for the numbers to be.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Government's firm view, too, is that the detail of the Weatherill amendment and its consequences are not a matter for the Bill but for Standing Orders. The amendment does not make straightforward statutory provision for the numerical breakdown of the 90 excepted Peers between the different groupings or the different electorates. Instead it imposes a requirement that such provision shall be made in Standing Orders. To have the provision in both places renders the Standing Order empty, making it no more than a rubber stamp.
More substantively, there are two other major objections to the amendment. First, placing these provisions on the face of the Bill would remove the flexibility of the Standing Order in respect of the system for filling vacancies among the excepted Peers. This provision in the Bill would mean that we could not have the fastest loser system currently provided in the draft Standing Order because any replacement excepted Peer would have to be elected. It also means that excluded. hereditary Peers would continue to be able to participate in the by-elections for replacements. That is not acceptable to the Government as a matter of principle, as I explained in giving my assurance about the amendment that the Government will bring forward on Third Reading, against which assurance the Leader of the Opposition withdrew his Amendment No. 21.
There is also a very serious hybridity point. The effect of the amendment would be to include in the Bill a specific allocation to different parties within the House. This would affect the private interests of some hereditary Peers differently from the private interests of other hereditary Peers. A question of hybridity would arise, at least prima facie, if the amendment were to be passed. I must advise the House that if the amendment were agreed to, it would be necessary for the Chairman of Committees to table a Motion after the conclusion of the Report stage to refer the Bill to the Examiners in

819
respect of the amendment, with all the consequences for the timetable of the Bill and the legislative programme that that would entail. I urge the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, to give great weight to that point and not to press the amendment.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am grateful to the two Front Bench spokesmen who have spoken in the short debate. I do not need to detain the House for very long now. The main objection to the amendment is that it deprives the House of the flexibility which the Front Benches feel it should have. On the other hand, my argument in favour of the amendment is that there should not be that kind of flexibility in the way that Parliament conducts its business. I have no doubt that the Weatherill amendment may go along very neatly for a long time without change, but any change should be a matter for Parliament, not just for this House. In those circumstances, I cannot agree with what has been said and I seek the opinion of the House.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Viscount Bledisloe Viscount Bledisloe moved Amendment No. 21D:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert—
("() If, at any time, there shall have been, for more than 30 days, fewer than 90 people excepted from section I pursuant to subsection (2) above, the Lord Chancellor shall thereupon take all such steps as may appear to him to be necessary to seek to ensure that the number of people so excepted becomes 90 as soon as may be reasonably practicable.
Provided that the validity of anything done by the House of Lords shall not be in any way affected, or open to challenge, by reason of the fact that, at any time, there are less than 90 people so excepted.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendment No. 21D stands in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont and Lord Lucas. I propose the amendment with the greatest confidence for two reasons. First, it gives effect to the policy expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when we debated this matter in Committee on 25th May; and, secondly, it is brought forward pursuant to the express invitation of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I should at the outset say that, in the light of what the noble and learned Lord said in answer to Amendment No. 21, it may well be that if he can give me sufficient assurance it will not be necessary to press the amendment at this stage.
In Committee, the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Lucas, moved two amendments designed to ensure that the 90 was not just a maximum number but was a number to be maintained at all times. In answer, so far as concerns policy, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave the most categorical answer. He said:
"The 90 is intended to be both a ceiling and a floor … Peers will remain at 90 … That is certainly the Government's intention. I have given a 100 per cent assurance that that is so".—[Official Report, 25/5/99; col. 877.]
That is why the amendment gives effect to government policy.
But the noble and learned Lord went on to say—quite rightly, in my humble and respectful opinion—that in the form in which they were drafted the amendments
820
were unacceptable, particularly the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, which forbade any one of the 90 to die at any stage. It was a little optimistic of him to think that even legislation could achieve that. In answer, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said:
"In my view, until someone comes forward with something better than this amendment, it should be left on that basis".—[Official Report, 25/5/99; col. 879.]
This amendment is my attempt to come forward with something better than that basis.
The amendment merely provides that if a vacancy has existed for more than 30 days, the Lord Chancellor shall take such steps as may appear to him to be necessary to seek to ensure that the number goes back up to 90. He has to take only such steps as he considers necessary when the vacancy has existed for more than 30 days. If, for example, a vacancy occurs during a Recess, he may consider that no steps are necessary because the matter will be resolved as soon as someone comes back to do the work. He has only to seek to ensure that the number is topped up; therefore if no one is willing to serve, he has not in any way failed in his duty.
The noble and learned Lord was also concerned that if too absolute a duty was placed on the Bill, there could be some challenge to procedure of the House when the full 90 did not exist. For the avoidance of doubt, I have sought in the second paragraph to make it absolutely plain that that could not apply.
I therefore venture to hope that this amendment is acceptable both in principle and in technicality, because it does not place on anyone an onus to do that which is difficult or impossible, and it makes the position on validity totally clear.
It may be that when the noble and learned Lord returns with an amendment at Third Reading, as he has undertaken to do to in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that of itself will make it plain that the 90 have to be topped up. If the noble and learned Lord can now assure me that the amendment that he brings back at that stage will make it plain that the 90 have to be topped up and that there is some mechanism for doing that, I shall be content. I have no commitment to any particular method; I merely want to ensure that there is a mechanism at all times for keeping the 90 topped up.
The noble and learned Lord may say that this is all academic, stage two will happen very soon and this provision will never be needed. One fully accepts that it is his intent and wish that stage two will happen soon. I suspect it was the intent and express wish of the authors of the 1911 Act that stage two of that legislation should happen soon. But minor difficulties, such as a near-revolt in Ireland and then World War One, blew them off course. So one can never know whether the Government will achieve that result. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in speaking to an earlier amendment, pointed out other reasons why stage two may not happen as soon as it is hoped. There was some debate about how likely that was; but that is not the basis on which we legislate. We legislate to cover all the circumstances and to be sure that the intent is provided. Therefore,

821
I commend the amendment to the House; or at least, I invite the noble and learned Lord to say that he will deal with this matter in his amendment to replace Amendment No. 21.
In that connection, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord one question. He has said, and I am pleased to hear, that we shall consider the report of the Procedure Committee before Third Reading. But the concept of Amendment No. 21 suggests further Standing Orders to deal with by-elections to fill vacancies. It seems to me that it is putting rather a lot on the Procedure Committee to hope that it can deal not only with the first-off election, the one that is to take place soon, but also with the subsequent by-elections, and have its report before the House by, let us say, the middle of July. Is the intention that the Procedure Committee should report to the House on both those issues; or is the intention that the subject of subsequent by-elections shall be left over so that the committee has a more mature time to consider the matter and does not have to work under quite so much pressure? I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly. I have every sympathy with the amendment. It may be that the Government can accept it. It follows on from the debate that we had in Committee, when I suggested that a floor should be placed under the number of hereditary Peers excepted under the Bill. Then, the noble and learned Lord was concerned that to omit the words "no more than" from the Bill and to insist on leaving 92 Weatherill Peers in the House might invite some to question the validity of the House if the numbers were under 90.
This amendment ingeniously shoots that particular fox. It asks only for the places to be filled as soon as possible. It further puts beyond doubt any question that the House could not act validly if the numbers of excepted Peers fell below 90. So I strongly endorse both parts of the amendment, which clearly should have support in all parts of the House. It may be that the Government will follow the argument of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and agree that their response to Amendment No. 21 has changed the ground rules. If so, this is also an opportunity for the noble and learned Lord to say that. I should certainly welcome that.
Perhaps I may deal also with the final point raised by the noble Viscount on Standing Orders. It is my understanding, which is probably right, that the Procedure Committee should meet in order to agree Standing Orders for all these procedures, and that the House should then take a view on the advice of the Procedure Committee. Again, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will he able to give a positive response to the noble Viscount.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, let me first respond to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, by saying that it is certainly my objective, without putting anyone under an excessive burden, to ensure that the Procedure Committee can prepare Standing Orders for consideration by the House, which will address both the
822
initial elections and by-elections; and that the committee should do that, if at all possible, before Third Reading. I therefore endorse the remarks of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. It would not be feasible for the Procedure Committee to achieve that before the end of this Report stage.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, will appreciate that I do not want to anticipate the precise terns of the amendment which, pursuant to my undertaking given to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition in reply to his Amendment No. 21, the Government will bring forward at Third Reading. However, he may find it reassuring that I at present contemplate that the words "no more than" in Clause 2(2) should be elided, so that the subsection would read, "At any one time 90 people shall be excepted"; then the provision for the filling of vacancies by means of by-elections would show that the statutory purpose was to procure that the 90 were topped up. That in itself, as the noble Viscount anticipated, may be sufficient to satisfy him. As he reminded the House, I certainly said previously that the figure of 90 is both a ceiling and a floor. So far as the Government are concerned, vacancies must be filled.
I am not, as at present advised, satisfied that the amendment brought forward by the noble Viscount is the right one. Let me say right at the outset that I am grateful to him for taking the trouble to write to me in detail to explain the thinking behind his proposal. Let me also make it absolutely clear that I accept that he seeks to be constructive and helpful, and nothing else.
However, looking at the terms of the amendment, I have grave doubts whether the obligation that is sought to be imposed on the Lord Chancellor is justiciable. How could it be enforced? I also have even graver doubts whether this is a matter in relation to which it is appropriate to impose an obligation on the Lord Chancellor as distinct from the House.
Further, it appears to me to remove flexibility for the relevant groupings to decide how long they require in order to determine which candidates are to come forward and what time they need for them to be appraised by the electorates within a by-election system.
I believe that on any view 30 days is too short a period. I understand that in the other place all parties now accept that a new Writ should be issued within three months of the death of a Member. Many might think that to proceed with the filling of a vacancy arising from a death within a period as short as 30 days is somewhat unseemly.
For all those reasons, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I hope that he will be sufficiently satisfied with the amendment which I have already undertaken that the Government will bring forward on Third Reading to deal with the by-election issue.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may respectfully ask him to examine Clause 2(3). As it is drafted, it looks as if it could be construed as limited to the hereditary Peer who is initially elected, not the one who replaces him. That is because of the words

823
"throughout his life". There is a decision of the Privileges Committee in the Irish peerage case which is to the point on this type of construction. Would the noble and learned Lord examine that provision to ensure that there is no express or implied limitation of that kind?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall consider it in light of what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, says. My immediate reaction is that Clause 2(3) is intended to emphasise that once a Peer becomes an excepted Peer—excepted from Clause 1—he shall enjoy that peerage for life in the same way as a life Peer would, subject to an Act of Parliament providing to the contrary.
It also appears to me that anyone who prevails in a by-election becomes one of the 90 excepted Peers. So I doubt whether there is a problem, but I shall consider it.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He hoped that I would be satisfied with his proposal. I am. He hoped that I would be willing to withdraw the amendment. I am. I am grateful to him and thank him for his kind words. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
5.45 p.m.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

House of Lords Bill

  APPOINTMENTS COMMISSION
  (" .—(1) There shall be an Appointments Commission ("the Commission") which shall make proposals to the Prime Minister for recommendations to Her Majesty for the conferment of life peerages in accordance with the Life Peerages Act 1958.
  (2) The Commission shall be an advisory non-departmental public body and shall—

  (a) be appointed in accordance with the rules of the Commissioner for Public Appointments and may seek his advice about best practice in attracting and assessing potential nominees;

  (b) operate an open and transparent nominations system for peers not belonging to, or recommended by, any political party ("the Cross Bench peers");

  (c) actively invite nominations by the general public and encourage nominations from professional associations, charities and other public bodies that it judges appropriate;

  (d) publish criteria under which it will determine a candidate's suitability for nomination;

  (e) reinforce the present function of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee in vetting the suitability of all nominations to life peerages by the political parties; and

  (f) scrutinise all candidates for life peerages on the grounds of propriety in relation to political donations, as proposed in the 5th Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

  (3) The Commission shall appoint its own Chairman.
  (4) It shall, at least every 6 months, and at most every year, make proposals to the Prime Minister for nomination as Cross Bench peers, sufficient at least to fill any vacancies among Cross Bench peers that may occur through death, disqualification or a decision to join a political party represented in the House of Lords.
  (5) The Prime Minister may not refuse to submit to Her Majesty the names of those recommended as Cross Bench peers by the Commission, and shall not seek to influence such nominations, save in exceptional circumstances, such as those endangering the security of the realm.
  (6) The Commission, in considering nominations as Cross Bench peers, shall not give any additional weight to recommendations from the Prime Minister or the Leaders of other political parties.
  (7) Following the passing of this Act the Commission shall make a report annually to Parliament on the recommendations made to Her Majesty by the Prime Minister for the conferment of life peerages, in which it will declare if the following criteria are being observed, namely that—

  (a) no one political party commands a majority in the House of Lords;

  (b) the Government has broad parity of numbers with the main opposition party; and

  (c) the proportion of the Cross Bench peers to the total number of life peers in the House remains as it was on the day before the passing of this Act.

  (8) The Commission shall consist of eight members of the Privy Council, of whom four shall be appointed by a special Commission of the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Lord Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords.
  (9) One Commissioner shall be appointed from each of the three largest parties in the House of Commons on the nomination of the Leader of each such party, and one shall be appointed from the Cross Bench peers on the nomination of the Convenor of the Cross Bench Peers.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships engaged in considerable discussion about an appointments commission during the earlier stages of the Bill. In particular, the House will recall a number of powerful speeches made in support of both the composition and the terms of reference of the commission being on the face of the Bill. With the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, there has been widespread agreement that some kind of appointments commission is essential.
  Since the Committee stage, I understand that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House met a group of Back-Benchers and reinforced her intention, already declared in Committee, to introduce the commission; but not a statutory commission. That remains a real point of difference between the Government and the Opposition.
  I read carefully the extremely full remarks of the noble Baroness in Committee on 13th May 1999 (at col. 1368 of Hansard). There the noble Baroness set out in detail the Government's intentions with respect to both the composition and the functions of the commission. She referred repeatedly to the Government White Paper entitled Reforming the House of Lords.
  The proposals in our amendment are closely based on the noble Baroness's words in Committee and on the White Paper proposals. They also follow discussions between the Opposition Front Bench and those Peers on the Conservative side who put forward their own amendments in Committee. I hope, therefore, that the amendment will carry my noble friends' support, at least in some degree.
  The amendment provides for a new statutory body, outside any existing department, to advise the Prime Minister on appointments of Cross-Bench Peers. The

  825
  Prime Minister would not be able to refuse to submit to Her Majesty names recommended by the commission, although, in exceptional circumstances, such as security, he might be able to add warnings.
  The commission would be composed of eight Privy Counsellors. Four would be appointed by a troika of the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chairman of Committees and the Prime Minister, ensuring the independence of those appointees but not unreasonably excluding the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister. Three further members of the commission would be appointed by the main party leaders and one by the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers. The commission would appoint its own chairman.
  The commission would operate under certain criteria drawn directly from the Government's White Paper and the noble Baroness's speech. These include openly published criteria for appointment, transparency, active invitation, nomination from the public and professional bodies, and operation under the Nolan criteria.
  The commission would also take on the role of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee in vetting nominations by political parties. It would consider specifically the issue of political donations. I take, as a purely random example, last weekend's list of those new Peers who are donors to political parties. I make no complaint about it because the same has been true in the past. Caesar, whatever the colour of his toga, would always want to be above suspicion.
  The amendment does not seek to determine numbers as to proportionality, something to which the noble Baroness objected in earlier stages. Instead, it repeats the three criteria proclaimed by the Prime Minister: broad parity between the two political parties, no party to have a majority in your Lordships' House, and a safeguard for the proportion of Cross-Benchers in your Lordships' House.
  My noble friend Lord Coleraine proposed an amendment to the amendment which would affix the proportion of Liberal Peers to the main opposition party. I can see the logic behind his thinking; but helpful though it might be to the Conservative Party, it would be wise not to resile from what I might describe in this case as the robust common sense of the Government's proposal.
  My noble friends Lord Stanley of Alderley and Lord Caithness have tabled a characteristically thoughtful amendment which contains many provisions similar to the one tabled by the Opposition. I have to confess that I prefer ours; but I know my noble friend Lord Strathclyde will be listening carefully to what my noble friends say, particularly with regard to subsection (3)(d) of the amendment. If the Opposition are fortunate enough to win the support of your Lordships' House this afternoon for our amendment, I am sure we will consider any proposal that my noble friends might wish to bring forward at a later stage.
  What can the case against the amendment possibly be? That it is statutory and that it is not necessary for it to be statutory? But in the new House the power of patronage will become far greater than in the existing House: first, because life Peers will come to constitute
  826
  the overwhelming majority of your Lordships' House; secondly, because in a smaller House, each act of patronage will be proportionately more significant. The case for safeguards—statutory safeguards—on the use of patronage is stronger than ever, arid certainly not weaker than it was before last weekend. So that cannot be the case for resisting this amendment.
  Can a case be made out on the content of the proposals themselves? Surely not; for they are the Government's own proposals, have been the Government's own proposals for a long time, and were set out in detail by the noble Baroness during her speech in Committee.
  Or can it be that noble Lords opposite want to limit discussion in another place? Much discussion would inevitably follow, I suggest, from an amendment in your Lordships' House. Surely, above all, another place should have the opportunity to discuss such an important matter which a non-statutory system would deny it. In short, I can see no reasonable case for rejecting the amendment.
  Would it not be wise, as the noble Lord, Lord Shore, said in Committee, to leave the Government's motives in this matter completely beyond doubt? It would be a sad thing if the impression were allowed to grow that the Government did not want to have an appointments commission yet because they wanted to complete a programme of appointments first. I beg to move.
  Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 25, Amendment No. 26:
  Line 46, after ("party;") insert—
  ("() the proportion of peers of the second opposition party to peers of the main opposition party remains the same as the proportion of life peers of the second opposition party to life peers of the main opposition party was on the day before the passing of this Act;")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was very glad to hear my noble friend on the Front Bench say, as I understood him, that his amendment would preclude the Prime Minister from overriding or overruling the appointments suggested by the appointments commission. On that basis, I give my wholehearted support to his amendment, which seems to be one of the most significant amendments with which we have had to deal to date, arising in a most significant and delicate part of the Bill.
  My noble friend has invited me not to press my amendment which seeks to put the scrutiny of Liberal Democrat Peers on the face of the Bill. He has told me that that is dealt with satisfactorily by government proposals. In my ignorance, from where I sit I am not fully aware of the proposals. I therefore wish to develop the argument, to which I still adhere, that this provision should appear in the amendment.
  If there is no control over the number of Liberal Democrat Peers or life Peers for the period of the interim House, in my opinion that House will be delivered into the hands of the Labour Government. At the moment we have some guidance in the White Paper

  827
  about the appointment of Liberal Democrat life Peers. Paragraph 7 of Chapter 6 states:
  "We set out in our manifesto the broad principle which we believe should govern the appointment of life peers but our present intention is to move towards broad parity between Labour and the Conservatives. The principle of broad parity and proportionate creations from the Liberal Democrat and other parties would be maintained throughout the transitional period".
  When I spoke to an amendment in my name in Committee, at col. 812 of the Official Report of 25th May, I pressed the Government to say what was meant by "proportionate creations" because I did not know. To what were the creations to be proportionate: to Conservative life Peers in the House, to Labour life Peers, or what? The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor responded at col. 818 by saying that he would not take up much time replying to my amendment because he had been advised that were it to be accepted it would make the Bill hybrid and he assumed that, on that ground alone, I would not seek to divide the Committee. He was correct. However, that did not seem a satisfactory reply.
  I then put down a Question for written reply asking how many Liberal Democrats would be offered nominations for life peerages, in accordance with the White Paper arrangements for proportional creations, on the assumption that the Bill was passed with the Weatherill amendment. The noble and learned Lord's answer was as follows:
  "The Government's commitment to proportionate creations for the Liberal Democrats and other political parties in the House of Lords reform White Paper was a commitment for the lifetime of the transitional House. It should be read in the context of the manifesto commitment to move, over time, towards more accurately reflecting the proportion of votes cast in the previous general election. Numbers cannot presently be specified".—[Official Report, 9/6/99; col. WA 158.]
  Why must it be read "in the context of the manifesto commitment"? What does "in the context" mean? Is it or is it not the case that the Lord Chancellor intends the proportionate creation arrangement exactly to implement the manifesto commitment for the period of the interim House? What does "over time" mean? How much time? Does that mean the life of the interim House? Perhaps I may try to specify the figures if the Government cannot presently do so.
  We are talking about nominations for life peerages. According to the figures available, at the beginning of the month there were 170 Conservative life Peers and 44 Liberal Democrat life Peers. At the 1997 general election, the Conservatives secured around 9,600,000 votes and the Liberal Democrats around 5,200,000 votes. If no further Conservative Peers are created, I calculate that on these figures the Liberal Democrats would be entitled to a further 48 life Peers to give them a total of 92. If the Weatherill Peers of the Conservative Party are also taken into account, and the 50 Deputy Chairmen are disregarded, the Liberal Democrats would become entitled instead to a further 71 life Peers, making a total of 115. These creations could, if it suited the Government, be made over time—that is to say, at any time during the lifetime of the interim House—and the interim House could well exist for so short a time as 30 months.
  It is small wonder that the Liberal Democrat opposition to the Weatherill amendment, although vociferous, has lacked a certain punch. The amendment that I propose adopts a different interpretation of proportionate creation and, in view of what my noble friend on the Front Bench has said. I do not propose to deal with it in this speech. The numbers game that I have had to indulge in can only be taken so far. But what it clearly shows—I welcome correction if I am wrong—is that the number of future Liberal Democrat life Peers proposed by the Government is not insignificant, has not yet been properly considered, and should be very carefully considered indeed. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, or whoever is to reply, will give some guidance to the House as to whether I have my figures in any way right—I see that the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal shakes her head—and if not, why not? I hope that my noble friend has found my thoughts on the matter useful. I beg to move.
  Lord Acton: My Lords, subsection (4) of Amendment No. 25 states that the commission,
  "shall, at least every 6 months, and at most every year, make proposals to the Prime Minister for nomination as Cross Bench peers, sufficient at least to fill any vacancies among Cross Bench peers that may occur through death, disqualification or a decision to join a political party represented in the House of Lords".
  I am puzzled by that second "at least", which appears to give the commission power to propose an unlimited number of Cross-Bench Peers which the Prime Minister must submit to Her Majesty under subsection (5) of the new clause. I cannot reconcile that power of the commission with Amendment No. 52, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and three other noble Lords.
  Amendment No. 52 limits the number of Peers to 659. I am sorry for the mathematics, but as of 1st June there were 499 life Peers and 26 Bishops. Six life Peers were created in the Queen's Birthday Honours List and 36 new working Peers were created last week. Adding the 92 Weatherill Peers gives a total of precisely 659, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will wish to discuss when he comes to Amendment No. 52. Reading the two amendments together, how can the commission propose any more Cross-Bench Peers than strictly for replacement? Surely the power apparently given by the words "at least" in subsection (4) of Amendment No. 25 for the commission to propose more than replacement numbers of Cross-Bench Peers contradicts the Opposition's policy in Amendment No. 52.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, perhaps a noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches wishes to speak.
  Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, if that is the preference of the noble Lord, I shall be very happy to speak now to Amendment No. 40A, which stands in my name and the names of my noble friends.
  The purpose of the amendment is to embody in the Bill through the agency of an appointments commission the declared intention of the Government in their White

  829
  Paper with regard to party balance within the House. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said but I do not think he claimed that the amendment he moved on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and others did that in detail, and not to the extent that Amendment No. 40A does.
  Perhaps I may draw the attention of the House to some of the paragraphs of the White Paper, although I think that some of them are now becoming boringly familiar to all of us. Paragraph 19 of Chapter 3 of the White Paper refers to the distribution of votes between the three main parties in the general elections of 1992 and 1997. Chapter 6 of the White Paper deals with the transitional House. Two paragraphs of Chapter 6 are wholly germane to what we are now discussing. Paragraph 5 states:
  "Our objective will he to ensure that over time party appointees as life peers more accurately reflect the proportion of votes cast at the previous general election".
  We are all familiar with that idea. Paragraph 7 states that,
  "our present intention is to move towards broad parity between Labour and the Conservatives. The principle of broad parity and proportionate creations from the Liberal Democrat and other parties would be maintained throughout the transitional period".
  That is the declared policy of the Government. I do not wish today to quarrel with it in so far as it is set out in the White Paper. What I seek to do is to write that on the face of the Bill.
  I remember a debate we had almost three years ago, on 4th July 1996. It was the second day of a debate on the constitution. In the debate I referred to the desirability of an independent commission on representation. I referred to choosing Cross-Bench Peers. In fact, I said that there were three tasks or duties: first, choosing Cross-Bench Peers; secondly, receiving nominations from the party leaders—in that sense acting as a conduit because they would always have to be subject to the usual scrutiny—and, thirdly, ensuring political balance; indeed, translating the votes cast in the general election into seats in this House. At the time, that was regarded as a far-fetched proposal. Both the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who were then leading their respective parties, shook their heads in disbelief at such an outrageous proposal, which looked like interfering with the prerogative of the Prime Minister. But I am delighted that in a relatively short period of time the Government were converted to the proposal and it is now acceptable to the Conservative Party, although it wants to put it on the face of the Bill by means of an unacceptable amendment.
  The proposal to choose Cross-Bench Peers has been agreed; the proposal to receive nominations from party leaders has been agreed; but ensuring political balance is the issue which we did not fully debate during the earlier stages of the Bill. On these Benches we believe that it is crucial. It neatly completes the role of the commission. It would be the job of an independent commission to translate the votes cast in previous elections, in so far as that was possible—I am not arguing that it would be possible to translate the votes
  830
  for 1997 into a transitional House immediately without making it extremely cumbersome—over a period of time, into seats in this House.
  On 13th May my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich made a powerful speech in your Lordships' House. Unlike what was suggested in good faith by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, he did not deny in any way the case for a commission. What he did, and absolutely rightly, was to draw attention to the creation of life Peers under Margaret Thatcher and John Major and to the abuses of prime ministerial power involved. He then referred to,
  "an absolute torrent of humbug"
  from the Conservative Benches, which seemed to imply that their governments had not behaved in that rather outrageous way.
  I want to be totally conciliatory and I want to be fair between Prime Ministers of both parties. We recognise—anyone with experience of government will know this—that all Prime Ministers are tempted from time to time to abuse their power of appointment of life Peers to this House. That is a natural condition of politics from which none of us can escape. I accept entirely what the present Prime Minister, Mr Blair, has said in good faith, but Prime Ministers change and all Prime Ministers come under pressure. It is very commonplace in Cabinet that after the Prime Minister has looked to the Leader of the Commons for the following week's business he turns to the Leader of the Lords and says, "Any problem in the Lords?", or something to that effect, and, quickly turning his head away, hopes that the answer will be no. But if the Leader of the Lords suggests that there is a problem, the Prime Minister will say, "Why?". If the Leader of the Lords says that it is due to the voting habits of the Cross Benches or, more particularly, of the Liberal Democrats, someone else who has important business will say that it is intolerable that the Cross Benches or the Liberal Democrats should be voting against the Government and defeating them. I am very glad to see the Government Chief Whip shaking his head in approval of my analysis. That is what happens. That is the way of the world. There is no manner in which we can escape it except by removing that element of discretion from the Prime Minister.
  There is no argument about the principle. The Government conceded it in the White Paper. The Conservative Party has conceded it as well. There is no argument about the principle of the balance within the transitional House. That has been agreed. The only question is whether we should help the Prime Minister of the day to resist temptation and make sure that he follows a policy written on the face of the Bill rather than find himself under pressure from the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary or the Deputy Prime Minister who may ask, "Why are we losing votes in the other House? Surely the Cross Benches or the Liberal Democrats do not need any more life Peers next time".
  That is the proposal. It is a totally reasonable one, as I believe all Members of the House will, on reflection, believe it to be. The only argument against it is that in some way it should not be on the face of the Bill but

