Sitting of 16 March 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—
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Spain
    Mr. Edward Garnier: If he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with Spain. [74907]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Relations with Spain are generally strong and reflect the improvement in relations under this Government with all our European partners. In April, we will hold the first ever UK-Spanish summit, which demonstrates our more constructive working relationship on a range of European and security issues.
    Our major point of difference remains Gibraltar. I saw the Spanish Foreign Minister again at the weekend, when I made it clear that it is in Spain's as well as Britain's interests that we achieve a return to normality on the Gibraltar border. I have also made it clear that we will never enter into arrangements that would change the sovereignty over Gibraltar against the freely and democratically expressed wishes of its people. That principle remains as valid today as when it was first expressed by a previous Labour Government.
    Mr. Garnier: Was not the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer somewhat complacent? Is he not aware that, in a television interview 10 days ago, the Spanish Foreign Minister suggested that the British Government were tolerating, and indeed conniving at, the planning in Gibraltar of assassinations? Will he please call in the Spanish ambassador to draw to his attention the true facts; and will he perhaps pull his socks up over the whole issue?
    Mr. Cook: Although the Foreign Minister has made some allegations of wrongdoing in Gibraltar, he has not as yet raised the prospect of assassination. The main issues that have been drawn to our attention concern money laundering and smuggling. On both those questions, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have given the same clear message to the Spanish Prime Minister and Foreign Minister: either they should not make such allegations or, if they have evidence of
    868
    wrongdoing in Gibraltar, we would want to co-operate on the matter through our law enforcement agencies, as we certainly have no interest in tolerating any breach of the law. It is of course more difficult to achieve that co-operation as long as Madrid refuses to recognise the Gibraltar law enforcement agencies.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the general thrust of the Foreign Secretary's answer. Has he taken any steps in Europe, in addition to his negotiations with the Spanish Foreign Minister, to safeguard the rights and liberties of the people of Gibraltar as European and British citizens?
    Mr. Cook: Absolutely. It is our clear position that it is for the people of Gibraltar themselves to decide how long and whether they want to remain British citizens. As long as they do—it is what the overwhelming majority want—we will defend that right, and their full rights under European as well as their own Gibraltar law. They need have no doubt that we are resolutely with them in defending their right to decide their own future.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Will the Foreign Secretary comment on Spain's reaction to the Home Secretary's declared intention of applying to sign up to certain aspects of the Schengen agreement? Does not that reaction reinforce the damage that was done when he and the Prime Minister were caught napping in the closing stages of the Amsterdam summit and allowed Spain to secure a veto on any such application? Will he assure the House that the Government's application to sign up to Schengen will include Gibraltar, and that they will not make any concessions on Gibraltar in order to overcome Spain's veto?
    Mr. Cook: There is no intention of making any concessions on Gibraltar, in relation either to this issue or to any other. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is factually wrong: neither Spain nor any other country has a veto on whether we join the new arrangements being made under Schengen. There is the need for unanimity on the existing arrangements, but we secured a protocol requiring the other members to use their best endeavours for Britain to join. France, Germany and other countries have already welcomed the statement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and we are confident that they will use those best endeavours.
    Mr. Howard: Is not the Foreign Secretary aware that the protocol has no binding legal effect?
    Mr. Cook: What I am well aware of is that we have clear support in Europe for joining, and that our joining will be welcome. If Spain is concerned about law enforcement in Gibraltar, it is in its own interests that Britain and Gibraltar should play a full part.

    Iraq
    Mr. David Winnick: If he will make a statement on the situation in Iraq. [74908]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): In late January, the United Nations Security Council established three panels to deal

    869
    with disarmament and humanitarian issues, and Kuwaiti detainees and property. It is anticipated that they will report by mid-April. Meanwhile, we continue to patrol the no-fly zone. All responses by United Kingdom aircraft in the no-fly zones are proportionate and in self-defence.
    Mr. Winnick: While recognising the need to defend the no-fly zones, which were indeed approved by virtually the whole House after the Gulf war, will my right hon. Friend accept that it is very important that there should be a precise limit on the bombing that is taking place? Is it not important to recognise that a bloodthirsty and murderous regime such as Saddam Hussein' s will not be brought down by bombing? We have to accept that as a fact.
    Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the no-fly zones were humanitarian measures, introduced in 1991 and 1992, which had the support of the whole House, and they have performed an important humanitarian task. My hon. Friend is also right to say that the action we are taking under the rules of engagement on the no-fly zones is proportionate and will continue to be so. There is no suggestion that we will further change the rules on the no-fly zones.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: In considering the nature of military operations over the north and south of Iraq, is it not right to recognise a distinction between a defensive response and what is taking place now—the systematic destruction of Iraq's air defence system? Does the Minister understand the unease at an apparent change of policy towards Iraq, openly acknowledged in the United States of America, which is to disable, debilitate and destroy Saddam? That is a policy for which there is no authority in the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions or in international law. Does he also understand that the unease is compounded by the fact that neither the change of policy to which the United Kingdom is subscribing nor the strategy that underpins it has ever been debated by the House of Commons?
    Mr. Fatchett: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that in 1993, 1996 and 1997, Saddam Hussein violated the no-fly zones. On each of those occasions, we reacted in the same proportionate manner in which we are reacting on this occasion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will also know that there have been more than 100 incursions by Iraqi aircraft and other military equipment into the no-fly zones. We have responded in the same way as before, and there has been no shift in policy.
    There is no vacuum, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested there was in his article in The Independent this morning: we are continuing to carry out the humanitarian objectives of the no-fly zones. I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he agreed to the no-fly zones in the first place, and that if we were to disengage from those zones, substantial damage would be inflicted on the Kurds and the people in the south of Iraq.
    Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Minister aware that what is being done has no United Nations authority and no authority from the House of Commons, and that it amounts, in the case of the civilians who are being killed,
    870
    to what a Nobel peace prize winner has described as genocide? The Government have shown no readiness to allow the House to discuss the matter when it is clear that there is great anxiety across the Floor of the House about what is being done in our name and without our authority—that is, killing innocent civilians who have no capacity to get rid of Saddam Hussein, although all recognise the brutal nature of his regime.
    Mr. Fatchett: There is legal support for the position taken by the United Kingdom. It flows from the United Nations Security Council resolutions and it is to support the humanitarian objectives. My right hon. Friend is right to say that the brutal nature of the regime in Baghdad is the backcloth against which we should ask and answer all these questions. He needs to remind himself, as do others, of what that regime has done to the people of Iraq over the past 20 years.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: The right hon. Gentleman is being deliberately obtuse. No one here contradicts the absolute necessity for the policing of the no-fly zones, but the House is not happy about the practice—it continues at the moment—of allied aircraft attacking targets that are, to all intents and purposes, not hostile. Nobody disputes that if planes are locked on to, they should deal properly with targets; but just to take out targets on the ground is improper and outside the United Nations resolutions. It must stop, and Britain should not be a party to it.
    Mr. Fatchett: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made a statement recently to the House on those issues. He explained the Government's policy and the continuation of the enforcement of the no-fly zones. There has been no change in that policy and if there is a change, the House will be informed accordingly.

    Debt Relief
    Mr. Huw Edwards: What discussions he has had with Governments of the G8 about the relief of the debts of the world's most impoverished nations. [74909]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): We used last year's G8 presidency to advance the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, agreeing at the Birmingham summit that all eligible countries should be in the debt relief process by 2000. We and our Government partners are preparing for further discussions at this year's Foreign Ministers and Heads of Government meetings.
    On 3 March, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development announced a four-point plan to help debt relief and aid poverty reduction in the developing world. It includes a $50 billion debt reduction target for the poorest countries.
    Mr. Edwards: I thank my hon. Friend on behalf of the Jubilee 2000 campaign in my constituency and I commend the Government for being one of the leading countries—if not the leading country—in the relief of debt. Does he agree with me and with the Bishop of

    871
    Monmouth, who recently said that if we are against slavery, we must be for the relief of the most unpayable debts of the world's most impoverished countries?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend rightly congratulates the Government on the steps that we have already taken. There is no doubt that all manner of ailments flow from poverty to beset the developing world, including conflicts, premature death and poor education and health. The role of the British Government in beginning to make the case for change has been important. The initiative announced by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development seeks to wipe out $50 billion of debt and to provide development assistance to the tune of $60 billion by the end of 2000. Those are significant steps. The Chancellor's announcement of millennium gift aid tax discretion is also important in ensuring that good will among the people of the United Kingdom can be translated into practical action to relieve poverty among the poorest people and countries.

    India and Pakistan
    Mr. Mike Gapes: When he next plans to meet the leaders of India and Pakistan to discuss nuclear issues; and if he will make a statement. [74910]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I discussed non-proliferation and regional security issues with Brajesh Mishra, the principal secretary to the Indian Prime Minister and the National Security Adviser, and with Jaswant Singh, the Indian Foreign Minister, during their respective visits to the UK in January and February. I discussed nuclear issues with Foreign Minister Kanju during my visit to Pakistan in February.
    Mr. Gapes: I am grateful for that reply. Does my right hon. Friend welcome recent indications of improved relations between India and Pakistan, particularly the cricket tour by a Pakistani team to India and the visit by the Indian Prime Minister to meet his counterpart in Pakistan? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hundreds of thousands of people in the UK who have family connections with India and Pakistan look forward to nothing other than good and normal relations between those two important Commonwealth countries?
    Mr. Fatchett: I very much agree that the recent talks between the two Prime Ministers in Lahore could herald a new start for relations between India and Pakistan. We wish both countries well. Confidence-building measures are an important first step towards tackling some difficult security and political issues. It is in all our interests, and particularly in the interests of economic and political development in south Asia, that the talks should continue and progress be made.
    Sir Raymond Whitney: When the Foreign Secretary next meets the leaders of India and Pakistan, will he again raise with them the question of Kashmir? If so—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Questions further down the Order Paper relate to Kashmir, but this question is on
    872
    nuclear issues. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask a question about the nuclear issue, he may. We will wait until later for Kashmir.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Can the Minister confirm that recent discussions between the Indian and Pakistani Prime Ministers covered nuclear proliferation? Were any steps taken towards nuclear reduction by both sides? I visited both Pakistan and India Kashmir a while ago, and it seemed that if there could be progress on Kashmir, there would be scope for nuclear reduction. Has the Minister looked into that matter?
    Madam Speaker: Order. We are on nuclear issues.
    Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman was right, however, Madam Speaker, to say that there is a relationship between Kashmir and the nuclear issue. Kashmir comes up later, I know, and I—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am going to be firm. Back-Bench Members have tabled questions on Kashmir and it is totally unfair of other hon. Members to jump the gun. If the Minister is willing to answer only on nuclear issues, I will hear him. I will not hear him on the Kashmir situation.
    Mr. Fatchett: Indeed, Madam Speaker. The nuclear issues were discussed at Lahore, and it is crucial for the region's security that India and Pakistan should sign up to the comprehensive test ban treaty and the range of other non-proliferation treaties. That would lessen the risks of instability in the region and of nuclear or conventional war on Kashmir or other issues. It is vital that we all engage in encouraging India and Pakistan to take such non-proliferation steps, and we shall do so.

    Euro Zone
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What assessment he has made of the impact on British foreign policy objectives of the United Kingdom remaining outside the euro zone. [74911]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Her Majesty's Government will decide on whether to recommend in a referendum that United Kingdom should join the euro if we believe that it would be to the economic benefit of the country on the basis of the tests set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in October 1997.
    The arrangements for developing the common foreign and security policy are exactly the same for the UK whether we are a member of the euro zone or not. We shall continue to work for common positions in foreign policy where possible, on the basis that we have a much better prospect of securing common objectives in the world if Europe speaks with one voice rather than fifteen voices.
    Mr. Swayne: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with Hans Eichel, the new German Finance Minister,

    873
    that any monetary union must be swiftly supplemented by full political union? Is that one of the right hon. Gentleman's foreign policy objectives?
    Mr. Cook: We have made it perfectly plain that we very much agree with President Chirac—that what we seek is not a united states of Europe, but a united Europe of states; that remains the policy of this Government. However, we are quite clear that if we conclude that Britain is being economically damaged and undermined by being outside the euro, we cannot possibly pretend to defend and strengthen the independence or sovereignty of Britain by weakening our own economy.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: May I welcome the way in which our Government and the French Government have been working together on Kosovo, west Africa and NATO enlargement? Is not that a positive way forward for Europe to co-operate, and does it not contrast starkly with the xenophobia we hear from Conservative Members?
    Mr. Cook: I very much welcome my hon. Friend's comments. The meeting that took place in Africa last week between me and my French opposite number, and between all our ambassadors to Africa, was an historic first event in the history of Africa; we have never done that together. We have common objectives in Africa of securing stability and an end to conflict, relief of the debt burden, development and the spread of democracy. We have a much better chance of securing that if we work together co-operatively than if we compete against each other as rivals.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Perhaps I shall have better luck if I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he agrees with another statement of Germany's new Finance Minister, Hans Eichel, who said only a few weeks ago:
    "Why does Europe need 15 foreign ministers when one is enough? Why do we still need purely national armies? One European army is enough."
    Does the Foreign Secretary agree?
    Mr. Cook: No, I do not agree with that, nor does any member of the Government. However, we are working for better security within Europe. That is why we have again tabled with France an initiative that would provide for better security decision making in Europe and clearer access to the assets that we have provided to NATO, so that Europe can better intervene in crises in its own continent. I point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the current situation in the Balkans underlines the importance of taking forward that initiative.

    Cyprus (EU Accession)
    Mr. Nigel Evans: What discussions he has had concerning the accession of Cyprus to the EU. [74912]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed Cyprus's EU accession with the Cypriot Foreign Minister when they met in November. He attended the EU Cyprus accession conference on
    874
    10 November, which took stock of the good progress made in negotiations so far. My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with colleagues from other EU member states on all aspects of the accession process, and there is also close and regular contact at official level.
    Mr. Evans: Does the Minister agree that the complete shambles within the European Commission should not be allowed to stand in the way of EU expansion? Does she agree that the accession of Cyprus to the EU would benefit communities in both north and south Cyprus? Does she also agree that the fact that Cyprus has removed the new threat of placing S300s in Cyprus, although welcome, is not sufficient to enable progress toward a sustainable peace; and that we must look for new initiatives enabling both north and south to secure a sustainable future?
    Ms Quin: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in respect of all three elements of his question. Whatever the state of affairs within the European Commission, we are keen that accession negotiations should not suffer; that is extremely important. The hon. Gentleman is also right to believe that both parts of the Cypriot community can benefit from accession to the EU, and I know that that view is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. However, he is also right to say that we must continually look for ways to take forward both the process of EU accession and the important process of seeking a settlement to the Cyprus problem. It is also right to say that we need to look continually for ways of taking the process forward, regarding both EU accession and seeking a settlement of the Cyprus problem.
    Mr. Andrew Love: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on keeping the accession negotiations on track. Those negotiations have been bedevilled by the lack of progress in finding a resolution to the division of the island. What success has the special representative to Cyprus had in bringing the two communities together? Can my right hon. Friend give us some idea of what discussions have taken place with the United Nations or with others about restarting the talks between the two communities so that there may be a resolution to the problem of the island's division?
    Ms Quin: The efforts of the special representative have been impressive and assiduous in seeking to make progress. However, greater political willingness must be shown—particularly in the north of Cyprus—regarding some of the bicommunal and bizonal activities that we believe are important in paving the way for the eventual reunification of the island. The efforts of that special representative are very important, but we must encourage all sides to participate actively in negotiations.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the right hon. Lady will know that Turkey, with Greece and Britain, is a co-guarantor of Cyprus's becoming a single nation. What cards are the Government playing in telling Turkey that its accession to the European Union will always be blocked if it does not participate in a settlement of the Cyprus question? Can nothing be done to ensure that Turkey plays a constructive role in bringing together the two halves of Cyprus?
    Ms Quin: As we know, Turkey has expressed an interest in attaining a closer relationship with the

    875
    European Union, and that must be viewed in the context of moving towards resolving the Cyprus issue. We have made it clear that Turkey does not have a veto on Cypriot accession to the European Union. However, we also believe that it is in the interests of both Cyprus and Turkey to be more positive in their approach to the European Union.

    Export Promotion
    Mr. Michael J. Foster: If he will make a statement on his Department's future role in export promotion. [74913]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): Following the Cabinet Secretary's review of export promotion, my right hon Friend the Foreign Secretary was delighted to announce on 12 March—also on behalf of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—the setting up of a new unified Foreign Office and DTI export promotion operation, British Trade International, under a single chief executive. I refer my hon Friend to that announcement.
    Mr. Foster: I welcome the creation of British Trade International, which is a clear demonstration of the Government's commitment to business. What help will it provide to smaller manufacturing companies, such as Excel Automation in my constituency, which is seeking to expand its export market?
    Mr. Fatchett: I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments about last week's announcement. One of the objectives of the new structure is to provide a unified system that will enable domestic companies to sell overseas. Assistance will be provided for United Kingdom companies, such as the one in Worcester mentioned by my hon. Friend, to export to any location around the world. We hope that that assistance will be much more efficient and targeted. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has announced additional measures to help to promote small businesses and assist with their export activities.
    Mr. James Gray: Perhaps further evidence of the Government's commitment to exports is the fact that weapons sales to Indonesia have doubled since Labour came to office. Is that what the Government describe as an "ethical foreign policy"?
    Mr. Fatchett: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has asked that question because it gives me an opportunity to lay to rest some of the myths that are circulating about arms sales under this Government. An annual report will be published shortly that will set out all the details. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that no Hawks, armoured cars, water cannon, flame throwers or other equipment of that sort have been licensed by the Government for sale to Indonesia.
    I have absolute confidence that, when the hon. Gentleman reads the annual report, he will see that each licence granted conforms totally to the criteria that we established in July 1997. The Government have followed those criteria—unlike the previous Conservative Government, who were prepared to arm Iraq without even bothering to tell the House.