  831
  should be an understanding. However, if it is an understanding, I would wager that the Prime Minister of the day—I see the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, in his place: I do not think that we can enter into another wager—whoever he or she may be, would not act in the spirit of our debate.
  We shall all listen with very great care to the response of the Leader of the House. I very much hope that she will put flesh on the bones of what appears in the White Paper and give reassurances to those who have doubts about the matter. But she cannot speak finally for this Prime Minister or any other. That is the reason for the amendment standing in my name.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, Amendment No. 27 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Caithness and is grouped with Amendment No. 25. Both amendments go to the heart of the problem of this particular Bill. Like my noble friend Lord Coleraine, I feel very strongly about these matters.
  I summarise the problem by asking: what, who and when? First, what do the Government want the interim Chamber to do? Secondly, who will do this work? Thirdly, when will those two matters be decided? I fear that in Committee the Leader of the House did not answer these questions, except for the last one. On 13th May at col. 1308 of Hansard, the noble Baroness said that that was not the time to decide these matters, which reinforced my remarks at Second Reading that, obviously, she had not heard the words of the song,
  "We don't know where we're going 'till we're there",
  or, worse still, the saying: never do today what you can put off until tomorrow.
  In Committee the noble Baroness did not explain the position of the specialist part-time Peer in the interim Chamber or whether he or she would be allowed in at all. She criticised the amendment for looking after only landowners' interests. Together with her noble friend Lord Desai, she said that the amendment was concerned entirely with the economics of agriculture. This was not so. As I tried to explain, the countryside has social and cultural as well as economic problems. But, in order to meet the concerns of the noble Baroness, we have drafted this amendment very much more widely. On a personal note, perhaps I may remind the noble Baroness that if she had been a Member of this House for a little longer she would have heard my frequent criticisms of landowners, not least over tenancy matters, starting at the time of the 1976 Act which was her party's brainchild.
  The question now is whether noble Lords support our Amendment No. 27 or my noble friend's Amendment No. 25. If my noble friend does not put his amendment to the vote, we shall certainly seek to do so with ours, unless the Government concede the point. Having said that, it would be irresponsible and pig-headed for me to suggest to your Lordships that you should support Amendment No. 27 instead of my noble friend's Amendment No. 25, which certainly answers my third and most important question: when? There is a difference between the two amendments. Ours is in
  832
  favour of the commission appointing specialist part-time Peers responsible for monitoring and revising government legislation throughout the House, not just on the Cross Benches, whereas the Government, the Liberal Democrats—I say that in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, has just said—and, until recently, my own Front Bench want all Benches to be filled with full-time party-political hacks who bow to the Whip.
  I believe that my cynicism with regard to the Front Bench was unjustified. The remarks of my noble friend Lord Kingsland took the wind out of my sails. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that when there is political balance, the Whips get the bit between their teeth and exert more pressure on Back-Benchers. I had very little pressure put on me when we were in power. Before anyone says, "He would say that, wouldn't he?", in the unlikely event of my party suggesting that my name should be put forward for what may be called the "Weatherill 90", I shall not agree with that for a number of reasons. I hope, however, that noble Lords will understand the need for specialist non-political Peers in the interim Chamber. If my noble friend's amendment is accepted, my noble friend Lord Caithness and I reserve the right to seek to amend that amendment at Third Reading. But at this stage, I support my noble friend's Amendment No. 25 and sincerely hope that your Lordships will do likewise.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Peston: My Lords, I address your Lordships as a full-time party-political hack. I do not have the independence which is shown day in, day out by the hereditary Peers. I wish I did. I regard these amendments as absurd, and I hope that my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal will reject them in terms.
  I remind your Lordships of the remarkable statements that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made about the future of this House. First, he said—no Prime Minister in my lifetime has said it—that despite his party's massive electoral victory he did not seek to achieve a majority, or anything like it, in this House. He said it in terms and committed his party to it. All that happens in return is that either cynical remarks are made to the effect that my right honourable friend is not to be believed or, if he is to be believed, any of his successors cannot be believed. That will not do. One should not underestimate the statement made by my right honourable friend.
  Secondly, my right honourable friend committed himself to an appointments commission. Certainly, in my lifetime that is the first time that any Prime Minister has announced his willingness to do such a thing. We have not heard a word of appreciation from the Official Opposition as to that. Again, an attempt is made to insinuate that there is something underhand about these remarkably forthright statements by my right honourable friend. We are committed to two matters of enormous importance in future: first, not to seek a majority; and, secondly, the establishment of an appointments commission. I anticipate that my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal will repeat that on behalf of my right honourable friend in a few minutes.

  833
  Since we are committed to an appointments commission, the debate has brought out just how difficult this is. We should not jump the gun. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has made it clear on every possible occasion that he does not want to debate this Bill; he wants to debate the next one. He has said forthrightly and honestly that he does not want stage one. In the language of the trade unions, he wants stage one only with stage two. I can see the banners as the hereditary Peers come marching down Whitehall.
  The position of the Government, as I understand it—I hope that I shall not be undermined by my noble friend—is that they shall carry out stage one and are totally committed to stage two after stage one. They say that all of the present stuff is to do with stage two and what is to be done next. There is no point in pretending that it is not about stage two.
  My main problem is that as I go through the details, all I find are difficulties. This is the Report stage of a Bill. I do not want to waste your Lordships' time by going through every single difficulty, but it is already apparent that the question of numbers is one that we must debate in much greater detail than we can on this occasion. Why should those members of the appointments commission be Privy Counsellors? I speak as someone who is not a Privy Counsellor. I have never regarded Privy Counsellors as the repository of honesty and objectivity. Why cannot the rest of us be considered for these matters?
  There is some concern in the Official Opposition's amendment about someone from the Cross-Bench group joining a political party, therefore ceasing to be a Cross-Bencher. What about political people who join the Cross Benches? It is an interesting technical point which is not addressed. Why should there be broad parity between the numbers of government Peers and Cross-Bench Peers? I can see no basis for that.
  I could go on—and noble Lords know me well enough to believe that I am quite capable of doing so, but I shall not. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, implied that no matter what is said he will divide the House. I hope that he does not do something so foolish as that. We should accept the fact that we shall have an appointments commission; and that we shall have the other principles laid down by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. We should then pass the Bill, albeit in the slightly imperfect form in which it now exists, and get down to the detail subsequently.
  I am quite relaxed about whether or not the appointments commission is statutory. But I am clear that that should not be in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked: why not? The answer is in part what I have said; namely, that we are not ready for it yet because we have not thought the position through. The other logical point is that it is inappropriate to have this material on the face of the Bill. I hope that noble Lords opposite can therefore be persuaded to withdraw the amendment and let us get this over with so that we can get down to what is dear to many of our hearts; namely, building the new House of Lords.
  Lord Waddington: My Lords, Hitler was elected to power and the German Parliament, by passing the
  834
  Enabling Act, gave him absolute power. That is a reminder that no democracy is entirely invulnerable; and men and women can sometimes be persuaded to surrender their liberty in the fond belief that the proposition which is being put before them is more important than that.
  I conclude from that that one should try to make one's constitution robust enough to withstand quite appalling strains with checks and balances, including checks on the carrying out of fundamental change, by perhaps a very temporary majority in the House of Commons. I should have thought that all noble Lords would agree with me on this: those who meddle with existing constitutional arrangements have a duty to ensure that the new arrangements they are advancing are at least as effective a barrier against tyranny as the old. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that there is nothing absurd in that. When one is making constitutions, if one has any sense of responsibility, one makes that constitution well.
  I shall not spend much time on the Government's argument, adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that this is only a temporary Bill. We have gone over that many times. Whether it will be temporary is not entirely in the Government's hands. There happens to be a thing called Parliament, and there happens to be a thing called the House of Commons, which is sometimes forgotten by Members on the Front Bench, and was certainly forgotten by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when he replied to a similar debate not long ago, saying that he could give an absolute guarantee that there would be a stage two. Of course he cannot give any such guarantee.
  As I mentioned earlier, there are some wise people like Mr Robert Sheldon who think that in any event it is likely that when the time comes the Government will have other fish to fry and will be loath to embark on a further constitutional Bill. It seems to me obvious—I cannot see for the life of me why it is not obvious to the noble Lord, Lord Peston—that it is our duty in the absence of any sunset clause, or the like, to treat this like any other legislation, as being permanent in effect. We have to build for the future. This is riot about stage two. It is about making a good job of the work which is before us now. We have to ensure that the largely nominated House the Government are bent on creating is at least as independent as the one they are replacing; and at least as strong a barrier against tyranny.
  It is a difficult task because the new House—it was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Kingsland—will be a much smaller House. If the power of appointment of life Peers is to be left in the hands of the Prime Minister, it will be much easier for him, or any future Prime Minister, to make sufficient appointments to procure an absolute majority in this place. Look, for instance, at how the balance among life Peers has been changed in two short years. That in itself is sufficient proof of what I am saying.
  The other reason why we have a difficult task on our hands is that, contrary to what has been said time and again by noble Lords on the other side of the House, the hereditary peerage has constituted a uniquely

  835
  independent element in this place. I have to say to noble Lords opposite that independence of mind and invulnerability to pressure are not qualities which inevitably disappear when a person joins a political party. They are qualities which are most likely to exist in those, whether or not party members, who are beholden to no one for their appointments, have economic independence, and are not career politicians. In that connection, I commend to the House some other words spoken by Mr Robert Sheldon in the debate in another place to which I referred earlier.
  Not so long ago—I am sure noble Lords will remember this—Mr Tony Benn commented that the House of Commons was atrophying and democracy was being squeezed out of the system. Mr Sheldon was equally unhappy about the way the House of Commons was working. It was not providing a sufficient check on the executive, principally, said Mr Sheldon, because Members have lost their independence. They have lost it, said Mr Sheldon, because,
  "[they] have become more full time and are looking to a career structure. It is that career structure that has tended to corrupt the system. That is the problem".
  He continued:
  "Now, we have large numbers of Members of Parliament who have little in the way of outside interests and outside concerns. As a result they look to the ordinary routes of promotion and envisage themselves forming part of the government".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/99; col. 669.]
  If the House of Commons is not working as an effective check on the executive, it is all-important that changes to this place do not make this Chamber a less effective check on the executive. If the House of Commons is not working properly because there are too many career politicians, we must learn the lesson for this House, and make sure that this Chamber is not overweighted with people either beholden to the Government for their place or looking to the Government for a place.
  It cannot be denied that at the moment there is nothing in the Bill to prevent a government packing the place with people who they think can be relied upon to support the government through thick and thin whether the government are right or wrong. To that noble Lords opposite are wont to say that if there is a danger of abuse under this Bill, it is a danger which has existed for a long time. The Conservatives did not propose change when they were in power, so there is no reason to change now.
  That is about the worst argument I have ever heard, for this reason: we are creating a new House; we are creating a different House; we are, according to Labour, engaged in a great modernisation of our constitution. Surely now the Labour Government have embarked on that exercise, they should try to make a good job of it and include the sort of provisions one would certainly include if one were starting from scratch and constructing a new nominated Chamber for a new Parliament. It is inconceivable that anyone starting from scratch would not include in a Bill measures which we have generally called "safeguards" to ensure that the power of nomination could not be abused by the government of the day.
  836
  Noble Lords may recall that my noble friend Lord Elton and I moved in Committee an amendment somewhat similar to Amendment No. 25. We were minded to ask the House to take another look at what we proposed after we had taken on board criticisms made by the Lord Privy Seal, which were really criticisms about the method of appointment and the composition of the commission which we contended should be given the sole right to nominate people for peerages. We have not tabled an amendment on Report, because we think that Amendment No. 25 goes some way towards reflecting our views. In a subtle way it seeks, as does Amendment No. 27, to commit the Government in legislation to the sort of the House they propose in their own White Paper. If the House created by the Bill really does last for only a short time, no harm will have been done if one or other of these amendments is incorporated into the Bill. If stage two does not come about, the provisions of either amendment will go a long way towards preventing any possible abuse of power by a future government. I certainly support the intention behind each of these amendments.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Barnett: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and I have disagreed with one another for rather a long time, going back to 1966, when we had a little spat in the general election. I am happy to say that I then won and he had to go looking elsewhere.
  I agree so much with my noble friend Lord Peston that I am brought to my feet. I hope my agreeing with him will not mean that my noble friend the Leader of the House proceeds to accept the amendment, because I could not disagree more with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. However, I disagree with the reference by my noble friend Lord Peston to the objectivity of Privy Counsellors, although some of us, even some Cross-Benchers, are objective, I am sure.
  The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said that we must have barriers against tyranny. It is a remarkable statement to make when we have had Conservative government for the past 18 years and, many years prior to that, a huge majority in this place and therefore no checks and balances. And yet the noble Lord is telling us that all those independent Peers taking the Conservative Whip were providing the checks and balances! It is asking your Lordships to accept a great deal to accept that argument. I hope that your Lordships will not do so.
  The noble Lord said that it was our duty to assume that the position will be permanent. He quoted a very dear friend of mine and close former colleague, the right honourable Robert Sheldon, Member of Parliament. He is a very senior and highly respected Member who has said many things that I said in Committee, and with which I agree.
  The House was told earlier about some reasons why I had said that the transitional period would be long. I agree with Robert Sheldon and with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, on that; I would not dispute it; but the fact is that even if it is a long transitional period, there is no case for all the points that he and others on

  837
  the opposite Benches are making. As your Lordships will know, my own view is that the Government have conceded far too much already. I regret what they have conceded.
  But even if the transitional period is long, we have what has already been said by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and others on our Front Bench. There is a word that we cannot use in Parliament, but we can use the expression that people have been "economical with the truth". The Opposition Front Bench and the noble Lord do not like to say specifically that they do not believe the Government. After all, the whole Weatherill deal was between Privy Counsellors, and on Privy Council terms. As we all agree that they are honourable men and women, when the Government have said that they will do all these things, why are the Opposition saying that they do not believe them? Perhaps when we hear a reply from the Opposition Front Bench we will be told. Do the Opposition think that the Government are being economical with the truth? What is the reason for their moving all these amendments?
  Lord Waddington: My Lords, what about a future government? It is all very well the noble Lord resting on what is said by this Government, but if he is right—he has just said that he agrees with me that this Bill may not be replaced for some time—what if a future government are not bound by these undertakings?
  Lord Barnett: My Lords, even if future governments do not carry out precisely the terms of the present deal, on what basis does the noble Lord say that if we are making major changes in our constitutional set-up we should at least make sure that the new House is as independent as the one it replaces? One would have to go a long way to make the House as independent as it was before this Bill. It is a remarkable argument.
  I should like to see some things in the Bill that might be more acceptable to me, although I cannot think of many. It is no use the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, looking at me like that. I am not going to make a long speech again about why I disagree with parts of the Bill, particularly the part that is called the "Weatherill amendment", with which the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, had so much—or even a little bit—to do.
  What I am saying is that I agree substantially with what my noble friend Lord Peston said. It is time we on this side of your Lordships' House stopped making yet further concessions and accepted things as they are. We should not accept this amendment. So I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House, despite the smiles that she is again providing, will not feel tempted to do so. I am delighted to hear that she is not. I look forward to the vote and the possible defeat.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Rodgers has dealt with what we on these Benches regard as the major omission from, or defect of, Amendment No. 25. I should like to refer to another,
  838
  concerning subsection (2)(d), which talks of the duty of the proposed appointments commission to,
  "publish criteria under which it will determine a candidate's suitability for nomination".
  Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and some others, I think there is considerable point and purpose in this House considering the amendment, whether or not we vote for it, as it deals with important and present issues which will not go away and which, if phase two of the reform does not come about, will be huge. Even if phase two does come about, I suspect that whatever we provide for the interim phase may well carry over into the final reform.
  One thing we should not do is to leave the appointments commission with the sole discretion as to what the relevant criteria for appointments of Cross-Bench Peers should be. There can scarcely be anything more important than for us as a House to signal the criteria on the face of the Bill and what importance we attach to them.
  The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said that he was sympathetic to Amendment No. 27, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, which specifies one criterion: that more than half the Members of the House, whether party Peers or Cross-Bench Peers, should have,
  "experience of and expertise in areas other than … politics".
  I believe that the criteria need to go much further than that. Frankly, I am not content with the phrase "experience and expertise", since which man and which woman these days does not claim to be an expert in something? I suggest that "distinction'. might he a better word.
  I should like to put to the House the thought that we are all trying to make the best of the reform. Underlying that is the need to make this House more powerful and more authoritative, and enjoying more respect among the public at large. Unless we can increase public identification with the House of Lords as reformed, we shall not achieve that purpose. We shall not enable the public to identify more readily and deeply with us unless we signal to them that we want to see a very different House. I say that with no disrespect to those who are to leave it.
  The public may have regard to issues such as the gender, age, region, occupation and ethnicity of the Members of this House. In saying that, I do not seek to suggest that the appointments commission should have politically correct shackles placed around it. However. I am suggesting that those potential criteria would be of interest and importance to a large proportion of the public. If we could satisfy public feeling on how at least Cross-Bench Peers should be selected and appointed, that would go far towards increasing our respect and legitimacy and hence the effectiveness of the reform itself.
  I wanted to make that general point. Whatever happens at further stages of the Bill, and whatever the Government may consider in terms of the appointments commission, which, to be fair, the Prime Minister

  839
  volunteered, the criteria must be on the face of the Bill, must be broadly based and must reinforce public confidence in us.
  Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has said. He spoke of giving a signal. It is because a signal is being given that I believe this matter is of such importance. That is my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who asked why we were tabling all these troublesome amendments.
  We are tabling the amendments because the Government have come forward with proposals. They have stated that they are to set up an appointments commission to appoint Cross-Bench Peers. However, they told us that they are going to use the prerogative and not the statute to do so. That is another way of saying that the Prime Minister will be responsible for setting up the appointments commission which will select Cross-Bench Peers. That is an extraordinary signal to send out to the public. It does not indicate that this is a wholly independent body setting the kind of criteria to which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, referred.
  That is why, as a matter of principle, I tabled an amendment in Committee. I was content not to table an amendment today because I thought it important to try to concentrate on a single amendment which set out the principles on which we could vote. I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, but it is not as good as that tabled by my colleagues on the Front Bench. That is not because I was consulted by them about the wording—it incorporates all the important points contained in my amendment in Committee—but because I have two specific difficulties with my noble friend's amendment. First, he has not adequately covered an important point concerning the prerogative and the relationship between the Prime Minister and the sovereign. Secondly, and more importantly, his reference to "expertise" raises more questions than it answers. I believe that the wording used in my noble friend's amendment gives considerable scope to the appointments commission to meet the points to which he rightly attaches importance.
  When my amendment and others were debated in Committee, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House gave a lengthy response. I have reread that response today to discover her reason for rejecting the proposal for a statutory committee. In reality, she gave only one reason; that if the Government had put down a statutory provision, the Opposition would have argued that it showed that the arrangement was not temporary and that it would be permanent and long term. She advanced that argument in col. 1369 of Hansard on 13th May. It is not a powerful argument. That is the real answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who said that the whole business was absurd. Whatever the intentions of the Government, we may be passing legislation that will last for a long time. My noble friend Lord Waddington quoted Mr Robert Sheldon in another place.
  840
  I took particular note, as I suspect did the Leader of the House, of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, on 17th May. In response to an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Peyton, he spoke of the little evil devils lurking in our midst who do not share our overwhelming view for reform. He warned that unless there was good will among all the parties, we would not get a second stage. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, spoke with much experience and a memory that took him back to the last major attempt at reform. He knew exactly what was being said by my noble friend Lord Waddington about the ability to interfere and delay such legislation. So my view is that we should not leave a vacuum on this important point.
  I do not believe that the Government have any great objection of principle to putting this matter into statute; or why did the noble Baroness the Leader of the House invite a number of us to discuss with her whether we could not find a form of words which would satisfy? She spoke, as Ministers always do on such occasions, about technical difficulties of drafting and problems for the parliamentary draftsmen. She spoke—I respected her point—about the constitutional proprieties and the ability of Prime Ministers to speak with freedom to the Sovereign. My noble friends have qualified the clause introduced by the Government, because they wrote into their White Paper, paragraph 10, Chapter 6, that
  "The Prime Minister will have no right to refuse a nomination the commission has passed".
  However, my noble friends have accepted that there may be some security or other reasons which would be perfectly proper for the Prime Minister to refer to the Sovereign. It may be that there is further room for discussion about that issue, but the noble Baroness very fairly, having listened to what we said, told her officials not to go away and reject any idea of an amendment, but to go away and consider whether anything could in practice be put together. That does not suggest to me that there is any great obstacle of principle and so we come back to the detail.
  I believe that what my noble friends have sought to do rather successfully—what I attempted rather less successfully in Committee—is simply to incorporate everything the Government said they would do in Chapter 6 of their White Paper. Some aspects were criticised by noble Lords opposite; for instance, they asked why on earth issues were being introduced and drafted in such a fashion. Those points should be addressed to the Government Front Bench because all that my noble friends have done is to incorporate into an amendment declarations and undertakings already given by the Government.
  As regards the Liberal Democrat amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, spoke about the way of the world. Bearing in mind the history of the Liberal Party we always listen to it with attention when it speaks about the way of the world. It seems to me to be a mistake to try to incorporate into a Bill an amendment setting up an appointments commission with a pretty complex set of arrangements relating to the numbers cast in the general election and how they translate into votes. There may be a case for doing that, but it should be done by a separate amendment.

  841
  It would confuse the particular issue, although clearly important to the Liberal Democrat Party, with the much more straightforward one as to whether we have a statutory appointments commission instead of an appointments commission simply appointed by the Prime Minister to do what the Government say they intend to do. That is the issue. My noble friends have an amendment that translates that into statute. I can see no grounds for rejecting that principle. I hope that they will press their amendment to a Division.
  Lord Desai: My Lords, Amendments No. 25 and 27 are rather long and there is a lot of detail. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, the message is very clear. I can describe the spirit in three propositions. The first is that no Labour Prime Minister is to be trusted. Secondly, the liberties of British subjects are only safe in the hands of hereditary Conservative Peers. Thirdly, the world will not be safe until there is another Conservative government.
  The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, began with the example of Hitler. That was the most insulting thing that he could have said about the Labour Party. Just to imagine—
  Lord Waddington: My Lords—
  Lord Desai: My Lords, I am sorry. It is Report stage and the rules are that if I concede I shall be unable to speak again.
  Noble Lords: No.
  Lord Desai: My Lords, I cannot speak again. Other noble Lords have spoken, but the rules are that I cannot speak again. I believe that I am correct in my reading of the rules.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord will be in order if he gives way to answer a question of fact about something that he said.
  Lord Waddington: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord to read what I said in Hansard tomorrow. I believe he will find that I was in no way referring to the Labour Party. I was talking about constitutions in general. I was talking about constitution makers and how they should bear in mind history and make sure that when they make constitutions there are the greatest safeguards possible against tyranny. I would have thought that anyone would agree with that. It had nothing whatever to do with the Labour Party. I believe that the noble Lord is far too sensitive.
  Lord Desai: My Lords, it was not a question of fact on which the noble Lord interrupted me. The noble Lord was implying that by creating a new House of Lords this Bill will so fundamentally alter the British constitution that if these amendments are not passed there will be a greater probability of an enabling Act being suspended. That is where the analogy between the
  842
  German parliament and the British Parliament was created. The noble Lord did not have to start with Hitler. It was not relevant.
  We are not creating a dictatorship. All we are doing is removing 90 per cent. of the hereditary Peers from this House. That seems to be such an alarming thing that all our ancient liberties appear to be threatened and we need all kinds of guarantees. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has done more things that he did not have to do than any previous Prime Minister. He has promised an independent commission but, of course, it cannot be trusted. Why is it that when we come to the Weatherill amendment his word can be trusted, because, after all, the hereditary Peers are getting something, but on anything else the Prime Minster's word cannot be trusted?
  Noble Lords opposite should pause and think whether they are saying that no life Peer is independent and that all life Peers in this House are corruptible, especially on the Labour side. Only we on this side are corruptible and Peers on the Opposition side are not corruptible. Only our Prime Minister is not to be trusted, but a Tory Prime Minister is. The noble Lord said that these matters were not for this Government but for future governments. Future governments would probably be Conservative or Liberal Democrat. Are noble Lords opposite saying that a Conservative or Liberal Democrat Prime Minister will so abuse their powers—
  Noble Lords: Yes!
  Lord Desai: My Lords, noble Lords opposite should know better. After all, the Conservative Party was in power for a long time. To say such things, even though they are not meant, is insulting to us.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am an Earl by corruption of a Conservative Prime Minister. I do not believe that they can be trusted any more than anyone else. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, complained about Mrs Thatcher creating too many life Peers. I am pretty certain that she was copying Lloyd George, which was the last time the Liberals had a chance to create Peers. Lord Wilson of Rievaulx—we know him better as Mr Harold Wilson—was not exactly squeaky clean on the honours front. No Prime Minister has been. Therefore, it is important we do something that this Prime Minister has promised to do.
  I accept all the points made by noble Lords opposite that this matter is a derogation of power on behalf of a Prime Minister which is unprecedented. It is not that I do not trust him or that he is not a very honourable man. He undoubtedly is an honourable man. it is not that he is not a patriot, because he undoubtedly is. It is not that he is not a reasonable Prime Minister, because he undoubtedly is. It is that the system itself has reached a position where the executive in our country is far too powerful.
  As a result of this Bill this House is going to be more powerful. As I said earlier today, one cannot blame it on Onslow. I give the Government credit for having gone a very long way to change the concept of this Bill since the publication of the original. It is not as far as I would

  843
  have gone because I want a seriously reformed House. The Bill has gone a jolly long way. The Government agree with the principle of the commission. It is not that I do not trust Tony Blair, I do not trust anyone on this matter.
  The Government have listened and I give them great credit for having changed their mind. Today we have had a very good example of that. Surely, they can go a little further and accept the principle of what is suggested in this amendment. I do not trust anybody when too much power is available. We know what Lord Acton said; namely that
  "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely".
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I trust, and trusted John Major, but I do not suppose for one moment that the Government would feel themselves bound by promises that he made as to how the constitution of this country should develop. I am not asking for concessions from the Government; I am asking that they should complete what they set out to do; that what they said they will do should be put into writing so that it may last a little longer than it may take for the reforms of stage two to take place.
  I hope we all believe that this Government intend to do what they said they will do. But barely a month ago the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that he would implement the reforms on divorce of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and now he will not. I make no criticism of that, because circumstances change. We cannot put the constitution of this country at risk of the changing whims of Prime Ministers.
  The Government proposed the Bill and it has had my support throughout. The Bill marched under two great banners: first, the end of the hereditary peerage in the House, on which we have reached a conclusion, and, secondly, the end of one-party domination of the House, on which we have not reached a conclusion because the Bill, as it stands, allows for the government of the day, of whatever colour, to assume domination of the House by a small additional appointment of Peers. That would allow a repetition of the evil to which the Government have sought to see an end. I do not believe that we should allow that.
  On a purely domestic and personal aspect, if the Bill passes as it stands, I do not believe that the Weatherill amendment, even as amended, would mean anything. If a government can assume control of the House by appointing a few extra Peers, there is no point or purpose in all the debates, concessions and good will that have been extended to us by the Government. We shall have gained nothing and this House will have become nothing.
  I have no particular attachment to the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. I hope that there are other ways of achieving this. There are surely simpler ways in terms of presenting a measure that would work and achieve what the Government have set out to achieved. I believe that it is entirely satisfactory. I hope that we shall hear from the
  844
  Government that they are prepared to do something else. If they are not, we must support the amendment of my noble friend.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, noble Lords opposite reject the line that my noble friends are taking because for many years there has been a built-in majority in this House of Members whom they see, understandably and correctly, as being inherently supporters of the Conservative Party only.
  The Government must, first, accept that if it is wrong for the Conservative Party to have a built-in majority, because that is a threat to freedom and democracy, exactly the same applies to a built-in majority of any other party. Although there is an instinctive revulsion against forgoing the guilty pleasure of having a built-in majority, that must be put aside because it is illogical. It is also a constitutional threat.
  My noble friend Lord Waddington in no way understates the importance of what we are doing. We are not simply addressing a small committee matter about a reduced House of Lords; we are doing things to the constitution upon which this country depends as much as sailors at sea depend upon their vessel. A boat is not designed for one trip in good weather; it is designed to withstand a typhoon if necessary. To say that these amendments address a small detail, a small part of the apparatus, is like reassuring the passengers or the crew of the ship by saying, "It's all right, it is only the pumps that we are messing about with".
  This House has many functions, but at bottom its function is to ensure that no government of any party—I regard my party as open to—
  Noble Lords: Criticism?
  Lord Elton: My Lords, no; much worse than criticism. I regard my party as open to temptation and to giving in to temptation. The danger of the capture by extremists of a political party on the Right is just as real and dangerous as the danger of the capture by extremists of a political party on the Left. That is a real threat, as real as the threat of a typhoon striking a liner crossing the Atlantic. It is not known now; it cannot be foreseen; but it can happen. We are designing the constitution to deal with such matters.
  The protection against that is to ensure that the electorate has an opportunity, every five years, to get rid of the government of whatever party. Anything that puts a spoke in the machinery that ensures that, weakens the constitution. I cannot tell noble Lords whether Margaret Thatcher would have been so tempted had the hereditary Peers not been Members of the House. Although they were on her side of the House, they were not political animals appointed by the Conservative Prime Minister. They were a sure bastion against that sort of chicanery—delaying a general election until after a recession.
  All we ask is that, once we have gone, there should be a better mechanism put in place. Ours is an old, creaky, disreputable system, which has become almost a

  845
  laughing stock on the other side of the House, but it has worked thus far. We ask that some nice, shiny, efficient, new, confidence-inspiring machinery is put in our place.
  The Prime Minister, bless him, has suggested it. He has suggested it as often as my son has suggested giving up smoking. We ask that he now gives it up to enormous applause from this side of the House as well as the other. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde and his noble friends are asking the House to do that. I hope that we support him.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, this is an extended group of amendments which rightly covers a number of aspects of the membership of the transitional House and the way in which it should be composed.
  I hope that I do not alarm my noble friend Lord Barnett by saying that the Government have no quarrel with the underlying purpose and intent of this group of amendments in so far as they relate to establishing the appointments commission. We are in favour of an appointments commission and one will be set up as quickly as possible. We simply continue to think that the amendments are unnecessary and even potentially damaging to smooth progress, for reasons which I shall explain.
  First, I want to deal with those amendments, and those parts of amendments in the group, which refer to specific numbers and proportions of appointments in the transitional House. I understand that the noble Lords, Lord Coleraine and Lord Stanley of Alderley, have to some extent subsumed their proposals in their support for Amendment No. 25 in the name of the Opposition Front Bench, but unless the noble Lords indicate otherwise, I shall reply to some of the points that have been made because both of them were serious in their intent: and covered some serious points.
  Amendment No. 26 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, is unacceptable to the Government. I agree with the concerns about it raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, who spoke to it from the Opposition Front Bench. From the Government's point of view, it is inconsistent with the pledges that we made both in our election manifesto in 1997 and the White Paper on House of Lords reform. As we said in both those documents, we intend to move to a position where membership of this House more closely reflects the votes cast at the previous election.
  A point made by other noble Lords is that that amendment would also ensure, in the conditions of the House at present, that the Conservative Party continued to be significantly over-represented. At the last general election the Liberal Democrats received a proportion of the vote over half of that of the Conservative Party and this amendment would allow them just over a quarter of the number of seats.
  Amendment No. 27, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, also deals with specific numbers and proportions, but, as the noble Lord said in introducing it, the amendment reverts to the question that he raised in Committee about how we can ensure that the transitional House is properly representative, expert in certain ways and certainly distinctive from the other place.
  846
  As I said in Committee, the Government have no quarrel with the noble Lord's motivation or underlying purpose. As I am sure noble Lords are probably tired of hearing by now, one of our subsidiary, but none the less important, motives for the reform is to make the House more representative. We believe that the narrow social base and the preponderance of certain backgrounds and professions among the hereditary peerage have combined to make this House as it is at present: very unrepresentative in the sense that it does not reflect our modern society. Of course, I accept the point made by the noble Lord that on almost any individual subject we can probably find a good representative here to speak in any particular debate. However, as the noble Lord will be aware, we have consistently made it clear that we value the contribution of those independent Cross-Bench Peers who will remain in the House. We want to ensure that they retain a significant role both in the transitional House and in the longer term.
  If the objective of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, is to create a transitional House which can call on a wide range of experience and expertise from those whose primary loyalty is not necessarily to a political party, we can wholly endorse that. I am happy to repeat that commitment once again on behalf of the Government. However, where we part company with the noble Lord is on the question of how one could effectively enshrine in legislation those broad principles and broad objectives.
  It is extremely difficult, frankly, to frame in legislation the types of proposal suggested by the noble Lord, however much one can agree with their underlying objective. Many aspects of your Lordships' House do not fit into the kind of neat categories which the noble Lord has proposed and which would be necessary if they were to be framed in statute. Perhaps I may give a couple of examples to illustrate that without delaying the proceedings for too long. Subsection (3)(c) of the noble Lord's amendment states that there should be broad parity between the numbers of government and Cross-Bench Peers. Are we to include in that calculation the Law Lords who sit on the Cross Benches? The rest of the amendment is framed in terms of life Peers, but we assume that the Law Lords are to be included. That, of course, alters the understanding of the amendment.
  Subsection (3)(d) requires that more than half the Members of the House should have experience of or expertise in areas other than or in addition to politics. This again is a worthwhile aim which the Government would, in general terms, accept. Again, however, it is very difficult to frame these matters sensibly in legislation. I shall give another small series of examples. Are the Bishops to be included in this calculation? How would the Law Lords sit within this context? What counts as experience or expertise? For example, would training as a solicitor 30 years ago but not having practised for 20 years enable one to fall into that category? Also, to use the noble Lord's examples on farming and agricultural interests to which he rightly turned again, does taking up farming in retirement, it perhaps one had been an industrialist and became a farmer when one left one's business activity, count as a farming interest? What counts as "politics"? Is it just

  847
  national paid political activity? Would that much maligned person, a fully paid-up full-time party hack, qualify?
  I do not raise these points to suggest anything other than general support for the ambitions of the noble Lord's amendment. I wish simply to say that these are all legitimate questions which would need to be much more precisely clarified if one was going to translate this generally acceptable worthwhile proposal into a statute.
  There are similar problems, although in a rather different category of detail and precision, when one comes to Amendment No. 40A. In the Government's view that amendment is not compatible with the arrangement under which the so-called "Weatherill amendment" is given effect. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, has said this afternoon and on several other occasions that he and his party will not challenge the broad intent or the detail of new Clause 2. Perhaps I may remind him that as part of the arrangement it was agreed that the Government would be entitled to sufficient life Peers to provide parity with the Conservatives, taking account of the effect of Clause 2. Of course, it is likely that this would result in the numbers for each party being around 220. So the present amendment would probably not allow the Government to achieve parity for some time while the Conservatives, for their part, would not be allowed to replace any of their life Peers until their total number had dropped below 200. For that reason alone, I would suggest to the noble Lord that the amendment cuts across the understanding behind new Clause 2. It is not acceptable to the Government: nor indeed, I would expect, to noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench.
  Another thing we are not quite sure about is how the numbers implied by subsection (1)(b) of the noble Lord's amendment add up. For example, what happens to the share of the vote which goes in an election to parties which cannot qualify under it? Is it fair to limit parties to a share of the vote in the United Kingdom as a whole when, as the noble Lord will be aware, some parties stand in only one part of the United Kingdom? Is it fair to include the votes given to those parties which cannot qualify for a seat in the Lords because they have not won any in the Commons?
  Those are questions of detail, but they are ones on which I think the amendment would have to be made far more precise and exact if it were to be translated into statute. I would simply say to the noble Lord, Lord Rogers—this in a way underlies the discussion which has arisen from various quarters of your Lordships' House over these amendments—that I ask him to accept my renewed assurances about the commitment which the Government made in the White Paper about our intentions on the proportionality of appointments in the transitional House and their particular effect on the Liberal Democratic Party. In that context I would urge him not to press Amendment No. 40A.
  I turn now to the proposals for an appointments commission and in particular to Amendment No. 25 to which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, spoke. I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships this evening that
  848
  the Government are setting up an appointments commission. The process has begun. It will be established as a non-departmental public body under the relevant rules of the Commission for Public Appointments, the so-called "Nolan rules". In Committee I explained the arrangements, and several noble Lords this afternoon have been kind enough to refer to the detail of my explanations. I do not think it is necessary to repeat them. However, I advise your Lordships that I have the agreement of my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to begin the recruitment process, and, as the Downing Street official spokesman indicated last Friday, we plan that the commission should be in place in time for the New Year's Honours List in 2000. As part of the process, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will be writing to the Leader of the Opposition and to the Leader of the Liberal Democratic Party, seeking their nominations to the commission.
  In these circumstances, I think that the amendments before us today, which seek to make statutory provision for an appointments commission, are completely unnecessary. Indeed, if they are carried, they will inhibit the process of establishing the commission. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said in his opening remarks before proceedings began this afternoon that he did not seek in any way to delay the Bill. It is, of course, true that the Bill as a whole would not be delayed by an amendment passed against the Government's advice on this subject, but it would certainly slow down an important part of the process of implementing the Bill.
  I am grateful to those noble Lords—several noble Lords have referred to this, including the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who was with us in those discussions—who after a very constructive debate in Committee joined me in further discussions on this issue. I understood during those discussions that an announcement of progress of the kind I have just made—translating the Government's aspirations into action—would convince them of our definitive intention to proceed. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for example, will accept that as our good intent. As I have indicated, we are proceeding in the way that we set out in our White Paper. I hope, therefore, that those assurances, which are now more than aspirations and have been translated into action, will be accepted. However, from the somewhat sabre-rattling remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I fear that that is not so.
  I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that although good attempts have been made to translate some of the proposals into a form that is statutorily acceptable, I do not think that any of the proposals before us this evening have achieved that. I appreciate that, as the noble Lord and others said, they have tried simply to do something which, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is closely based on the White Paper proposals. However, that is not precisely true in important areas, and it ignores the points that I made at an earlier stage about legislation probably being inappropriate for achieving a purpose which we all agree is necessary.
  Once again I remind the House that we are talking about a transitional House and transitional arrangements. Although several noble Lords opposite made fairly substantial points about the need to legislate for a long time, the intention of the existence of the appointments

  849
  commission, in this instance, concerns appointments to the transition House. It is not suitable for an elaborate statutory superstructure. Noble Lords have suggested putting something declaratory on the face of the Bill to ensure that the Government act. I hope that my remarks reassure them about that point.
  I am sure your Lordships will have noted the length of even the general propositions put forward. I am advised, and I am convinced, that were we to legislate the provisions would have to be far more complex than those before us. One specific example of the constitutional complexities of Amendment No. 25 where it is substantially different from the Government's proposals is the requirement that all members of the commission should be Privy Counsellors. A field limited to existing Privy Counsellors is hardly compatible with subsection (2)(b) of the proposed new clause which requires "an open and transparent" appointments process. In fact, I suggest that subsection (2)(b) appears to be inconsistent with subsection (8) which suggests that all those who are members of the appointments commission should be Privy Counsellors. In addition, the statutory requirement that holders of certain posts must be made Privy Counsellors would be a constitutional innovation.
  There are other proposals, particularly those in subsection (7) of the proposed new clause, where the Government feel that the amendment departs unhelpfully from the White Paper proposals. But overall our concern is not with the detailed content of Amendment No. 25 or the others which refer to the appointments commission. We promised an appointments commission in our White Paper. We made clear what its composition and remit would be. It is not necessary to legislate to achieve that promise. We are going another route.
  Noble Lords raised the question of the Prime Minister's patronage and his powers. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, raised the issue of last week's list of working Peers. He and other noble Lords will have noticed that Downing Street confirmed that the Prime Minister had only acted as a post box for the names proposed by Mr. Hague. In other words, the Prime Minister passed the Official Opposition's list directly to the scrutiny committee because we have already begun the steps to reduce the Prime Minister's patronage and we intend to continue. If noble Lords are concerned that this is only our word, then I can say that the Government regard these proposals and all our proposals in the White Paper as binding on any future Labour Prime Minister as much as the present one. If noble Lords are concerned that Prime Ministers of a different political complexion might not see things in the same way, it is equally open to the Leader of the Opposition to make a similar commitment on behalf of his party.
  I respectfully suggest to noble Lords that they should not confuse their expressed desire for a statutory provision with a desire to take the Prime Minister out of the process. As we have demonstrated, are demonstrating and will continue to demonstrate, we do not need a statutory provision to achieve the removal of the Prime Minister from some of the central aims. We do not need one to achieve the other.
  850
  Overall we have set in train the administration to create an appointments commission as soon as possible. As I said earlier, we expect it to be in place in time for the next New Year's Honours List. Any amendment to the Bill now which creates a statutory requirement to do something different will simply delay mattes. I know that there are some in your Lordships' House who seek delay at every turn on this Bill. But I hope all those who genuinely want an appointments commission to be established quickly to achieve an effective transition House will reject the alternative proposals. Given the clear announcements of progress I have been able to give today, I hope noble Lords will withdraw their amendments. If not, I urge the House to reject them.
  Lord Weatherill: My Lords, before the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal sits down, will she confirm that Cross-Bench Peers will be consulted and have a place on the new independent commission?
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Cross-Bench Peers will indeed be consulted and their role in the organisation will be precisely as it was described in the White Paper.
  Lord Coleraine: My Lords, on this occasion I shall say the words which I am sure the House is waiting to hear. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 26 as an amendment to Amendment No. 25.
  [Amendment No. 26, as an amendment to Amendment No. 25, by leave, withdrawn.]
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, we have debated this very important issue for one hour and nearly 45 minutes. We have heard many excellent speeches and the issue that lies behind those speeches could not be clearer.
  The noble Baroness made a very conciliatory speech in relation to every single matter that affects the appointments commission except the one that really matters; that is, that it should be on the face of the Bill itself. The Government say that they are sincere; but by their failure to commit themselves to put the composition and terms of reference of the commission in the statute, they call into question their own sincerity. For that reason I wish to test the opinion of the House.
  7.26 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 25) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 231; Not-Contents, 189.

  Division No. 2

  CONTENTS

  Addison, V.

  Arran, E.

  Ailsa, M.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Aldenham, L.

  Astor, V.

  Aldington, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Attlee, E.

  Anelay of St. Johns, B.

  Bathurst, E.

  Annaly, L.

  Bearsted. V.

  Arlington, B.

  Beaverbrook. L.

  851

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Harding of Petherton, L.

  Bell, L.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Harmsworth, L.

  Berners, B.

  Harris of High Cross, L.

  Biddulph, L.

  Harris of Peckham, L.

  Biffen, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Blackwell, L.

  Hawke, L.

  Blaker, L.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Hemphill, L

  Blyth, L.

  Henley, L. [Teller.]

  Boardman, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Hogg, B.

  Brentford, V.

  Holderness, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Home, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Bruntisfield, L.

  Hunt of Wirral, L.

  Burnham, L. [Teller.]

  Inchcape, E.

  Buscombe, B.

  Jeffreys, L.

  Butterworth, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Byford, B.

  Jopling, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Kelvedon, L.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Kingsland, L.

  Carnock, L.

  Kinnoull, E.

  Carr of Hadley, L.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Chadlington, L.

  Knutsford, V.

  Clanwilliam, E.

  Lang of Monkton, L.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Clitheroe, L.

  Long, V.

  Cochrane of Cults, L.

  Lucas, L.

  Coleraine, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Coleridge, L.

  Luke, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Courtown, E.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  McConnell, L.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Cross, V.

  Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

  Dacre of Glanton, L.

  Macleod of Borve, B.

  De Freyne, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  De L'Isle, V.

  Mancroft, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Manton, L.

  Denham, L.

  Marlesford, L.

  Derwent, L.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  May, L.

  Donegall, M.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Downshire, M.

  Mersey, V.

  Drogheda, E.

  Middleton, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Dundonald, E.

  Milverton, L.

  Eccles, V.

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Elibank, L.

  Monro of Langholm, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Monson, L.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Elton, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Feldman, L.

  Montgomery of Alamein, V.

  Ferrers, E.

  Montrose, D.

  Fisher, L.

  Morris, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Mountevans, L.

  Forbes, L.

  Mountgarret, V.

  Freeman, L.

  Moyne, L.

  Gage, V.

  Moynihan, L.

  Gainford, L.

  Munster, E.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Garel-Jones, L.

  Napier and Ettrick, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Newall, L.

  Gisborough, L.

  Newton of Braintree, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Noel-Buxton, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Norrie, L.

  Gray, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Gretton, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Hambro, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Hanningfield, L.

  O'Cathain, B.

  852

  Onslow of Woking, L.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Stockton, E.

  Patten, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Strathcarron, L.

  Peel, E.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Perry of Southwark, B.

  Sudeley, L.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Prior, L.

  Swansea, L.

  Radnor, E.

  Swinfen, L.

  Rathcavan, L.

  Taylor of Warwick, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Teviot, L.

  Reay, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Renton, L.

  Trenchard, V.

  Renwick, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Tryon, L.

  Romney, E.

  Tugendhat, L.

  Ullswater, V.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Rowallan, L.

  Vinson, L.

  Saatchi, L.

  Waddington, L.

  St. Davids, V.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Waterford, M.

  Savile, L.

  Wedgwood, L.

  Seccombe, B.

  Westbury, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Wilcox, B.

  Selsdon, L.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Sempill, L.

  Wise, L.

  Sharples, B.

  Wolfson, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Young, B.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Ackner, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Acton, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Addington, L.

  Desai, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Dholakia, L.

  Alderdice, L.

  Diamond, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Dixon, L,

  Alli, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Amos, B.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Evans of Watford, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Ewing of Kirkford, L.

  Bach, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Barnard, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Barnett, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Geraint, L.

  Bath, M.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Glanusk, L.

  Blease, L.

  Glenamara, L.

  Bledisloe, V.

  Goodhart, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Bragg, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Bridges, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Brightman, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Grantchester, L.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  Hacking, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Carew, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Carter, L. [Teller.]

  Hanworth, V.

  Clancarty, E.

  Hardie, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Haskins, L

  Crawley, B.

  Hayman, B.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  David, B.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  853

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Puttnam, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L. [Teller.]

  Razzall, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Rea, L.

  Jacobs, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal]

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Renwick of Clifton, L.

  Jeger. B.

  Richard, L.

  Judd, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Kinloss, Ly.

  Rogers of Riverside, L.

  Kintore, E.

  Russell, E.

  Kirkwood, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  St.John of Bletso, L.

  Levy, L.

  Sandberg, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Sawyer, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Lovell-Davis, L.

  Serota, B.

  Ludford, B.

  Sewel, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Simon, V.

  McNair, L.

  Simon of Highbury, L.

  McNally, L.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  Maddock, B.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Marsh, L.

  Strange, B.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Tenby, V.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Thomas of Gresford, L.

  Mishcon, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Molloy, L.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Monks well, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Montague of Oxford, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Thurso, V.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Tope, L.

  Newby. L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Nicol, B.

  Uddin, B.

  Northbourne, L.

  Varley, L.

  Nunburnholme, L.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Ogmore, L.

  Warner, L.

  O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

  Weatherill, L.

  Orme, L.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Paul, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Perth, E.

  Wigoder, L.

  Peston, L.