    Ethical Foreign Policies
    Mr. Andrew Tyrie: What discussions he has had with his opposite numbers in the G7 about co-operation to develop ethical foreign policies. [74914]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): We regularly discuss the promotion of human rights and democracy with our G8 partners. In London last May, G8 Foreign Ministers emphasised the universality of human rights and made a number of practical commitments to promote human rights world wide. The G8 also agreed action on development and debt relief, health, nuclear safety, terrorism, crime and the environment. We are continuing G8 discussions on those issues in the run-up to this year's summit in Cologne in June.
    Mr. Tyrie: What work has the Minister done with fellow G8 members to advance the cause of human rights in China? Will the Government condemn the Chinese human rights record here today and at the meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva? Why has a leading human rights activist in China condemned the Government's ethical foreign policy as two-faced?
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) made a clear public statement condemning the Chinese for abuse of human rights. There is no doubt of the Government's stance. There is equally no doubt that we discuss China, particularly with our European Union colleagues. I shall attend the meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva in a few weeks, and there is no doubt that the role of China will figure in those deliberations.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the G8 re-examine the conditions on which money is lent for the construction of dams around the world—in particular, the money lent to Turkey and Syria for the construction of more and more dams that have reduced the Euphrates to a trickle? Winter snows and other adverse conditions mean that the Tigris is lower than ever it has been, with terrible consequences for an already desperate situation in Iraq.
    Mr. Lloyd: The Government want to consider water systems more broadly, so my hon. Friend asks an important question which we shall certainly examine. I had perhaps over-anticipated my hon. Friend's question because I thought that he would ask about the Pergau dam scandal, in which the previous Government were prepared to prostitute this country's values in a dodgy deal.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Will the Minister of State and his G8 partners examine ethical foreign policy as regards the pursuit of peace in Sierra Leone? That state remains violent and conflict-riven, and our policy seems to be simply to support one aspect, one person and one president and not to encourage the pursuit of an ethical foreign policy to achieve peace in that country.
    Mr. Lloyd: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I remind him that President Kabbah is the democratically elected president of Sierra Leone. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should dismiss President Kabbah. If so, he is misguided. When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was in west Africa last week, he met President Kabbah, among others, and urged on him the need for a negotiated, inclusive settlement which will bring lasting peace to that country.
    It is a matter of public record that while Britain has done more than any other country, apart from Nigeria, to try to resolve Sierra Leone's problems, we have actively been lobbying the rest of the world to make the same financial commitment as we have made. The £10 million that my right hon. Friend recently announced is already receiving backing in the international community. The House should welcome that.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Will my hon. Friend confirm that this year's agenda recreates universality of human rights and underlines partnership between non-G8 countries? In that context, will he join me in congratulating the people of Qatar on their successful municipal elections, which were held on 8 March under universal suffrage for all Qataris over the age of 18? Women were encouraged and promoted as candidates, there was a free, fair press, and international observers from the middle east, Europe and America ensured free and fair elections.
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend draws attention to a very important election for the House to examine. He could have gone on to say that women candidates took part freely in that election. The Qatar example is a significant and important signal to the rest of the world, especially the rest of the middle east. Given my hon. Friend's long and deep interest in the middle east and the respect with which he is held, not only in this House but throughout the region on these issues, that message will be particularly strong.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Minister agree that the significant factor in the waging of civil wars all over the world is the ready supply of arms, which is often in contradiction to an ethical foreign policy? Do the Government intend to support the German Government at this week's Co-Arm talks in their attempts to curb the activities of arms brokers?
    Mr. Lloyd: I agree with the hon. Lady that the ready supply of arms in different regions is a very important motor in the continuation of violent solutions to problems that, essentially, ought to be resolved by political means. This Government have certainly worked very hard in specific regions, and generally, to seek action to dry up supplies, especially of small arms which do so much damage. She will know that the results of consultation on the White Paper are being examined by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. We want to take forward discussion in Europe about how Europe can crack down on problems caused by European brokers in this very difficult, and sometimes very unpleasant, trade.

    United Nations (Finances)
    Mr. Michael Jack: What is his current assessment of the financial health of the United Nations. [74915]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): The United Nations remains in serious financial difficulties. At the end of 1998, it was owed more than $2 billion by member states. We urged all member states to pay their dues promptly, in full and without conditions. We continue to promote the European Union's proposals to put United Nations finances on a more secure and equitable long-term footing.
    Mr. Jack: The Minister's answer shows the lamentable progress towards achieving the objectives of that European initiative. Is he aware of the 5th Committee, which is trying to secure a better financial base for the United Nations? Is he also aware that agenda item 115, which is being considered by the committee, is behind timetable? What action will he take to ensure that it gets back on timetable? Will he assure the House that, once completed, this matter will be discussed at the next General Assembly of the United Nations?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman wants to try to turn this into an attack on the Government. In fact, this Government have done as much as any. Indeed, I credit previous Governments in such terms. We are a good payer; we pay on time. We set the rest of the world a good example. Britain is up to date with its payments. Some 136 countries owed money at the beginning of the year when time to pay expired. The matter will be raised at the General Assembly. Britain will continue in the European framework, the UN, and with respect to the 5th Committee, to ensure that the argument is taken forward. We remind all states of their obligations—especially the United States, which is the single biggest debtor—that they must resolve their internal political problems and pay the money owed.

    Land Mines
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: What progress he has made in discussions with his international counterparts to secure the elimination of land mine production. [74916]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): We continue to press for as many countries as possible to join the 134 that have already signed up to the total ban on anti-personnel mines that is enshrined in the Ottawa convention, which entered into force on 1 March.
    Mr. Griffiths: We welcome the leading role that the Government have played in ratifying the Ottawa convention. Will my hon. Friend do more to ensure that the mines are cleared when, every day, women, children and other civilians fall victim to those awful devices? Is he aware of the work being done by Professor Stephen Salter of Edinburgh university and others throughout Britain on innovative devices to clear the minefields?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right to say that the victims of these mines are not simply combatants in

    879
    conflict situations but often, long after conflict has finished, innocent people who had no role in that conflict—women, children and, indeed, men—who lose their lives or their capacity to look after themselves and their families. That is what led the Government to be so actively involved in the process that led to the Ottawa convention. That is what led Britain to be one of the first to get rid of its stock of anti-personnel and land mines. The Army had got rid of its stocks before the Ottawa convention came into force on 1 March this year—a significant achievement.
    My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and Britain is doubling the amount of money that we shall make available for mine clearance in the year 2000, to about £10 million. That will have a significant impact, and we shall continue to lobby among friends and allies, and globally, that all countries should a play a part in de-mining.

    Chile
    Mr. David Borrow: If he will make a statement on recent discussions between his Department and the Government of Chile. [74917]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Since the arrest of Senator Pinochet, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have had a number of meetings with the Chilean Foreign Minister, Deputy Foreign Minister and ambassador.
    Mr. Insulza, the Foreign Minister, and I have agreed that our common objective should be to preserve the sound and long-standing relations between our two countries. In all our discussions, I have made it clear that the extradition procedures are subject to legal process, and that it would be improper of us to interfere with it.
    Mr. Borrow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should welcome the closer economic links that have been formed between Chile and the Falkland islands in recent years? Does he also welcome the visit by the Prince of Wales to the region? Will he join me in rejecting criticism, over the past few days, by elements in the right-wing press of the Prince of Wales and his comments in support of democracy?
    Mr. Cook: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I find it extraordinary that the Prince of Wales should be subject to criticism for a message of reconciliation, in which he stood by the democracy of the people of the Falkland islands. I hope that everyone in Britain can at least welcome those remarks as strongly as did the Foreign Minister of Argentina.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Is it not the case that if his Royal Highness Prince Charles had been able to go to his originally planned destination—Chile—and that if Lan Chile were to be able to continue direct flights from Punta Arenas to the Falkland islands, the situation in the southern cone would be a great deal better?
    As the right hon. Gentleman and Her Majesty's Ministers are unable to go to Chile in person to find out the situation for themselves, could they not at least take
    880
    the advice of someone who has been to Chile—His Holiness the Pope, who knows the region, but who has much greater wisdom and magnanimity than the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Cook: First, the visit to Argentina by the Prince of Wales had been planned since 1994 and is certainly the place that the Prince of Wales wished to go, and that was achieved. He also visited the Falkland islands, and it is to his credit that he wanted to include them on the tour. The letter from the Vatican has not been released by the Vatican, and it is not our custom to release letters pertaining to foreign relations. However, it did raise questions of compassion, and that will certainly feature in the course of our decision at the appropriate time. In the meantime, the Government stand firmly on the principle that any application of extradition should be settled by the courts, by due legal process. We have no intention of interfering in it, and I regret the fact that every month the hon. Gentleman asks us to interfere in it.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: When, against the background of the Pinochet affair, the Presidents of Chile and of Argentina signed a joint declaration last December—in which, for the first time officially, Chile recognised the Argentine claims on the Falkland islands—why did the Foreign Secretary fail to make an official representation to the Chilean Government? Has he been caught napping again? Does he not realise that robust and immediate responses are expected from his Department when British interests are at stake?
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Lady is talking humbug. We have made perfectly plain to Chile, and to every other country that has taken that view, the basis of our robust position on the sovereignty of the Falkland islands, and the right of the Falkland islanders to self-determination. We have no anxiety about Chile and Argentina becoming friends, as we are friends of both, but we intend to insist on the right of the Falkland islands to decide their future.

    EU Enlargement
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: What recent representations he has received about Agenda 2000 relating to enlargement; and if he will make a statement. [74918]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): We continue to maintain regular contact on Agenda 2000 with a wide range of domestic interests. We are well aware of the great interest of the applicant countries in early progress.
    At the informal meeting of the Foreign Ministers over the weekend, there was general agreement that we are on track for a resolution of Agenda 2000 at Berlin next week.
    Although we would have liked further cuts in farm prices, we welcome the fact that we have now reached agreement on agricultural reform, which will cut the food bill of a household of four in Britain by £70 a year.
    On structural funds, the current package is likely to produce an increase in Britain's percentage share from the structural funds.

    881
    We are on course for a deal on Agenda 2000 that will be a good bargain for Britain, and will provide a basis of sound reforms on which to take forward the enlargement of the European Union.
    Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the countries that have applied to join the European Union are more than willing to sign up to the social chapter and the euro? Does not my right hon. Friend think that their attitude is in stark contrast to that of the Conservative party, whose attitude to European politics seems to be based partly on an obsessive hatred of all things to do with the European Union?
    Mr. Cook: Any hon. Member who has visited central and eastern Europe and the applicant countries will be well aware of the immense enthusiasm in those countries—not just of their Governments, but of their people—for joining the democratic family of nations in the European Union. My hon. Friend is right—it is particularly perverse that at a time when the rest of Europe is queuing up to join the European Union, there are so many Opposition Members who want to get off the bus.
    Mr. Michael Trend: Four weeks ago, in the context of those talks, the Foreign Secretary gave the House an absolute assurance that the British rebate was non-negotiable. Good. Can he now give the House an absolute assurance that there will be no increase in Britain's contributions to the European Union, in either gross or net terms?
    Mr. Cook: As the hon. Gentleman should be aware, because the question was answered by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, it is likely that the proposals for reform of agriculture will result in a net increase in contributions, because if we wish to achieve reform, farmers must be compensated. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting otherwise, he is suggesting that the farmers who will suffer from the price cut should not receive compensation. However, the overall increase in Britain's contribution as taxpayers will be more than matched by what Britain will receive as consumers in reduced prices. That is a good bargain for the people of Britain.

    EU Institutions
    Ms Rachel Squire: If he will make a statement on his plans for increasing the democratic accountability of EU institutions. [74919]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): The Government have shown their commitment to improving the European Union's democratic accountability in a number of ways. We supported changes to the role of the European Parliament and to the role of national parliaments at Amsterdam. We have also introduced a number of improvements to our own scrutiny system.
    During the British presidency, we made significant progress in improving access to information, including through more open debates in Council and better public access to documents. We continue to attach great importance to introducing more transparency to EU decision-making processes.
    882
    With regard to the European Commission, hon. Members will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is to make a statement shortly.
    Ms Squire: I must have been under a telepathic influence when I tabled the question two weeks ago for answer today, given the damning report that was published last night and the resignation of the EU Commissioners. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if ever the time was right for making EU institutions more democratic and accountable, it is now? In particular, does she agree that the reform of the management and accountability of the Commission should be accelerated, and that, in line with the Amsterdam treaty, the opening up of the decision-making process in the EU should be given greater priority, so that it is seen to be more responsible, accountable and relevant to the everyday lives of the people whom we represent?
    Ms Quin: I agree with my hon. Friend and congratulate her on her perspicacity. We strongly believe that the events of yesterday and today represent a real opportunity to change the European Commission's management culture and to improve EU decision making across the board.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: How can democratic accountability in the EU possibly survive if certain leading German politicians have their way? Is the right hon. Lady aware that the German Chancellor has stated:
    "National sovereignty will soon be a product of the imagination"?
    Or that the German Foreign Minister has stated:
    "My goal is to turn the EU into an entity under international law"?
    Or even that the new German Finance Minister has stated:
    "European unification is an absolute must … The euro is not European unification, but it is one important step towards this end."?
    Does the right hon. Lady accept that, if the 20th century has taught us anything, it is the unwisdom of ignoring the pronouncements of German politicians by pretending that they do not mean what they say?
    Ms Quin: Throughout the EU, there are many ideas on how to change EU institutions and bring them closer to the people whom we represent. During our presidency, we established an impressive programme of priorities to bring Europe closer to the citizens, and that is the agenda that we are pursuing, for which we have much support.

    EU Enlargement
    Mr. Bill Rammell: If he will make a statement on the progress of enlargement of the European Union. [74920]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): The successful enlargement of the European Union remains a key objective for the United Kingdom. The accession negotiations are on track. The priority for the candidates and the current member states is to concentrate on our mutual preparations for enlargement. It is still too early to predict when the first accessions might take place. However, once we have

    883
    agreed Agenda 2000, and the accession negotiations themselves are more advanced, we might be able to set ourselves a deadline for their conclusion.
    Mr. Rammell: Given the progress that is being made on Agenda 2000 and on common agricultural policy reform, and given that some of the first-wave applicants have now joined NATO, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, in the history of the EU, setting a deadline has often led to decisions being made sooner than would otherwise have been the case? Is there not a case at the forthcoming European Council meetings for at least beginning to consider some of the deadlines and dates for membership for those countries?
    Ms Quin: I agree that deadlines can act as a stimulus, but we must not set unrealistic deadlines which cannot be met. So far, the EU accession process has proceeded satisfactorily, and it has been good to see the way in which that process has stimulated beneficial change in some of the applicant countries.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister share my concern that decisions may not now be reached on Agenda 2000 at the Council of Ministers next Wednesday and Thursday, and that because of the current turmoil in decision making, which is causing huge concern in applicant countries as well as existing EU countries, the extended market for which we all hope may well be delayed?
    Ms Quin: I share the hon. Lady's concern. It is important to focus on the need to achieve agreement next week. Despite the situation in the EU Commission, the prime decisions to be taken next week will be for national Governments in the Council of Ministers. They know what the issues are and it is for them to ensure that we reach an agreement which will not only be good for the future of the existing EU member countries, but will facilitate the enlargement process, which has such overwhelming support in the House and which can create the large and successful market to which the hon. Lady referred.
    Mr. Roger Casale: As my right hon. Friend has said, one of the few matters that even the Conservative party can agree on in relation to Europe is the importance of keeping to a strict timetable for enlargement. That timetable must be respected by the applicant countries, but it is also important that it is respected by the European Union. Will she assure the House that Britain will continue to take a lead in pushing for enlargement as soon as the applicant countries are ready, and will not allow any slippage in that timetable as a result of stalling within the EU on the necessary reforms?
    Ms Quin: I am certainly happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. As he pointed out, the enlargement process has a great deal of support on both sides of the House. I believe that the Government's policies will promote a successful enlargement.

    Tibet
    Mr. Norman Baker: If he will make a statement on the 40th anniversary of the uprising in Lhasa. [74922]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): We remain very concerned about human rights in Tibet. We take every opportunity to raise our concerns with the Chinese authorities, both bilaterally and in conjunction with our EU partners. I will be raising the subject when I visit China in April.
    Mr. Baker: Does the Minister recognise that, in recent months, the human rights abuses in Tibet have, if anything, worsened and that monks are being arrested simply for possessing a photograph of the Dalai Lama? I say to the Minister—without any intention of criticising him and his Government—that the policy of constructive engagement, which has been followed by this Government and by others in the west, seems, to me at least, not to be working. Will he review that policy and see what further pressure can be brought upon the Chinese authorities to loosen up in Tibet?
    Mr. Fatchett: We have not softened our criticism of China's abuses of human rights, even though there has been dialogue with China on human rights issues. The two are not mutually exclusive. We will continue to press the human rights agenda with China, in relation to both Tibet and China more generally. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we will express our concern on those issues at every opportunity.
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Can my right hon. Friend outline to the House what assistance has been given to the Tibetan refugees in the north of India since the outrages in Lhasa 40 years ago?
    Mr. Fatchett: These are issues that we keep an eye on and discuss with the Indian Government. It is obviously important on a humanitarian level that we do what we can to assist the refugees from Tibet who find themselves based in northern India.

    Libya
    Sir Teddy Taylor: What progress has been made in normalising relations with Libya. [74924]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The first step in normalising relations with Libya must be for Libya to comply with its obligations in international law—primarily by handing over the two accused of the Lockerbie bombing. With our American and Dutch partners, we have gone to great lengths to arrange for a trial in a third country and also to convince the Libyan Government that it will be a fair trial. I am encouraged by recent statements by Colonel Gaddafi, in particular his recognition that no one can criticise the fairness of Scottish justice. Those statements leave Libya no reasonable grounds on which to refuse to surrender the two suspects.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear that sanctions will end, normal transport links will be restored and the Government will endeavour to restore good relations with Libya if the two suspects are handed over?
    Mr. Cook: First, we have made it perfectly plain from the start of this exercise that sanctions will be suspended from the moment that the two suspects arrive in the Netherlands. There is also a commitment under the Security Council's resolutions that, within 90 days of that occasion, the Secretary-General will report on Libya's outstanding responsibilities, for instance on the question of compensation. If Libya fully complies in those 90 days, I have every confidence that we can then proceed from suspension to lifting of the sanctions.
    On normalisation of transport and other links, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we continue to have concerns over the murder of WPC Fletcher. However, I can assure the House that, if we resolve the issue of our right to try the two Lockerbie bombing suspects, in circumstances and under arrangements that Libya itself asked for, we will show good will and good faith in trying to arrange a resolution of the outstanding matters.

    Select Committee Reports
    Mr. Dennis Canavan: If he will make a statement about the information which he has received about Select Committee reports before their publication. [74927]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I have already provided such information in my statement to the House, and in written parliamentary answers. The special report on Sierra Leone by the Foreign Affairs Committee is now before the Committee on Standards and Privileges, which I shall provide with any further information that it requires.
    Mr. Canavan: May we have an assurance that if there is any further attempt by a Select Committee member to hand over a draft report to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State will hand that report back to the Chairman or Clerk of the appropriate Select Committee?
    Mr. Cook: I can happily give my hon. Friend and the House an assurance that we will destroy any such report without taking further action.