  Wilberforce, L.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Young of Darlington, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  7.38 p.m.
  [Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.45 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Iran: Human Rights
7.39 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy in relation to human rights in Iran.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, frequently Unstarred Questions are questions only in form. This is a genuine question. I am inviting my noble friend the Minister to share with us the Government's thinking on recent events in Iran.
Some two years ago, when Mr Khatami assumed the presidency, there were widespread hopes for a relaxation in the repression. It was thought that he was, comparatively at least, on the liberal wing. I believe that there were many in Iran who cherished that hope. I remember a conversation with the chargé d'affaires of Iran in London, Mr Ansari, who was quietly reassuring. I fully accept his sincerity. The future seemed hopeful.
Alas, the high hopes have not been realised. Whatever Mr Khatami's good intentions, he has not been able to break the stranglehold of the mullahs and the past two years have told a dismal story. The reports come not only from enemies of the regime. On 29th April, according to the Jame'eh Daily, Mr Safari, commander-in-chief of the Revolutionary Guards Corps, told a meeting in Qom:
"We are seeking to uproot the counter-revolutionaries wherever they are … We must cut off some heads, and cut the tongues of some others".
During President Khatami's term of office, there appear to have been 310 public hangings acknowledged by the authorities, in addition to those who were executed secretly or who have simply disappeared, and there have been nine deaths by stoning. Against that murderous background, to mention attacks on freedom of speech comes almost as an anti-climax, but it is a useful barometer as to the good intentions of the authorities.
It is still sometimes said that a number of independent newspapers are circulating in Iran. If that means that the authorities do not necessarily dictate every word they print, that may well be true, but it does not follow that they are free to be critical of the authorities. On 15th September of last year Ayatollah Khamenei was reported by Reuters as making himself quite clear on the point. He said,
"I am giving final notice to officials to act and set which newspapers violate the limits of freedom".
He went on,
"There are limits to freedom which are set by Islam. If these limits did not exist some people would try to push the nation towards not believing in religion".
The ayatollah made it clear that our disapproval would not lead him to consider it possible he may be wrong. He said,
"We have never taken into consideration what the world would say, nor what international newspapers and organisations would say, and we shouldn't start now".
No doubt much of the violence against writers which we saw recently arose from pressure on the secular authorities by the more extreme clerical groups. On 17th October last year on state television President Khatami said that the supreme leader,
"is a superior will with unlimited authority approved by God and linked to divine revelation".
It might be a matter of concern even if the consequences of that doctrine were confined within the borders of Iran, but it appears to carry an extra-territorial jurisdiction. In September last year the British Foreign Office reported its understanding that the fatwa decreeing death for Salman Rushdie would be revoked. That followed a meeting between the respective Foreign Ministers. However that impression arose, the Iranian authorities, secular and sacred, hastened to proclaim that nothing had changed. The Foreign Ministry made clear that the fatwa cannot be rescinded. Mr Kharrazi, the Foreign Minister, denied that he had ever intended to suggest otherwise. On 4th October a statement was read on state radio from 160 deputies—a parliamentary majority—which stated,
"We offer our assurance to Muslims around the world that in this respect in Iran nothing is credible other than God's decree and the fatwa of his Eminence the Imam. No one has the power to take any other road".
So it is not only within the borders of Iran that the mullahs have power of life and death. If the human rights of individuals against their own government were not the business of the international community, assassinations in the territory of other countries certainly are the business of those countries.
But in this very month the activities of the Iranian Government have become very much the business of the whole world. It seems that on 11th June three Scud missiles were fired from Iranian territory into Iraq. They appear to have been aimed at a base of the mujahedin, but whatever the reasons for the action the incident requires some answers. Perhaps my noble friend can tell us whether it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that the Iranian Government attacked its dissidents in the territory of another state. Are these not weapons of mass destruction? As I understand it, Iran is not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, but, again, I hope that my noble friend can tell us what view is taken of the incident by Her Majesty's Government. Has it been discussed in any international forum, and what was the outcome?
We know that violence leads to violence. It is not surprising that the violence committed by the authorities in Iran gives rise to passionate resentment. The mujahedin are quite open in their belief that a repressive government which cannot be changed by democratic means should be opposed, and, if possible, overturned, by whatever means are to hand, including violence. I do not seek to endorse that view and I do not invite my noble friend to endorse it, but I do understand it. I believe that the mujahedin disapprove of indiscriminate violence. I think that they commit acts of violence against what they consider to be military targets and against individuals whom they consider guilty of crimes against humanity. If I had an
856
opportunity, I would seek to persuade them to a different course. One argument I would use is that what they are doing enables their opponents to present them as terrorists. The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is often one of perception.
On 23rd August last year Assadollah Latevardi was shot dead. As a revolutionary prosecutor, not only did he prosecute thousands of political prisoners who were jailed and tortured, he led armed mobs as a method of bypassing the legal process. Later he became governor of Evin Prison and personally tortured, raped and executed scores of prisoners. There are stories of prisoners being tortured with their parents, spouses and children being compelled to look on. That was Latevardi. The man who shot him was Ali Akbar Akbari, aged 20. He was arrested and tortured. Three days later he died under torture. But that was not the end of the matter. His father, a 61 year-old farm worker, had no obvious connection with what had taken place but in April of this year he was returning from his work when a group of revolutionary guards waylaid him, beat him up and then crushed him under a tractor. I have met Mrs Maryam Rajavi, president elect of the National Council of Resistance. I believe that her aim is to establish a genuine electoral choice. That may also be the ambition of President Khatami. It cannot be realised in an atmosphere of threats and violence.
The view which I have sought to express is not an eccentric one. I am fortified by being for once with the substantial majority. On 26th February of this year the United States State Department's report on human rights practices for 1998 listed a sickening list of violations by the Iranian Government. There was a time when the State Department included the mujahedin on its list of terrorist groups, but it has now removed it. In Geneva in April of this year the United Nations Human Rights Commission passed a motion of censure—the 44th censure motion against Iran in the United Nations. In February of this year 330 members of the British House of Commons signed a statement calling on the Government to make clear their disapproval.
Of course Iran would like to improve relations with the international community, for many reasons. Of course there is an argument for responding, an argument frequently heard in debates such as this. Governments who are accepted as members of the international community are more likely to respect the rules. If we talk to the Iranian authorities we may influence them. I should say in fairness that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who was anxious to participate in this debate but who is unable to be here, asked me to make clear his view that there is an improvement in the situation and that we should recognise it.
That may have been an experiment worth conducting two years ago but there has to be a reciprocal relationship and the advantages have to be balanced against the risk of legitimising a regime which has not earned legitimisation, particularly if this country is virtually isolating itself on the issue, and the victims are our business too. My Unstarred Question remains a question. I invite the comments of your Lordships and of my noble friend.
7.49 p.m.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, for his timely and helpful Unstarred Question. It enables a number of us to participate in the debate. I shall speak briefly about a group of women who, I believe, are among the most misunderstood, maligned and misrepresented women in the world; namely, the women of Iran.
Women in Islam have traditionally and historically had more rights than women in Christianity. I refer particularly to the rights of widows in Islam. But women in Iran had rights before and after the revolution of 1979. By their very nature, revolutions upset established society and tend to favour women because, traditionally and historically, so many of society's norms are patriarchal in concept and execution in most countries of the world.
The French Revolution perhaps gave the lead. Women had equal rights with men from the revolution onwards, but for six months only. After six months, French men became unhappy about women having equal rights and disbarred them; and women returned to a subservient position. Speaking for women, one has to reflect on autres temps autres moeurs, look at different cultures and perceive how they treat women.
In the short time available, I cannot do more than perhaps factually straighten the record about the way in which women in Iran are perceived and identified by the outside world. I may be able to offer a more balanced view perhaps than current articles attempt. Recently, the magazine Marie Claire, which is published and widely read in the United Kingdom, was hardly challenged on the statements it made. It referred, for example, to women being effectively under martial law in Iran; and to harsh religious laws that limit their education, restrict them from most professions, and allow them to travel only in the company of a male relative or husband. It is an article on the MKO—the female-dominated terrorist organisation that opposes the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran—and its efforts against what is said to be the harsh regime in Iran.
I am, of course, a foreigner; I can only report what I perceive. But I have visited Iran a number of times in the past seven or eight years for humanitarian purposes concerned largely with the Iraqi refugees who shelter inside Iran. I have made many friends among women in Iran and I seek to challenge the perception that we have in the West. I want to challenge the view that women there are declared to be limited by education and restricted from most professions. As far as I have seen, that simply is not true. Again, I can only perceive what I have witnessed. I have seen that women in Iran have equal rights and access to education, right up to post-university level; and that they have access to most, if not all, of the professions. I have not counted, but I perceive women working in the Foreign Ministry and the professions: working in the medical profession, teaching and the law. I perceive that they must travel without their husbands or another male relative; otherwise I doubt that they would get to their offices in time. I have seen women in a variety of situations
858
throughout Iran as I have travelled to different refugee camps, going in and out of the various cities, towns and villages in very poverty-stricken as well as particularly beautiful areas.
Two successive presidents have done a great deal to strengthen the position of women in Iran. I understand that the current president had a very widespread vote from women, as did the previous president, whose daughter heads the women's organisation in Iran. She has been a friend of mine for a little while and has assisted me in finding women to set up a women's group of Europeans and women from a number of Islamic nations.
The Iranian women who worry me most strongly both inside and outside Iran are members of the Mojahedin Khalq Organisation, the anti-government terrorist group. It consists of 10,000 women who train in camps inside Iraq. I think it is controlled, financed and housed by Saddam Hussein. If I am correct, its most recent action was the attack on the Iranian civil defence headquarters in March this year when the Iranian deputy chief of staff of the armed forces was assassinated. As a terrorist organisation, it is notorious enough for the United States Congress to have carried out a full and heavyweight report into its activities and for the Federal Republic of Germany and other democratic governments to bar its members from speaking freely inside their countries. I have a notion that the British registered charity, Iran Aid, may in some way be connected with that organisation.
At the moment, we enjoy a considerably improved relationship between the United Kingdom and the Islamic Republic of Iran. I pay tribute to our ambassador in Iran, Nick Browne, for the strenuous efforts he and his colleagues at the Foreign Office have made to ensure that improvement in the relationship, as well as en passant to Iran's ambassador to the United Kingdom who has also worked most strenuously to this end. I pay tribute also to the Ministers who have worked for so long to make this happen.
Looking at human rights and the position of women in Iran, I would suggest to the Government that we have a better picture from the Islamic Republic than from many, if not all, of her neighbouring states.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell for providing the House with the opportunity to ask Her Majesty's Government about their policy in relation to human rights in Iran. I share the noble and learned Lord's disappointment that the present regime in Iran has not progressed very far in its stated objective of improving human rights through policies of liberalisation.
When in May 1997 Mohammad Khatami was elected as Iran's president, some in the West believed that the government in Iran would eventually moderate and he would set in motion a reformist trend which would allow Iran to forget its recent past as a rogue stale and rejoin the family of nations. After two years of Khatami as president, the flagrant violations of human rights

859
persist, and the Iranian regime remains as the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and the primary obstacle to the Middle East peace process. Last April, the United Nations Human Rights Commission condemned human rights violations in Iran. That was the 44th resolution by a UN body censuring human rights abuses by the mullahs' regime. It appears that the president has failed to live up to some people's expectations.
Nowhere is that failure more evident than in the regime's continued persecution of women. I take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, who seems to base her ideas on government statements as opposed to those of the many organisations trying to expose how women are still suffering violent abuses of human rights.
My noble and learned friend referred to a US State Department report on human rights practices for 1998 which again drew attention to the fact that stoning and flogging are expressly prescribed by the Islamic penal code as appropriate punishment for adultery and that such punishments are carried out. The report pointed out that Iranian women had to obtain the permission of their husband, father or other living male relative in order to travel abroad. Women are subject to harassment by the authorities if their dress or behaviour is considered inappropriate and may be sentenced to flogging or imprisonment for such violations.
The same report, published in February this year, listed a number of human rights abuses, including the accusation that Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian and Baha'i minorities suffer varying degrees of officially sanctioned discrimination, particularly in the areas of employment, education and public service. The United Nations Special Representative reported an estimated 199 executions in 1997. So it is very difficult to understand why the British Government feel that progress is being made by the Iranian government towards an end of human rights violations.
Last week, the Iranian authorities confirmed that 13 Jews from the southern cities of Shiraz and Isfahan had been arrested on suspicion of spying for Israel. The 13 had been arrested between two and three months earlier. The Iranian head of judiciary announced on Friday 11th June that they would be tried in Islamic courts where they face the death penalty if convicted. According to the Associated Press, Israel's chief rabbi has announced that the number of Jews arrested in Iran is actually higher than the 13 announced by the Tehran government.
Last Wednesday, I and my noble friend Lord Ahmed met Mr Ansari, the Iranian ambassador. During the meeting we pressed for information regarding the 13 Jews who had been arrested on suspicion of being engaged in acts of espionage. In particular, we asked that access to the 13 be allowed in order to confirm that they were being treated properly and to verify that they had the services of independent and proper legal representatives. In fact, my noble friend Lord Ahmed himself a Moslem, offered to go to Iran to visit the people imprisoned.
Such a simple, basic request was dismissed out of hand. We were told quite firmly that the Iranian government would not tolerate any outside interference.
860
Mr Ansari said that any charges that might be brought against the 13 Jews would be subject to a transparent trial. He also said that the 13 were arrested along with a number of other people, including Christians and Moslems.
Noble Lords will be aware of the long and detailed interest in matters of human rights of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. With the noble Lord's permission, I repeated the requests that he and others had made on a previous occasion to Mr Ansari on a number of issues. I repeated in particular the request that the noble Lord made for information about Mr Abbas Amir Entezam, described by many as the last hostage. Mr Amir Entezam is considered by most outside observers to be a political prisoner. The Iranian ambassador described him as a criminal.
I also took the opportunity of handing a list of imprisoned Baha'i people about whom the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, had previously asked for information. It is my fervent hope that the noble Lord will soon receive a detailed reply to the questions that he raised with Mr Ansari earlier this year on that and a number of other matters.
I respectfully ask my noble friend the Minister to use whatever powers she and her colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have to press the Iranian authorities for specific information regarding the 13, or whatever is the real number, and to seek assurances that they are being properly treated, and, further, to seek permission for some independent person to be allowed to visit them. Perhaps the generous offer of my noble friend Lord Ahmed to make such a visit will be taken up.
I am aware of the need for the Government to be seen not to be interfering in the affairs of another country. I firmly believe that on that and other human rights issues they have a duty to seek fair and proper treatment for those who may be suffering persecution and discrimination.
Time does not allow for further comment. That is a pity; I have a whole catalogue of matters that I should like to raise. Finally, I want to place on record my admiration for those brave people, both inside and outside Iran, who are fighting for basic human rights. We should do all that we can to give them our support.
8.3 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I intend to go down a different road from that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. The organisation about which I understood him to speak as seeking refuge in Iraq is deemed a terrorist organisation by the US State Department. We must be careful that we do not overly criticise a foreign state's approach to terrorism.
I am also extremely concerned about the list of MPs who signed the protocol prepared in greater part, or at least supported by, Robin Corbett, MP. Through the mechanism of this debate, I issue a challenge that that list should be made available to Ministers and officials.
Perhaps I may make one further point before beginning my principal remarks. Notwithstanding the refusal of the good offices of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, in offering to visit Iran in relation to the recent

861
arrests, it would serve everyone well to go to Iran and to see what I have found in my experience of visiting that country; namely, that the perception that is given of Iran does not stand up as some would have us believe.
Iran has variously been described as a pivotal Middle Eastern country, a partner, a threat, and even a pariah, shunned by the international community. Happily, as the millennium ends, a new era is indeed being ushered in, and in recognition of that Britain has re-established diplomatic relations and is represented at the highest level in Iran. How do we account for that sea-change?
Much credit must be given to President Khatami's courage, leadership and vision. Since his overwhelming popular victory in the 1997 presidential election, greater focus has been directed to strengthening the role of civic society, individual freedoms and public liberties within a dynamic, democratic constitutional framework.
The first municipal council elections were held earlier this year to give effect to Articles 7 and 100 to 106 of the constitution. They seek to guarantee the people's right to direct participation in decision-making processes in social and political life. Tehran has a mayor for the first time in its history—newly elected by the council, which is itself directly elected by Iranians and not government-appointed.
Much more significant has been the empowerment at local and municipal level of ordinary Iranians, including minorities, and particularly women. There are presently two women Cabinet Ministers and 14 women MPs. Indeed, there has been a 125 per cent increase in women's participation in government. Four women have been appointed to the sensitive post of judges within the judiciary, while 7 per cent of all municipal council seats went to women. Almost half of all primary and secondary students are now female, and parity has been reached at university level.
We are all aware of the recent furore over the arrest of some Iranian citizens, including Jews and Moslems, on espionage charges. We must await the due process of law and private consultations to determine whether the initial reaction is justified or calculated to undermine Iran's policy of peaceful domestic co-existence with all groups within its borders.
Certainly, there have been steady gains and the policies of incorporation, facilitation and mutual respect seem to be working. I am confident that a principal policy of the Iranian government regarding the upholding of the rule of law should defuse western anxieties. It seems to me that the release of some of the Jews originally charged sends positive indicators.
There has also been, for example, a noticeable improvement in freedom of expression as measured by the increase in activity by the print media and the relaxation of film licensing regulations. In its external relations, too, Iran is tentatively re-visiting old friends and re-discovering co-operation and détente. President Khatami's rapprochement with Saudi Arabia, his US initiatives and relaxation of tensions with Arab neighbours are commendable and should be supported. There is considerable scope for wider and deeper relations with Britain, particularly UK plc and with the
862
EU. Certainly the British-Iranian Chamber of Commerce, of which I am chairman, is working with opposite numbers in Teheran to that end.
I am tempted to respond to the smile of the noble Lord, but I shall move on.
Iran has a crucial role to play in preventing the flow of heroin from the region, while its attitude to disarmament is pivotal to the success of regional security arrangements and international disarmament treaties. Altogether, they are impressive first steps on the road to recovery and rehabilitation. More must be done before a clean bill of health can be posted, but we must, I believe, all applaud and encourage determined progress. No longer can Iran be forgotten or ignored.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, for initiating the debate and enabling a fairly wide variety of opinions to be expressed in the course of the few speeches we have heard. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, suggests that because elections have been successfully held and the candidates who support President Khatami have secured large majorities, it is an indication of a growth in democracy. But all the parties which stand in Iranian elections have to support the principle underlying the Islamic revolution. Those not espousing that necessary tenet are not allowed to have candidates. You could riot stand there as a Liberal, Socialist or Conservative who believed in a secular administration because it would be contrary to the Islamic revolution.
The Government's attitude also is that there has been a growth in democracy. As the noble Viscount said, there is greater freedom of expression under Khatami. He has reined in some of the elements who were engaged in terrorism. We can trust the regime when it says that it will not murder Salman Rushdie. People think that by helping Mr Khatami in a measured and cautious way—for example, through the restoration of full diplomatic relations—while at the same time reminding him of our own commitment to human rights, it is possible that we can change or help to change Iran towards something resembling a liberal democracy.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, produced evidence to show that nothing has changed. The changes that have been cited are superficial. The agreement between the Foreign Secretary and Mr Kharrazi that the Iranian government will not murder Mr Rushdie is somewhat undermined by the fact that the 15 Khordad Foundation, which is a government-organised, non-governmental organisation, has recently increased the bounty which it is prepared to pay to anyone who assassinates Mr Rushdie. If I were him, I would not do without my police protection for the time being.
My noble friend Lady Nicholson referred to the situation of women. I wish to say a word about it. I refer her to a conference held recently in Stockholm on the situation of women in Iran which was attended by a number of distinguished women, including Mrs Azar Majedi, the editor of Medusa, a newspaper with which my noble friend is perhaps familiar. Mrs Majedi said that for almost 20 years Iranian women have lived under

863
a sexual apartheid with almost no rights. At the same time a strong struggle led by the women and opposition forces fighting for freedom and equality is under way. We can see that in the great activities of some very brave women in Iran at the moment.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, said, we cannot measure freedom of expression by the number of publications that are licensed. It is a matter of those who speak out of turn. The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, cited the case of Amir Entezam, who is still held in prison at Evin for criticising the late Mr Lajevardi, the brutal former governor of Evin prison. There was a hearing of the case of Amir Entezam at the end of April, but he was not allowed to attend the court and no one knows what charges have been preferred against him.
Over the last month there has been a major offensive by the regime against anyone who is off message. On Thursday last week, the leader of the Islamic union of students, who is also editor of the journal One's Identity, was detained. That was two days after the arrest of the owner of the publication. Earlier this month a new press bill was presented in the Majlis which would kill the independent press and silence journalists described by Ayatollah Khamane'i as,
"mercenaries, defending the position of the enemies of Islam and the Islamic revolution".
Reference has also been made to the arrest of the Jews; not 13 but probably as many as 30. How on earth a Jew would have access to confidential information defies the imagination, yet it was asserted as a matter of fact by Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, secretary of the Council of Guardians, to whom perhaps the noble Viscount should address his remarks about awaiting due process. He said, in his Friday sermon, that the suspects had been busy for some time collecting information and sending it to Israel via Turkey. That was a matter of fact; it was not a suggestion that these were the allegations made against the defendants when they come to court. No wonder Hubert Vedrine, the French Foreign Minister, summoned the Iranian ambassador to protest against those baseless charges. Why do not we and the French join together and promote an EU démarche on the subject?
While we are on the topic of religious minorities, as the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, mentioned, I went to see the Iranian ambassador, Mr Ansari, recently about the persecution of the Baha'is. Whatever we said, he kept trying to divert the conversation to the situation in Northern Ireland and the Diplock courts. We received not one answer from him, to the extent that I had to put everything we wanted to say in writing, which I did immediately after the meeting on 27th April. Needless to say, he has not yet replied.
These are the considerations which seem to make it expedient for us to have friendly relations with Iran, such as the need to isolate Saddam, the instability of neighbouring Afghanistan and Tajikistan, and the reduction of any potential threat by Iran to the Gulf states. The human rights case for supporting President Khatami is not yet proven.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, for securing this debate on the Government's policy towards human rights in Iran. It has provided a useful opportunity to discuss a subject of serious concern to your Lordships at a highly pertinent time when a warmer bilateral relationship is developing between our two countries against the backdrop of the gradual unfreezing of European Union-Iranian relations. Those changes have taken place in Iran in the past two years and include the free and fair presidential elections in 1997 and the success of the recent municipal elections. An increased level of public debate and a public shift away from a foreign policy of confrontation towards one more of dialogue and co-operation have led to the improvement in our relations with Iran. As noble Lords have reminded us, this improvement was only last month symbolised by the upgrading of our diplomatic relations to ambassadorial level.
However, from these Benches we take the view that our relations with Iran can never fully be normalised while the Iranian government of the day continue to support policies and activities, both tacitly and overtly, which are an affront to the universal values of human rights, the rule of law and democracy.
First, I should like to make the point that from these Benches we believe that there is much reason for hope in Iran. Two years after his election victory, President Khatami indicated that tolerance and political liberalisation are the bedrock in what he has described as a transition to an "Islamic democracy". With a number of encouraging statements made by the Iranian leadership on the need to promote respect for the rule of law and to reform the legal and penitentiary system to bring it into line with the international human rights standards, there has come something of a corresponding practical improvement in the human rights situation in Iran.
It is true that rapid progress has not been made towards President Khatami's goal of a tolerant, diverse and law-abiding society in which human rights are respected. This is not least because Iran stands at a critical crossroads between the demands of conservative elements who would isolate Iran and take her backwards, and reformists who would modernise and take her forwards. President Khatami has faced, and will continue to face, strident opposition in the days ahead in both parliament and the judiciary.
Nevertheless, both the presidential election in 1997 and the recent municipal elections, which were notable for their increased openness and transparency, and for the level of participation of the Iranian people, stand as a testament to the distance that has been travelled on the road to reform and the development of a democratic and pluralistic society in Iran. For those reasons, I believe that the comments made by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, were important in the context of this debate.
However, Iran's record on human rights is still very poor indeed. The extent to which that subject, I believe rightly, dominated debate this evening has been

865
interesting and notable. Both the US State Department and Iran currently report on human rights practices, and Amnesty International's 1999 annual report makes this all too clear. I believe that it is right and proper to place on record the highly disturbing reading in the summary of Amnesty's report, which states:
"Hundreds of political prisoners, including prisoners of conscience, were held [in Iran]. Some were detained without charge or trial: others continued to serve long prison sentences imposed after unfair trials. Reports of torture and ill-treatment continued to be received and judicial punishments of flogging and stoning continued to be imposed. Reports suggested that possible 'disappearances' and extrajudicial executions had occurred. Scores of people were reportedly executed, including at least one prisoner of conscience: however, the true number may have been considerably higher. An unknown number of people remained under sentence of death, some after unfair trials. Armed opposition groups committed human rights abuses".
There have also been restrictions on citizens' rights to change their government; systematic abuses including extra-judicial killings; summary executions; disappearances; the widespread use of torture; harsh prison conditions (particularly at the infamous Evin prison); arbitrary arrest and detention; lack of due process; unfair trials; infringement of citizens' privacy; restrictions on the work of human rights groups; and legal and social discrimination against women—highlighted so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson—as well as against religious and ethnic minorities. Incidents such as those catalogued are all still part of daily life in Iran. While that continues to be the case and such abuses continue to be perpetrated, they will pose an insurmountable hurdle on Iran's road to reform.
So, in the light of the ethical dimension to the Government's foreign policy, I would ask the Minister this evening simply this: to what extent does she believe and expect that efforts to improve our bilateral relations, both trade and diplomatic, would be hampered by Iran's human rights record, notwithstanding the progress that has been made under President Khatami towards his goal of a civil society based on the rule of law? In particular, in pursuance of the comments of noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on the subject of Salman Rushdie: what action has the Government requested that Iranian authorities take in relation to the 15 Khorclad Foundation which continues to threaten Mr Rushdie's life and which has raised the bounty it requires and is necessary for his murder?
In a welcome step, the Government of Iran have invited the UNHCR working group on enforced or involuntary disappearances to visit Iran. Does the Minister have any information on when this important visit might take place, and is it the intention of the Government to push that point?
In conclusion—this is a very short contribution to your Lordships' debate—I believe that nations living according to democratic and pluralistic values will abide more fully and more naturally with internationally expected norms of behaviour in both their foreign and domestic policies, and that the international community's policies must be directed towards realising that goal in the case of countries such as Iran. We look forward to hearing from the Minister the ways in which
866
the Government intend to respond to the important points, particularly those of human rights abuses, which have been so eloquently and clearly stated by your Lordships this evening, and how she intends to encourage the Government to influence and assist Iran in the beneficial process, the optimistic process, which we believe is absolutely essential and which has been laid out before your Lordships this evening.
8.25 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer for raising this important issue. My noble and learned friend said that he was raising some genuine questions, although I am bound to say he did paint an almost unremittingly gloomy picture of what is happening in Iran at the moment. I say to him very clearly that of course the Government have concerns. The Government have very strong concerns, but the Government's position is, I think, rather more as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, described the position of the Official Opposition. We are prepared to work with Iran to improve the position on the ground.
Our relationship has come a very long way in the short period since my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary met his Iranian counterpart Dr. Kharrazi at the United Nations in New York last September. The upgrading of our relations to ambassadorial status earlier this month, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, was agreed in principle at that meeting. It was the latest step in what promises to be a very long journey. We are clear that it is right to pursue a better relationship, but we are also clear that there are obstacles to be overcome. One such obstacle, of course, is the longstanding concern over Iranian human rights policies. It is important to note that some important changes have already taken place under the reformist government of President Khatami. That government remain committed to building a civil society based on respect for the rule of law. Progress with that commitment is most evident in the unprecedented freedom of expression which the press now enjoys, exemplified by a profusion of new publications addressing a whole range of previously sensitive subjects.
I am aware that some journals were closed under pressure from other elements in the Iranian system—we must not forget those elements—but many have subsequently re-opened. The trend towards open press discussion now seems irreversible. The Iranian government remain committed to promoting greater public debate and have repeatedly stressed the importance of allowing legitimate opposition views to be expressed. That can only help to create a better environment for the direction of human rights. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and others referred to the local elections this year in which a large majority of the Iranian population, both men and women, participated, offering further tangible evidence of the lively political debate taking place in Iran today despite some restrictions on who could stand, as rightly pointed out