European Commission
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): I should like to make a statement today on the report of the Committee of Independent Experts, and the resignation last night of Jacques Santer and his 19 colleagues in the European Commission.
The Committee of Independent Experts, set up last January on a motion from the Labour Group of the European Parliament to investigate allegations of fraud and mismanagement, reported yesterday. It is a damning report. It catalogues in key areas a culture of complacency and lack of accountability, and in some cases nepotism, that is unacceptable. The report could not be more clear-cut. It has revealed systemic failings in the Commission which have been tolerated for far too long.
It was absolutely right that the Commission resigned en masse. The President of the Commission should leave as soon as reasonably and practically possible, and a new President should take his place. The Commission should stay only in a caretaker role until a new Commission is appointed.
There is no criticism of the two British Commissioners. Indeed, they played a key role in bringing this issue to a head, and I believe that they should carry on.
Above all, the appointment of a new President and Commission should be the opportunity to push through root-and-branch reform of the Commission, its mandate and its method of operation. I will, of course, discuss these issues fully with Chancellor Schröder, the present European Union President, when I see him later today.
The new President of the Commission must be a political heavyweight, capable of providing the Commission with leadership and authority.
Jacques Santer is by no means solely responsible for this situation. Indeed, to be fair to him, he has instituted many changes of a worthwhile nature. Many of the issues revealed by the report predate his appointment. But I will be blunt: we cannot have the next President decided in the same way as the last, debating the narrow interests of one country or another. The top jobs, not just in the Commission, but throughout the European institutions, should go to the top people. Merit, and merit alone, should decide. We need the best person for the job of President, and we Heads of Government should make it clear that the Commission President operates under a mandate for reform and is a thorough-going reformer.
I would like Heads of Government, in the manner that we proposed last year at the conclusion of our presidency, to give the new Commission—with due involvement on the part of the European Parliament—a specific statement of what we believe the aims and mission of the new Commission should be: a new contract between the Commission and the Council. It should set a clear new course for a Europe of reform and change.
The changes suggested by the committee of inquiry yesterday are just the first step. In the short term, reform must include at least the following: a complete overhaul of the approval and auditing procedures for financial control; a new system for financial management and spending programmes; an entirely new procedure for the awarding of contracts for the provision of services with a new management system to oversee it; reworking of the
888
whole disciplinary procedure so that staff in the Commission know exactly what is expected of them and what will happen if they fall short of those expectations; and a new system of accountability in the bureaucracy of the Commission so that each individual holding a position of responsibility is fully accountable for the budget and the measures that he or she manages.
In addition, we also need an entirely new framework for fighting fraud and financial irregularities. We have long been advocates of the appointment of an independent fraud investigation office which has full access to documents and officials, and the powers that it needs. That appointment should now be made.
The Committee of Independent Experts will report again soon with further recommendations on reform. We should implement them. In the longer term, we should put in place, as we argued at Amsterdam during our presidency and ever since, a new structure for the Commission, a better process of decision making, and a system of accountability that recognises the importance of connecting the people of Europe more closely to the decisions that affect them.
The inquiry's report has revealed a sad catalogue of negligence and mismanagement. There will, no doubt, be those who see this as just another chance to bash Europe. Intelligently seen, this is, in fact, an opportunity to make changes that many of us believe and have argued are long overdue. It is our responsibility now to use this crisis to ensure that the standards of management and public administration in the European institutions are as high as we expect them to be in national and regional governments in Europe. Let us seize that opportunity, therefore, and use it well.
Mr. William Hague: Yesterday's report from the inquiry on fraud could not have been more devastating. It refers to the European Commission having
"lost control of the administration."
It says that
"it is difficult to find anyone who has even the slightest sense of responsibility",
and that
"no supervision was exercised and a state within a state was allowed to develop."
It is welcome to hear the Prime Minister speak of root-and-branch reform—although we are learning, week by week, to judge him by his actions and not by his words—but does he accept that a more drastic overhaul of the Commission is now required than has ever before been envisaged; more important still, that the European Commission needs to do less rather than more; and that what it does it must do better?
Will the Prime Minister ensure that the national Governments now take an immediate grip of this situation, if necessary at an emergency summit within days, to restore public confidence in European institutions and to implement radical change? Will he consider adding to the list of proposals that he made a few moments ago: a binding code of conduct for the appointment of senior officials to prevent personal appointments by Commissioners and to stamp out nepotism in the Commission; an agreement that the European Parliament should be able to sack individual Commissioners who are guilty of misconduct; strengthened and publicly available

889
declarations of financial interest by Commissioners and by their senior staff; and the immediate introduction of a systematic career management system for senior Commission staff, so that they rotate between responsibilities, as would be normal in any other Administration?
Does the Prime Minister agree that Jacques Santer should be relieved of all responsibilities with immediate effect, leave his office today and not return to it? While supporting the idea of those Commissioners not directly implicated by the report serving out their terms as an interim measure, can I specifically ask the Prime Minister to agree that there should be a total clear-out of the existing Commission and an entirely new set of Commissioners appointed?
Is there not an even bigger issue and more important challenge now, which is that it is time to change the whole culture that leads the European Commission and the European Union to try to do too much and to interfere too often? The report makes it clear that the attempts of the Commission to implement a humanitarian aid budget, a policy on tourism and a highly expensive programme of aid to the Mediterranean led to massive fraud and irregularities that the Commission were unable or unwilling to deal with. Is that not what comes of trying to do too much? Is not the wrong answer to recruit more staff and the right answer to reduce the Commission's range of activities?
This is surely the heart of the matter. Does the Prime Minister recognise that a strong case already exists, further strengthened by this report, for cutting back on what the Commission does and letting national Governments do it instead? Will he accept that there is now considerable evidence that, in almost every case, bilateral aid provides better value for money than EU aid programmes? Is there not a strong case for the EU not to have an aid programme, but for those resources to be spent instead by member states?
Would it not be better, instead of the Commission trying to run a fisheries policy for every country, for local or national fishing industries to have control over the stock of their fisheries, while recognising the traditional rights of other countries?
Should not the Commission be doing less in those and in other ways, so that it might deal more effectively with the real priorities of enlargement of the European Union and completion of the single market? Is it not time not only for a new contract, but a new direction?
Will the Prime Minister now come clean and give straight answers to some specific questions on events of the past few months? Will he confirm that, only yesterday, at the Economic and Finance Council, the Chancellor signed up to creation of a fraud investigation office that, far from being independent of the Commission, would come under the control of the Commission, in directorate F?
Will the Prime Minister confirm that yesterday—on the very day the report was produced—the Chancellor thought it right, at ECOFIN, to sign off the 1997 European Union accounts, whereas the European Parliament itself has refused to do so?
Will the Prime Minister now give the House an answer about what instructions and advice he gave to Pauline Green, the Labour leader of the Socialists in the European
890
Parliament, before Labour Members of the European Parliament let the Commission off the hook two months ago, after the revelations?
Why was the leader of the Socialist group, Pauline Green, to be seen celebrating that event with Jacques Santer, with champagne, as recorded on German television, rather doing her job of holding the Commission to account?
When the Prime Minister talks about what he will do, will he undertake, this time, to deliver some action instead of some talk? His spokesman has said that the Commission is like Lambeth council in the '80s, and the analogy is not a bad one—fraud and mismanagement resulting from a group of politicians trying to do too much and interfere too much, while the Labour party lets them do it. Is it not time to ensure not only that they clean up their act, but that the Commission is doing less, and doing it better?
The Prime Minister: I should start by reminding the right hon. Gentleman who it was who appointed Mr. Santer. Which country, under which Government, blocked each one of the alternative 15 candidates, until only Mr. Santer was left? It was the Government under whom he was a Cabinet member. If he disputes that, I should read what the former Prime Minister said at the time. He said:
"What matters is how competently and efficiently the new President is going to run the Commission. I have worked with Jacques Santer for … a number of years. I know his virtues and his capacity to carry matters forward."
The current Conservative finance spokesman—the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory)—when he was a Treasury Minister, said:
"We are happy with Mr. Santer and we wish him well. He shows every sign, based on his record, of running an efficient and effective Commission."
We have from the Conservative party itself this quote about Mr. Santer:
"He is the right man in the right place at the right time".
So let us have no more of trying to blame this Government for any shortcomings in the Commission. The Conservative party has something of a habit of managing to appoint compromise candidates who seem like a good idea at the time, but do not quite work out in the longer term.
As for the irregularities that the right hon. Gentleman says that the Labour Government have let happen, if he reads the report, he will see that the vast majority of irregularities happened before we were even elected—they happened when the Conservative party was in government. The fact is that the current proposals have been made precisely because a committee of inquiry was established under a motion tabled by the Labour group in the European Parliament.
The right hon. Gentleman made some other extraordinary comments. He was wrong, for example, in his comment on the Chancellor, who made it quite clear that there should be an independent fraud investigation office. Today, the right hon. Gentleman has also suggested a very big change of United Kingdom policy—that we should effectively change all the Commission's powers—and has said that he would withdraw entirely from the common fisheries policy. Is that current Conservative party policy? [Interruption.] Really—to withdraw from it altogether? Do Conservative Members

891
think that an attempt unilaterally to impose our policy would be of benefit to the United Kingdom, when it would all have to be negotiated with the very self-same European partners?
There is one question, and one question only: do we use this event as an excuse to indulge the anti-Europeanism of the current Conservative party, which wants to take us out of Europe entirely, or do we regard it as an opportunity to drive through a reform agenda, from a position of strength and influence, in Britain's and in Europe's interests? The worst thing that we could do, when we have the chance of reform, is to return to the disastrous days of Tory diplomacy.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Withdrawing from the common fisheries policy would be not only politically inept, but illegal under the treaties that we have signed. There is no denying the humiliation that the Commission has suffered over the past 24 hours or the significance of the victory achieved by the Parliament over fraud and mismanagement. Is it not clearly the case that relations between the Parliament and the Commission will never be quite the same again? Do not those events provide an opportunity for the reform of the European Union, the Commission and the Parliament, even to the extent of giving the Parliament the power to hold individual Commissioners to account, which the Labour Members of the European Parliament voted against earlier this year? Does the Prime Minister accept that we shall not achieve an open, accountable and transparent Europe merely by modifications or alterations, and that we need radical reform? Do we not need a set of clear political rules by which to manage the affairs of the European Union? Is not the case for a constitution for the European Union overwhelming?
The Prime Minister: It is important to get the reforms right. The reforms suggested by the Leader of the Opposition would be wholly detrimental to the interests of this country. We must be careful how we reform the European Commission and other European institutions. In the short term, measures connected with financial management and budgetary control are essential, and we can put them into effect quite quickly. We can also set up an independent fraud office almost immediately.
In the longer term, we must be careful about saying that the answer to everything is more power to the European Parliament. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that, as did the Leader of the Opposition to an extent. One of the strongest connections that we can have is with the Council of Ministers, which represents the democratically elected Governments of the European Union. We need to get the longer-term reforms right and the shorter-term reforms in place. We can do that now.
I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we should use this situation as an opportunity for reform. We can do that. The initial indications from other countries in the European Union are that as a result of what has happened, the reformers are very much in the ascendant.
Mr. Bill Rammell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest institutional blocks on reform is the fact that individual Commissioners cannot be disciplined and removed from office without the wholesale resignation of the Commission? Will he
892
also ponder on the fact that we have a weak leader of the European Commission because he was foisted on us by the previous Conservative Government? They took their decision not in the national interest, but because of the divisions in the Conservative party at the time. Is it not also the case that when there was misconduct at the highest levels of Government under the previous Administration in this country, we used that not as an argument to remove and dismantle that Government, but to bring about fundamental and effective reform? That is what should happen with the Commission and the European Union.
The Prime Minister: It is important that the next President of the Commission is someone of strength and real authority in the European Union. It is also important to look carefully at the terms under which Commissioners and senior officials in the bureaucracy are appointed. Those changes can be taken forward with considerable backing from all countries of the European Union.
Mr. John Major: Will the Prime Minister accept that, no doubt inadvertently, he misled the House on the subject of Mr. Santer's appointment? Mr. Santer was proposed by all the other members of the European Union before I accepted his appointment on behalf of this country.
On the substantive point of his statement, does the Prime Minister agree that the report throws up an institutional problem that has long existed in the European Union? The structure of the Union is such that the Commission, in theory, is accountable to the Council of Ministers. However, in practice, the irregularity with which the Council meets means that detailed supervision over many of the activities of the Commission is not undertaken properly, either by the Council of Ministers or, in any other sense, by the European Parliament.
Is not one of the most important reforms—it is many years overdue, I happily concede—clear-cut financial accountability by the Commission, ideally to the member states of the European Union or, if that is too cumbersome, to a body that itself reports directly to the member states for them to judge how effectively the accounts are being managed? The Prime Minister and his fellow Heads of Government have a tremendous opportunity, in light of the report, to effect such a reform. Simply replacing the existing Commissioners will not do. If he takes that opportunity for structural reform, he will deserve the support of both sides of the House.
The Prime Minister: I will deal with the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question and leave aside what will have to be disagreement on the first part. The institutional problems to which he drew attention have been there a long time, and there is a lot of merit in what he says, in two senses. There is a problem with detailed supervision because the Council, necessarily, meets irregularly. Secondly, we need a better system of financial accountability—that was one of the things that I set out in my statement. That better system of financial accountability—in the longer term—may well require some fundamental change to the way in which the present system works. The point that the right hon. Gentleman made is well worth looking at.
Reading back on much of what the right hon. Gentleman said at previous European Councils, one sees that it is true that this has been an issue for a long time,

893
and it would be misleading—on this point, although I do not accept that charge on the first point—if I were to say that this argument was not mounted by the previous Conservative Government. However, the big difference now is that I believe that a consensus for reform is beginning to form right across the European Union for some of the things for which the right hon. Gentleman argued but, at the time, was unable to get through. We can build the alliance for that now, but we can do so only if we see this as an opportunity, and not as an excuse to indulge in the Europhobia that some Conservative Members—although not the right hon. Gentleman—want.
Mr. Clive Soley: Is not what the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) said an example of the importance of this country having a positive approach to Europe? If we have a negative and divided approach, the problems of which we have been aware for some time will inevitably continue. We need a strong and independent check on fraud, and a body dealing with standards and privileges for Commissioners. Perhaps at this stage we ought to record our thanks to Pauline Green and Alan Donnelly for the lead that they have taken on this matter.
The Prime Minister: The committee of inquiry would not have been set up but for the motion, which came not merely from the Labour group, but from British Labour members of that group. Secondly, the committee of inquiry will make a further report shortly. We should implement that as well.
Mr. William Cash: The Prime Minister says that we must get the reforms right. Why can he not match the scale of this crisis with a statement dealing with the real problems facing this country? Is he prepared to go to the Berlin summit in a few days and make a proposal to the other Heads of Government to deal with the real questions, which relate to the loss of national democracy, accountability and the means of calling people to account? Is he prepared to table amendments at the intergovernmental conference that is due shortly to ensure that we get the balance right, and bring back to this House and to the other national Parliaments the democracy and accountability that the electors of Europe and this country truly deserve?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt get a lot of support for that view from his own side. He believes that Britain should not be a member of the European Union at all. The idea that if I adopted his position on Europe I would go to Berlin with great influence is absurd: I would go there with no influence at all. If he had his way, I would not even be invited to Berlin and to the conference.
Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I can take points of order only at the end of statements, and I have three statements to deal with today.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman caused quite enough difficulty for my predecessor without causing
894
difficulty for me as well. We have a fundamental disagreement about how to get the best for Britain out of Europe. He would do it by effectively taking Britain out of Europe; I believe that we should stay in Europe, fight for our interests as other countries do, and build consensus and alliances for the changes that we want.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will recollect that when he led the Labour delegation to Strasbourg, I was the Labour member on the Budget Committee and on the Budget Sub-Committee dealing with fraud. In the light of experience, especially of the Friuli earthquake compensation, does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister accept that it is very difficult to get politicians to have anything to do with fraud investigations into their own country, not least if they are Italians? No Italian MEP would have anything to do with the Friuli investigation. Does he agree that if an investigation is to be effective, it will have to be on a European, rather than on a country-by-country basis, and that there will have to be a strong, independent investigative team?
The Prime Minister: I will not pray my hon. Friend's remarks in aid for my new strategy for the Italian alliance. My hon. Friend is right to say that there is a problem with countries investigating their own institutions to determine whether fraud has occurred, but that is surely precisely the reason why we need an independent investigative fraud office, which is what we proposed and what I now believe will be accepted.
Mr. David Davis: In June and July last year, before the furore that led to yesterday's events, the Public Accounts Committee published a report criticising the fraud and waste in Europe. I called for an independent anti-fraud office, with teeth, to be set up. The Commission dismissed that as unnecessary. Does the Prime Minister accept that an anti-fraud office that will do the most to stop the rot at the centre of Europe will be on the Danish, Dutch and British model: independent in funding, appointment and activities, with absolute access to the information in all the institutions in Europe, and reporting back to European taxpayers through the Council of Ministers?
The Prime Minister: I do indeed believe that the body should be fully independent and allowed to carry out its functions in a way that establishes its own credibility, quite apart from anything else. That is the best thing for Europe. The standing of the European Commission has been damaged, quite rightly, and the best way for us to respond is to act now. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Public Accounts Committee made that proposal before, but the difference is that this time—I found this in the discussions in Petersberg a few weeks ago and, before that, in Vienna—it will find an echo right across Europe.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: I support what the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), the current Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said. I want to refer to events as they unfolded late last night. Is not it clear that the responses of Jacques Santer and Mrs. Cresson were wholly inadequate? The report found fraud, nepotism and mismanagement, and the

895
minimum response from those singled out should be not only immediate resignation, but no possibility of reinstatement.
The Prime Minister: I agree that the response was wholly inadequate, which is why we have called for the measures that I outlined today.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: Did the Prime Minister hear Sir Leon Brittan this morning, saying, without making any excuse, that one of the problems that the Commission had was that national Governments asked it to take on more than it was equipped to handle? Does he accept that if, in his new contract, he were to take the opportunity for reform by circumscribing the activities of the Commission and the pressure put on it by national Governments to do more, not as a cover for disengagement but as a genuine reform, he would carry the support of all parties in the House?
The Prime Minister: It is worth considering how we describe the functions of the Commission, although I suspect that even those who are most insistent that we remove some of its activities would want, in other circumstances, to start adding responsibilities. It is necessary to look root and branch at the activities we want the Commission to undertake and how it undertakes them. I hope that we can have a sensible debate across the House, because that would be in the interests of this country.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware that although the two British Commissioners were apparently cleared completely of any charge against them, they were collectively responsible for the work of the Commission? Will he take the opportunity to make one significant reform—which is entirely in his hands—and give the House of Commons the opportunity to vote for and appoint the British Commissioners in Brussels? I wrote to him on that point today and legislative provision for it is contained in the Crown Prerogatives (Parliamentary Control) Bill, which has support on both sides of the House and would be a significant way to spread power from the few—indeed from the individual—to the many of the House of Commons.
The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot offer my right hon. Friend any solace on that last point. In respect of his first point, I have looked at the report carefully and neither of the two British Commissioners was personally criticised or involved in any shape or form in the specific cases that were examined. Therefore, it would be wrong if we were to single out our Commissioners for blame in those circumstances.
Mr. David Curry: Is it not curious that the one word that did not pass the Prime Minister's lips was Parliament? As a democratically elected leader, does he not believe that he should discuss with his fellow Heads of Government how the European Parliament and national Parliaments can co-operate rather than compete to represent the people's interests in Europe and achieve genuine accountability? The Prime Minister mentioned a new President. Is he suggesting bringing
896
forward the appointment of the whole of the new Commission or merely appointing a temporary stop-gap between now and next January?
The Prime Minister: I have said that I believe that the President of the Commission should stand down as soon as possible and that we should put the new Commission in place as soon as possible. I am here, being accountable to Parliament through the statement I am giving, but when I described longer-term reform, I had in mind the clutch of issues that we raised in Cardiff during our presidency, which included the need for better co-ordination between the European Parliament and national Parliaments. Because Europe has those powers, the more scrutiny to which it is subjected and the better the debate between the European Parliament and the national Parliaments and Governments, the better it is for democracy. However, I would stress, as I said to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), that—I suppose probably all Prime Ministers say this—we must take account of the fact that the Council of Ministers is also a democratically accountable body, in the sense that each Prime Minister goes home and is accountable to his or her Parliament.
Mr. Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend rightly called for a root-and-branch reform of the Commission. Which institution of the European Union has the power to carry out such reform? If proposals are made for such reform, will they require a treaty to ratify them?
The Prime Minister: That depends on the nature of the reforms proposed, but we already have in the Amsterdam treaty some issues that were left over for the purpose of sorting out enlargement including, for example, the structure of the new Commission. In any event, we will consider some of those issues very carefully over the coming months. We should bind into that an opportunity to analyse some of the fundamental reforms that we can make. My right hon. Friend asks about the correct institution, but the correct beginning of the process of reform is with the Council of Ministers.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Prime Minister agree that the basic problem is the fact that those 20 little emperors in Brussels have massive powers? They are not highly qualified, experienced civil servants, subject to disciplines and controls, but redundant politicians who are faced with daily temptations on the basis of the ever-increasing powers given to Brussels. While a minority take the view that Europe would be strengthened if the Commission were to close its doors tomorrow, does the Prime Minister agree that we could improve the administration of, and spending controls in, Europe if powers such as agricultural management and foreign aid were returned to member states?
The Prime Minister: I do not believe that it would be in our interests to renegotiate the entire terms of European Union membership or of the institutions of the EU. I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman, and our disagreement will simply remain. In respect of the hon. Gentleman's very

897
harsh words about the Commissioners, I must say that I dug out an interesting statement that he made when Mr. Jacques Santer was appointed. The hon. Gentleman said:
"He is a quiet, decent, responsible person and we can congratulate John Major for accepting him."
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that one reason why he has had to come here today to talk about the latest crisis in the common market is the contradiction in the common market? For as long as it is based on the idea that nation states must scratch one another's backs to get what they want—that is roughly how the common market operates—the net result will be a democratic deficit. If that democratic deficit resulted in a European Parliament that could properly scrutinise fraud and all the rest of it, we would have a united states of Europe. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not want that, and nor do I.
Crises will therefore continue to confront the Prime Minister and everyone else in the common market. We must understand that no matter how well meaning the proposals are, the common market will continue to have one nation state scratching another's back to get what it wants. That is the problem that the whole common market must face.
The Prime Minister: If we consider the balance of our interest in being in or out of the European Union, we can see that it is fundamentally in our interest to be in it. It is in our interest in terms of jobs, trade, industry and influence in the world. Scratching each other's backs is one way of describing what happens, but there is a mutual self-interest in being part of the European Union. Whatever changes and reforms we make in the EU, I believe that Britain is better in than out.
Mr. John D. Taylor: I accept that Her Majesty's Government have a role in the appointment of the new President of the Commission and the nomination of two United Kingdom Commissioners. Have the Government any say, however, in the appointment of other Commissioners? In particular, have they any say in the reappointment of one retiring Commissioner who is the subject of a public inquiry into the disappearance of £50,000 in his own country?
Secondly, in so far as centre right politics in Europe is concerned, does the Prime Minister agree with new thinking in Europe that the Commission should be appointed by the European Parliament, not by national Governments?
The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that the European Commission should be appointed by the European Parliament, not national Governments, I do not agree. It is better that nation states appoint Commissioners.
In respect of the right hon. Gentleman's other point about the appointment of other Commissioners, of course we have a say. All Commission appointments are discussed at the Council of Ministers.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his proposals, which
898
seem exactly the right way in which to deal with a long-running problem? Our own Select Committee on European Scrutiny said in January:
"This is the fourth successive year in which the Court has not been able to provide assurance about the legality and regularity of the accounts of the general budget."
There remains the problem of the existing Commission and its collective responsibility. Without wishing to bash Europe in any way—there is no need; Europe is self-bashing these days—may I suggest that we should follow the practice of a president of a company that has failed because of incompetence, nepotism, selfishness and lack of leadership among its board? The board should go, and we should call in the administrator.
The Prime Minister: The board has effectively gone and it is right that the President of the Commission takes responsibility. My hon. Friend mentions that the European Scrutiny Committee has raised the issue of dealing with the problems of fraud; it is fair to say that this country and the various Committees of this House have been raising that issue for many years. My point is that we now have an opportunity in Europe to push that reform with the agreement of other countries. I do not know how it will be seen by our national media, but it is interesting that the media of other European countries see the whole issue as giving a fair wind to those who want to reform the system, once and for all.
Sir Michael Spicer: If we are facing institutional corruption and fraud, to borrow Sir William Macpherson's phrase, what proposals does the Prime Minister have for institutional reform?
The Prime Minister: The proposals I made in the statement for changes in the whole system of financial accountability, disciplinary proceedings in respect of Commission staff and awarding of contracts are all institutional changes, as is the establishment of an independent fraud office. In the longer term, we should look at ways in which we can introduce a better system of accountability between member states and the European Union. Those are all changes that we can look at and do.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Surely it is not only a matter of appointing a stronger President who has even greater authority—I think my right hon. Friend spoke about greater authority being established—but a matter of having democratic arrangements in place, so that whoever is there is controlled by those provisions. Should we not move to a system whereby the bodies that make decisions are the Parliaments—the European Parliament and the Parliaments of the nation states?
The Prime Minister: There is a case for looking at how to strengthen the link between national Parliaments and the European institutions, and that is what we proposed at Cardiff during our presidency. When I talk about the new President of the Commission having strengthened authority, I mean that we should appoint someone who is clearly a political heavyweight and who can make the European Commission into the sort of body that Europe needs. However, I am also suggesting, as we proposed at Cardiff at the conclusion of our presidency,

899
that the Commission operate under a specific mandate and statement of aims and mission from the Council of Ministers. That is the right place to start.
Sir Edward Heath: I agree with the Prime Minister's analysis of the situation and that his proposals are worth deep consideration. I would suggest only that when discussing those matters with the other countries, the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the danger of being told that the British just want to run everything. That is a real danger, which he has encountered once before.
The good side of the situation is that, for the first time, the European Parliament has been prepared to act and to act decisively. Things will never be the same again, because, in future, the Parliament will always take an attitude and carry it through. That has to be taken into account. I suggest that that gives every one of us a powerful argument to use in the forthcoming European elections, which is to say to our own electorate that the time has now come when they should use their vote to get the representation in the European Parliament that we ought to have, rather than having the smallest of the lot.
The Prime Minister: I agree entirely that it is right that we try to get representation in the European Parliament that will stick up for Britain's interests in a sensible way. It is also true that we are not telling the rest of Europe that we in Britain know how to run everything and everyone has to take our instructions. However, with a Government who believe in a strong and influential position for Britain in Europe, we now have the chance to build the alliance necessary to get the right changes in Europe. I say with respect to my predecessor as Prime Minister that, at the beginning of his premiership and before his party put the manacles on him, he tried to achieve that and to construct a different set of relationships in Europe. It is possible for us to do that now, but we shall succeed only if we recognise and say, right up front, that Britain is a key partner in Europe. We shall play our role as a partner in Europe and, in doing that, fashion a Europe of which this country can be proud.
Ms Jenny Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are to achieve the long-awaited reforms on fighting fraud and bringing greater financial accountability to the Commission, the work of the Court of Auditors should be given due recognition and that organisation should be given greater power? The Court of Auditors has for some time been pointing out what is wrong with the Commission in that respect.
The Prime Minister: There is certainly a case for ensuring that the Court of Auditors has all the powers it needs. However, I believe that the existence of the independent fraud investigation office will make the critical difference. If people can see that allegations are investigated by an independent body, it will give the whole system greater credibility. When the issues were first raised in the European Parliament, the European Labour group was absolutely right to call for an inquiry first and to make the necessary changes on the basis of
900
that inquiry. If we take this opportunity to put in place a wholly independent system, it will be far better and far more credible for the future.
Mr. Eric Forth: Is the Prime Minister arguing for the immediate reappointment of the British Commissioners? If so, is that not rather odd because they must bear some of the collective responsibility for what has gone on and for the Commission's failure to act in spite of many warnings and reports? Would not the Prime Minister and his Government be better advised to stay their hand and consider carefully what is in the best interests of the Commission and of the European Union when appointing a new Commission, rather than joining other countries in rushing to reappoint discredited Commissioners?
The Prime Minister: It would be strange if Britain responded to this issue by sacking the two British Commissioners, who have been subject to no personal criticism or investigation regarding the original areas of complaint. It would be odd if we did not reappoint our Commissioners and other countries—whose Commissioners were also subject to no criticism—did the opposite. That would not be in this country's interests.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Although it is quite understandable that the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), should seek to play down his key role in appointing the President of the Commission—Jacques Santer has, from day one, suffered from delusions of adequacy—does the Prime Minister accept that it is important to remember the role that the whistleblower played in revealing the fraud that has taken place? Greater provision for freedom of information in the European Commission's work and in dealings between each member state and the Commission, and greater protection for whistleblowers in the EC, should be part of the reform package.
The Prime Minister: I support any moves that make the system more transparent because transparency will aid accountability.
Mr. Charles Wardle: In several of his replies, the Prime Minister has asserted that the two United Kingdom Commissioners are free from blame—indeed, they were not mentioned in the report. Will the Prime Minister place in the Library the memorandums that show when the two British Commissioners first flagged up the mess that was under their noses—if they ever did so—before the balloon went up?
The Prime Minister: As I said in my statement, the two British Commissioners played a crucial part in bringing the issue to a head and in insisting that action was taken. Despite Conservative Members' comments, it would be very odd if we ultimately alighted upon the two British Commissioners—who were not subject to any personal criticism at all—as the ones who should pay the price.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: The selection and appointment of Commissioners is clearly key to the reform of the institution and is a matter for

901
national Governments. What will happen if the French Government wish to reappoint, or assert their right regarding, Mrs. Cresson?
The Prime Minister: Let us wait and see whether that is the case. As I said earlier, any appointments or re-appointments are discussed in the Council of Ministers.

Crime Reduction
4.18 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement on forthcoming Government initiatives to tackle crime. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides the foundation for our strategy on crime and disorder. The major reforms of the youth justice system for which it provides are currently being rolled out; and the House will be familiar with them. Two other major parts of the Act come into force in the next two weeks. From 1 April, effective local crime strategies to reduce crime and disorder must be in place in every area of the country. Those strategies are being drawn up by the more than 400 statutory partnerships established between the police and local authorities. They follow a six-month period of consultation between local communities, police and local authorities.
Clear and deliverable local targets are being set to reflect the priorities of each local community. Those targets will, for the first time, give local people the means to monitor how effective are the police and local authorities in reducing crime and disorder in their area. The early signs are that those local partnerships have invested considerable energy and enthusiasm. We all understand that they must now deliver.
I know that many hon. Members have been as concerned as I, the police and local authorities about the lack of effective remedies to combat serious and persistent anti-social behaviour in our communities. We have been determined to put that right. I am therefore pleased to tell the House that the new anti-social behaviour order under the Crime and Disorder Act will come into force and be available to the courts from 1 April—in only 15 days' time.
That civil order will be available against any individual over the age of 10 whose behaviour is such that the court judges it likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to others. In terms of the rules of evidence and the burden of proof, the order will be similar to a civil injunction. It will typically impose conditions restraining the behaviour of named individuals. Those may include a curfew or prohibition on going to particular areas or houses or contact with particular individuals. A breach of an anti-social behaviour order will be an arrestable offence punishable on indictment by up to five years in prison or by an unlimited fine.
Many police forces and local authorities are undertaking work to prepare for the start date of 1 April. I am today issuing detailed guidance about the use of the orders. Copies have been placed in the Library and are available in the Vote Office.
Last July, I announced our intention to begin a £250 million, evidence-based crime reduction programme to reverse the long-term upward trend in crime. It is the biggest programme of its kind ever undertaken in this country or abroad. I am pleased to say that the first projects under that programme will soon be under way.
On Thursday, I shall announce the first 11 provisional areas to benefit from a £30 million initiative in targeted policing to establish what works. That will give targeted support to some of the most innovative and dedicated police work that is taking place. The schemes will bolster the police in their dedicated work to tackle crime.

903
England and Wales have one of the worst records on burglary in the industrialised world, despite recent falls owing to excellent work by the police and local authorities. Early next month, therefore, we shall announce the 60 areas that are to benefit from the first phase of a £50 million anti-burglary initiative. Over three years, our scheme will cover more than 2 million homes in about 500 of the country's high crime areas. It builds on the previous Government's safer cities campaign, which I commend, and should have a major impact on property crime rates.
I turn now to the outline announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement last week. As he told the House, an additional £150 million is being allocated to boost support to crime prevention in areas in England where crime is highest. That brings the total funds for the crime reduction programme to more than £400 million.
The breakdown of the additional £150 million will be £20 million in the coming financial year, 1999–2000; £60 million in the next year; and £70 million in the third year, 2001–2002. In addition, £13 million will be available for projects in Scotland, £4 million for Northern Ireland and a further £3 million for Wales. A key focus of that additional programme will be investment in closed-circuit television systems and the infrastructure necessary to make these systems operate most effectively, including in housing estates, towns, bus and railway stations and car parks.
The evidence is clear. In the right context, CCTV can significantly reduce crime and disorder. It is like having permanently on the beat in particular streets or areas a number of police officers with eyes in the back of their heads and an incontrovertible record of what they have seen. When used properly, CCTV can deter criminals, greatly assist the police and others in bringing offenders to justice and help to reduce people's fear of crime.
Take vehicle crime, for example. It accounts for almost a quarter of all recorded crime and costs us £4 billion a year. In September, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a national target to reduce vehicle crime by 30 per cent. over the next five years. The additional resources for CCTV and related security improvements are a major step on the road to meeting that target. Among other things, the resources will be targeted at improving car park security. Home Office research in six cities provides firm evidence that the installation of CCTV in car parks leads to significant reductions in vehicle crime.
A project in Hull, for example, led to a fall in the theft of cars in the targeted car park of almost 90 per cent., compared with a reduction of only six per cent. in the city centre as a whole. Given that up to 30 per cent. of all such crime takes place in car parks, the potential pay-offs from this major new investment in security are enormous. Another project in Darlington has cut the number of vehicle offences in the town by more than 80 per cent.
Funding for the new initiative will be allocated through a competitive bidding process. We will invite bids for schemes in places to which the public have access. We expect roughly half the funding to be allocated to residential areas, although the precise split will depend on the quality of the bids received. Bids must be submitted through local crime and disorder partnerships. Successful
904
bids will be those which have the biggest impact in reducing crime, are part of a broader strategy and represent the best value for money.
The initiative will be managed jointly by the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, as part of the crime reduction programme, with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices discharging their separate responsibilities. The joint work of the DETR and the Home Office is significant. It represents co-ordinated government at both national and local level, and will complement existing programmes, such as the new deal for communities and the single regeneration budget. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I will issue a joint prospectus as soon as possible, which will set out guidance to partnerships on the submission of bids, including time scales and selection criteria.
The measures that I have announced today are part of a coherent strategy for giving local communities the means that they need to tackle crime, the fear of crime and disorder. I commend them to the House.
Sir Norman Fowler: I welcome the proposal to extend closed circuit television. The previous Conservative Government introduced that measure, and it is one of the reasons why crime has come down over the past five years. In opposition, we have pressed for its extension, so we welcome the announcement. I quarrel only with the Home Secretary's description of CCTV as being like having a number of police officers permanently on the beat in particular streets. I do not agree with the implication of that remark. We certainly need CCTV, but we need policemen on the beat, too. Our fundamental criticism of the Government is that they are cutting the number of police.
CCTV apart, the Home Secretary's statement is simply a re-announcement of old policies—as we had yesterday from the Secretary of State for Health. If anyone doubts that, they need only look back to the Prime Minister's speech at September's Labour party conference, in which he said:
"Because of the Government's policies, young children alone on the streets can be subject to curfews. From April, anti-social neighbours can be taken to court and punished. I announce today that we will be introducing measures to tackle the first of 20 worst crime hotspots around the country."
What is new is that the Home Secretary is claiming credit for extra spending on law and order. He boasts of £400 million over the next three years. If that is his claim, where will the money come from? Let the Home Secretary confirm that between 1979 and 1996–97, under the previous Government, there was a 3.3 per cent. average annual real increase in Government financing for the police. If the Government had kept to that average, they would be spending an extra £1.3 billion on the police over the next three years. It is a story with which we are familiar: the Government have taken a lot of money from one budget, namely, the police; they have given some of it to another budget, namely, crime prevention; but, most of all, they have kept the change.
On the anti-social behaviour orders, let me ask the Home Secretary two questions. First, can he give the House an assurance that the orders, which we have supported, do not offend, as is claimed by some, against the European convention on human rights? We have already seen one example this week of how that may have

905
happened—contrary, I suggest, to overwhelming public opinion in this country. No one wants to see another such example.
Secondly, as the Prime Minister said, the child curfew orders were a central part of the Government's strategy. Can the Home Secretary confirm that, after six months, no local authority has applied for such an order?
Lastly, the Home Secretary mentioned targeted policing—hotspot policing, as the Prime Minister described it. The idea comes from the United States, together with so-called zero tolerance policing. It has been very successful there in reducing crime, but I emphasise that it has been accompanied by a determined drive to recruit more police in New York and throughout the United States. Surely the trouble with the Government's approach is that they are presiding over a declining police service in this country. We increased police numbers by more than 15,000 during our period in office, but police strength is now coming down in this country—down in the cities and down in country areas. Does that not mean that the full potential to reduce crime in this country will not be realised under the Government's policies?
Mr. Straw: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to welcome what I have said about closed circuit television—and well he might, because the previous Government invested £38.5 million in closed circuit television over four years whereas we are investing £150 million over three years into such crime reduction programmes. We are not taking that money from the police.
The right hon. Gentleman said that, under the previous Administration, budgets rose by an average of 3.5 per cent. That took place at a time of much higher inflation. Police budgets are due to increase by 3 per cent. during the next year and, in other areas, budgets are due to increase by 3.5 per cent.
As for accusing us of cutting police numbers, that is an extremely dangerous line for the right hon. Gentleman to follow. Although it is true that the number of police rose in the 1970s under a Labour Administration and in the 1980s under the Conservative Administration, after 1992 the Conservative Administration presided over a serious decline in police numbers. Notwithstanding the fact that they had promised 6,000 more police officers, they delivered 450 fewer police officers in that five-year period. As for the past two years, when the numbers have decreased, we were following the previous Conservative Administration's spending plans, with only this difference: we put in a bit more money than they did.
I see the right hon. Gentleman smirking about that, as Conservatives always did when they broke their promises, but Conservative Members need to remember that they lost office so comprehensively because they broke their promises.
The right hon. Gentleman says that there was nothing new in the statement except the increased funding for closed circuit television. There was a great deal that was new, including the guidance—which I have published today—on the use of anti-social behaviour orders, which has been the subject of a great deal of consultation with local authorities, the police and others. I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman now welcomes the use of
906
those orders, because we received a mixed message during the legislation's passage through Parliament. I believe that one or two Conservative Front Benchers welcomed them, but the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) described them as "dangerously unworkable" and the Conservative central office information simply dismissed them as "a gimmick". The orders will be workable, and they should make a great deal of difference. [Interruption.] I shall deal with child curfew orders in a moment.
I enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman's question about the European convention on human rights. There is always space for people to undergo a Pauline conversion on matters such as human rights, and we greatly welcome the Conservatives' subscribing to the convention. The answer is that I signed a clear statement to the House, saying that we believed that the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act were compliant with the European convention.
Sir Norman Fowler: Believed?
Mr. Straw: Of course. It is a statement based on the best opinion that we received. I cannot take account of all the possibilities that may occur in Strasbourg. It is our best belief, and it has never been gainsaid.
On child curfew orders, the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that no local authority in England or Wales has applied for such a curfew, [Interruption.] but as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is pointing out, the equivalent has been used in Scotland. When I went to Yardley in Birmingham before the election, I was asked for such orders to be used there.
This is not an exercise in central government, whereby we tell local authorities and local communities what to do. We are responding to their requests for such orders. It is up to local communities to use them. It is possible that, owing to the success of all our other reforms of the youth justice system, they may not be needed, but if they are needed, they are there.
Mr. Chris Mullin: I suggest to my right hon. Friend that if there is one lesson that we should learn from the 1980s, it is that simply pouring more resources into the police is not the right way to deal with crime. The real issue is how those resources are used. My constituents will welcome the new measures that he has announced today, and will watch with great interest to see how they work. What assurance can my right hon. Friend give the House that the resulting reduction in crime will be properly audited, and that figures will not be massaged by some local police forces in order to give a better impression than is warranted by reality?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the welcome that he gives. He is right to say that we must be as careful about the expenditure of resources on law and order as about that on other areas. I hope that we may be able to get beyond the rather low level of debate offered by the Opposition, whose only concern now appears to be inputs, rather than outputs—notwithstanding the fact that they sought to elevate the debate on every other public service to the level of outputs.
The document entitled "Reducing Offending" shows that there are many cost-effective ways of reducing crime. For example, the research evidence from the safer cities