867
by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The elections were vigorously contested, in some cases for the very first time by members of legally formed political parties. A lively debate on next year's parliamentary elections has already began.
The arrest of a number of officials in the Ministry of Intelligence in connection with the murder of some intellectuals last year and the subsequent dismissal of the intelligence Minister and the on-going trial concerning torture allegations of a senior police officer are important evidence that the Iranian government are moving against extra-judicial murder or activity outside the framework of the law. I stress to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer the symbolic importance of these events. In recent weeks the government have stressed again the importance of building solid political and civil institutions to underpin their domestic reform agenda. But of course there is still a great deal to do. The United Kingdom Government and our EU partners will continue to encourage Iran to resume co-operation with the UN human rights mechanisms and particularly to restore the visits by the UN special rapporteur, Maurice Copithorne. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has raised the matter in your Lordships' House on a number of occasions. We shall be maintaining pressure on Iran through UN resolutions which record progress but also point out continued abuses.
The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, raised the issue of the Jewish detainees. We and our EU partners also take up with the Iranians directly significant individual cases when we believe that appropriate. One example is the recent detention of the members of the Iranian Jewish community. That was raised on 15th June in response to a Question from my noble friend Lord Janner. I said then that we first heard some weeks ago that a number of Jews had been detained without charge in Iran but that it was not initially easy to establish the truth amid the conflicting rumours. We have been in regular contact with the Israeli organisation, both in the UK and in the United States through our mission in New York. We have also been in touch through other bodies and other organisations concerned.
Before the news broke on 7th June the German EU presidency, on a visit to Tehran on 20th May, had already expressed the concern of EU member states about the detentions. That was followed up by a formal EU démarche in Tehran today. I remind my noble friend that Mr Hoon made a statement on 10th June expressing the Government's concern for those detained. We also expressed our concern directly to the Iranian ambassador in London and pressed for the detainees to be fairly treated. Similar action has been taken by many of our European partners. We welcome the Iranian government's recent statements following the arrests that they are responsible for individuals of every religious persuasion in Iran, including specifically the Jewish community, which is officially recognised under the Iranian constitution.
I know that there have been further press reports in the past few days that perhaps as many as 22 rather than 13 have been detained. Other noble Lords have said that the figure may be higher than that. It remains uncertain
868
whether that reflects further arrests of Iranian Jews or refers to the total number detained, including a number of Iranian Moslems, previously referred to by the Iranian authorities. I give the House an assurance that we and our EU partners continue to press the Iranian authorities for further clarification, that we will go on demanding fair treatment and that we will monitor the situation very closely.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised, not for the first time—he has rightly raised the point on a number of occasions—the question of the Baha'i. I know that he raised it directly with the Iranian ambassador in London. The plight of the Baha'i community in Iran has been of particular concern for some time and—the noble Lord is quite right—it remains so. We and our EU partners have raised these concerns with the Iranian authorities on many occasions. Persecution of individuals on religious grounds is totally unacceptable.
As the noble Lord knows, the European Union-sponsored United Nations Commission on Human Rights resolution on Iran adopted on 23rd April once again reaffirmed the international community's concern about the situation. As the noble Lord will know, we also raise individual cases of concern as they affect the Baha'i. We most recently raised the cases of Mr Najafabadi and Mr Dhabihi-Muqaddam. both of whom face the death sentence. We were told on 4th October that their cases were subject to review by the Supreme Court. To date the sentences have not been carried out and we have been led to believe that they will not be carried out. We have also raised our concerns about the arrests at the end of last year of members of the Baha'i Institute of Higher Education. I know that the noble Lord is concerned about that too.
In the past, noble Lords have raised questions about the fate of the Christian communities in Iran. The Christians are a recognised religious community under the Iranian constitution and have a reserved seat in the parliament. I recognise, however, that the Christians also face persecution. We welcome President Khatami's recent statement that he represents all religions in Iran. I hope that that gives some comfort and that such issues can be pursued on that basis.
My noble and learned friend Lord Archer raised the question of torture and other punishments. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has also expressed enormous concern. Her Majesty's Government share all noble Lords' concerns about Sharia punishments such as torture, amputations and stonings. We and our EU partners sponsored a resolution on 23rd April, and we frequently raise these and other human rights issues in our bilateral contacts with the Iranians. We hope that the implementation of President Khatami's declared objective of fully enforcing the constitution and the proper rule of law will begin to have an effect in this area soon. I assure your Lordships that these are raised as matters of principle and as individual cases with the Iranian authorities when possible.
A number of noble Lords raised the whole question of the National Council for the Resistance of Iran. We have discussed this issue on previous occasions. We do

869
not recognise the National Council for the Resistance of Iran, of which the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq organisation is the dominant group, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, said. Nor did the Opposition when they were in power. The British Government remain firmly opposed to the violence practised by the MKO and to terrorism from any other quarter. Its latest terrorist action was to kill Lieutenant-General Shirazi in Tehran on 10th April, which this Government condemned. The attacks to which my noble and learned friend Lord Archer referred followed the assassination. I do not know whether they were a direct reaction to the assassination but I make the point that that was the sequence of events.
We have also discussed the statement signed by MPs calling for a change to UK policy towards Iran. We and our EU partners—we are not isolated—have continuing concerns over human rights violations in Iran, which we regularly draw to the attention of the Iranian Government. We are also worried about the role of the MKO in the NCRI. The points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, on this issue were extremely perceptive. Your Lordships may care to read what she said. This organisation is despised by many Iranians—the noble Baroness has been to Iran and speaks from first-hand knowledge—as a result of its support for Saddam Hussain during the Iran-Iraq war. Its headquarters is in Baghdad. I understand that the organisation is still among Saddam's most trusted supporters. We shall continue to follow a balanced policy on the issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked for the Government's view on all these issues. It is one of informed concern, but it is one of taking into account an enormous number of different threads, both official and unofficial, in the state of Iran. We notice the positive developments: the press and the local elections. We also know that the Iranian Government are steadily improving relations with their neighbours, particularly in the Persian Gulf. That is a welcome development, as is their latest reaction on the issue of terrorism in the Gulf. So too is their reaction to the status of women, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, also spoke and to which a number of other noble Lords, notably the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, made reference. In the past few years we have seen the appointment of the first four women judges and the first woman vice-president in Iran. Female candidates were particularly successful in the local elections. A further example is in education where more than 50 per cent of this year's intake at the University of Tehran are women.
I hope that I have been able to cover at least some of the important issues touched on by your Lordships today. To sum up, Her Majesty's Government remain committed to the development of our relations with Iran. We find encouragement in the reformist policies of the government of President Khatami and we will continue to encourage those reforms while we press for improvements in those Iranian policies which cause us particular concern. Engaging the Iranian authorities on
870
these issues is more likely to be effective than isolating Iran. We continue to develop our relationship for what we believe is the benefit of both our nations.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.39 to 8.45 p.m.]

House of Lords Bill
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
[Amendment No. 28 had been withdrawn .from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 28A:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

House of Lords Bill

  MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF LORDS: SCOTTISH PEERS (NO. 9)
  (".—(1) Nothing in section I of this Act shall be taken to prevent sixteen peers in the peerage of Scotland from sitting and voting in the House of Lords.
  (2)At the beginning of each Parliament, the peers of Scotland shall elect from amongst their number, by open election and plurality of votes, the said sixteen peers, who are to sit and vote in the House of Lords during that Parliament.
  (3)In the case of the death or legal incapacity of any of the said sixteen peers, the peers of Scotland shall elect another of their number in place of the said peer.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 28A I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 28B. The latter is but a minor variation of Amendment No. 28A. Just in case one or other contains a technical drafting defect, we have decided to carry out a belt-and-braces exercise in relation to these two amendments. However, both amendments cover exactly the same point. We return to something discussed at Committee stage: namely, the impact of the Bill on the Treaty of Union between Scotland and England and the two Acts, one passed by the Parliament of Scotland before it ceased to exist and one passed by the Parliament of England before that ceased to exist. I emphasise the reference to the Parliament of England as well as the Parliament of Scotland for reasons that I shall turn to in a moment.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, as one would expect, gave full, interesting and useful answers, but, naturally—one would do the same in his place—only to those questions to which it was easiest to give such answers. He slightly slid away from one or two questions and others just slipped to the bottom of the note-taking pile. My noble friends and I thought that it was worth returning to the issue to give the Government the opportunity to discuss again the impact of this Bill on the treaty and whether or not it infringed articles within it.
  One of the arguments of the noble and learned Lord was that if I was right and the Bill infringed the treaty, clearly so did the 1963 Act—because, presumably, the English Parliament agreed to the 16 Peers from Scotland in 1707 on the basis that that was a reasonable balance at the time— by upsetting the balance and introducing about 15 further Scottish Peers. When my noble friend Lord Gray speaks, he will have more detailed knowledge of that than I do, having been present at the time and having been an active player in the last election for the 16 Members of the Scottish Parliament.
  The argument of the noble and learned Lord was that if I were right and the treaty could not be changed because the Parliament of England no longer existed, just as the Parliament of Scotland no longer existed, the 1963 Act could not have been passed and the remaining Scottish Peers who were not elected could not have come to your Lordships' House.
  The point which I wish to draw to the noble and learned Lord's attention is that I do not believe that the decision by this Parliament in 1963 upset the principles on which the treaty was based. When the treaty was written, and the 16 were laid down, it was against the background of a smaller House of Lords. Therefore, adding 15 Scottish Members clearly did not infringe the Scottish Parliament's position. It wanted at least 16 to get, let us say, 30. It was not a breach of that. The noble and learned Lord argued that 30 was a breach of what the Parliament of England decided.
  The fact is that the increase in membership of the House had changed the historical reasons for the balance which was laid down in the treaty and agreed between the governments of Scotland and England and then put into the two Acts of both Parliaments. Therefore I do not think that the position is the same as in 1963. Here we are removing the right of any of the Scottish peerage to sit in your Lordships' House; and on any reading that has to be a breach of the Treaty of Union. Article XXII is quite clear on that issue.
  Related to that was the discussion on Lord Cooper's judgment in the case of Hamilton and MacCormick v. The Lord Advocate on the question of the style and title of Her Majesty the Queen. The argument which MacCormick and Hamilton put forward was that the Queen should be Elizabeth I of Great Britain and not Elizabeth II. Those of us alive at the time will remember that it was a live issue in Scotland. Pillar boxes received visits from explosives when they appeared with "EIIR" on them. It did not get much further than that, except to the court.
  The court found against MacCormick and Hamilton. Mr Hamilton is still alive and, as I mentioned in Committee, he was a candidate for the Scottish National Party. He failed to be elected. The other person, John MacDonald MacCormick is now long dead. But, as I explained to the House, one of his sons, well known to the Lord Chancellor and perhaps to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, Neil MacCormick, was until the beginning of this month a serious professor in the Law Department at Edinburgh University. He is now a Member of the European Parliament having been
  872
  elected by the amazing system the Government chose to deal with the European parliamentary elections. Professor MacCormick was number two on the SNP list and now joins the European Parliament. So there is an interesting link between today's politics and the politics of 1953.
  While the court held against them as regards "EIIR", Lord Cooper made perfectly clear his view on the questions of the characteristics of the treaty, especially of the sovereignty of Parliament. I quoted the judgment in Committee. I shall quote it more succinctly by missing out some of the sentences that do not matter, as long as no one complains they are incomplete quotations.
  In his judgment, Lord Cooper said:
  "lest this case should go further, I shall briefly express my opinion."
  The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctly English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law. It derives its origins from Coke and Blackstone, and was widely popularised during the nineteenth century by Bagehot and Dicey, the latter having stated the doctrine in its classic form in his Law of the Constitution. Considering that the Union legislation extinguished the Parliaments of Scotland and England and replaced them by a new Parliament, I have difficulty in seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament but none of the Scottish Parliament, as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England. That is not what was done. Further. the Treaty and the associated legislation, by which the Parliament of Great Britain was brought into being as the successor of the separate Parliaments of Scotland and England, contains some clauses which expressly reserve to the Parliament of Great Britain powers of subsequent modification, and other clauses which either contain no such power or emphatically exclude subsequent alteration by declarations that the provision shall be fundamental and unalterable in all time coming, or declarations of a like effect. I have never been able to understand how it is possible to reconcile with elementary canons of construction the adoption by the English constitutional theorists of the same attitude to these markedly different types of provisions.
  "The Lord Advocate conceded this point by admitting that the Parliament of Great Britain 'could not' repeal or alter such `fundamental and essential' conditions."
  I shall not read out some of the remainder that I read, but the question I pose again to the noble and learned Lord is this. Why is it that Article XXII does not fall to be considered along the lines of the Lord Cooper judgment? It is a simple question which the noble and learned Lord might like to address again to see whether he can convince me more than he succeeded in doing on the previous occasion. Those are my first and second points which the noble and learned Lord should try to answer this time.
  The noble and learned Lord also failed to answer the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle. At col. 184 of the Official Report of 27th April, he pointed out, in endorsing the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie—I am sure that he will speak later—that,
  "The effect of the Bill as drafted will be that, for the first time since 1707, there will be no statutory right of representation for Scotland in this House".
  He continued:
  "It is a matter that the Government should think worthy of consideration, even if not in the form of this amendment".
  The noble and learned Lord did not address himself to the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, made. Nor did he address himself to my rather simpler question—not being a lawyer. It was straightforward. Why, as the Bill undoubtedly amends the Treaty of Union-we are agreed that it changes the Treaty of Union—was nothing put in this Bill similar to Section 37 of the Scotland Act which this Parliament passed just over a year ago? Section 37 boldly states:
  "The Union with Scotland Act 1706 and the Union with England Act 1707 have effect subject to this Act".
  If it were thought prudent to put that in the Scotland Act, I suggest to the Government that it might be prudent to put it in this Act, as quite clearly what is proposed by the Bill impinges not only on the two Acts but also on Article XXII of the treaty itself. It is true to say also that Article XXII was never repealed by the 1963 Act. So if the 1963 Act falls, there is an argument that we shall go back to the treaty. That is why my amendment takes us back to before the 1963 Act incorporating in this Bill the treaty itself so that 16 members of the peerage of Scotland can be elected to represent in part, along with those of us life Peers from Scotland, the position of Scotland within what is supposedly an equal partnership union. I beg to move.
  9 p.m.
  Lord Gray: My Lords, in rising to support the amendments of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, I shall speak to my Amendment No. 37, with which his are grouped.
  Like my noble friend, I wish to raise some points which arose when I moved a not dissimilar amendment in Committee. My noble friend referred to 1963. In 1963 the representative Peer system was replaced, on a recommendation of the Joint Select Committee on House of Lords reform. The committee gave two reasons for its recommendation: first, the large increase in the membership of the House of Lords since the Union: secondly, the small number of non-representative Peers of Scotland. At that time, there were 15; today there would be 25.
  The committee subsequently added a recommendation that the words in Article XXII of the Acts of Union governing the election of representative Peers should be repealed. Such repeal was, of course, necessary to implement the committee's primary recommendation, and was made with the passing of the 1963 Peerage Act.
  It is beyond question that the intention and effect was to substitute all the Peers of Scotland for the representative 16, and sensibly to modernise and enhance Scottish representation in this House, in keeping with the age in which we live. Most certainly, it was not intended to remove specifically guaranteed representation.
  In Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, cited the repeal of the whole of Article XXII from both the Scottish and English Acts of Union as meaning that the provision was spent and that was an end of the matter. My reaction to that is to quote
  874
  from Chapter 5 of Article XXV of the Union Acts to which my noble friend has just referred. It states:
  "And it is hereby stated and ordained, That this Act of Parliament, with the Establishment therein contained, shall he held and observed in all Time coming, as a fundamental and essential Condition of any Treaty or Union to be concluded between the two Kingdoms, without any Alteration thereof or Derogation thereto in any Sort for ever".
  Surely to argue in the face of those words that Article XXII is spent and that is the end of the matter is extraordinary and ignores the nature of what was done in 1963.
  In 1963 Parliament respected and remained within the bounds of those words that I have just quoted by using the enabling words in Article XXII, which are:
  "Until the Parliament of Great Britain shall make further provision therein".
  Parliament did make further provision therein. Scots Peers were treated as a group in 1707 and again in 1963. Section 4 of the 1963 Peerage Act quite clearly stands in place of the representative provision of Article XXII.
  The wording of Section 4 treated Scots Peers as a group, and equating their rights therein with those of United Kingdom Peers was merely the most expedient method of achieving enfranchisement and should not be used now as a device to bring individual Peers of Scotland within the ambit of Clause 1 of the Bill and end the Union position.
  It is perhaps worth commenting as an aside that resisting my arguments for those of my noble friend on the ground that Article XXII is spent, as was done on the last occasion, surely raises a question concerning another place, because the article also dealt with representation of Scotland in the House of Commons. In replying to a point made by my noble friend Lord Northesk during our Committee debate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said:
  "I believe that I have set out the constitutional position, which is that this Parliament is sovereign in relation to all previous Acts of Parliament".—[Official Report, 27/4/99; col. 193.]
  No doubt that is generally speaking correct., but I do not believe that such a dictum can be applied against the words I quoted from Article XXV on the implementation of a treaty between sovereign states, which were surely intended to endure while the Union does.
  Much was said in Committee about the current level and quality of Scottish representation in your Lordships' House. I made it clear that I accepted what was said, but that my concern is solely with the treaty principle.
  However, in drafting my Amendment No. 37, I have taken note of other points made. The amendment this time restricts eligibility for election to Peers of Scotland who are domiciled there and extends the electoral college to all Peers domiciled in Scotland. I hope that this modernisation of the scheme will commend it. Information which I have gathered for this debate shows that there are 110 Peers who give a Scottish address; 70 of them are hereditary and 40 are life Peers. At this time, there are 41 Peers of Scotland only, one of whom is a minor. Of the remaining 40, I believe that approximately seven would be ruled ineligible on domiciliary grounds.

  875
  With devolution in place, it is important that we take care not to retract anything from the bargain which created the Union. I hope that my arguments and those of my noble friend will persuade the House and the Government that a case for an amendment such as this has been made.
  Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am a proud and privileged member of the Scottish Peers Association because I believe that the Scottish Peers have made a notable contribution to the affairs of this House. They meet as a group to discuss Scottish affairs and try to reach a consensus on matters affecting the welfare of Scotland. I admire the tenacity of my fellow members of the association who seek to establish the rights of Scottish Peers in the arrangements for the future of the House of Lords. But I say to them quite seriously that if ever I heard a case for a lost cause, this is it.
  During the debates in Scotland on devolution, I was not enthusiastic for a Scottish Parliament. I held my peace and occasionally spoke on the subject in the debates in Scotland. At town meetings in which I participated, I pointed out that one of the implications of devolution was the abolition of the House of Lords in Scotland on all matters which seriously affect the daily life of the people of Scotland; education, health and so forth.
  However, during those meetings I found little concern for the abolition of the House of Lords and its rights to examine Scottish legislation. Indeed, that is emphasised by the list of people who are invited to the opening of the new Scottish Parliament, on which great occasion there are to be celebrations in the city of Edinburgh. I saw a notable list of football players, comics, singers and others who will join the festivities, but I failed to see a reference to any Member of the House of Lords who would be present at this execution of their powers.
  The Scottish people are not rising up in anger about the prospect of Scottish Peers disappearing in the new arrangements. I do not believe that it is a matter of great concern to them. It is a matter of concern to me because I have a sentimental desire to see some of my good friends who are fellow Scottish Peers playing a part in this assembly. Nevertheless, the mere fact that we have enacted a Scottish Parliament and devolved great powers to it makes our special contribution rather irrelevant. I do not believe we can sustain a special place for Scottish Peers in the new arrangements.
  As a life Peer from Scotland, I am hopeful that life Peers present and to be appointed will play a continuing and notable part in the proceedings of this House. There is no reason why life Peers should not continue to play that part and keep an eye on matters of concern to Scotland. But I tell your Lordships that if you incorporate in this Bill special provision for so many Scottish hereditary Peers as such in this House, that will add to the backlash that is taking place in England now in relation to Scottish power in national affairs. After all, we do not so badly; out of 21 members of the British Cabinet, six are Scotsmen. That is a fair representation and proves the fact that Scotland's voice is being heard somewhere in the centres of power.
  876
  I suggest to my good friends that to push this matter and to demand a special category in the new arrangements in the new century, whatever the historical justification in the Act of Union, would be resented in England and would do us no good at all. In addition, I do not believe that the Scots are rising up in anger at the provisions of this Bill. Consequently, I regard the amendment as irrelevant and not acceptable.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, although I am no longer secretary of the Scottish Peers Association and have not been for the past two or three months, I should like very much to correct the impression which I certainly gained from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, that the Scottish Peers Association was in some way connected with this amendment. That is not the case. This amendment was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, but there are no amendments on the Marshalled List sponsored by the Scottish Peers Association. I have risen to say that in a great hurry because I do not see any of the officers of the association present here tonight. It is very important that the matter stands corrected. Having said that, I entirely support the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Gray. If he chooses to press it to a Division, I shall certainly support it.
  9.15 p.m.
  Lord Forbes: My Lords, I have a little difficulty with Amendment No. 28A. Whereas it follows the lines of the Treaty of Union that Scotland should be represented by 16 Peers of Scotland in your Lordships' House, that came about after a time when Scottish Peers crossed the Border only to slaughter the English. Before the Union, few had the temerity to live in England. Today, thanks to the Union, many Peers of Scotland are domiciled in England, even in London.
  As things stand today, I believe that my Front Bench should put any weight that it may have behind the more appropriate amendments moved by my the noble Lord, Lord Gray. His amendments deal with persons of the peerage domiciled in Scotland representing Scotland in your Lordships' House.
  Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, it is for the Government to indicate how there will be a reasonable representation of Scottish Peers in this House in the future. I have listened to the very powerful argument of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, and of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. It is right to say that at present a substantial number of Scottish hereditary Peers and a limited number of Scottish life Peers attend this House regularly.
  I should like to know how the Government visualise that representation continuing in the future. They may well say that it is inconceivable that there will not always be a sufficient number of life Peers from Scotland domiciled in Scotland, which is the important word, to represent the Scottish view in this place.
  We have to bear in mind what has happened over recent weeks. The Leader of the Scottish Parliament, Donald Dewar, has indicated that there will be United Kingdom legislation accepted in Scotland and passed

  877
  in a rapid fashion by the Scottish Parliament. Whatever composition this House may have in the future, that means it will have an important part to play in the United Kingdom legislation that will affect Scotland. If the Government are then going to say, "You have a much less important part to play in Scotland now", how is it that they continue to support the idea of 72 Members of Parliament in Scotland who have comparatively little to do and yet receive very substantial financial support for running their constituencies? Of course, when that is doubled up with the large allowances given to the Members of the Scottish Parliament representing the same constituencies, by and large the taxpayers, whom we all represent, pay huge sums of money through double representation in Scotland and England relative to constituency offices and administration.
  If the Government feel that the duties of this House will be much reduced, they must accept the principle behind the West Lothian question and that the duties of the Westminster Scottish Members of Parliament will also be substantially reduced. They must get on with asking the Boundary Commission to press ahead with resolving the number of constituencies in Scotland in the future. The general feeling is that the number will be cut from 72 at present to around the low 50s.
  There appears to be no enthusiasm in the Government to get on with that. Indeed, we called fur that over a year ago. Had the Government listened to us then, they could have had the Boundary Commission organised in time for the next general election. As the Government rely on their huge Labour majority in Scotland to maintain their majority in Westminster, they are likely to be unenthusiastic about reducing the number of constituencies in Scotland.
  How will the Government ensure that there will be sufficient life Members of Parliament in this House to carry out such Scottish legislation as will come through the two Houses of Parliament in the future? I know that there will be a considerable number of hereditary Scottish Peers, led by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, in the House, but there is nothing on paper that will guarantee that there will be full or adequate Scottish representation in the House if amendments such as that proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Gray and Lord Mackay, are not accepted. I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say to ensure that there will be sufficient representation here to fulfil our duties relative to Scotland in the future.
  The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I speak partly for personal reasons. I must be the only remaining Peer of the 16 Scottish Peers who can still take part in this issue.
  Lady Sartoun of Abernethy: No!
  The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I well recall how in 1953 I fought in a by-election and won by a close margin as there was a tie. It was a most spectacular affair. The event took place in public in the Long Room where portraits of all the Kings of Scotland are to be found—some of them historical and some of them, I dare say, imaginary—but it was a moving procedure.
  878
  Perhaps I may be allowed one personal memory of that before turning to the main theme of my argument. The Lord Clerk Register, who was presiding, called on the various candidates in the election to say how they voted. I was the first one called upon because I happened to be an Earl and the other was a Lord. I said. "I vote for myself", whereupon the whole house, including a large number of the public, quite rightly broke out in laughter.
  I have listened with the greatest interest to the legal arguments that have been put forward. They have impressed me. I was upset by the Act of 1963 because it seemed that it killed all our hopes of maintaining the idea of special Scottish Peers to represent Scotland. I and several others opposed becoming United Kingdom Peers for the reason that we foresaw just the sort of argument that we are having today. I for one tried very hard, but I did not have the full support of all the Scottish Peers and that was the cue for the Government—and it was a Conservative government—to say, "Well, you haven't got all your old troops with you." There it was.
  I think the most important argument is that we do not know what is going to happen with the new Scottish Parliament and the English or the Westminster Parliament. It may well be that there is a real role for the equivalent of the Scottish Peers to play. I do not know in detail what form it should take, but it is not enough to know that there will probably be some Scottish Peers by the fact that they are life Peers unless it is somehow stated by the Government that they will ensure that this happens. That is my first point.
  My second point is to ask the Government not to get involved in the legal arguments for or against. I do not fully understand them but I think they were powerfully put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Mackay and Lord Gray. I ask the Government not to overrule them, as it were, but to keep the situation open. I, for one, would hope that the Government might give us that assurance and say, "We are not going to commit ourselves one way or the other at the present time: we do not necessarily accept the arguments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Mackay and Lord Gray, on the legal side, but we see the force of ensuring that there is some representation coming from the Scottish Parliament."
  That, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is the part that we have all played in the Scottish Peers Association. We would wish to have something like that. I believe myself that in the years to come the Scottish Parliament itself would welcome some form of Scottish representation, whether by right or by the practice of ensuring that there are a certain number of life Peers. I do not know but as things stand it is perfectly possible that over a period of time there would be nobody to talk for Scotland, and that would be tragic.
  The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I support this grouping of amendments proposed by my noble friends, particularly in so far as they focus upon Scottish electoral colleges. From these amendments three points stand out clearly. First, there is consistency with the Treaty of Union of 1707. Secondly, there is consistency with the terms of this Bill and with the objectives of