907
programme initiated by the previous Administration shows that money invested in burglary prevention projects produces a rate of return five times higher than money invested in additional police officers. Chief constables know that, which is why, when they are offered a choice about how to spend their money, they often do not put it directly into expenditure on more officers, but invest it instead in IT systems and additional civilians.
My hon. Friend asked me to ensure that the reductions in crime are properly audited. I should tell him that a major exercise is being undertaken by the research and statistics directorate of the Home Office to lend greater credibility to the crime statistics across the country. Many police forces already ensure the highest levels of integrity in those data. Some do not, and we are taking them to task.
Mr. Bob Russell: The thrust of the statement is to be welcomed, as is the fact that the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are working together. Perhaps it would be better still if other Departments were brought in—the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health are two obvious examples.
Can the Home Secretary tell the House how much of the doubled crime that was experienced under the 18 years of Conservative Government will be eaten into by the measures that he announced today? When does he expect us to get back to the 1979 level that the Conservative Government inherited?
There is concern that the funding of the partnerships depends on local authorities and police forces working in partnership. Does the Home Secretary agree that local authorities are already underfunded, and that the measures that he has announced this year will lead to the police being underfunded? Although it is true that the number of police officers rose under the total period of the previous Conservative Government, it has fallen in the last few years. Does the Home Secretary agree that the number of police officers now is less than it was when he launched his "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" campaign?
I am interested in the crime reduction programme. Can the Home Secretary give an assurance that effective projects which started under the safer cities programme will continue and not be shelved?
Finally, is the Home Secretary seriously trying to tell people that CCTV cameras can replace the bobby on the beat?
Mr. Straw: To take the hon. Gentleman's last point first—which picks up a question asked by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)—no one is suggesting that CCTV should replace officers on the beat; rather, we are suggesting that it complements their work. CCTV has been successful in reducing crime in town centres and housing estates because it is literally like having a police officer on the beat with eyes in the back of his or her head and it provides an incontrovertible record of what has happened. CCTV is enormously important in providing good evidence for the police for prosecutions, in acting as a significant deterrent—and, as the hon. Gentleman will have seen if he has been in control rooms—in enabling the police to deploy their resources far better than ever before, for example where disturbances occur late on a Friday or a Saturday night. The two are therefore complementary.
908
A choice has to be made at the margin about how the additional resources should be spent, and we do not resile from that. Such choices must be made on the basis of the best evidence. The hon. Gentleman—like my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—picks up on the Conservative Government's record. It should be borne in mind that, when police numbers rose in the 1980s, we saw the largest rise in crime that Britain has ever experienced. We should consider whether there is the direct relationship between the number of police officers and the level of recorded crime that Opposition Members insinuate.
We accept that better co-ordination with other Departments is needed. The hon. Gentleman will know that health and education departments are partners at a local level in the crime and disorder partnerships, and we are working closely with the other Departments at a national level.
The hon. Gentleman asked me rashly to name the day when crime will be back to the 1979 level. I have not promised to do so, so I shall not take up his offer. However, I have been set the challenging target by the Prime Minister to bring vehicle crime down by 30 per cent. during the next five years, and I have been promised an imaginative career move if I fail.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it was futile niggling of the kind that we have just heard from the Tory Front-Bench spokesman that led to the Conservative vote in my constituency falling to 4,000 at the general election, and to the total absence of Conservative councillors from Manchester city council? That is why my constituents look to my right hon. Friend to deal with the serious problems of crime from which they have been suffering all these years.
We welcome what my right hon. Friend said about burglaries, CCTV and so on, but my constituents will be looking most to the effect of the anti-social behaviour orders. Day after day I receive letters and approaches from constituents about rowdy gangs and abominable neighbours, including named people who move from street to street, causing havoc as they go.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is right in saying that we will judge my right hon. Friend's announcements by the effects. Is he aware that we shall look to those effects to take away the terrible misery from which ordinary people suffer day after day as a result of such offences?
Mr. Straw: In place of a futile niggle, perhaps I may be allowed a sycophantic difference of emphasis from my right hon. Friend: surely the real reason for the fall in the Conservative vote in Gorton was the excellence of my right hon. Friend's reputation. Knowing my right hon. Friend as I do, I am surprised that there were even 4,000 Tory voters.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his welcome of the anti-social behaviour orders which are built partly on the experience of the people in Manchester and Salford. I have visited many of the areas that have suffered in that way. I know that Manchester city council is one of the authorities that are preparing themselves for the introduction of the orders. It has one of the best records in the country of taking out injunctions against its

909
own tenants, but the orders are important because they will be available for use against people regardless of housing tenure.
My right hon. Friend is also correct that people are waiting for the beneficial effects of the orders. Their success will depend on the enthusiasm of the police and the local authorities in applying for orders and, in some cases, on the courage of local people in making applications to the police in the first place. It will also depend on how far the judiciary—magistrates and the Crown courts—are alert to the need to make those orders. I am pleased that we have had discussions with the Magistrates Association as well as with the higher judiciary to ensure that they understand the emphasis that the House has placed on the effectiveness of the orders.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: Talking of Pauline conversions, will the Home Secretary accept that I will not unduly delay the House by reminding it of the number of times in the first year of this Parliament that he pooh-poohed the effectiveness of closed circuit television because the Chancellor would not give him any money? Now that the Chancellor has given him some money, he is all in favour of closed circuit television. I hope that this is the real Home Secretary.
The right hon. Gentleman talked of outputs. Will he tell the House what reduction in burglary, car theft and anti-social behaviour he wants to achieve, and over what period, in order to feel that that use of the money has been justified, and that it has been money well spent in terms of law and order?
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to tweak me on that point, but I did not pooh-pooh the value of closed circuit television at all. Indeed, I have been through all the times that I used to raise the matter with him when he sat on the Front Bench, and I raised it time after time. I could not come up with the money—here, he must take the admonition—because we did not have the money; we were following the Conservatives' spending plans and no money had been allocated. That is absolutely true and he knows it.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me what reduction in crime we anticipate. We are setting a national target for reduction in vehicle crime of 30 per cent., which is a substantial reduction and something on which we as a Government will be judged. In particular, I will be judged on that, especially if I fail, although I do not suppose that anybody will notice if I succeed. We have set a national target partly because the factors affecting vehicle crime often involve national policy—for example, the design of vehicles and co-operation in and co-ordination of policies by car park groups—to which vehicle crime is directly susceptible.
Burglary and robbery are much more susceptible to local strategies, which is why we have not set national targets. We are inviting local police and local communities to set those targets, and they are doing so, but we shall also judge the effectiveness of the individual programmes within the crime reduction programme—for example, that to reduce burglary—very carefully. If they
910
are not working according to the target that has been set for the individual programme we will withdraw the money from similar programmes.
Mr. Robin Corbett: May I tell my right hon. Friend that communities all over my constituency and the rest of Birmingham will welcome the anti-social behaviour orders, which come into force from 1 April, alongside other more positive measures to encourage young people to live more fulfilling lives? However, does he agree that the critical ingredient in combating crime in our communities is not the number of police officers or, indeed, the level of resources that they have, important as they are, but the active involvement of people within communities in retrieving the safety and security that they have had stolen from them?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. If we do not have the communities on side, no amount of police officers or CCTV will solve the problem of disorder. Moreover, and to emphasise the point, we know that, where there are high levels of incivility in an area, the chance of people suffering, for example, a violent crime is four times greater than in other similar areas. If we deal with disorder, we can cut a great deal of crime.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: The Home Secretary seemed to come perilously close to suggesting that there was an inverse relationship between the number of police officers and the incidence of crime. In fact, the opposite is the case: there is a positive relationship between the number of police officers and the ability not only to prevent but to solve crimes.
Does the Home Secretary accept that much of what he said will not translate readily into provision for rural areas, where the incidence of closed circuit television cameras and the like will inevitably be low? It is the number of police officers that is instrumental. In Cambridgeshire, for example, only by maintaining the increased levels that have been accompanied by a substantial reduction in crime over the past couple of years can we achieve a further reduction.
Mr. Straw: Many rural areas have done very well out of the Budget increases that I announced earlier. For instance, Cambridgeshire—part of which the hon. Gentleman represents—has been allowed a 4.5 per cent. spending increase in the next year. That is more than adequate to maintain the number of police officers and to secure investment, especially given the efficiency savings we expect the police to make not as a result of the number of officers, but in a number of other areas in which the service has not been efficient in the past.
I did not suggest for a second that there was an inverse relationship between the number of police officers and the rise of crime under the last Administration. What I drew to the attention of thinking Conservatives, of whom I believe the hon. Gentleman to be one—[Interruption.] He went to a good school, same as me. Anyway, what I drew to the attention of thinking Conservatives was the fact that there was not necessarily a direct relationship. We have learned something from the Conservatives about the efficiency of public services; they seem to have forgotten what they learned about the same thing when they were in office.
Dr. George Turner: I welcome the general measures announced by my right hon. Friend,

911
but may I probe him beyond the distribution of cash? As he will know, my constituency, consisting of hundreds of square miles, is one of the most rural; but it has been at the forefront in using closed circuit television cameras in urban areas, which has helped the police to be more effective elsewhere. Does my right hon. Friend accept that his financial measures must address the deprivation in some of those urban areas? Does he also accept that, although crime may appear to be lowish in such counties as Norfolk, peaks of crime are hidden in the general average, which require every bit as much attention as crime in urban areas?
Mr. Straw: I accept what my hon. Friend says, not least because I visited his constituency about 18 months ago. On a wet Friday evening in King's Lynn, 700 people turned up to hear me speak about law and order, which suggests either that they were very worried about the situation or that there was nothing else to do in King's Lynn. I trust that it was the first, not the second.
As I saw during that visit, there are indeed serious peaks of crime in some areas, which are disguised by the overall figures. I am pleased to say, however, that next year Norfolk will have a 5.5 per cent. increase in resources. That reflects our view of the importance of giving proper resources to semi-rural counties such as Norfolk.
Mr. Edward Garnier: I welcome the use of anti-social behaviour orders in the criminal justice system. Such orders, however, are not akin to civil injunctions, as the Home Secretary said; they are part of the criminal justice system. Is the right hon. Gentleman content that it is constitutionally appropriate for the police or applicant local authorities to play an active part in the sentencing process? Only they may consent to a reduction in the two-year period of an anti-social behaviour order, as the right hon. Gentleman will see if he looks at his own Act. Does he think it appropriate for the police and applicants to be party to sentencing? It would surely be more appropriate for that to be entirely in the gift of the courts.
On a previous occasion, the Home Secretary was kind enough to admit that the Conservative Government had done great things with regard to the introduction of closed circuit television. Will he, as a Labour politician, join me, as a Conservative politician, in kicking the back end of Oadby and Wigston Liberal Democrat borough council, and in inviting it to apply to his Government—it refused to apply to mine—for CCTV funding for the hard-pressed people of the borough?
Mr. Straw: I am always happy to take part with Conservatives in the re-education of the Liberal Democrats—on CCTV and many other subjects. Of course, one of the reasons why all of us—I hope—are sensitive to the issue of anti-social behaviour and to problems of law and order is because of the constituency link. I make that point just in case anyone is thinking otherwise.
I acknowledge and commend the previous Government's work, for example, on safer cities. There is little point in calling into question the record of a previous Administration where we support it. I do not intend to do that.
912
I do not accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman says about the structure of the anti-social behaviour orders. The only point where, as it were, the applicant—the local authority or police—could play a part in what he describes as the sentencing process under the orders, is where there is an application to the court to lift the order within the two-year minimum period, but the order itself is not a sentence of the court. A sentence of the court arises only if there is a breach of the order. That is an arrestable offence. A breach of an order will be dealt with in the normal way for either-way offences. The police and local authorities will play no direct part in the sentence that either the magistrates or the Crown court judge hands down.
Mr. David Taylor: May I in the warmest terms congratulate the Home Secretary on his statement on crime reduction? I do so as a member of the Magistrates Association, as former chair of the North-West Leicestershire Safer Communities Forum, a forerunner of the statutory partnerships, and as chair of the Ashby-de-la-Zouch CCTV scheme, which installed cameras in that town.
It is true that the existence of cameras can have a positive effect. Does my right hon. Friend nevertheless accept that there is a need to look at the dispersal of crime that can arise with CCTV, and to tackle peripheral issues such as improving street lighting in car parks, so that the quality of the image that is produced by the camera is satisfactory? Does he accept that local authorities that are cash strapped—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. That is far too long. Mr. Straw.
Mr. Straw: I accept what my hon. Friend says. Let me make it clear that not all the money need be spent directly on CCTV. As my hon. Friend says, if CCTV is to be effective, other things have to be done as well—for example, improvements in street lighting and action to ensure that crime is not displaced. One of the good things about the latest round of cash for CCTV is that it will be available, for example, on housing estates to which some acquisitive crime may have been displaced by CCTV in town centres.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Home Secretary ensure that rural areas get their fair share of any money that is available? The money should go not just to areas such as Longridge in my constituency, to finance CCTV and other schemes, but to rural parts—of the right hon. Gentleman's constituency; of Lancaster, Burnley and Pendle; and all round our area. Rural areas need their fair share of the money as well.
I know that the Home Secretary has a reputation for being a hard Home Secretary and I believe him to be so.
Mr. Straw: What?
Mr. Evans: It is a compliment. Having that sort of reputation, the Home Secretary may not be popular with many Labour Members, but may I encourage him not only have a reputation for being hard, but to be hard where he has not been so far? Boot camps have proved very successful. Will he look again at that idea? A rigorous

913
and firm regime is the only language that some thugs can understand. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider establishing a boot camp in the north-west.
Mr. Straw: I did not hear the first consonant when the hon. Gentleman said "hard", and various alternative expressions were running through my mind. I accept, of course, what he said about the importance of rural areas being covered by the provisions: it is a mistake to believe that only urban areas have high crime levels. Although crime is disturbing wherever it occurs, a sudden upsurge of serious disorder or acquisitive crime in a peaceful rural area can be very disturbing. I shall certainly give an undertaking to ensure that the money is used across the country. Which areas benefit from it will depend on the quality of bids. I hope that Ribble Valley district council—to name one council—will be able to make a high-quality bid.
I feel that the debate on the precise form of detention, punishment and treatment of young offenders is not served simply by attaching to it the label "boot camp". None of the so-called boot camps in the United Kingdom, whether at Thorn Cross or at Colchester, bears any relationship to the boot camps that I have seen in the United States, which are of a totally different order.
We need tough and effective punishments, and a range of punishments. We have kept going the so-called boot camp at Thorn Cross because it has turned out to be successful. I closed the facility at Colchester only because of its cost, not because of a judgment about its effectiveness.
Mr. Tony McWalter: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the substantial resources that he has been able to extract from the Chancellor to achieve the laudable aims that he has described. I should like also to associate myself with the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in commending the general drift of the Home Secretary's strategy. However, may I tell my right hon. Friend that it is difficult to give the document unqualified support when it has been impossible to read the detailed guidance on anti-social behaviour orders? Although I have seen in his hand a copy of the document—it looks very nice—copies are not in the Vote Office as he said they were. When my right hon. Friend and I last had a little discussion on these issues—when a world cup football match was on—we were almost the only two hon. Members in the Chamber. On that occasion, too, the guidelines were not available.
My query concerns the possibility of people maliciously accusing other people of behaving anti-socially, and of insufficient resources or detection methods being available to ensure that such malicious claims are rooted out. I have had several such cases in my
914
own constituency. I should be grateful if the guidelines can be made readily available, so that we may assess whether those points have been dealt with.
Mr. Straw: If—as I now appreciate—the document is not available in the Vote Office, I can only apologise to my hon. Friend and to the House. I shall take action to find out why it is not available.
There is a very powerful filter in the body of the Act itself to ensure that malicious claims are not made. It is not possible for any individual who feels that he or she has suffered serious anti-social behaviour directly to make an application for an anti-social behaviour order. An application would have to be made by the chief officer of police in the area or the chief executive of the local authority—and I am sure that they will take very careful action to filter out malicious cases. If they fail to do so in any individual isolated case, we shall expect—I believe that it will happen—the courts to filter out such claims as are made.
Mr. Martin Linton: Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that many people have noticed the success of his policies and that, certainly in Battersea, police and many of the community partners in crime reduction strategies will greatly welcome today's announcement? The Opposition's obsession with what they call a declining police service is unfounded, and no one but Opposition Front Benchers would call a 0.5 per cent. fluctuation in police numbers a service decline. Yesterday, we even had the spectacle of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) describing as a decline in police numbers what turned out to be a reduction of four police officers that was more than offset by an increase in seven police staff.
Not only are the Conservatives' claims not true: they are not relevant. There is no evidence of a direct relationship between the incidence of crime and police numbers. As the document "Reducing Offending", to which my right hon. Friend referred, says, what really affects crime statistics is effective policing, targeted on criminals and victims.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right. Reports by the Audit Commission and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary show that there is no direct relationship between the gross number of police officers and the number of officers available for operational duties. One of the complaints of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, who are all experienced former senior professional police officers, is that while the overall number of officers has risen in recent years, the number available for operational duties has stayed static or declined. That has to change. That will be achieved through better management, better deployment, often civilianisation, the use of information technology and getting a grip—as the previous Administration failed to do—on the fact that early retirements and excessively high levels of sickness make a difference to whether the police are effective on the ground.

Millennium Compliance
5.6 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I am announcing today the results of the fifth quarterly review of progress in tackling the millennium bug for Government Departments, agencies and key parts of the wider public sector. I have arranged for all completed questionnaires to be placed in the Libraries of the House and published on the internet. To allow people to see at a glance how well individual Departments and agencies are doing, I shall also be publishing tables illustrating their performance against a number of key criteria.
Good progress continues to be made by central Government as a whole. The majority of bodies covered by the exercise are near to completing their correction programmes. Almost half the Departments and agencies have completed their work on business-critical information technology systems, which means that the problems have been fixed, the fix has been tested and the system is back in operation. Progress on business-critical embedded and telecommunications systems is equally good. On that basis, we expect that most Departments will have finished work on their business-critical systems by July. Ten bodies—although admittedly smaller ones—report that have already completed all their correction work on critical and non-critical systems. I am also pleased by the continued progress of the Department of Social Security, the Employment Service, the Department of Health and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Costs remain relatively stable. The total estimate for central Government Departments and agencies stands at just over £420 million—a 2.5 per cent. increase on the previous quarter.
I am pleased to report that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Inland Revenue and the Medicines Control Agency, which I named in my previous statement, have made significant improvements over the past quarter.
Slippage continues to be apparent in other cases, although most are minor adjustments of a month or two in the first half of this year. However, I have a number of specific concerns about departmental programmes, including that of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, although I acknowledge the unique difficulties that it faces in operating around the world. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary assures me that the serious resources that the FCO is devoting to its year 2000 programme and relevant system upgrades will ensure that it is year 2000 compliant worldwide in time. I have written to colleagues to express those concerns and will continue to monitor progress closely.
The armed forces continue to make good progress in dealing with the bug. The Ministry of Defence expects that the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force front-line units will be compliant by late summer. However, there remains no room for slippage in the large and complex defence programme. I am providing more detailed information on the Ministry of Defence's programme in a separate section of the tables that I am publishing today.
I am pleased to report that work is also now well under way on business continuity planning. Departments are looking at the impact of possible bug-related failures—
916
in their systems and in key organisations in their supply chain—on their ability to continue to deliver key services. Most Departments and agencies have initial business continuity plans in place. Those that do not are required to produce one as a matter of urgency. Those initial plans will be developed and tested over the year. Details of progress in developing initial plans are available in the published returns.
All but five Departments and agencies have had some form of additional assessment of their programmes, either by internal auditors or by external experts. Of the remainder, all have plans in place for such assessments.
In the wider public sector, the returns for British Nuclear Fuels, the BBC, National Air Traffic Services, London Transport, the Bank of England, the Post Office and the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland show that all are continuing to make good progress. In my last statement, I expressed concern about the Environment Agency's rate of progress in tackling the bug in its business-critical embedded systems. I am pleased to report that this work is now 90 per cent. complete, and is on course to be finished by the end of June.
Progress across the police service is mainly satisfactory, although a few forces have completion dates for business-critical systems in the second half of 1999. However, progress on business continuity planning is disappointing. Twenty-seven of the 46 forces in England and Wales do not yet have an initial business continuity plan in place.
The Association of Chief Police Officers' millennium co-ordination committee is monitoring progress closely, and its chairman has written to chief constables recently to raise issues of concern. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary is continuing to review individual forces' year 2000 arrangements and identify areas for improvement. A similar process is taking place in Scotland.
The returns for the fire service in England and Wales show an improvement over the previous quarter. All brigades expect to complete work by the end of the year, although a few do not expect to complete work until the final quarter of 1999, allowing little room for slippage. Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate will continue to monitor progress closely and offer brigades advice. Brigades in Scotland are moving forward on a similar time scale.
The results of the most recent NHS quarterly review in England were announced on 16 February. The number of organisations reporting good or satisfactory progress was slightly down on the previous quarter, at 91 per cent. However, 98 per cent. of NHS trusts and heath authorities met the NHS executive's deadline of 31 December 1998 for having identified and resourced effective solutions for all year 2000 problems that could pose a threat to patient safety. The estimated cost of remedial year 2000 work remains at about £320 million. The NHS in Scotland and Wales is also making satisfactory progress.
The Audit Commission's latest analysis of progress across local government in England and Wales shows that the situation as a whole is slowly improving, but that much more work remains to be done. The new teams in Government offices, announced by the Prime Minister on 25 January, are working with the Audit Commission and the Local Government Association to help authorities, particularly those that are furthest behind, to prioritise their programmes and to access advice and good practice.

917
The picture in Scotland is similarly mixed, and I am pleased that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Accounts Commission for Scotland are progressing work with Scottish local authorities.
Over the last quarter, we have taken steps to put in place a rigorous and independent assessment programme for those elements of the public sector that are key elements of our national infrastructure. These assessments will include the NHS, local government, emergency services, the criminal justice system and the payment of benefits and will reinforce our existing monitoring arrangements. This will give us one of the most—if not the most—objective and comprehensive monitoring regimes in the world. I shall report on progress in my next quarterly statement. From June, I shall be backing that up with more regular reports to Parliament.
With less than 300 days to go until the century date change, it is important that Departments and agencies make the fullest and best use of the remaining time available. Looking at the overall picture, the vast majority are well placed to finish work on business-critical systems in good time. However, in a few areas, a concerted effort is required to ensure that the remaining work is finished to time. We will be also placing an ever-increasing emphasis on business continuity planning as we move through the rest of the year.
The Government will continue to lead by example, by making information on our progress in beating the bug regularly available to the House, and to the public.
Mr. Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the President of the Council for her statement on the findings of the Government's fifth quarterly review of progress—or should I say slippage?—in tackling the millennium bug. Will she confirm that it describes the situation as it is today and is not an historical statement referring to forms filled in by Departments many weeks ago?
Today' s announcement shows that the Government are breathtakingly complacent in the face of their own failure. While they continue to fail to meet their own previously published deadlines, they have the gall to preach to the private sector on the subject. They inherited a golden legacy of action and preparation from the Conservatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) had set a deadline for all Departments to be millennium compliant by the end of December 1998.
The previous report showed that the United Kingdom had slipped from first to eighth position under the Labour Government. Can the President of the Council confirm that the United Kingdom is once again leading the field in year 2000 preparedness, as it was in May 1997?
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), when Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said:
"I am now able to confirm that all Departments and agencies have work in hand and scheduled for completion in time—many by December 1998, a majority by March 1999 and a small number later in 1999."—[Official Report, 27 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 1104.]
Today, in March 1999, we learn that fewer than half the Departments have even completed their work on business-critical systems—what a disappointing outcome—and that only 10 Departments met the Conservative deadline of completing all millennium compliance work by December 1998.
918
The President of the Council promised three months ago that all Departments and agencies would have business continuity and contingency plans in place by the end of January. Today, she has told us only that most Departments have them in place. What is the reason for the failure to meet that deadline? Will she ensure that the plans, once produced, are made available for public scrutiny and placed in the Library?
With the millennium fewer than 300 days away, has the time not come for more targeted reports? I welcome the announcement that there will be more frequent reports. Will the President of the Council expand on the nature of those reports, especially in the light of her statement, which gives a worrying picture of the state of preparedness in the police and fire services and in part of the health service?
Will the Government offer a millennium guarantee, that everything in the public sector will work properly on 1 January 2000? If things go wrong in the public sector, who is to be held to account? Will the President of the Council publish a list of Ministers and officials who will be in line for the plaudits or criticisms arising from their Y2K preparedness?
Who is to be held accountable in local government? Will the President of the Council arrange for all critical systems to have live testing before the millennium, as was suggested by several organisations, including the Federation of Small Businesses? Will she advise private business and individuals how much they should spend on their contingency plans? It is one thing to draw up a plan, but another to decide, on a risk assessment, how much should be invested in it.
In April 1998, the Prime Minister said:
"By treating this as an emergency we can make Britain one of the world's best prepared countries."
Can we be satisfied that the Government are really treating this as an emergency, when the statement has been delayed by a fortnight and relegated to third priority in today's business? I assure the House that Her Majesty's Opposition will continue to hold the Government to account and responsible for Y2K failure, if and when it comes.
Mrs. Beckett: Oh, dear. I had hoped that there was a vague chance of an intelligent response from the Conservative Front Bench, but that was clearly a mistake.
I will begin where the hon. Gentleman ended. He asked who should be held to account if anything goes wrong, and I will tell him. I am not in the business of dishing out blame, and I pay tribute to the work done by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor). He did a great deal—although nothing like enough, because his Government colleagues showed no interest in his work. We picked up not a golden legacy, but a neglected baton and trebled, at least, the work that was being done. If anybody will be held to account, it will be those who were in government in 1994, 1995 and 1996, when the issues should first have been dealt with.
With the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, nobody in the Conservative party wanted to know. If we are going to dish out blame, it belongs to the Conservative Government. We did not come to power until May 1997, and anybody who knows anything about the subject knows that that was very late in the day to tackle the issues.

919
Having listened to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), I can conclude only that he knows nothing about the subject. I am surprised, because he has asked some moderately intelligent questions about it in his time, but he clearly has not listened to any of the answers. He made the throwaway remark that Britain had slipped from first to eighth in the international league tables, but, if he knew anything about the subject and had read any of the answers that he had received from us or anyone else, he would know that those league tables are worthless. If a country that knows little or cares nothing about the issue responds by saying that it is doing well—because it does not recognise the problem—it soars up the league table. Everybody knows that the league tables are worthless.
I share the regret of the hon. Member for Christchurch that not all Departments have, as instructed, business continuity plans in place. Most have, and those that have not are being actively pursued. As for advice for the private sector, I thought that the Conservatives were against the nanny state. It is not for me to tell those in the private sector what judgment they should make about their preparedness or what they should spend. It is for us to urge them to take the necessary action, and that we are doing.
We have considered the suggestions that have been made for live testing, including those from someone on the Conservative Benches whom I respect, the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson). However, such testing would consume enormous amounts of time and resources and would be a diversion from work on tackling the issues. For that reason, it has not been pursued by the Government or by most other organisations that have studied the matter.
I have told the hon. Member for Christchurch before that this statement has not been deferred for two weeks. The previous statement was a week early in the cycle. Last week, the statement would have coincided with the Budget and we thought, on balance, that the House would probably prefer to give the Budget a higher priority.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we could give a millennium guarantee that nothing will go wrong. Only someone who was not paying attention or does not care tuppence about the importance of understanding the issue would even ask such a silly question, let alone expect an answer to it.
Mr. Brian White: As someone who has already suffered from the millennium bug when using a Microsoft product, I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Many local authorities have made progress, but some have not. Has my right hon. Friend considered secondments from those authorities that have made progress or using Government officers to help local authorities to make more progress? I was very concerned by my right hon. Friend's comments about the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In particular, many third-world countries will suffer if supply chains—many of which are just in time now—break down. What is being done to ensure that the third world does not suffer because of the millennium bug? The Soviet fleet contains computers that are non-compliant and I would be worried if the Ministry of Defence were not talking to its Russian counterparts about the issue.
920
My right hon. Friend said that she would introduce more frequent reports from June. Given that, on 1 April, in 15 days' time, the year 2000 financial year will start, will she start those more frequent reports from the cycle onwards?
Mrs. Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's concern, as we all do, that there has not been more progress in local government, and we are working closely with the Audit Commission, which is considering that matter. We are considering issues such as secondments from Government offices, and we are strongly encouraging those in local government who lag behind to learn from the best practice of the leaders in the field. The Audit Commission has said that, in or around June, it will publish the particulars of authorities that are not responding well enough to encouragement.
My hon. Friend asked about the third world. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has taken a number of steps, along with the British Council, to conduct seminars, provide advice and do what can be done directly by British diplomats. We have given resources to the World bank project and to the Commonwealth to assist in encouraging compliance and in helping to fund the right kind of programmes in third-world countries.
My hon. Friend also asked about Russia. The Ministry of Defence has formed a co-operation committee with other member states, including NATO states. Advice, assistance and support are being given. We are being proactive with the Russians. We have offered to send a delegation to Moscow to discuss the issues. We support moves by NATO to engage Russia through the Permanent Joint Council mechanism and we are working supportively with the United States and others to offer advice.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Health and Safety Executive in Bedfordshire has reasonably pointed out that private businesses should be careful to check on the effects of the millennium bug—particularly embedded effects—that may have an impact on health and safety. However, an article in The Business magazine, which covered that aspect, gave little indication that guidance was being offered on what to look for and how to do so. Can the right hon. Lady satisfy us that the HSE and similar agencies will give constructive advice as well as warnings?
Mrs. Beckett: Certainly, they are seeking to do so. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has concerns, Action 2000, among other organisations, would be happy to hear from him and to do all it could to supply information. One reason why I was fairly hard on his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Christchurch, was that, as time has gone by, people have discovered more complications. When work began on compliance, the importance of problems that might arise from embedded systems was not as greatly appreciated as it is today. As work unfolds, ever more aspects emerge. The problem is complex, but Action 2000 and other organisations would be happy to assist the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Can the President of the Council give us an idea of the likely total cost of the problem? She mentioned £420 million for Government

921
Departments and £320 million for the health service. However, those are compliance costs only, and they do not include the cost for local government or the costs of failure. Have the Government identified a range of possible outturns? We have already reached £1 billion, and the total cost will probably be billions of pounds.
Will the right hon. Lady say something about air traffic control? There are already enough difficulties with computers in that area before we have even reached 2000. There is genuine concern among the travelling public, not only about how airlines will handle the millennium, but about how the air traffic control system will function. Have the Government taken a view on whether they will need to act to control flying at the year change?
Some 27 of the 46 police forces in England and Wales have no initial business continuity plan; does the right hon. Lady agree that that is alarming? The police forces will be in the front line, facing the consequences of failure. How can they know what those consequences will cost, or how they will handle them? What about reports that the Government have instructed cancellation of all police leave, booked the armed forces and put the Territorial Army on standby? Is that true, or is it just press rumour?
Do the Government have any idea of the costs and practical implications of external failures that may impact on the public sector, such as failures in the private sector, among the utilities or in the telecommunications systems?
Finally, was the Chancellor of the Exchequer wise to announce a cut in the standard rate of income tax of one penny when there is so much uncertainty about the possible impact of failures resulting from the millennium bug and so much uncertainty about the eventual cost to the public sector, let alone the private sector?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman asked several questions, including some about financial consequences, on which I had best say that I shall write to him. However, let me warn him at the outset that I am not sure how much value there will be in any attempt to attach a figure, especially to the potential consequences of failure. I shall certainly look at the range of assessments available and write to him with such information as we can make available. He will be the first to appreciate that it is quite difficult to provide such information, especially when one considers the impact across the private sector. In addition, we are talking about programmes that, in the case of those that have been more forward looking, began as long ago as 1994 or earlier, so there is a wide range of potential effects.
The hon. Gentleman asked about aviation and air transport millennium compliance, which international and domestic aviation authorities are keeping under close review. Foremost in their minds is, and will remain, the safety of the public. Various audits and surveys are being undertaken, although I believe that none has yet been completed and many have to take commercial confidentiality into consideration. However, the assessments are being undertaken and, for our part, we shall make available such information as we can give.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the police services. I share his concern, as does the inspectorate of constabulary, that the police have not made more progress
922
on this matter. The Government have not given instructions on the subject of leave—I do not believe that we are in a position to give instructions to chief constables on such operational matters—but I understand that many forces have cancelled millennium leave, for precisely the reasons that the hon. Gentleman describes. The public celebration is expected to be extremely large and of unusually long duration, and both factors have an impact on preparedness.
No action has been taken to make extra plans, such as to have Territorial Army units on standby. There are normal preparations that have been made for potential emergencies and civil contingencies, and the length and the scale of the holiday are, and have been for some time, factored into those plans. It is not anticipated that other, wildly exceptional plans need to be made, but that is kept continually under review.
Barbara Follett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that report. I am pleased by the progress made in the Department of Social Security, which will go a long way towards alleviating the fears of pensioners, including the 13,000 pensioners in my constituency who doubt that they will receive any cheques in January 2000. Will my right hon. Friend do all that she can to keep that not particularly computer-literate section of our society informed?
Mrs. Beckett: Yes, I shall. Like my hon. Friend, I recognise the great concern felt by many in society that that sort of basic service should be available. She will be pleased to learn that 99 per cent. of correction work on DSS systems is complete and that all those matters are subject to review and independent assessment. As we draw nearer the relevant date, we are all anxious to ensure that the normal services on which people rely and on which they expect to be able to rely will be available to them, without any material disruption.
Mr. Derek Wyatt: I hope that my right hon. Friend has checked with the breweries that they will be all right on new year's eve.
On a more serious note, when we entered office on 1 May 1997, we found not a single paper on Microsoft's millennium compliance; I am not sure what sort of legacy that was. Sixty of Microsoft's leading products were not millennium compliant, but there was nothing to tell us that on 1 May 1997. I welcome the news on the tables, as that was a matter that I raised before; I shall look at them shortly.
However, to return to something that my right hon. Friend says that she will not do, may I offer her some information? The Wall street stock exchange has now done two practice days on Saturday mornings, and the results have been rather worrying. The stock exchange is concerned—its last practice day was three weeks ago—and I urge my right hon. Friend to revisit the idea of having even one Department test 10 per cent. of the system and wind it forward on a Saturday, Sunday or a bank holiday. Many people are also concerned about the 9 September 1999 date.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the lack of preparedness that we discovered on coming to office. The first proper survey across Government was

923
undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who was then Minister for the Cabinet Office, immediately after the general election.
I am afraid that I cannot undertake to supervise the breweries—many other people will be doing that, so I feel confident that I will not need to give them my personal attention. My hon. Friend asked about compliance testing, and I do not rule that out. However, I was asked specifically by the hon. Member for Christchurch—the matter has been raised from time to time—whether we should have a national test day on which everyone should test everything simultaneously. I see from my hon. Friend's reaction that he shares the general advice that we have been given that such an exercise would divert valuable resources and would be unlikely to assist us.
I am slightly surprised to learn that Wall street has experienced such difficulties. In most countries—including the United Kingdom—the financial sectors came into contact with the problem at the earliest possible opportunity because of roll-over dates, credit cards and other things that are forward dated. As a consequence, those sectors have probably done the most work in this area from the earliest time. The United Kingdom financial sector has completed a great deal of testing, supervision and other work, but we continue to review its readiness.
Mr. Ian Bruce: The right hon. Lady is extremely good at castigating. However, she is on rocky ground in so doing—particularly in view of the fact that, on gaining office, the Government moved from TaskForce 2000 to Action 2000 and did nothing for six months. The responsibility for millennium compliance shifted from the Cabinet Office to the Department of Trade and Industry and then to the Leader of the House—that is three Departments of State in almost as many months.
Has the right hon. Lady read the recommendations made by Eurim, the European Informatics Market group, which is an all-party group of the House? If she has not, perhaps she will refer to the next edition of The House Magazine, which is to be published on Monday. It will contain an article by me and others—perhaps even the right hon. Lady will contribute—about those recommendations. The Government must examine standards and ensure that the solutions offered on the market have been approved by someone—the Government or perhaps a body sanctioned by them could perform that role—so that people will know what they can do to assist.
Will the Leader of the House also inform the House whether the money that the Government have put aside for Departments will be sufficient? At the outset, the Government estimated how much millennium compliance would cost—they decided on just under £1 billion—and the Departments did not receive a penny extra for their computer budgets. Departments have had to cope with the problem using their existing budgets, but surely extra resources will ultimately be necessary.
Mrs. Beckett: I must say to the hon. Gentleman—who follows these matters closely—that I think he is being both unwise and unfair. I did not set out to castigate:
924
the hon. Member for Christchurch made a very silly attempt to pretend that anything that goes wrong will be the Government's fault. That is nonsense.
Mr. Chope: It is called responsibility.
Mrs. Beckett: That is stupid, and the hon. Gentleman knows it—at least, I think he does.
I am perfectly prepared to recognise that the previous Government did some work—but, I fear, not nearly enough, given that we did not come to power until May 1997. I am perfectly happy to deal with this issue on a non-partisan basis. Few people recognise the scale and the nature of the problems and the extent of the work that will be required to tackle them from the outset. I do not blame the previous Government for the fact that we inherited a very difficult situation. However, I certainly will not accept blame on behalf of this Government because of the Conservatives' neglect at the end of the 1990s. Opposition Members should stop being unwise. Rather than making silly partisan points, they should concentrate on what we can do together to ensure that there are no problems. Our constituents will face difficulties if there are problems.
The hon. Gentleman also made a point that has been repeatedly made and corrected. It is rubbish to say that nothing was done for six months. We did not renew the contract of TaskForce 2000—if I remember correctly, the previous Government gave it about £750,000—but we set up a new body to proceed with the campaign of awareness on which TaskForce 2000 had been set to work. We gave the body a budget of more than £18 million at the outset, and that has been increased. The notion that we fell down on the work plainly does not remotely stand up to the evidence.
I have not seen the recommendation to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and I am certainly happy to consider it. He is right to say that we are all anxious about the standard of work being done, and I shall consider the report carefully. Although it is not for the Government to second-guess standards in such matters, we should certainly ensure that good-quality advice is available. We have done that, and we are doing everything possible to publicise that information, and will continue to do so.
I urge Conservative Members to work with the Government on a problem that is, strictly speaking, nobody's fault, and certainly not the fault of any political party. I am happy to work on that basis, and I hope that they are too.
Mr. Derek Twigg: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern about millennium compliance of people on benefits in my constituency? She made a point about the Employment Service. Will she confirm that its business-critical systems are finished? Does she agree that they are important as a delivery agent for benefits?
The Opposition tried to put the blame on the Government, when they should be taking the blame. In the Public Accounts Committee on Monday, we heard a report from the Comptroller and Auditor General, who said that a system that was introduced under the previous Government as late as April 1997 was not millennium compliant. Is that not an indictment of the total hypocrisy that we have heard from Conservative Members today?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right: the Conservative party's record does not bear examination of