  879
  stage one of Lords reform in 1999. Thirdly, there is the consistency of these proposals with the objectives of stage two of Lords reform.
  The first point requires no elaboration at all. It is self-evident from Article XXII of the Treaty of Union. This article is not spent, as my noble friend Lord Gray correctly asserted. It stated a number which was, and still is, a minimum of Scottish representation within the United Kingdom second Chamber.
  Secondly, the amendments conform to the purpose of the present Bill on its recommitment. This is to restrict membership of the hereditary peerage within the transition House. The Bill also seeks to achieve approximate voting parity between the main parties within the transition House.
  Thirdly, there is the consistency of these amendments with current arrangements for the consideration of stage two of Lords reform. The task of my noble friend Lord Wakeham is to make recommendations in order to improve the quality and function of the second Chamber. One obvious priority is to preserve and, if possible, to enhance its present quality of independence.
  In regard to Scottish representation as a component of the reformed Chamber, that is exactly what my noble friend's amendments accomplish. They do so through the selection which comes from an electoral college; and they do so also as the elections proposed would take place every Parliament. Not least do they add value by avoiding party politics. That is so where an electoral college might consist of Scottish Members of this House, domiciled in Scotland as the amendment of my noble friend Lord Gray proposes.
  Stage two may well produce a wholly elected second Chamber. However, if instead it should produce an appointed Chamber, to some extent electoral colleges ought to become a feature of the new system. There should be a Scottish electoral college which elects 16 Members every Parliament. In previous debates on this subject on the Bill, among a number of misapprehensions expressed, one in particular should perhaps be singled out. It has been asserted that, as matters stand, there are already more than 16 Scottish Members of this Chamber. That is true. Yet it has been contended that no other expedient at all—let alone a Scottish electoral college—becomes necessary to ensure a statutory minimum of Scottish representation. Yet that argument overlooks its own converse; that is, that an electoral college can improve further the quality of Scottish representation only if it guarantees to elect a statutory minimum number every Parliament.
  The Scottish electoral college which functions every Parliament constitutes a useful model within the reform of the second Chamber. That is particularly the case if that Chamber consists of appointed Members in the first place. Therefore, my noble friend Lord Wakeham should not be prevented from including that option. Instead, he should be encouraged to advance it. Clearly the best way to give that encouragement now is to incorporate within this Bill the substance of these amendments.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, this House will continue to make significant laws for Scotland and those laws must be scrutinised by people from Scotland. To give the most obvious and simple example within the world of social security legislation, cold weather payments are something about which Scottish representatives know a lot.
  However, this debate about the future of Scottish representation has got slightly caught up in the formulae used in the 1706 negotiations. Your Lordships are familiar with the two significant formulae of those negotiations which were that the relative taxable values of England and of Scotland were in a ratio of 38:1 and that the population difference was in the ratio of 5:1. That led to the treaty negotiators agreeing to there being 45 MPs and 16 Peers. I should add that the 45 MPs was a reduction from 330 Members of Parliament for Scotland, and for the Peers, of whom there were 160, it was a 10 per cent retention scheme. We have clearly heard of that scheme. I should note also that there were 180 Peers of England at that time, so I can see why they were anxious not to be overrun by the whole of the peerage of Scotland.
  I move on to the need for today's formula, which must be population based. Scotland constitutes 8 per cent of the UK's population. Therefore, in a House of approximately 600 that gives us 40 Members who must be domiciled in Scotland—by which I mean that they genuinely live there. The slogan for that must be, "No legislation without a guaranteed representation"; or perhaps I ought to modify that for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, to, "No reserved powers legislation without guaranteed and fair representation".
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Earl because, on the referendums Bill, I believe he proposed the revival of the old Scottish Parliament and made a moving and erudite case for it. That was particularly appropriate from him as one whose ancestor had served in the last Scottish Parliament. I am afraid that the proposal had no support because it was not supported by the Scottish Constitutional Convention. Therefore, even his own party, much less the government party, opposed it. But that was the most logical and sensible conclusion of the problem that your Lordships have been facing in this debate.
  I have been sitting here all day while the tides of partisanship have been washing over my head. But now that they have subsided and I can come up for air, perhaps I may ask two purely technical questions on these amendments; but that is not to minimise in any way the importance of the political issues that your Lordships have been discussing. I should like to ask about the phrase in Amendments Nos. 28A and 28B, which refers to,
  "sixteen peers in the peerage of Scotland".
  As your Lordships well know, and as was indicated by my noble friend Lord Perth, a number of Scottish Peers have English titles or United Kingdom titles. I do not

  881
  know whether that phrase is meant to extend to them. I believe that the phrase is taken from the Act of Union; is it not? But things were very different at that time and your Lordships have heard from my noble friend that the circumstances in which there were elections under the Act of Union are now matters of history. So that is the first question on which I should be very grateful for guidance from the government spokesman, and from the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, when he replies.
  My second question arises out of Amendment No. 37, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gray. That amendment refers specifically to,
  "sixteen Peers of Scotland only who are domiciled in Scotland".
  That phrase appears again and again in the next group of amendments. "Domicile" is a highly technical word in private international law. It merely denotes the legal connection of an individual with a territory, which has its own peculiar system of law. It can be acquired in two ways. By far the most common is by a domicile of birth, which I am afraid, if I may use the phrase, is largely hereditary: one acquires it from one's parents at birth. Generally speaking, it subsists until it is changed by the other type of domicile; namely, a domicile of choice.
  One can have a Scottish domicile. I imagine that most of your Lordships who have spoken tonight are domiciled in Scotland, although I imagine that many are resident in England. A few may have acquired a domicile of choice in England by choosing that that should be the country with which they have the closest connection. But I venture to think that the phrase in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, and in the subsequent amendments of the group is misleading. There is another phrase which is much safer and more illuminating in Amendment No. 31 which states,
  "the part of the United Kingdom with which they have the closest connection".
  That is a phrase that is perfectly well understood by lawyers and I think it is probably much closer to what is intended by the noble Lords, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Lord Gray, and other noble Lords who have spoken in support of these amendments. I ask for illumination on those two points: the meaning of the peerage of Scotland in the light of the fact that many Scottish Peers have, and indeed sit in your Lordships' House by virtue of, an English or United Kingdom peerage, and whether "domiciled in Scotland" is the most appropriate phrase or whether it would not be better to refer to the country with which they have the closest connection.
  The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I hope he can help us a little more. He referred to domicile at some length. Can he explain in language which laymen can understand the difference between domicile and residence?
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am afraid that I did not catch the first part of the noble Earl's question. There is a clear distinction between domicile and residence. You cannot acquire a domicile of choice except by residence in some place which you choose as your home. But domicile is quite different from
  882
  residence in the way I have tried to explain; namely, that you can acquire a domicile by birth without any residence at all. The classic example was in the days of the Raj where one member of a family after another was born in India and lived in India but still kept their English domicile. As I say, domicile is quite different from residence.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, I rise merely as one of the few English voices in this debate to ask the noble and learned Lord who is to reply not to lose sight of the cogent arguments with which my noble friend Lord Gray introduced his amendment and which go back to the treaty. It takes two sides to make a treaty and so far we have heard everything that Scots expect from their treaty. But it is our treaty too, and if one side loses its rights so does the other. That is something that the Government cannot afford to do either, because if they abrogate the treaty in any way they will soon find the Government of Spain requiring them to abrogate the provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht, with incalculable consequences for the nationality of Gibraltar. In law we need a cogent and sufficient answer to my noble friend's point.
  9.45 p.m.
  Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for raising this matter. Many noble Lords may have forgotten that there is a huge difference between the Scottish Peers and the Peers of Scotland. In this group of amendments we are talking about the Peers of Scotland. I think there is an argument here. I must admit that when it comes to a Scottish Peer—of which I am one—domiciled in Scotland, there is a very difficult argument. In fact, I do not think there is a strong argument at all, especially in the light of the debate we have had about the Weatherill agreement and everything else today.
  However, with the Peers of Scotland we have a very strong argument. Devolution is one thing but it deals only with devolved subjects; the sovereign Parliament is still Westminster. The Treaty of Union was quite clear when it set out the Union roll; it said that there would be 16 elected Members. That is extremely democratic; it cannot be anything else. It is certainly not any form of selection.
  It is now very important that we ensure representation of Scottish Peers of Scotland in your Lordship's House—if for no other reason than that, with the new proposals brought forward by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor today, it will be very hard for people down here to know what Scottish Peers are doing in Scotland or to know what is going on up there. This means of getting some Scottish Peers of Scotland here is a very sensible idea.
  My noble friend Lord Gray raised a very important point. It is quite clear in the Union roll and in the Union that Articles XXII and XXIII are never to be changed. My noble friend then raised a very important point when

  883
  he moved on to Articles XXIV and XXV. We must look at this very carefully to ensure that we are not breaking a treaty of very long standing.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Before the noble Lord sits down, to the best of my knowledge there are no such animals as Peers of Scotland; there are Scots Peers. There are English Peers, Scots Peers, Irish Peers, GB Peers and UK Peers, but Peers of Scotland are not animals that are known to me.
  The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, many issues are not entirely clear at the moment. Perhaps I may say something in an attempt to add clarity to some of them. I am sure that the Front Bench opposite will give your Lordships some clarification; we shall be very interested to hear it. As my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish has introduced the opinion of the Lord Advocate Cooper into this matter and the fact that he was puzzled as to why two sovereign parliaments coming together would appear to have adopted purely the practices of one of them, I made some inquiries of the Library. The answer I received perhaps sheds a little light on the matter.
  We are all familiar with the position that the Scottish Parliament was prorogued and not reconvened until the present institution was put in place. On 24th April 1707 the House of Lords and the House of Commons in Westminster were prorogued. On 30th April the Lords Commissioners read a proclamation from the Queen, which contained a declaration to the effect that Parliament should continue and would constitute the representation of England in the first Parliament of Great Britain. From this has perhaps slowly emanated the idea that most of the traditions carried on were those of the former English Parliament.
  I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I hark back to something I referred to at Second Reading. As we consider the reconstitution of this Parliament, we should look at how it becomes the Parliament of the United Kingdom in every aspect and does not rely too much on the traditions of one other Parliament.
  Perhaps I should mention the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, about the opening of the Scottish Parliament. As far as I know, the guest list has been firmly in the control of the party opposite. No doubt some Peers, appointed or hereditary, would have attended had they been asked. Perhaps it is an interesting reflection on the way in which matters might turn out there. The guest list has not been based on proportional representation.
  Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I hope that mine is a slightly independent voice. I have lived in Scotland for many years. I am a Peer of the United Kingdom. I feel that this debate, on points which even after a good deal of study seem somewhat arcane, should have been considered by the Government before the Bill was prepared. There is substance in them. I am indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for defining "domicile" so clearly, and to my noble kinsman on the Liberal Democrat Benches for
  884
  describing what happened many years ago. But we are faced with today's situation. We must consider not what is best for any party, but what is best for the country. If, as is claimed, the treaty obligations are valid, they must be taken into account. I hope that in replying the Minister will feel able to deal with the points of substance that have been raised in many parts of the House, and not merely "dust them off' as trifling and inappropriate.
  When I opposed the Bill earlier, I was described by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as "castigating" it. That is quite a strong word. I hope that I was only infrequently castigated at school, but that is by the way. The Bill is not one that can be supported on the ground that it will make the lot of the people of this great country better; it seems unlikely to do so. Therefore, this point should be most carefully considered. The objections, points and problems that have been raised on all sides of the House must be considered. I hope that the noble and learned Lord who is to reply will accept that.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have had a good dinner. I am therefore inclined to look at these amendments with a certain amount of sympathy—but really, they are nonsense! How can we expect an electorate of the Scottish Peers to be a base for any proper representation in this House? The idea is not up-to-date or sensible. There are a large number of Scottish Peers in this House. I am not sure whether I am included among them. For an electorate of that sort to think itself democratic in electing a number of Members of this House is total gibberish.
  If we are to have proper representation in Scotland, any committee properly appointed should consider all the aspects of Scotland—industrial, agricultural and so on—and appoint people from Scotland, hereditary Peers or others, or people who will be promoted to become Peers. But to elect 16 Members from among the hereditary Peers in Scotland is not in the present context sensible.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord replies, will he bear in mind the point about which my noble friend Lord Monro reminded the House; namely, the large amount of business relating to Scotland that will continue to be taken in this House, which is reserved to Westminster, and which will require proper insight on the part of a number of Scots Peers?
  I have recently spent a great deal of time on the Health Bill and the Tax Credits Bill. The Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill is before the House, and we have just considered the Water Industry Bill. Matters relating to health and water will not come before the House again because they are devolved, but others will.
  We shall have trade and industry matters, employment legislation, and we shall continue to follow carefully the affairs of Kosovo where many Scots military personnel are serving. There will be mainstream scrutiny of the European Parliament's goings-on and of European

  885
  legislation. We understand that there will be many problems with the Human Rights Act. Those are just some of the matters we shall have to discuss.
  I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not joke that there will he enough of our life Peers. There will not be enough of our life Peers and I hope that whatever way the Government handle the appointment of people to the Parliament, we shall hear something about our concern about the hereditary Peers. If the noble and learned Lord does not accept the amendments, we wish to hear how the matter will be dealt with.
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I do not for one moment doubt the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth. The Conservative Front Bench has supported the amendment. Perhaps I may describe its effect. The amendment proposes that any Peer of Scotland—that means any hereditary Peer created before 1707, of which there are at present 42—can elect from their number 16 to sit in the House of Lords.
  That is discriminatory against non-hereditary Peers, against Peers created after 1707, in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. The proposal is put forward as a way, first, of meeting the provisions of the Treaty of Union and, secondly, of providing appropriate representation in the House for the people of Scotland.
  I deal first with the point about the Treaty of Union. We have not in any way sought to abrogate the Treaty of Union. It stands unabrogated. Articles XXII and XXV are the two articles relied on. Article XXII states:
  "That by virtue of this Treaty, of the Peers of Scotland, at the Time of the Union, sixteen shall be the Number to sit and vote in the House of Lords".
  Then follow some irrelevant words. The article continues:
  "and that when her Majesty, her Heirs or Successors, shall declare her or their Pleasure for holding the first or any subsequent Parliament of Great Britain, until the Parliament of Great Britain shall make further Provision therein, a Writ do issue under the Great Seal of the united Kingdom".
  As is apparent from the words of the Treaty of Union, it was explicitly envisaged that the Parliament of Great Britain could amend or change the number both of the Peers of Scotland and of the representatives of Scotland who could sit in this House. There is therefore nothing in the Treaty of Union that prevented the 1963 Act being passed which changed the number of Peers who could sit in the House. There is nothing in the law of this country that prevents it because Article XXII was then repealed by a 1964 and a 1993 Act. Equally, there is nothing that prevents this Bill being turned into an Act of Parliament and changing or eradicating the right of the Scottish Peers to sit. There is absolutely nothing in the legal point.
  To answer the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane of Cults, we carefully considered the points before we proposed the Bill in this form. We are quite satisfied that there is nothing in it.
  A point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in support of the proposition that hereditary Peers created before 1707 should have an
  886
  electorate to elect this House. Article XXV of the Treaty of Union states:
  "That all Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom, so far as they are contrary to, or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles, or any of them, shall, from and after the Union, cease and become void, and shall be so declared to be, by the respective Parliaments of the said Kingdoms".
  When we read that, it is plain that it is stating that the Treaty of Union overrides any laws which exist at the time and which are inconsistent with the Treaty of Union.
  The argument was put attractively by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, as it was by the noble Lord, Lord Gray; but with the greatest respect to them, there is absolutely nothing in it whatever.
  Then it is suggested that the way that one deals with the under-representation of the Scots is to have this somewhat unrepresentative group of people. I do not believe that the people of Scotland would be pleased to hear that their representation in the House of Lords was to he pepped up by this unique, perfectly worthy but not very representative group. Every time we have this debate, one looks around the Chamber and sees very eminent life Peers who will be more than able to represent the people of Scotland in the transitional House; and every time I mention names, that is regarded by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, as a joke. I shall not mention any names, but it is perfectly clear that the Scots are well able to look after themselves. I do not think that there is anything more that I can usefully say about any of these amendments, save to say that now that we have gone through the detail of the matter, I respectfully ask that we do not have to return to it again.
  Lord Hughes: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I ask him, having regard to his opening words about the Treaty of Union, whether he believes that, so long as there are at least 16 life Peers living in Scotland, the spirit if not letter of the treaty would be fulfilled?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, all I am saying is that neither the Treaty of Union, nor any law which has followed it, has required the Peers of Scotland—that is, the Peers created before 1707—to have 16 of their number in this House.
  The Earl of Perth: My Lords, perhaps I may ask one question. Do I take it that since here and now the Scots are well represented, that will go on and the Government will make sure that they will be well represented one way or another? That is all I am interested in.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I feel that the people of Scotland are extremely well represented in the House at the moment, even without the pre-1706 Peers. Their departure would be a loss. It would be for each individual political party, as it nominates people, to make sure that that continues in the transitional House.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply and for dealing with the actual issue of the Treaty of Union and not some of the surrounding issues that have arisen during

  887
  the debate. We shall come to the question of Scottish representation in general terms in the next group of amendments. I am always cautious when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, asks me a question that sounds particularly legal, because I am sure that he knows the answer before he asks it. Therefore, I say to him that what I intend to suggest in my amendment, as to the Peers and peerage of Scotland, are those Peers who are solely Peers in the peerage of Scotland and not those Peers who have Scottish peerages and have obtained along the way, so to speak, or their ancestors have, peerages of either Great Britain or the United Kingdom. I hope that that answers that question.
  I was interested in the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. He described my arguments as a lost cause. I say to the noble Lord that it is a little like persuading his government to plant conifers in England—a lost cause in which we have both been involved to some extent.
  As far as the opening of the new Scottish Parliament is concerned, I hesitate to say it, but my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon and I seem to have received the invitations. We will therefore have a watching brief for the rest of your Lordships' House to make sure that it does not exceed its powers on its first day of sitting.
  To return to the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, I think what he has said to me, if I can paraphrase it, is that although he does not disagree with Lord Cooper in his judgment, he is simply pointing out that the Articles XXII and XXV fall to be considered under those articles of the treaty which could be altered, could have subsequent modification, and were not unalterable in all time.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that in our debate in Committee I made it clear that the general view was that Lord Cooper's words, which were obiter—meaning that they were not necessary for the decision that he reached—were not regarded as representing the law? Indeed, they have not been followed in any subsequent cases. I provided a detailed answer to that point in Committee and I am surprised that the noble Lord has not come back with any detail to suggest that I was wrong on the previous occasion. Does he not recall that and does he not believe that he would be wrong to think that that was my position?
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may say that the noble and learned Lord explained it better today. At least I have understood it better, but that is probably my fault. We have had an interesting debate. I am persuaded, unless someone convinces me otherwise after they read what the noble and learned Lord has said, that what the Government are doing in the Bill does not infringe the Treaty of Union. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 28B not moved.]
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 29:
  After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

  MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF LORDS: SCOTTISH PEERS (NO. 2)
  (" . Standing Orders of the House shall provide that on any day when the House sits for public business the membership of the House includes at least sixteen peers who are domiciled in Scotland.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be fairly brief on this amendment. We have moved away from the narrow question of the peerage of Scotland into the question of those Peers who are resident in Scotland and who, in the new House, could include some who are hereditary Peers elected by their colleagues and those others who are life Peers, like myself, the noble Lords, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, Lord Hughes, Lord Taylor and Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, and some of my noble friends on this side of the House who will continue to be here.
  I have no doubt that the Government will tell me fairly quickly that there are more than 16 of us. That is true. I suppose that if I were attempting to be moderate in my amendment I would be looking at some fraction of the House—perhaps one-ninth to reflect the current composition of the Commons or perhaps 9 per cent to reflect the composition of the Commons after the next Boundary Commission, when the number of Scottish MPs will be reduced from 72 to about 58. Perhaps I should have gone down that road. All I am trying to do through this amendment is to tie in the historic position of the Treaty of Union and put on the face of the Bill that there should be at least 16 Peers in your Lordships' House who are domiciled in Scotland.
  I appreciate the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. However, if that is the only fault with the amendment, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will—
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord has the choice of his own alternative form:
  "Scotland is the part of the United Kingdom with which they have the closest connection".
  There is no objection to that.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord. That is clearly the amendment from the group on which I should rest. That is what we mean. There are some Peers who have a limited connection with Scotland but do not live in Scotland. It is those who live in Scotland, who go there every weekend and consider Scotland to be their home, that I am interested in.
  As I said, I think that I am being modest in suggesting 16. All the amendment is doing is putting down a marker to the Government and to the appointments commission, when it is set up, that they should always ensure that the Scottish position is represented. My noble friend Lord Gray has other amendments in this

  889
  group which address the same issue in different ways. I shall leave him to speak to his amendments. I beg to move.
  Lord Gray: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend Lord Mackay, I shall speak as briefly as I can to my amendments in this group. They are Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 and related consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 36, 38 and 39. Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 are alternatives to the amendment moved by my noble friend and those to which he spoke. Apart from the reference to Article XXII, with which my principal amendments open, the main difference from my noble friend's versions is that my amendments exclude Ministers of the Crown and persons appointed under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 from the minimum number of Peers to represent Scotland.
  The only difference between my Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 is the minimum number of Peers specified. Amendment No. 33 calls for a minimum of 16. We have all heard about the 16. In light of earlier discussion, that does not need explanation.
  Amendment No. 34, however, specifies 24 Peers domiciled in Scotland as the minimum representation. The minimum of 24 is realistically proportionate to what obtains at present. In arriving at that figure I have taken the present average attendance of life and hereditary Peers and adjusted it to take account of the number who remain in the interim House. At present there are 40 life Peers who give addresses in Scotland: 12 Conservative, 13 Labour, four Liberal and 11 Cross-Benchers. If one deducts the eight who are Ministers of the Crown or judicial appointees, 32 are left as a potential maximum. That may easily decrease or increase. I cannot guess how many hereditary Peers, if any, may be elected to the interim House.
  Allowance must be made for non-attendance. To peg the number at 16 can never reflect the level of Scottish representation that presently obtains with regular attendances in your Lordships' House. I submit that 24 would be fairer. I would be interested to hear the views of others as to what is preferred. I regard it as of paramount importance that the Bill should acknowledge in some way the Scottish treaty right to representation, and that is why I have tabled these amendments.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the amendments in this group effectively raise the question whether there should be either 16 or 25 Scottish Peers in this House who are domiciled in Scotland. We have explained on a number of occasions why we believe that the interim House will provide more than adequate representation for the people of Scotland. I make just two other points in this regard. First, it may well be positively detrimental to the people of Scotland if one builds into the Bill a minimum number. That minimum could all too easily become a number that one regarded as satisfactory to represent the people of Scotland. I do not believe that that is necessarily in the interests of the people of Scotland.
  Secondly, during the period of the interim House the obligation will be on both the Government and each of the political parties to ensure that the people of Scotland
  890
  have adequate representation. The Prime Minister has made clear that, subject to very exceptional cases, he will simply pass on the nominations of each political party to the appointments commission. In effect each political party will be in a position to assist the proper representation for the people of Scotland. With the greatest respect to the noble Lords, Lord Gray and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, this amendment is neither necessary nor sensible.
  As a separate issue, we have difficulties with the form of all of these amendments. First, they seek to impose obligations on the Standing Orders of this House. This is a very unusual way to proceed. We do not think that your Lordships should be comfortable with the idea of statute law being able to lay down conditions for the Standing Orders of this House. Secondly, none of the amendments say what happens if the condition is not fulfilled. For example, will the House be unable to sit until the situation is rectified? Whose responsibility is it to rectify it? To take an example, why should it be the responsibility of the Government if they have 15 Scottish domiciled Peers among their number and no one else has any? Yet under our other proposals the Prime Minister will be unable either to nominate representatives of another party or insist that they recommend only those who fulfil the requirement. Nor do we believe it is reasonable to say to an existing Peer that he must become domiciled in Scotland.
  For all of those reasons, I respectfully submit that these amendments are not sensible, necessary or properly thought out. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. In default of withdrawal, I recommend that the House votes against it.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has been extremely logical. Would he not say that he desires a number of Scots in this House?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I desire a number of Scots in this House.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord counts himself in the number of Scots. While they may no longer be domiciled or obey the terms of Amendment No. 31,I think that the noble and learned Lord obeys the domicile definition as regards birth. I suppose he is an honorary Scot to that extent.
  We have had assurances from the Government which I am certain all governments in the future will heed. However, I am sure that he appreciates, especially with devolution and the considerable powers moving to the Scottish Parliament, there is the slight danger that in times to come the Scottish position will begin to wither a little at Westminster. It is that position that my noble friend Lord Gray and I seek to guard against.
  I do not know what my noble friend wishes to do, but I am content to withdraw Amendment No. 29 having had those assurances from the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 30 to 32 not moved.]
  Lord Gray Lord Gray moved Amendment No. 33:
  After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

  MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF LORDS: SCOTTISH PEERS (NO. 6)
  (" . To continue the effect of Article XXII of the Treaty of Union of 1707 Standing Orders shall provide that the minimum number of persons domiciled in Scotland and entitled to sit and vote in the House of Lords shall be sixteen; but Ministers of the Crown and persons appointed under the provisions of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 shall not count towards that minimum.")
  10.16 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 33) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 123.

  Division No. 3

  CONTENTS

  Annaly, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Berners, B.

  Monson, L.

  Blackwell, L.

  Montrose, D.

  Caithness, E.

  Mountevans, L.

  Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

  Norrie, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Clinton, L.

  Renton, L.

  Cochrane of Cults, L.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Coleraine, L.

  Rowallan, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.[Teller.]

  Ferrers, E.

  Selsdon, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Forbes, L.

  Stockton, E.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Gray, L.

  Strange, B.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L

  Swansea, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Kinnoull, E.

  Trenchard, V.

  Kintore, E.

  Waddington, L.

  Lauderdale, E

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Addington, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Alderdice, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Alli, L.

  Evans of Watford, L.

  Amos, B.

  Ewing of Kirkford, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Blackstone, B.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Bragg, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Burlison, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Carter, L.

  Grantchester, L.

  Chorley, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Hacking, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Hanworth, V.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  Haslam, L.

  David, B.

  Hayman, B.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Desai, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  892

  Hughes, L.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Razzall, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.[Teller.]

  Rea, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

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

  Renwick of Clifton, L.

  Richard, L.

  Judd, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Kennet, L.

  Rogers of Riverside, L.

  Kinloss, Ly.

  Russell, E.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Listowel, E.

  Sandberg, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Sawyer, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Sewel, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Simon, V.

  McNair, L.

  Simon of Highbury, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Somerset, D.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Tenby, V.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Thomas of Gresford, L.

  Nelson of Stafford, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Newby, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

  Tordoff, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Uddin, B.

  Northbourne, L.

  Warner, L.

  O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

  Weatherill, L.

  Orme, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Young of Old Scone, B.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  10.26 p.m.
  [Amendments Nos. 34 to 39 not moved..]
  Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 40:
  After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

  INDEPENDENT PEERS
  (" .—(1) From the date of the coming into force of section 1 of this Act the Prime Minister shall within two months of his commencement of each session of Parliament ensure (if necessary by recommending the creation of additional life peers) that the number of independent peers entitled to speak and to vote in the Second Chamber is at least as great as the number who take the whips of the largest single party.
  (2) For the purpose of this section "independent peers" shall mean any member who is entitled to speak and to vote in the Second Chamber and who does not owe allegiance to, is not a member of, and does not take the whip of any political party.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 40, I should like for a moment to take the debate away from party politics and cross-Border politics. The amendment relates to the proportion of independent Peers in the second Chamber. Unlike the Opposition earlier today, I do not seek to place the amendment on the face of the Bill; I want the Government to make a clear commitment.
  My concern—and the Government are not going to like it—extends not only to the interim House but to the stage two House. I believe that the proportion of independent Peers in the House is a crucial question. It

  893
  is important because the Government are prepared to tell us so little about their proposals for the future of this House. We have to wonder why they are so reticent.
  For those of us who believe that the second Chamber should be an effective revising Chamber and a check on the executive, an effective independent presence is crucial. Without enough independents, the second Chamber will tend to be either a pale shadow of the first Chamber or in constant conflict with it.
  The Government have already given a commitment to broad parity between the two main political parties. They have already given an indication that they consider a significant independent presence in the future House is important. Indeed, today the noble Baroness the Leader of the House referred to a very significant presence, which notched it up one. It would be but a small step for the Government to go a little further and to put to rest the fear held by many of us that the power and aggressiveness of the political parties will be allowed to whittle away this significant independent presence over time.
  In Committee, I suggested that the Government should give a commitment to at least 30 per cent of the House being independent. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House said that she could not commit herself to a specific number—though, in truth, 30 per cent is not a number but a proportion. This amendment, therefore, suggests using the same form of words for independents as the Government have already used in their commitment to the major Opposition parties. The noble Baroness made the point earlier this evening that there is a need to define more clearly the meaning of the word "independence". She referred to the ambivalence of the position of the Law Lords, but it could easily be defined.
  I believe that the Government should make the same commitment about the proportion of independents as they have made about the proportionate relationship between the Government and the main Opposition party. To my mind, it is no good the Government saying that it all depends on the Royal Commission, because it does not. The Government have not given a commitment to accept all or any of its recommendations. The reality is that it is the Government who will decide and therefore it is only they who can make the commitment.
  That raises another important point. Earlier in these debates the Government Front Bench argued that the future of this House is no business of those of us who, if this Bill is passed, will no longer be Members of it. I absolutely reject that view. I believe that as long as those of us who are hereditary Peers have a seat and a voice in this House, we have an absolute responsibility and a duty to consider the effects of this Bill on the future of parliamentary democracy and on the future of this country.
  The Government have intentionally left us very little room in which to exercise that responsibility. It is for that reason that the choice which all of us will have to make at the end of Third Reading—whether to pass this Bill or reject it—becomes so important. At that time, each of us will have to ask ourselves which way of exercising our responsibility on this critically important
  894
  issue is most likely to lead to the best outcome for this Chamber and for the future governance of the country. That is the issue. It is not about what happens to the hereditary Peers who are going. This Bill is about 'he future constitution of this country. For some of us, this may be the last opportunity we have to exercise our responsibility in this matter.
  In my experience, there are only two ways in which an organisation can get rid of people, especially those who have worked for it and given long and loyal service. They can persuade them to retire or they can sack them. I hoped—I still hope—that this Government want to follow the former route. Indeed, it seems to me that out-of-hand sackings sit strangely with a Labour Government. If the Government want my voluntary agreement to early retirement, they can have it. If they want me to endorse this Bill at Third Reading, I shall do so, but they will have to go a little further in convincing me that what they plan for the future of the second Chamber will be better for this country than the one that we already have. I beg to move.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not want to look beyond the interim House. That is as far as my vision, responsibilities and rights go. As I am sure the Government Front Bench knows I care deeply about what that interim House shall be. We have heard fine words and sentiments from the Government on how that interim House will be composed and what the proportion of those parties and Peers will be in the interim House. I reiterate that there needs to be something in legislation, a basis from which those fine words can be anchored so that they may continuo to sail 10 years hence if we still have an interim House. I do not believe that this is the amendment with which to do that. I was very flattered to be directly addressed by the Leader of the House the last time she spoke on an amendment. She knows my feelings on this matter. At the end of the day, the principle which is being addressed in this amendment is one on which we should consider sinking the Bill if we get nothing further from the Government.
  Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has expressed exactly my sentiments so I shall not weary your Lordships with repeating them at greater length unless forced to do so. The noble Lord has expressed concisely, accurately and properly the criteria against which noble Lords should consider this Bill. I support every word that he said.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I respect every word that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said. I have great respect for the noble Lord. However, a significant number of the so-called independent Peers are not independent in their thoughts. A large number are former Tories and a number among the independent Peers are well to the right of the Tory party. In fact, if you want to increase the influence of any party, you simply have to declare yourself independent and vote as you wish.

  895
  It is not logical. It is difficult to define true independence. There is no doubt about the independence of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, as there is no doubt about a number of others, but there are great doubts about some of the so-called independent Peers.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord is correct. Perhaps I may quote the example of my own father who started on the Labour Benches, moved to the Cross Benches and ended up on the Liberal Benches. If that is not independence, I do not know what is.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said that he wanted to get away from party politics. As Chief Whip for the Opposition party, that was positively music to my ears. I imagine that it was also music to the ears of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the Government Chief Whip. I hope that the noble Lord will reply to the amendment. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will do so.
  I was grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. When we were in government we always welcomed the interventions of Cross Benchers. We also welcomed their votes, even when we went down to defeats, as we did on a number of occasions. It is worth reminding the House that despite the so-called Tory majority in the House, we went down to a large number of defeats over the years. We cannot win every vote that we wish to win, even as the House is currently constituted.
  I ought to stress to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, who spoke about the supposed lack of independence of Cross Benchers or members of my own party—I cannot speak for Cross Benchers, but I can speak for those sitting behind me—that they are wholly independent. I know that as Chief Whip of my party. Frequently, they vote against whatever whip I put out. One of the strengths of the House is that all Peers feel that they can vote according to their consciences and there is little that Chief Whips, whether Government or Opposition, can do about encouraging or discouraging their colleagues from voting one way or another. I believe I see a nod from the Government Chief Whip.
  Speaking briefly to the amendment, we have considerable sympathy with the aim behind it. The aim is to ensure that the Cross-Bench vote continues to be strong in the interim House. We hope, following the Royal Commission, that there will be a strong Cross-Bench influence in whatever comes in stage two, if we ever get a stage two. We believe that that Cross-Bench independent vote should remain strong, and we hope that the Government will ensure that it will remain so. Therefore, we hope that the Government will give strong support to an amendment of this kind, or at least to the ideas behind the amendment.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said that it was suggested that the future of the House was no business of the hereditary Peers. I have never heard that suggested and I have never made
  896
  that suggestion. On many occasions I have referred to the importance of contributions made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who is in his place, or the noble Lord, Lord Elton, both of whom have developed themes about the continuing value of an invigorated and effective second Chamber. It is not part of my remarks to suggest that any Member of this House has no proper business in considering the future. In fact, quite the opposite is true.
  If I have understood the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, correctly, he said that this is a sighting amendment, to discover the Government's attitude. We shall, rightly, have to pay attention to what the Royal Commission says. We want to pay attention to what the committee of both Houses said, and then take a view. But I can repeat what has often been said from these Benches: we want a second Chamber which is not just a replica or clone of another place.
  We believe in an independent component—that is to say, a truly independent component—one which actually, to paraphrase the noble Lord, Lord Richard, thinks independently, votes independently and, not by the merest of coincidences, sometimes votes conservatively. We do look to a continuing independent component in this House. At the moment, I think, Cross Benchers constitute about 26 per cent of the life Peers and I am happy to say that we envisage a continuing presence close to that percentage.
  I do not think I can be more positive than that without presuming on decisions yet to be made and advice yet to be given. Bearing in mind the attitude which was so clearly demonstrated, one intended to be helpful and one indicating positive enquiry by the noble Lord, I do not think it is helpful if I simply point out the technical deficiencies as regards what is a political party, and so forth. If I need to, I can deploy those arguments on a subsequent occasion.
  Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his helpful reply. I will not waste the time of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 40A not moved.]
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I must point out to the House that, if Amendment No. 41 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 42.
  Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 41:
  Page 1, leave out lines 21 and 22 and insert—
  ("A person shall not be disqualified for—")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 41 and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 43. These amendments are designed and intended to be entirely helpful and constructive. All my amendments have been so designed, but these especially so. As your Lordships know, we have agreed that a number of hereditary Peers will be elected from among themselves to continue to serve in your Lordships' House.
  However, it would appear that the provisions of Clause 3 of the Bill would apply to them equally as to all the other Peers in your Lordships' House, who would of course no longer be able to attend. Of course it is right that hereditary Peers no longer able to sit or vote in this House should be allowed to vote for, and maybe even stand for, the other place; but it would appear that the Bill as presently drafted would allow the so-called Weatherill Peers to do that as well. That, it seems to me, would not be right, not in accordance with the wishes of the House and, I suspect, not in accordance with the wishes of another place or indeed of the Government. That, of course, is a matter for them to decide. My amendment proposes therefore that this matter should be corrected. My amendments serve that purpose and I hope that your Lordships will agree to what I have in mind. I beg to move.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, can I say briefly that my noble friend has raised an important point. As I understand it, he is saying that, if the Weatherill amendment goes through, I, if I am not one of those Peers, could stand, dare I say it, for Carlisle—a constituency I live very close to and one which I understand went Conservative at the recent European elections. I would be very tempted to stand for Carlisle. I am not saying I could do that if I was just part of the electorate rather than one of the elected. If I was a Weatherill Peer and in this House, would I also be allowed to stand for Carlisle and would I therefore be allowed to be a Member of both Houses? That would be a rather unusual idea: that a Peer could be a Member of both the House of Lords and of the House of Commons. These are obviously highly technical matters. No doubt the Government will be able to address them, deal with my noble friend's point and tell me whether I can stand for Carlisle or not and be a Member of both Houses.
  10.45 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, certainly in due time, if the noble Lord were successful with a relevant electorate, he could be a Member of any relevant Chamber. Part of the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is to be found in Amendment No. 44A in the name of my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington. That will be dealt with later this evening.
  The general point which I would put forward in respect of Amendments Nos. 41 and 43 is that Clause 1 clearly encompasses all routes to, and all aspects of, membership of this House by virtue of a hereditary peerage. We have discussed similar matters on a number of occasions. Amendment No. 43 is back to our old friends, "attend, sit or vote". It has been the consistent formulation that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, have used regularly on previous occasions. My former arguments do not benefit by repetition. It is not a synonym for "Member of".
  The amendments demonstrate a misunderstanding that this Bill is about a disqualification from membership of the House of Lords. It is not. It is about
  898
  blocking off a route to such membership. A hereditary Peer is not disqualified from membership of the House following the passage of this Bill; he is simply no longer eligible to be a Member by virtue of the hereditary peerage. He could continue to be a Member by virtue of any other legitimate route, provided he is not genuinely disqualified on the basis indicated by my noble arid learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton on the last occasion. For instance, if a hereditary Peer became by some chance an appropriately qualified Bishop of the Church of England, a life Peer or a Law Lord, he would not, by virtue of being the happy recipient of a hereditary peerage, be disqualified from membership of this House.
  We need Clause 3 of the Bill at the moment because Peers are not barred from elections to the House of Commons because they are Peers of Parliament; they are barred because they are Peers. That was the point of the judgment in the Benn case: that the bar is in the blood. That is why we need specifically to provide for overturning it in this Bill rather than simply relying on the fact that hereditary Peers will no longer be Members of the Lords.
  To summarise briefly, and I have said this before, hereditary Peers are under a disability at present because they cannot stand for election to the House of Commons. That is not fair if they are not automatically Members of this House. Therefore I dealt briefly with Amendments Nos. 41 and 43 and indicated that Amendment No. 44A is designed to deal with the position of the Weatherill Peers, which is the specific question that the noble Lord asked. It is a new question and that is why I invited his attention to Amendment No. 44A.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I believe he is saying that I have identified a problem with the Weatherill amendment which the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, now seeks to correct by virtue of Amendment No. 44A. He could simply have said that he accepts my amendment and that would have saved the noble Baroness the trouble. However, I am happy to accept that the spirit at least of my amendment has been accepted, and that is very gratifying.
  In relation to Amendment No. 43, I should like to study what the Minister said in reply to that separate amendment. It is related to Amendment No. 41. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 not moved.]
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 44:
  Page 1, line 24, at end insert—
  ("unless he is excepted from section 1.
  (2) The holder of a hereditary peerage who is a member of the House of Commons is disqualified for being excepted from section 1 or for voting at any election held in pursuance of Standing Orders of the House for the exception of an) person from section 1 ")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to be helpful. However, in saying that I am conscious that I may be raising problems which cannot

  899
  necessarily be resolved this evening. We are in danger of getting into a muddle on voting rights and rights to stand for the House of Commons. The effect of the Weatherill amendment changed substantially old Clause 2, now Clause 3. That clause would have removed the disqualification of hereditary Peers to vote for and stand for the House of Commons, as the Minister said.
  It must be right that we cannot have a situation where people can vote for both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, it is logical to continue to deny the Weatherill Peers the right to vote for and stand for the House of Commons; but, on the other hand, non-elected Peers could both vote for and stand for the House of Commons. That is the effect of the first part of the amendment.
  The second part of the amendment addresses a slightly different question; namely, the position of an hereditary Peer who has not been elected under the Weatherill system to be a Member of this House and who has subsequently become a Member of another place by exercising his new freedom to stand for the other place. Clearly such a person ought not to be permitted to stand for election to this House in any subsequent by-election held under the Weatherill system; nor to take part in any elections for membership of this House while remaining in another place. That point was referred to by my noble friend Lord Henley. The Government have, at least partially, reflected that view in their Amendment No. 74A. However, I feel that a hereditary Peer in another place ought to be allowed to vote in general elections while remaining a Member of another place. That is the effect of the second part of my amendment.
  I believe that the amendment does address most of the questions, although it does not touch on some of the technical repeals which figure in the next batch of government amendments. But the situation may have become slightly more complicated since this afternoon as a result of the acceptance of the Government to replace deceased Weatherill Peers by election, should we reach that stage. If, as many in the House contend they should be, those by-elections are held on the basis of all hereditary Peers in the party groups, including those excluded from the House, choosing the Peer to fill the place, then hereditary Peers outside the House would have the potential right to elect to both Houses of Parliament. That was not permitted to Irish representative Peers and it is questionable whether it should be permitted as a constitutional doctrine, although I would remind the House that Irish Peers were allowed to vote for the House of Commons while they were actually Members of that place—Lord Palmerston being a famous case in point.
  The amendment that I have laid would, I concede, give such people a vote to both Houses in such circumstances, which would be a difficulty and one that has intensified since our discussion on Amendment No. 21. However, if the proposal of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor were favoured by the House, then hereditary Peers excluded from the House would not have the right to vote for membership of this House
  900
  and there would be no problem of a double mandate. But, in these circumstances, it might be possible for an excluded Peer to be a candidate in an election for either House. This was allowed to the Irish Peers. I do not think that anyone in this House would want to prevent excluded Peers from standing for the House of Commons simply because they might one day happen to be invited to join this House.
  A possible solution is that Peers should be required in Standing Orders actively to declare themselves available to stand for the House of Lords. However, in that case, the Clerk of the Parliaments might have to keep a running list of those willing to be elected to this House, so that those Peers were not prevented from standing for another place. It is obviously important that these matters be got right. I have to admit to the Government that I am not sure that I have yet got my mind round all the implications of some of the amendments, especially the repeals suggested by them in the following group. The whole question would also be affected by whatever decisions the House may reach in its discussions in the Procedure Committee on the question of by-elections.
  I am sure that it has already become obvious that I have no intention of pressing this amendment. That is partly because I do not think that I have solved what may well be the emerging conundrum. I am looking for an acceptance by the Government that there is an issue which needs to be resolved. Perhaps the best way would be for the Government and their advisers to get together with us, so that at least I can understand what the answers are to some of these issues. Indeed, it might to helpful to do so between now and Third Reading because these are important issues.
  We should not accidentally exclude hereditary Peers who are excluded from this House House from standing for the House of Commons. Likewise, we should not exclude hereditary Peers who are already in the House of Commons—the example of the son of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, Douglas Hogg, who is a Member of Parliament, springs to mind. Should his father, my noble and learned friend, sadly die, we want to make sure that his son would not immediately be required to relinquish his position in the House of Commons and be excluded from this House as well. I am sure that that problem will not arise but I want to make absolutely certain that no provision we are discussing today would lead to that consequence. I hope that the Minister will accept my suggestion of a meeting to resolve these matters. I beg to move.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I very much share my noble friend's concern on this matter. He has pointed to a possible difficulty relating to existing Members of the other place who might one day succeed to a hereditary title. However, it is important to mention another aspect of this matter. I think that it would be quite wrong for Weatherill Peers, as they are now called, to be allowed to stand for election to the House of Commons as well. It is a legitimate question as to whether they should be allowed even to vote for Members of the House of Commons. They certainly should not be allowed to stand for election to the House of Commons. I am not

  901
  clear that we have achieved that by the present provisions of the Bill. When we debated this matter at some length in Committee, I became more mystified with every amendment that was proposed and with every answer that the Government provided. I very much agree with my noble friend's suggestion; namely, that there must be a getting together of heads in all of this in order for the matter to be resolved properly.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree with that suggestion. If there is a difficulty here—which I do not necessarily accept—it is best resolved in the appropriate way by discussions between advisers on both sides and anyone who wants to be present at any meeting. After Second Reading, my noble friend the Leader of the House said that we were perfectly happy to proceed in that way. These are technical matters. I do not think that the aim we seek to attain is entirely different, at least judging from what has been indicated this evening. I am more than happy to accept the suggestion made by both noble Lords to discuss this matter. Doubtless we can arrive at a form of words which is acceptable to all. If that is not the case, at least we shall have defined and refined our differences.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  11 p.m.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 44A:
  Page 1, line 24, at end insert—
  ("() Subsection (1) shall not apply in relation to anyone excepted from section 1 by virtue of section 2.")
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 44A, I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 58E, 64A, 67A, 74A, 76A and 77 as they form a package. I hope that I can elucidate some of the points that were made on the amendment that we discussed earlier, but points may arise which may need to be dealt with in the way that my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, mentioned a few moments ago.
  In the Government's view these amendments have a common theme; namely, to make sure that the Bill has consistently accommodated the impact of the inclusion of Clause 2, the Weatherill amendment. The fact that some hereditary Peers will remain Members of your Lordships' House as the new category of excepted Peers, rather than simply being eligible like everyone else to become life Peers, means that some provisions of the Bill will need to be amended and some provisions of Acts which we would otherwise have been able to dispense with will now have to be retained, or amended, or both retained and amended.
  Of all the amendments in this package, Amendment No. 44A is probably the most significant. It is, however, simple in its intent and in its effects. It makes sure that hereditary Peers who remain Members of this House as
  902
  excepted Peers or who in the future become excepted Peers do not have the right to sit, stand or vote in elections for the other place. It therefore preserves the position that exists at present that Members of this House are disqualified from voting in elections to the House of Commons and being Members of the House of Commons. Hereditary Peers who are not Members of this House will have those disqualifications lifted and in that respect this amendment has made no change. The amendment merely ensures that the excepted Peers and life Peers are treated in the same way. It is a simple and, I hope, logical change, which is not adding to the confusion to which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, referred a few moments ago in relation to these technical matters. The amendment is simple and logical; I hope that it is clear. I commend it to the house.
  Amendment No. 58E concerns the schedule. As noble Lords will understand, the amendment simply introduces the new schedule of amendments which are contained in Amendment No. 74A. The present schedule to the Bill contains only repeals. However, as a result of the introduction of new Clause 2, some provisions now need to be amended rather than repealed. These are set out in the new schedule, which is Amendment No. 74A.
  Amendments Nos. 64A and 67A are simply drafting amendments intended to tie in the commencement provision with the reference in Clause 2 to the commencement of that section. They create no change of substance to the operative provisions. The main provisions still come into force at the end of the Session, while the transitional electoral provisions come into force on Royal Assent.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 68A is to provide for the continuing validity of Writs of Summons issued to hereditary Peers who become excepted Peers—that is. the elected Peers—before the end of the Session. The amendment ensures that an excepted Peer, identified as such by the end of the Session, will not need a new Writ of Summons; his current one will remain valid. However, any Peer who is excepted after the end of this Session of Parliament will need to receive a new Writ of Summons. I hope that that is equally clear and covers some of the points which I know we discussed in other contexts earlier.
  Amendment No. 74A makes two amendments to existing legislation to ensure that it can cope in the future with the concept of excepted Peers. The first amendment, to the Peerage Act 1963, is intended to prevent an excepted Peer disclaiming his title. The second amendment, to the Recess Elections Act 1975, provides that the provisions of the Recess Elections Act should be amended so that what is required to be certified is that someone has become an excepted Peer or a life Peer, rather than simply a Peer, for the purposes of declaring that a parliamentary vacancy has been created.
  As your Lordships are well aware, Section 1 of the Peerage Act 1963 states that any Peer who applies for a Writ of Summons loses the right to disclaim. Under the Bill as originally drafted, Writs of Summons were no longer relevant to hereditary Peers. We therefore