925
the kind that Conservative Members seek. I do not have at my fingertips the figures for the work of the Employment Service, but it has made considerable progress, as has the Department of Social Security. I should be happy to write to my hon. Friend, or he will find in the Library the tables and more details than I can give here today.
Mr. William Thompson: When the right hon. Lady made her statement, no mention was made of Northern Ireland, particularly when referring to the police service, the fire service, the national health service and local government in England, Wales and Scotland. As the millennium bug is as likely to strike Northern Ireland as the rest of the United Kingdom, will the right hon. Lady tell us the position on those important services in Northern Ireland?
Mrs. Beckett: I singled out for mention those areas that gave us concern and those areas that have done especially well. The great mass of Departments that come between those two groups are those where work is being done, and we are assured—and the evidence suggests—that they will be compliant within the time scale set by the Government.
In my previous statement, I singled out as areas of concern the Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland. Both had problems with their embedded chip programmes, and the Department of Finance and Personnel also had a late completion date for its critical IT systems. Both now tell us that they expect to complete their correction work on business-critical embedded systems in June, and the completion date for the other critical IT systems has also been brought forward to June.
Work is being undertaken and monitored, and we have not had flagged up as an area of anxiety the particular services that cause the hon. Gentleman concern.
Dr. George Turner: The House heard reference to league tables. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the only league tables on this issue that will have any validity are those that will be published in the new millennium, revealing what problems we encounter? Does she further accept that there will be problems because there is not one millennium bug, but a set of problems, and it would be a waste of resources if there were no problems? We must ensure that certain consequences do not occur. We must make sure that there is no loss of human life or breakdown in society's main functions. It is therefore very important that those who have responsibility for acting in time realise now that they will be held to account when the league tables are published in the new millennium. Although there will be problems, we want to be certain that they are minor and unimportant.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Indeed, I notice that someone from the Institute of Grocery Distribution said that of course there would be problems, but
"You have to separate it out between the millennium party effect and the bug effect."
That was a very pertinent comment.
926
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: from the outset, the top priority not just of the Government but of all those who deal with public services has been public safety and avoidance of material disruption, including, of course, issues such as loss of life. He is also right in saying that, in the ordinary course of events, particularly during the winter, we all expect various small-scale difficulties and breakdowns. It is important that we all do our utmost to ensure that such difficulties are no worse over this Christmas and new year than they have been over any other.
Miss Anne McIntosh: My contention is that the right hon. Lady is not doing enough in the private sector, especially to combat the lack of transport insurance for travel on 1 January 2000. She is aware that the private sector is failing to insure air and rail travel on that day. I urge her not to absolve the Government of all responsibility, but to act, not just so that passengers can travel but so that facilities to travel by air and rail are provided.
Mrs. Beckett: I am not in the business of trying to walk on water; I cannot say that, of course, there will be facilities for air and rail travel. I certainly assure the hon. Lady that we, together with all relevant regulators, companies and bodies, are doing everything that we can to ensure that whatever facilities are made available are safe.
I know that the hon. Lady has concerns about insurers; she and I have corresponded about that matter. There is a mixed picture. Insurers are prepared to cover eventualities that people cannot foresee, but some policies in some companies have exclusions. I know that my civil servants will curse me for saying this, but I would be very happy if the hon. Lady encouraged those who have contacted her to contact us. It slightly surprises me that she has raised the issues with me as a matter of major concern to those in the travel industry, but those concerned have not raised them with us or, indeed, with Action 2000. If there are widespread concerns, we would obviously be very happy to hear about them and do anything that we could to attempt to address them.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: Has the right hon. Lady received a report from her hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who visited Addenbrooke's hospital in my constituency today, where I hope he will have found a model of activity in respect of millennium compliance? I think that he visited the Rosie maternity hospital as well—where, for example, there are contingent risks of unanticipated demand associated with the millennium. Perhaps such risks should be anticipated. In the next few weeks, the hospital will have had to establish the staffing, pay and associated costs that will be involved. It would take the view that, rather than a Dutch auction between public services on available staff compensation, some Government guidance would be useful.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was impressed by the work undertaken at Addenbrooke's hospital—as always, since the hospital has a very high reputation—although, if I heard him correctly, I also understand that much of it was not undertaken or did not begin until two or three years ago. With the benefit of hindsight, one might have hoped

927
that the hospital had begun earlier, although that applies in very many quarters. The assessment of likely costs and service needs and how they can be met, which the hon. Gentleman seeks, is being made. We are of course considering how those issues relate to the private sector.
I say to the hon. Gentleman—with respect, this is not an attacking point—that Conservative Members are often keen for the Government not to interfere when they say that it is, strictly speaking, not the Government's business. Although I am always keen to encourage development organisations to make the right preparations, to take account of the right factors and to obtain information to enable them to make judgments about the cover that they will need, the arrangements that they should make and what costs they should anticipate covering, I am reluctant to get involved in too much second-guessing of what is required in a particular locality. The Government do keep these matters under review and, if guidance is sought, we endeavour to give what guidance we can.

European Commission
5.50 pm
Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This afternoon, during the Prime Minister's statement, he made an important statement with respect to a view that he attributed to me. This is an important matter, given that, no doubt, many millions of people were listening to or watching the statement relating to the European Commission and the crisis that it has created. He said with reference to me:
"He believes that Britain should not be a member of the European Union at all. That is his position."
I have never made such a statement. I have never argued or stated that the United Kingdom should not be a member of the European Union, and I should be grateful if you would let me know whether you received a statement from the Prime Minister retracting that statement. If you have not done so, may I request that such a statement be made, retracting the allegation against me, and that it be placed on the record in the House of Commons, together with a personal apology?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised is not one for the Chair, but he has helped to put the record straight anyway. The hon. Gentleman knows his way around the procedures of the House, and I am sure that he will be able to take up the matter with the Prime Minister personally.

Prevention of Delay in Trials
5.52 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that a person indicted for a serious criminal offence shall be brought to trial within a period of 110 days; and for connected purposes.
As I am sure that you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the 110-day rule exists under Scots law and states that, if a person is taken into custody, their trial must commence within 110 days. If not, that person must be released. In common law, there is no time for commencing an action brought by the Crown. Therefore, a prosecution may be commenced at any time after the alleged offence.
Reform would avoid the current problem of people being detained in custody for an indefinite period. Delays are particularly regrettable when those people are acquitted when they eventually come to trial.
Statistics show that, in Scotland, the number of prisoners on remand decreased by 9 per cent. in 1996–97, whereas England and Wales experienced a 3 per cent. increase in 1998 compared to 1997. From Home Office figures provided, provisional information for 26 February 1999 showed that 12,627 people were held on remand in prisons in England and Wales. That figure has actually increased in the 18 months since 28 October 1997, when I first introduced the Bill.
The Government have said that they want to reduce the time before offenders are brought to trial, particularly for young offenders. There are especially strong reasons to push for strict time limits in relation to young offenders. The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales was set up on 30 September under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to monitor the operation of the youth justice system.
Recent figures provided to me by the Home Office show that 11 per cent. of those aged 10 to 13 who are granted bail—and 13 per cent. of those aged 14 to 17—failed to answer that bail. The point is that young people are two or three times more likely than adults to offend while on court bail.
North Yorkshire is one of the areas successful in bidding for the Youth Justice Board's development fund to improve the support and supervision of young people on bail. Thirteen million pounds of grants is available, so obviously there is a problem with young offenders. We need to make them turn up in court when they are supposed to do so.
Coming to court is often the most stressful and disruptive occasion in many people's lives. To keep them waiting in custody without a definite time limit is unacceptable to the prosecution and the defence. Allowing trials to be brought at an early date assists witnesses in presenting evidence before poor memory fudges the strength of the case against the accused.
The Home Office has produced an introductory guide to statutory time limits as envisaged in sections 43 and 45 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Those sections amend section 22 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and introduce two new sections to that Act in order to set time limits to help reduce delays in the criminal justice system. However, those new time limits will be set by regulation under the 1985 Act only following consultation and pilot studies and once new procedures for case preparation and management are in place. Time limits
930
pilots will run for 12 months from this autumn but will not be implemented nationally in England and Wales until January 2001.
That situation is totally unacceptable. The fact that Scotland should have a humanitarian yet strict provision for all trials to be brought within 110 days, setting a clear, easily applied uniform standard, while England and Wales have no current statutory right but the promise of various different changing time limits depending on the age of the accused, the severity of the crime and the ability of police to bring charges in time, will lead to a chaotic justice system and an administrative, bureaucratic, penal nightmare.
Let us today bring the Government and the Home Office to their senses. The 110-day rule is not some peculiar Scottish concept but a vital safeguard protecting the civil liberties of those detained by the police. Scots law provides a simple, comprehensive, easy-to-administer procedure; let England and Wales now follow suit.
Let me share with the House the wide-ranging support that I have received in introducing the Bill. In 1998, Richard Braithwaite, convenor of Ripon diocesan board of social responsibility penal affairs sub-committee, said:
"I am delighted that you will persist with"
the Bill.
"I have found that your Bill inherently attracts the support of most Church people as well as Liberal Democrats and their ilk."
More recently, Mr. Braithwaite said:
"You are on a winner here and I think you should push it as hard as possible. Labour soon changes its mind when it sees political advantage!"
Reverend Roderick Hamer of St. John's church, London said in June 1998:
"I have a particular concern for young people remanded in custody, particularly when, on appearance in court, they are either given a non-custodial sentence or indeed not convicted at all. The young are, I am sure you would agree, particularly vulnerable to the pressures you describe."
In June 1998, in a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister, the prison chaplaincy team at Her Majesty's Prison, Hedon road, Hull, wrote:
"As a Prison Chaplaincy Team we hope you"—
the Deputy Prime Minister—
"will support the Bill. We agree with Anne McIntosh that there should be a limit to the time a prisoner can be remanded in custody."
In May 1998, the Ripon diocesan board for social responsibility wrote to all its parishes:
"Those remanded in custody add to our already overcrowded prisons; when they come to trial many are found Not Guilty and released, and some of those who are convicted are not given a custodial sentence. Recent figures indicate that more than half of all male prisoners on remand (56 per cent.) and almost three-quarters of female remand prisoners (71 per cent.) were not given a custodial sentence. More than a fifth (23 per cent. of males and 20 per cent. of women) were actually acquitted.
The stress of being on remand is very considerable. In 1995 there were 55 self-inflicted deaths in prison and a further 603 attempted suicides. Many of these were of people on remand. In addition the families of those prisoners who were not given a custodial sentence also suffered the absence of one of their members."
Furthermore, there is the issue of common justice, for justice deferred is justice denied. Paul Cavadino, the principal officer of the National Association for the Care

931
and Resettlement of Offenders, said, in November 1997, when I first proposed the Bill:
"I strongly support this for all the reasons which you clearly set out when you moved the Bill in October 1997, together with one additional reason—that reducing the number of remand prisoners by cutting delays will provide relief for the overcrowded and overstretched prison system."
We are now 18 months down the road, with the number of those on remand awaiting trial in England and Wales having increased substantially. I beg the House to support my Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Miss Anne McIntosh, Mr. Martin Bell, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Michael Fabricant, Mr. James Gray, Mr. David Prior, Mr. Keith Simpson and Mr. Robert Walter.

PREVENTION OF DELAY IN TRIALS
Miss Anne McIntosh accordingly presented a Bill to provide that a person indicted for a serious criminal offence shall be brought to trial within a period of 110 days; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 April, and to be printed [Bill 64].
Orders of the Day

  House of Lords Bill
  Order for Third Reading read.
  6.2 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  In my speech on Second Reading, I described the Bill as exquisitely simple, although momentous in its effects—a description which, for some inexplicable reason, seemed to trouble some commentators, as though simplicity were incompatible with significance.
  The Bill is a clear fulfilment of our manifesto pledge to remove, by statute, the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords, as an initial self-contained reform. It deals only with that point and with its essential consequences, most notably conferring on peers who leave the House of Lords the right to vote in elections to the House of Commons, and indeed to stand for election without having to relinquish their title.
  After a two-day Second Reading debate, and four full days in Committee, the Bill reaches its Third Reading with its simplicity unimpaired. It has been fully—some might say extensively—debated, and those debates have been, for the most part, good-humoured and constructive.
  There were one or two slightly desperate attempts to pretend that the Government were trying in some way to curtail or obstruct debate, but those claims foundered on the clear evidence to the contrary. There were also attempts to take our discussions beyond the Bill itself—to draw in proposals that might be made at a later stage in Parliament's consideration of the Bill, and that, if made, would be the focus of further debate in the House—or to dwell on other issues raised by our White Paper, including those now before the royal commission. I take the opportunity now to assure the House that the Government do, of course, intend to provide time to debate the White Paper later in the Session.
  One evident feature of our debates so far has been the difficulty experienced by the official Opposition in knowing how they should attack the Bill. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) managed—as he did in response to my statement on 20 January—in the course of one opening speech to accuse the Government first of undue delay and secondly of undue haste, or perhaps it was the other way round.
  The hon. Gentleman complained that the timetable for the royal commission was too short, but he also said
  "that the Government want to scrap the hereditary peers and then kick the whole process into the long grass"—[Official Report, 1 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 619]
  and that the Government have no intention of reform before the next general election.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: The right hon. Lady seems to be maligning my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). The delay and the undue haste are perfectly compatible. The delay was in setting up a royal commission, and the undue haste was in proceeding without one.
  Mrs. Beckett: That is a helpful re-interpretation of what the hon. Member for Woodspring would argue that he meant, but it is not, I fear, what he said. Far from maligning the hon. Gentleman, I was quoting him.

  933
  It was not at all easy to be clear about the nature of the charge that the Opposition were striving to lay against the Government, or of the evidence on which it might be based. Nor was it clear whether the Opposition did or did not support the hereditary principle.
  Sterling work was done to help Opposition Members make up their minds by many of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope), who pursued the issue with a tenacity that all on the Government Benches—and even, in the end, some on the Opposition Benches—admired.
  Support for the hereditary principle had, after all, featured in the Conservative party's 1997 campaign guide. Despite attempts by the hon. Member for Woodspring to put a slightly different gloss on it, there is no question but that it appeared there squarely in the context of a discussion about the House of Lords. That is the element of the hereditary principle that all candidates for the Conservative party were sent out to defend in 1997: the right to sit as a Member of Parliament by inheritance and birth. As to whether Conservative Members still support that principle, on that question, too, in our debates, first they did and then they did not—at least, I think so.
  It seems that we may have arrived at the position where the Conservatives have, for the most part rather grudgingly, reaffirmed that heredity cannot be the basis for a place in our legislature. I say "reaffirmed" because, in theory, their party came to that view at least 88 years ago. The problem is just that, in all their ensuing decades of power, they never got round to doing anything about it. I think it was the hon. Member for Woodspring who said, with commendable frankness, that it had not been a priority.
  Although Conservative Members will, I am sure, affirm yet again that that is the view of the modern Conservative party, it has been noticeable how frequently during the days of debate the amendments that they moved just happened to have the effect of retaining for a few more years or reinstating after a couple of years the existing House of Lords, complete with its in-built Tory majority.
  St. Augustine, with his plea to be made holy, but not quite yet, had nothing on the Conservative party. At least he was asking to be made holy within the lifespan of an adult man. The Tories have already strung the matter out for longer than that. As I recall, St Augustine's reported words were
  "Give me chastity and continency—hut not yet".
  If earlier generations of hereditary peers had shared his wish and practised chastity, we would all be spending this evening doing something else.
  The nearest the Tories have got to a justification for yet more procrastination is the argument that has sustained debate and delay for all those 88 years—the less-than-perfect nature of every alternative that has ever been proposed. That that argument is disingenuous is demonstrated by more than the decades over which it has been advanced.
  In this Parliament, in which the life peers have been appointed by eight Prime Ministers over 40 years; in this Parliament, in which only just over half of the appointments made by the present Prime Minister were of Labour peers, whereas Tory Prime Ministers have usually
  934
  taken the opportunity to add still further to their in-built majority among hereditary peers; and in this Parliament, in which, for the first time in our history, a Prime Minister has volunteered to reduce his own powers of patronage, the Conservatives continue to claim that what they fear is a House of Lords made up of what they dub "Tony's cronies". What would they have done for an argument if the Prime Minister had been called David?
  Mr. David Davis rose—
  Mrs. Beckett: A David! I am delighted to give way.
  Mr. Davis: That is as good a cue as any.
  Some Conservative Members have concerns about the lack of independence of a future House of Lords. Three categories of public servant—High Court judges, the ombudsman of this House and the Comptroller and Auditor General of this House—are subject to dismissal only by a vote of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords to protect them from influence by the Executive. What does the right hon. Lady propose to do with a House of "Tony's cronies" to protect them in the future?
  Mrs. Beckett: I expect that the right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government envisage that the central Cross-Bench group, which is always regarded as independent by all commentators, including Labour Members, and so described, will be appointed by an independent appointments commission. It will comprise a smallish number of people, one nominee from each of the political parties made by those political parties, and others, with an independent chairman, all appointed on Nolan principles. The members of that central Cross-Bench group, as we know them, will continue to be appointed by that appointments commission, not by the Prime Minister. We have also given an undertaking that the individual political parties will be able to make their own nominations without the Prime Minister having, as he has had to up to now, a veto. All those things preserve a proper measure of independence.
  It has been rather a feature of our debates here that some Conservative Members, although not, I think the right hon. Gentleman, have argued that independence in the House of Lords can come only from the hereditary peers. We do not accept that argument, and I am pleased to see the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. We are determined that the House of Lords shall have a proper measure of independence. What we do not wish is for it to remain, as it has always been, in the control of the Conservative party.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The thrust of the arguments from many Labour Members, including the right hon. Lady, during these debates, has been that the Cross Benchers are not properly independent. I am delighted that she now admits that they are. We now have her affirmation that she regards the Cross Benchers as being truly independent. Is that right?
  Mrs. Beckett: I have never ever said that the Cross Benchers were not independent.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: I shall deal with this point first, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