  903
  propose to remove the reference to them in Section 1(2) of the 1963 Act, while retaining the 12-month time limit on disclaimers.
  However, the effect of new Clause 2 is again, in this instance, to complicate the issue somewhat. I can see that noble Lords will probably agree that in common sense it is a rather far-fetched scenario that a Peer could, all within the space of 12 months, succeed to a title; take the Oath and his seat; stand for and be elected as an excepted Peer; think better of it and disclaim the title, thus losing the right to be a Member of the House. None the less, it is not an impossible scenario. The complications of ensuring that such a Peer ceased to be counted as an excepted Peer led us to the view that the better course is to cut off the possibility at the root. That is the effect of the amendment. A Peer who chooses membership of the House of Lords will thus have to remain committed to that choice; by becoming an excepted Peer, he will put himself in exactly the same position as if, at present, he had decided to apply for his Writ of Summons. In other words, he will be unable to disclaim his title.
  So far as concerns the Recess Elections Act 1975, leaving the provision unamended would have left an unsatisfactory ambiguity in the Act since, following the Weatherill amendment, a person will be able to become disqualified from membership of the House of Commons by virtue of being excepted under the Bill and the draft Standing Order, and not by becoming a Peer. Such a person will already be a Peer. It is a question of his being accepted that gives rise to the vacancy. It is therefore necessary to provide that that change of status can be clearly identified for the purposes of the Recess Elections Act. That is all that the amendment does. It is entirely consistent with Clause 3, both now and as we propose to amend it.
  Amendment No. 76A is a consequential amendment. It removes the repeal of certain words in Section 1(2) of the 1963 Peerage Act. Those words have instead been replaced by Amendment No. 74A to which I have just spoken.
  Amendment No. 77 initially stood only in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gray. The Government felt that the noble Lord's intentions in tabling that amendment might have been rather different from ours, but we agreed with the wording that he used. It is another consequential amendment to the Bill as a result of the Weatherill amendment.
  Our motives may be different from the noble Lord's, but we wish to continue in force Sections 4 and 6 of the Peerage Act 1963 so as to allow Peers and Peeresses in the peerage of Scotland, and Peeresses in the peerage of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and England, who are elected under the Standing Orders, to become excepted Peers and to remain Members of this House.
  The removal of these sections of the Peerage Act from the schedule of repeals does not mean that such Peers and Peeresses will have a right to continued membership of this House if they are not excepted under Clause 2 of the Bill. Sections 4 and 6 of the 1963 Act will in future be read subject to Clause 1 of the Bill.
  904
  The Government believe that that clause is wide enough by itself to ensure that such Peers and Peeresses will have no right to be Members of this House. I particularly ask the House to note that the continuing in force of these sections does not override the terms of Clause 1 of the Bill. In particular, it would be wrong to construe the Bill as enabling Scottish Peers to have the same rights as life Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords notwithstanding Clause 1.
  However, by the same token, Sections 4 and 6 will also need to be read in the light of Clause 2. Those sections will continue to speak for the purposes of any Scottish Peers and Peeresses, and Peeresses in the peerage of the United Kingdom, Great Britain or England, who become excepted Peers. The amendment will ensure that Peeresses and Scottish Peers have the same right as UK hereditary Peers to membership of this House if they are excepted under Clause 2 of the Bill. In order to continue to be Members of this House after the coming into force of the Act, excepted Peeresses and Scottish Peers will need to have a right to membership, and at present that right arises by virtue of their hereditary peerages and Section 4 or 6 of the Peerage Act. If Sections 4 or 6 of the Peerage Act are repealed, then there would be a risk that the underlying right to membership of the House for excepted Peers would be removed and Clause 2 could not operate to confer the right to membership. Such Peers might, therefore, be doubly excluded—first by Clause 1 and then by the repeal of these sections. This amendment is therefore essential if Peeresses and Scottish Peers are to be able to continue to be Members of this House, whether as originally excepted Peers or as replacement Peers.
  I urge the House to accept this group of amendments. I realise that I have spoken ahead of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, who first tabled the amendment. I realise, too, that the noble Lord's motives for doing so may have been slightly different from those of the Government. I hope that I have not followed the rather gloomy picture presented to us by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, of merely confusing the issue by introducing these more technical matters in this rather extended group form. However, if noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench feel that it would be helpful to consider these amendments in discussions away from the Floor of the House, I should of course be happy to follow my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn in doing that. I beg to move.
  Lord Gray: My Lords, having been favoured with several mentions by the noble Baroness, perhaps I may assure her that some of our motives are identical. I was not sure whether I had fallen into good company or bad, but I was somewhat surprised.
  Apart from needing to avoid the repeal of Section 4 by some of my Scottish amendment machinations, I had realised that there was a risk that Scots Peers and female hereditary Peers would be excluded from the Weatherill system for the interim House had the repeals stood.
  However, I had another reason. Should the interim House last for a considerable time, it is not unreasonable to suspect that the rules for admission to the electoral college and eligibility might have to be changed. If there

  905
  were a clash at this moment, it would be unfortunate. At some future date when the rules were altered it might mean that it would involve all Peers who, but for the passing of the Act, would have received a Writ of Summons, and then Scots Peers and hereditary Peeresses would be excluded. 'With that small contribution, I am happy to have support for my Amendment No. 77 from the noble Baroness. I thought I had better speak in case she loses her amendments.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, first I wish to ask the noble Baroness whether she will apply the same concession to me in relation to these amendments as she was prepared to apply to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde in relation to Amendment No. 44A. They are amendments of some complexity. It may well be at this late hour that I, for one, and perhaps one or two other noble Lords, may have missed a crucial loophole. The noble Baroness indicated that that approach would apply to these amendments.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I said in my concluding remarks, I am happy to do that on Amendment No. 44A. Does the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggest that the process should apply to the whole group? I understood from what the noble Lord, Lord Gray. said that he was happy to move his amendment.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, as regards the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Gray, I know that he is a great authority in this matter and I am not. I am content to accept whatever approach he wishes to take to Amendment No. 77.
  Perhaps I may touch on the amendments to which the noble Baroness spoke. At the end of my remarks I may revert to the matter I have just raised. On Amendment No. 44A, I accept the objective that the amendment seeks to achieve. In my submission, it is acceptably achieved by the amendment, but there may be some disagreement among noble Lords as to whether that is so. As regards the wording, there may still be some room for improvement.
  I also accept that Amendment No. 58E is consequential on Amendment No. 74A and that Amendment No. 64A is a paving amendment. Amendment No. 67A is a necessary textual change.
  I have an important reservation to make about Amendment No. 68A, however, which concerns the overriding of the Writ of Summons not applying to Weatherill Peers. As the Lord Privy Seal knows, the Opposition consider it at least doubtful that Clause 5(2) is effective. She will recall the opinions expressed in earlier debates about the effect of the Bill on Writs of Summons for the life of the current Parliament. Therefore this amendment, though consequential, is nevertheless of great significance and potentially invalid. We do not accept that, by implication, the Writ is overridden for all Peers who do not fall within the Weatherill category. That is a matter to which we will return more generally when we deal with amendments to Clause 5(2) of the Bill.
  906
  As for Amendment No. 74A, which refers to the 1963 Act, it seems to me logical that the noble Baroness should wish to tidy up this part of the Bill. However, I find difficulty in imagining circumstances in which someone in receipt of a Writ of Summons, and therefore about to become a Weatherill Peer, should wish to disclaim his or her hereditary peerage.
  I have reached the final amendment in this group to which I intend to speak, because we have already dealt with Amendment No. 77 in the name of my noble friend Lord Gray. As to noble Lords who receive the Writ of Summons at the beginning of the intermediate House, the change in the 1975 Act is wholly irrelevant. I suppose the only categories of Peer to which the 1975 Act can apply are either those sitting in another place who might subsequently become Weatherill Peers as a result of being on the list, or those sitting in another place who might subsequently become Weatherill Peers as a result of by-elections.
  In fact, I am rather intrigued by the fact that this amendment should coincide with the remarks this afternoon of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about by-elections. In other words, I wonder whether the amendment would have any relevance at all were it not for the fact that we are now to introduce, I am happy to say, by-elections in the process of replacing existing Weatherill Peers, should that be necessary.
  I have made a reservation about Amendment No. 68A which I think is crystal clear. We shall deal with that next week when we deal with the final amendments. As far as concerns Amendments Nos. 74A and 76A. I think I understand the intention of the Government. At least, I have stated what I think is my understanding. I should be happy if the noble Baroness could confirm that. As I said, there may be a little tidying up to do in those two amendments. I hope that, if we find that there is, the noble Baroness will be conciliatory at Third Reading.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I share the views expressed this evening by my noble friend Lord Kingsland and other noble friends, and by my noble friends on previous occasions, about the validity of Clause 1. I therefore seek only to ask the noble Baroness whether it is the intention of Amendment No. 68A to address those concerns or whether the Government's position on that matter remains quite unchanged.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my immediate reply to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is that our position on Clause 1 remains unchanged. On the more general points that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, as I understand it, it would only be appropriate for us to discuss away from the Floor of the House some of what I might call the central group which, as the Marshalled List stands, I would not move now in any event. As I said originally, I should be very happy to do that. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Lauderdale The Earl of Lauderdale moved Amendment No. 45:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—

  HEREDITARY PEERS TO BE ABLE TO HOST CHARITABLE EVENTS IN PALACE OF WESTMINSTER
  (". The House of Lords may make provision for hereditary peers who cease to be members of the House of Lords by virtue of this Act to retain their right to host welfare and charitable events in the Palace of Westminster.")
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, after the seven-and-a quarter hours of flamboyant oratory to which we have been listening this afternoon on the wide issues of this House, I may appear somewhat parochial. Very few of your Lordships have been able or indeed willing to escape the warm embrace of some charitable undertaking that needed some kind of a "social jerk", if I may use that term, to get itself into the limelight. Everyone knows what you mean by "a charity". It could be a charity recognised by the Charity Commission. One would not want the Charity Commission to become burdened by a whole flood of new registrations of often rather small charities.
  Thanks to the standard works of reference and information stored by the Library research department, I have a list as long as my arm, or very nearly so, of those of your Lordships who have either been caught in this net or who have gladly or readily walked into it. All charitable enterprises require publicity. The fashionable route to that end is the engagement of a noble Lord in some capacity or another, usually as a patron but quite often as a committee member. It is undeniably something of a plus for some people to be able in conversation to say, "I was at the Houses of Parliament the other day". When people say that, it usually disguises the fact that they went to a reception hosted by one of your Lordships to the advantage of a charity. My concern is that, in view of a certain ambiguity in the Government's notes on the Bill to which I shall refer in a moment, we should make it clear that even those Peers who will eventually be disqualified from sitting in the House because they are hereditaries may still enjoy the facilities of the House for such receptions or entertainments that benefit a charitable purpose.
  How does one define a charity? The answer to that question is that a charity is something recognised by the Charity Commission, although one does not want to burden it with a flood of new registrations of quite tiny operations. But surely it is for the House of Lords to determine its own rules as to what may or may not go on here—to be precise, through your Lordships' Offices Committee.
  On this, there may be a relevant precedent in the arrangements long since made for retiring Members of the Bishops' Bench. A desire was expressed some years ago that, once the Bishops had left the House in their formal diocesan capacity, they should still be allowed to enjoy some of the facilities; notably, sitting on the steps of the Throne and enjoying the facilities of the Refreshment Department. Those two points were referred to the Offices Committee, and in both cases a favourable answer was given.
  In composing my amendment, I took care to seek what advice I could get. I was told that the department of your Lordships' House to which it might fall to
  908
  decide about hosting charitable events would most likely be the Offices Committee. That committee acts for the House as a whole, so my amendment is drafted as follows:
  "The House of Lords may make provision".
  It is hardly for the Bill, on the very face of its text, to tell your Lordships' House how it should decide on such a matter: hence the simple phrase:
  "The House of Lords"—
  embracing whatever administrative element is relevant to that—
  "may make provision".
  I hope that the Government will be able to respond in a sympathetic way to this rather small request. It is small in the sense that it does not affect an enormous number of noble Lords but there are more than 100 noble Lords who are in some way involved in charities of a kind and who are glad of the facilities offered by the House for an occasional reception on their behalf.
  The Explanatory Notes on the Bill are slightly ambiguous. In paragraph 7 on page 2 we are told that,
  "Hereditary peers will also lose the right … to use the facilities of the House that are available to members, such as its library, research and restaurant facilities".
  On the other hand, there follows a rather more favourable passage:
  "The removal of these rights does not prevent the House from deciding to grant some rights to use the facilities of the House to a hereditary peer under the exercise of its own authority".
  Therefore, on occasion it is up to the House to decide what it wants to do.
  Without wishing to encroach on the amendment in the Marshalled List that is linked with mine, which relates to access to the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft, that gives rise to a similar problem. It is a matter for the House to decide. I hope that tonight we shall hear that the Government look favourably on this general approach. I beg to move.
  Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I have asked for my Amendment No. 58A to be de-coupled and to speak to it in its place in the Marshalled List. I believe that it is not appropriate to talk about religious affairs at the same time as welfare and charitable functions.
  The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. I agree with everything that he said in support of the amendment. Charities also enjoy the proximity of the House of Commons next door and are very pleased to have MPs drop in and take part in events that are hosted in this House. There is a long tradition, which I am sure the Government foster, of support by Peers of charities in this House. It would be a pity if this change damaged that tradition.
  Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, and also that relating to the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft. This is a problem. On the other hand, why should the amendment be so restrictive? Why should it relate only to welfare and charitable events?

  909
  There are daughters' wedding receptions and other events, such as birthday parties and so on. I would have thought that there was a case for noble Lords being able to book the accommodation for those purposes.
  On the other hand, the noble Earl is either a Member of the House or he is not. If he is no longer a Member I do not believe that these rights should apply. However, there can be a compromise. Bookings that go into next year have already been made; indeed, I have one myself. Is it possible for the Offices Committee to consider giving an interim period of grace of, say, six months during which these bookings can apply, but for no longer? I put that to the Government and hope that they will consider it. I am very glad that the noble Earl raises the point, which I believe requires consideration.
  Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Lauderdale. Members of your Lordships' House perhaps come under more pressure than ordinary members of the public to accept positions as officers of charitable organisations, or at least to lend assistance to them from time to time. The general public assume that the privilege of being a Member of your Lordships' House carries with it an obligation to use that privilege in ways that assist charitable and deserving causes.
  Many noble Lords clearly recognise this obligation, or feel minded to do their best to assist charities with which they have become associated. I think the public belief that noble Lords have an obligation to assist charitable organisations will not disappear with the enactment of the Bill. In order to assist those noble Lords who have agreed to help various charitable organisations to continue to discharge their duties, I hope that the Government will be minded to support my noble friend's amendment.
  There is another point. We have heard from time to time about hybridity during the course of our deliberations on the Bill. I had no idea what hybridity was until I heard about it in connection with the Bill. I understand that a Bill may be hybrid if it treats the private, as opposed to public, interests of some members of a class of people as opposed to others of the same class in a different manner. It seems to me a bogus argument that if measures that invoke charges of hybridity are contained within standing orders rather than within the Bill itself, that should be acceptable. Furthermore, I believe that all Peers are a single class of people, and that legislation that treated the private interests of all hereditary Peers differently from the private interests of all life Peers might itself be hybrid.
  It is argued that the rights to sit, speak and vote in your Lordships' House do not form part of your Lordships' private interests, but rather your Lordships' public interests. I am inclined to agree with that view. However, I believe that the right to act as host of charitable events within this Palace of Westminster forms part of your Lordships' private interests and I cannot understand how the Examiners could do otherwise than find the Bill to be hybrid, at least in respect of this matter.
  I hope that the Minister, or the Government Chief Whip, will agree that it makes sense to reduce as far as possible the risk that the Bill will be found to be hybrid
  910
  and that to accept my noble friend's amendment would therefore be not only sensible but also clearly in the interests of a large number of worthy charitable causes which rely on the continuing support of noble Lords, many of whom are hereditary Peers.
  I also urge the Government to agree to Amendment No. 58A, moved by my noble friend Lord Rotherwick.
  Noble Lords: No!
  11.30 p.m.
  Viscount Trenchard: I do not believe that it is right that some noble Lords who are today Members of your Lordships' House should lose the right to use the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely obliged to the noble Viscount for giving way. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, said that he was decoupling Amendment No. 58A. It is therefore not in this group. It will be spoken to later in its place on the Marshalled List.
  Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I apologise. In thinking about this matter, one point which has not been raised during deliberations on the Bill is the question of who will be able to use St Margaret's Church, Westminster, which is the church of the House of Commons, but which noble Lords are also allowed to use by leave of Members of another place. If there were an amendment on this subject, I feel that it would be grouped with the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lauderdale. That is also a matter that your Lordships might wish to consider in future.
  Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I had not intended to speak to the amendment of the noble Earl. But he has an important point. I also understand the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I do not agree with the concept that Members of this House, after the Bill has been passed, should enjoy club rights. That would be some form of privilege. But though the hosting of charitable events may be seen by some as a privilege, it is a duty. It is not to the disadvantage of former noble Lords if that is not allowed to occur; it is to the disadvantage of the charities. It is significant that there has been a long connection between the charitable sector and hereditary Peers and life Peers. When part of that link is broken, it will be difficult for some areas of the charitable sector.
  I do not take the view that after the Bill has gone through noble Lords could still hold parties here. I think that would be called part of club rights, although I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is going to have a party; I am sure it will be an excellent party.
  The issue of holding charitable events is something that the Government, or the House, could look at in due course. It may be something that could not continue for ever, but if we could find a way of allowing it to fade—to wither on the vine, to use the expression that has been used in other connections—it might be quite helpful. It is not necessarily an issue that we want to have a great

  911
  debate about, but my noble friend Lord Lauderdale has raised a point that we could, without causing any harm elsewhere, resolve with a little care.
  Lord Newby: My Lords, I was extremely grateful when the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, wrote to me to give me advance notice that he was putting down this amendment. But unfortunately the receipt of the letter had an effect opposite to that which he was seeking. He was right in one respect, in that I am involved with a number of charities. However, unfortunately, no doubt partly because I am a relative novice, my track record in securing the booking of a room for any charity for which I have attempted to do that is dismal. Other noble Lords who have been doing it for much longer than I have booked up months and years in advance. So when I realised that the competition for the very small number of rooms available for such events might be greatly reduced with the exclusion from your Lordships' House of the hereditary peerage, I thought that my stock with those charities for which I have so far failed to book a room would rise, and therefore I became an even greater adherent of the principles behind the Bill.
  There are within the life peerage a large number of people who are involved with charities and who often find it extremely difficult to book rooms. I have considerable respect and support for what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said about the possibility of phasing out this privilege, particularly given that there are very long time factors in booking such rooms, but surely this is a matter for the Offices Committee and not for a new clause.
  The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, we sympathise with the sentiments of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lauderdale. It must be admitted that an unfortunate consequence of the Bill when it is enacted will be a diminution, at least for a time, of the relationship between this House and the many charitable and welfare organisations that rely upon members of the hereditary peerage to provide connections. That will be regrettable.
  Of course—and I have no doubt that the Government will seek to make this point—it is the case that over time that slack, if I may put it like that, will be taken up by the membership of the interim Chamber. But we should not be blind to the reality that this is likely to take time and that it will cause a degree of inconvenience and disruption to the charities and welfare organisations involved.
  No doubt, as many other noble Lords have said, the Government will, with some justification, also suggest that this should more properly be a matter for the Standing Orders and committees of the House. I have no difficulty with that. None the less, I am tempted to suggest that it would be helpful if the Minister who replies could show some sensitivity, perhaps even charity, towards this issue.
  We should take guidance from the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and his very sensible suggestion that in the circumstances a period of grace might be sensible. Bearing in mind the lateness of the hour, and with
  912
  tongue slightly in cheek, I would pick up the noble Lord's suggestion of six months and, this late at night, suggest six years.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, first, I welcome the noble Lord, the Earl of Northesk, who I think has just made his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, to his new role on the Front Bench. On the Back Benches he certainly earned his spurs on this Bill.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 45 is to allow hereditary Peers who are currently Members of the House of Lords to continue hosting welfare and charitable events in the House of Lords, even after their removal from the House. The amendment requires the House of Lords to make provision, presumably in Standing Orders, to allow hereditary Peers who are removed from the House of Lords by the Bill to retain their existing right to host welfare and charitable events in the Palace of Westminster.
  We have already had a number of debates on the general issue of club rights and the House is by now well aware of the Government's position on this matter. We do not believe that it is right for former Members of this House to continue to have any special rights in relation to its premises. Those rights go with membership. When membership ceases, so, we believe, do all rights which are the privileges of membership. As we have said previously, even if there were not that strong argument of principle, we do not believe that it is appropriate to make provision for such matters in statute.
  The noble Earl's amendment contains a token recognition of this. It does not make express provision in the Bill for hereditary Peers to retain the right to hold welfare and charitable events, but rather imposes a requirement on the House to make provision for that. We believe that that is merely playing with words and comes to exactly the same thing.
  The statute would effectively prescribe the content of the Standing Order. Your Lordships' House would operate merely as a rubber stamp. I do not believe that your Lordships' House is likely to be tempted to proceed down that route in this or any other matter touching on its own arrangements. It is a matter for the new House. I might add that there is also the question of how such a requirement could be enforced. How would your Lordships' House be answerable for failing to make such a provision in Standing Orders?
  I fully recognise the noble intentions of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, in seeking to allow hereditary Peers to retain access to the House for the purpose of hosting charitable events. I am conscious that many charities benefit from the support and sponsorship of Members of your Lordships' House, including of course many hereditary Peers. One of the benefits of having a Peer as a patron is not so much that he, or she, can engineer functions in the Palace of Westminster, but rather that he can speak up on the Floor of the House on behalf of whatever cause he is associated with and seek to represent its interests in debate. Once hereditary Peers lose the fundamental rights to sit and vote in your Lordships' House, that benefit will be gone—and I do

  913
  not suppose that any number of functions in this splendid Palace could make up for it. Furthermore, there will be a problem with the definition of "charitable" and "welfare" events.
  I should like to make a practical point. We all know the heavy demand there is for the function rooms in the House. Very often, they are booked two years in advance. It would, I think, be highly invidious if a request by an existing Member of the House to hold a function on a particular date had to be denied because the room had already been booked by a non-Member. I can well imagine such a situation arising and I do not believe that the House ought to place its Members in that position.
  As regards the period of grace, touched on by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, it is an interesting idea but it is a matter for the new House. I took the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, about the effect of the amendment on the hybridity of the Bill, but I shall need carefully to read what he said. As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I do not believe that there will be a shortage of Peers in the new House who will be able to host such events. The House will contain more than 600 life Peers. There will be plenty of Peers available to host welfare and charity events, and others. For all those reasons, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
  The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, it would be idle to pretend that I am pleased to hear what the Chief Whip has said. It will all be in the record and not greatly to
  914
  his credit. I can see his point that this is not an issue that should be on the face of the Bill, but the Government's notes are contradictory in this regard. I have quoted the two passages which contradict one another. I am disappointed in the noble Lord's response, which will not be to his credit or that of the Government. However, it will all be in the record; and if and when the time comes, the record will be turned up and reviewed.
  If the time were more favourable I would have been tempted to test the mood of the House, but at this late hour I shall not do so. I say in the nicest possible way that it is not an act of surrender when I beg leave, in a moment, to withdraw my amendment. It has been a great disappointment. There was also the uncharitable way in which the Chief Whip responded to a very modest appeal to the basic good sense of the House. I am not asking anyone to decide in advance. I am simply asking that should a disenfranchised Peer such as myself have the opportunity or be invited by a charity to do something I am able to come back and ask permission. I hope that that may be allowed. On the assumption that that will be so, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
  Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at fifteen minutes before midnight.

  Kosovar Refugees: UK Aid
  Kosovar Refugees: UK Aid
  Refugees in Serbia
  Refugees in Serbia
  Animal Procedures Committee
  Animal Procedures Committee
  Communications Interception
  Communications Interception
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Contract with Siemens
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Contract with Siemens
  Human Rights Act 1998
  Human Rights Act 1998
  Charities and the Human Rights Convention
  Charities and the Human Rights Convention
  Open and Resettlement Prisons
  Open and Resettlement Prisons
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man: EU Powers
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man: EU Powers
  Freight Transfer from Road to Rail: Grants
  Freight Transfer from Road to Rail: Grants
  A.303 Stonehenge Improvement Scheme
  A.303 Stonehenge Improvement Scheme
  Air Traffic Management, Europe
  Air Traffic Management, Europe
  Medicines Control Agency
  Medicines Control Agency
  NHS Regions: Chairmen's Appointment
  NHS Regions: Chairmen's Appointment
  Food Safety
  Food Safety
  Food Poisoning Outbreaks: Causes
  Food Poisoning Outbreaks: Causes
  Palace of Westminster Visitor Charging: Consultants' Study
  Palace of Westminster Visitor Charging: Consultants' Study
  Smoking in the House of Lords
  Smoking in the House of Lords
  Palace of Westminster Guided Tours
  Palace of Westminster Guided Tours
  LEA Secondary School Places: Outborough Pupil Numbers
  LEA Secondary School Places: Outborough Pupil Numbers
  Further Education Colleges: Teaching Staff Ethnic Origins
  Further Education Colleges: Teaching Staff Ethnic Origins
  Prayers
  Prayers
  Appeals: Management Decisions
  Appeals: Management Decisions
  Crown Prosecution Service
  Crown Prosecution Service
  Millennium Dome: Disability Training
  Millennium Dome: Disability Training
  Diazinon Products: Sale Abroad
  Diazinon Products: Sale Abroad
  Meat Hygiene Service
  Meat Hygiene Service
  Pigs Imported from China
  Pigs Imported from China
  Building Maintenance and Repairs: VAT
  Building Maintenance and Repairs: VAT
  European Community Budget: UK contribution
  European Community Budget: UK contribution
  Scottish Parliament Building
  Scottish Parliament Building
  Ministerial Meetings with KLA
  Ministerial Meetings with KLA
  Ascension Island
  Ascension Island
  Turkey: Embassy Staff Visits to Mayors and Officials
  Turkey: Embassy Staff Visits to Mayors and Officials
  Turkey: British Council Work in Diyarbakir
  Turkey: British Council Work in Diyarbakir
  Turkey: Bar Human Rights Committee Visits
  Turkey: Bar Human Rights Committee Visits
  Turkey: Human Rights Reports
  Turkey: Human Rights Reports