  935
  I was careful to say that that is how they have always been described. I have sat through most of the debates and I have endeavoured to read each contribution that I have not sat through, but I cannot say, hand on heart, that no hon. Member has ever cast doubt on the independence of any Cross Bencher. It is within recent memory that some have crossed from the Tory Benches to the Cross Benches. I have never impugned the independence of the Cross Benchers and the White Paper specifically describes them as such and says that that independent element, should, in the Government's view, be preserved.
  Mr. Tyrie: The right hon. Lady has covered herself a little with those remarks, but in a speech in the House a few weeks ago, the Home Secretary made it clear that he believes that the Cross Benchers are not really independent. I shall gladly provide the right hon. Lady with the reference in due course.
  Mrs. Beckett: There is no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is prone to teasing Conservative Members, usually quite successfully. However, the Government's view of Cross Benchers and the life peers' potential for independence is clear from the White Paper.
  On Second Reading, I suggested that proper debate about what a second Chamber should do and, in consequence, be, had always been bedevilled and diverted by the voices and the potential votes of the hereditary peers. In past debates, those who oppose reform have always thrown their weight against any individual reform. They have joined those who wanted an elected House against a mixed House. They have joined those who feared for the effect on the House of Commons of elections to a Second Chamber to defeat an elected House. All the time, their agenda—sometimes their hidden agenda—has simply been to maintain the hereditary peers.
  Just as it is true that the debate has always been bedevilled by the issue of the hereditary peerage, and hijacked by opponents of any change, it is equally true that it has always been bedevilled by the interests of the Conservative party, which has, I fear, always seen its interests as being at best identical to, or, if needs be, more important than, the interests of the country.
  It may be that, out of the discussions in the House of Lords, out of the work of the Royal Commission and the study of the Joint Committee, will come a broad consensus of view on the best way forward. That would not only be a good thing in itself; it could mean fairly speedy progress towards longer-term reform and a new Second Chamber, even in this Parliament. That may happen. It may be that the Conservative party will see the value of reform. I hope so. We shall see.
  However, what I have never doubted, and what the debates have overwhelmingly confirmed, is that even stage 1 of reform will be better than what we have today. We will have the emergence of a House of Lords, all of whose Members have earned their place on the basis of their contribution to our public life. I say that without discredit to those who, whatever the service they have tried to give, owe their place to the contribution of their forebears.
  One of the unfortunate features of the debate—I hear mild echoes of it from the Opposition Benches now—was the way in which some Conservative Members slid
  936
  towards attacking life peers, making the point that a mere 500 of them were insufficient to carry out the business of a House of Parliament. Most insulting of all, they claimed that only hereditary peers could be truly independent.
  When hereditary peers go, distinguished scientists, doctors, business people, retired soldiers, public servants, even some farmers, will still sit in the House of Lords, but all will be sitting there because of their distinction. Many life peers are distinguished former Members of this House, yet some Conservative Members have repeatedly suggested that this eminent group of men and women are quite incapable of managing without the hereditary peers.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Conservative Members have never suggested any such thing. We have said that half those who regularly attend the other place are hereditary peers. The figures have been produced time and again, and to that particular charge there has been no effective answer.
  Mrs. Beckett: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, it has repeatedly been said—as I say, not only have I sat through the debates, but I have read them—particularly by Conservative Back Benchers, that, in some way, the life peers will be insufficient to cope in the House of Lords without the hereditary peers. It is, of course, true that many of those who attend today are hereditary peers; it is equally true that large numbers of life peers attend. As has been pointed out by hon. Members, including Conservative Members, there are quite enough among the life peers to sustain the work of a Second Chamber.
  In these days of debate, we have seen a range of contradictions, but as I looked back over them, I was suddenly struck by one curious, perhaps significant, omission. It has been a constant feature of detective fiction, from Conan Doyle onwards, that so often what is not said is as significant or more significant than what is—the dog that does not bark. The Conservative party has aired its purported fears about what the Government intend and their real attitude, but what about their own attitude to the transitional House? That is the dog that has not barked in this debate.
  Mr. Tyrie: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: No, not for a moment.
  All the attention has been given to whether, or how fast, the Government might move on to stage 2. Where do the Opposition stand? Much of the thrust of their amendments and their speeches in support of them have been to protest that nothing should be done to the existing House of Lords without a wide-ranging and fundamental overall review of our constitution.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring, in his opening speech on Second Reading, said:
  "we shall have to decide not only what we want Parliament to do, but Parliament's relation to the Executive, to the judiciary and to Europe. Only after we have decided what we want Parliament to do should we divide the powers between the two Houses—assuming we believe in a bicameral system. Only then can we decide the membership and size of the two Chambers."—[Official Report, 1 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 622.]

  937
  A moment's thought serves to suggest that that undertaking would take not months, but probably a considerable number of years.
  Dr. Liam Fox: Can the right hon. Lady tell me which of my remarks she disagrees with?
  Mrs. Beckett: I disagree with the fact that it is impossible to contemplate removing the hereditary peerage from the House of Lords without contemplating all those major constitutional questions. That clearly was the hon. Gentleman's contention at that point.
  I should like the hon. Member for Woodspring, who leads for the Opposition on these matters, to address two questions on behalf of his party. First, although I recognise that only a couple of his hon. Friends have touched on this issue in passing, will he say whether the Conservative party would recreate today's House of Lords if it won the next election? If not even the Conservative party would recreate a House of Lords with 750 people entitled to a place in it by virtue of their birth, what are its intentions towards the transitional House?
  Secondly, when I introduced the Bill on Second Reading, I quoted from our manifesto, making it crystal clear that we do not intend to
  "seek more than parity in numbers with the Conservative party in the transitional House, and that we do not believe that any party should seek a majority in the House of Lords."—[Official Report, 1 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 615.]
  I then challenged the Opposition to say the same. In all the six days of debate that have ensued, as far as I can see only one Opposition Member—the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who does not always speak for his Front Bench—has said that it is not good for the Conservatives to have a permanent in-built majority, but no Conservative Front Bencher has felt able to give the assurance that I sought on the first day of our debates.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: The right hon. Lady is asking the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) to deal with certain issues in his speech. Before she reaches the end of her speech, I should be grateful if she answered a question in respect of the timing and the length of stage 1, which has preoccupied so many of our colleagues on the Tory Benches during the six days of debate. Is she now able to give the House and the country a better steer on what the Government anticipate will be the length of stage 1? She asks Conservative Front Benchers to come clean, and I support her in that, but the nation would like some steer from the Government about how long they expect the transitional period to take, even if they do not receive support from the official Opposition on that.
  Mrs. Beckett: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question—I do not think that anyone can, at the moment—because we are at too early a stage. I shall give him two reasons why. First, the royal commission has begun its work. When it gets into that work, and when we see the reaction to the consultation that it is undertaking, we may have a clearer idea of whether consensus is possible or whether views are so divided that it will be difficult to come to common ground.
  938
  Secondly, the hon. Gentleman may been, as I have—or may not have been—reading the most recent debates in the House of Lords on the White Paper. This is the third occasion since the autumn on which the House of Lords has debated those matters, perfectly legitimately—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I am reluctant to interrupt proceedings, but we are debating Third Reading and such debates tend to be narrow. The Bill, too, is narrow; it deals with the abolition of the hereditary peerage. I can understand the difficulties that the House has, but we must try to keep within the constraints of the debate on the Bill.
  Mrs Beckett: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will say no more, except to recommend that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) read the White Paper debates. He will see that the atmosphere of those debates is one of growing anxiety, which leads me to question the issue of time.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am sorry that the right hon. Lady has lost most of her speech on the basis that we are debating Third Reading. She sought a steer. Two former Conservative Prime Ministers, a former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer and, looking around the Chamber, a number of Conservative Members have argued for an elected House. That is the steer to which we are trying to lead her.
  Mrs. Beckett: I accept that completely. I do not want to stray for too long, but the hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate that he is talking about stage 2; I am talking about the transitional House, which will arise on the passage of the Bill. We will no doubt debate stage 2 at length on some happy occasion in the future.
  One reason why I am asking about the attitude of the Opposition towards the transitional House is that, when he spoke of the in-built party advantage—the control, indeed—that the Conservative party permanently enjoys in the present House of Lords, the hon. Member for Woodspring said:
  "there must be better reasons for reforming part of our Parliament than that".—[Official Report, 1 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 618.]
  "That" is permanent Conservative control, which leads me to ask him to say at least a little about what are the real policies and plans of the official Opposition. I will not disguise from him or from the House the fact that we have suspected throughout that the Opposition's plan was to maintain, by hook or by crook, the hold that they have always had on the second Chamber of our Parliament.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you clarify for me your ruling on the breadth of the debate? Are we allowed on Third Reading to debate the question of the transitional House, to which the abolition of hereditary peers will inevitably lead, or is that banned from our debate as well?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Obviously some elbow room has to be given; that is the best way that I can put it. Hon. Members can debate what is in the Bill, and perhaps related matters, but if they go into related matters to the exclusion of the Bill, the Chair will bring them to order. I hope that that is helpful.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that your remarks have been of great assistance to the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Deputy

  939
  Speaker. Let me hasten to assure him that I am not inviting the hon. Member for Woodspring to enter into lengthy debate. I am simply asking him to clarify whether the Conservative party accepts that no party should seek a majority in the transitional House. If that is accepted, it would be helpful to us all to have it made plain. Otherwise, the suspicion will remain that the Conservative party is ending this century in the way that it began it: speaking of change, but hanging on to power at any cost; pursuing its own interests, irrespective of the interests of the country; still standing for the past rather than for the future; and still standing for the few rather than the many. If Conservative Members vote against Third Reading, we shall certainly be entitled to assume that what they find unacceptable is not the specific proposals that the Bill enshrines, but anything that challenges their long hegemony.
  The Government believe that the removal of the hereditary peerage from Parliament is a prize worth securing in its own right. The Bill addresses the key deficiency in the composition of the present House of Lords: it forces everyone to address the question of the role of the hereditary peers on its own terms.
  The hereditary peerage has had an honourable history of service. Lord Cranborne said some months ago—in the House of Lords I think—that he was sad that his family's centuries of public service would now be brought to an end. That is neither the purpose nor the effect of this Bill, which are simply that neither he nor any other will have a reserved place in our public service, irrespective of interest or capacity. They will be free to serve in the same way and on the same terms as all their fellow citizens, and I am sure that some of them will seek to do so. That is the effect of this Bill. I commend it to the House.
  6.29 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: Never can the official Opposition's response to a Third Reading debate have been so widely trailed by the Minister in charge of the Bill. It is rather flattering that the Government should seek our ideas where they have none of their own. I hope that I can give the right hon. Lady some help as she stumbles on the Government's way towards stage 2.
  There are four ways in which we need to consider the Bill: as an end in itself; as part of the Government's intended eventual policy for this stage of reform; as part of the wider reform of the House of Lords; and as part of the wider constitutional architecture that the Government seem to be constructing, albeit incoherently.
  On Second Reading, the Leader of the House said that the Bill would achieve three things: it would remove the ability to sit in the House of Lords by birthright, it would modernise our handling of legislation, and it would improve our Parliament. It is worth weighing up what our debates have shown about those three aims.
  Let me give the Leader of the House her due. I welcome the news that we shall be able to engage in further debate on the White Paper. I think it worried all hon. Members that the rules of the House restricted debate on the wider issues. I leave others to judge whether that was the intention of those who drafted the Bill; but the Bill was tightly drafted, and hon. Members on both sides of the House were not sure what they could and could not debate. Given that we are debating a major constitutional issue in a major constitutional arena, I welcome the chance to debate that issue in a wider context as, I think, will Members of all parties.
  940
  One of our difficulties was that we had no concept of whether or not the Bill was an interim measure, because no time scale was specified at any stage. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), who is no longer present, asked the Leader of the House for a "steer". We have had no such steer. It is difficult for us to interpret the Government's proposals, because we have no time scale in which to place them.
  Originally, we were not to be allowed a royal commission, but the Government discovered—doubtless from the focus groups that are the real powers behind the way in which we are governed nowadays—that that was not popular. We are, therefore, to have a royal commission, until December 1999.
  Rather mischievously—not that that is the way in which she normally does business—the Leader of the House tried to—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt again, but the hon. Gentleman is straying from the subject of the Bill.
  Dr. Fox: I am responding to what the Leader of the House said at the outset, Mr. Deputy Speaker. She said that the Opposition were complaining both that the Government were too fast, and that they were too slow. The Government were too slow in not providing for a royal commission in the first place, and they are now asking the commission to consider the proposals with undue haste. That makes it difficult for us to consider the Bill in the context of time.
  The Leader of the House set out a number of principles on Second Reading. First, she dealt with the ability to sit in the House of Lords by birthright. Interestingly, some of her hon. Friends failed to distinguish between belief in the hereditary principle—in any hereditary principle—and belief in the principle of heredity in the House of Lords. Conservative Members made it clear that our party was perfectly happy with the hereditary principle. As it is the basis on which the monarchy operates, we have no constitutional problem with it. Many Labour Members took the same view, although—interestingly again—a number of them did not accept the hereditary principle governing the monarchy either. That may cause the Leader of the House some trouble when we actually embark on reform.
  Mr. Bill Rammell: We have heard these spurious points about the monarchy from Conservative Members before. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that there is all the difference in the world between a constitutional monarchy acting on the basis of advice, and Members in the second Chamber who are part of our system of government deciding on legislation that will affect the lives of millions of people, on the basis of the hereditary principle?
  Dr. Fox: That is exactly the point that I was making. My point is that, while many hon. Members were able to make the distinction to which the hon. Gentleman refers, a number of Labour Members failed to do so, expressing the view that the hereditary principle was wrong in itself. We make the distinction made by the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, by the Leader of the House.
  Our difficulty on Second Reading was this. The Leader of the House said then that it was unacceptable for Members to sit in the House of Lords because of who

  941
  their parents had been—or their grandparents, or other predecessors. However, when it was suggested to the right hon. Lady that the so-called Weatherill amendments might be tabled, she said that she would be minded to persuade her colleagues to accept them if they were tabled in the other House—thus negating her first aim, which was to prevent hereditary peers from sitting in the House of Lords. I shall say more about that shortly.
  The right hon. Lady's second aim was to modernise our handling of legislation. That, I think, raised expectations on both sides of the House. Certainly, we could all make improvements in the way in which we handle legislation—but how were we to secure greater scrutiny and new methods of ensuring accountability? We waited and waited to see whether the Government would present any new proposals; now we are on Third Reading, and what has been modernised?
  Part of the problem is the Government's continuing failure to grasp the essence of the debate. It is parliamentary functions that we need to discuss. For instance—I thought that the Government might address themselves to this—most legislation dealt with in the House of Commons nowadays is secondary legislation. How could we use even an interim Chamber to improve the way in which we scrutinise such legislation? Notwithstanding the stated aims of the Leader of the House, none of the Government amendments dealt with that.
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the apparent inconsistency in Labour's attitude to the hereditary principle in the legislature. Does he not accept that our eventual aim is to abolish the hereditary principle in the second Chamber, and that the transitional Chamber is a means to that end? We would prefer the transitional Chamber to contain no hereditary peers, but if the only way to achieve our aim is to compromise, we are willing to compromise in order to move more quickly to our ultimate goal: a completely reformed House of Lords, or rather second Chamber, containing no Members who are there by right of heredity.
  Dr. Fox: That leaves me more confused than ever. It is utterly unclear what the time scale is, and on what principles the Government are now working. It seems that expediency is to take precedence over everything else. The last interim Chamber to be established has existed since 1911—
  Mrs. Beckett: Whose fault is that?
  Dr. Fox: It is the fault of the House of Commons, which blocked reform in 1968 because it did not want a challenge to its power and authority. The Government will have to consider that, because they have now unleashed a process of reform that will accelerate.
  The right hon. Lady's remark shows just how confused the Government now are. The House cannot possibly know what it is to get from the Government, because the Government seem not to know what they want or what they intend to do when the Bill goes to the other place.
  The third aim that the Government specified on Second Reading was the improvement of our Parliament. I feel rather sad about the Government's failure throughout our
  942
  debates to acknowledge the work done by hereditary peers. It would have cost them nothing to be a little more open and welcoming. It seems—the Leader of the House made this point today—that the value of those in the upper House is determined by where they come from, not by their contribution. The right hon. Lady, in fact, referred to "whatever contribution they try to make".
  Many hereditary peers have contributed a great deal, and work extremely hard. Their experience and expertise will be difficult to replace. I do not pretend that it will be impossible, but this will be a loss, and it would have been better for all concerned if the Government had accepted the fact with a little more grace.
  Angela Smith: Again, the hon. Gentleman shows how fundamentally he misunderstands the Bill. Labour Members have never criticised individual hereditary peers; our argument concerns the legitimacy with which they hold their position.
  Dr. Fox: That, as the Prime Minister would say, is completely untrue. Labour Members have made considerable criticisms of individual Members of the House of Lords, simply on the basis that they are hereditary peers. My point is that they have made tremendous contributions, and that it would have been nice if the Government had accepted that rather more graciously. One or two junior Ministers have accepted it, but have done so very reluctantly.
  Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. There has not been any criticism of individual hereditary peers from Labour Members. One or two have poked a certain amount of fun at their heritage, but that is not the same as being rude about individuals, or their service in the upper House. There has been considerable criticism from Conservative Members—not, I accept from those on the Front Bench—of life peers, suggesting that they are unworthy to be Members of the Parliament. That is unfitting.
  Dr. Fox: By straying so widely, we are pushing your tolerance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is true that individuals were singled out. For some reason, Labour Members do not regard it as insulting to poke fun at people's backgrounds or their families. That says much about where the Government are coming from politically and psychologically.
  The Leader of the House did not answer the point that was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who said that some officers needed protection from the Executive and asked how they would be protected. How will the independence of those individuals, who are there to scrutinise the Executive, be preserved if the Executive have the ability to produce a majority in the upper House, all the Members of which will be appointed? It is a reasonable question. Perhaps the Minister will answer that when he sums up.
  Mr. Peter Bradley: Perhaps the moment has passed, but I was intrigued by the notion that the hon. Gentleman regretted the loss of Members of the other place on account of their experience. Does he have the same regret over the loss of Members of the House of Commons who, despite their large experience, are no

  943
  longer with us? Is he attracted by the notion that, if they were still here, he could retain power in the House of Commons as well as in the other place?
  Dr. Fox: If the hon. Gentleman had attended some of the debates, he might have been better informed about the discussions that we have had.
  Mr. Bradley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have attended many debates during the passage of the Bill, unlike, I understand, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who preferred to be at the Brit awards when he should have been leading his party.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Dr. Fox: It is not a point of anything. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) asked a specific question. I cannot tell him how much I regret the loss of experience from the House of Commons after the general election. The quality of government has suffered greatly as a result.
  As I have said, we need to look at the Bill as part of the Government's intended policy for the whole stage of reform. We have had to debate the Bill in an Alice in Wonderland way because of the Government's ambivalence about the so-called Weatherill amendments. That has had a distinct bearing on how we have thought about the Bill.
  Everything boils down to the following fact. The Government intend to accept a major change to the Bill in the Chamber that they say has no democratic legitimacy, but have refused amendments to do the same thing that were introduced in the House of Commons, which they claim does have democratic legitimacy. They have already voted against those proposals, which they say they will welcome if they are brought back.
  If the Government follow their intended course, we shall be left in the ridiculous position of having a completely different Bill coming back from the other place. That will also go against the principles that the Government have set out in introducing the Bill, so it has been a difficult section of the debate. It is difficult to know exactly what the Government want.
  The Government intend to allow some hereditary peers to remain; they will be elected by an internal caucus. I shall look forward to some of the speeches from Labour Back Benchers if the Bill comes back in that form. There will be quite a feast of words and humble pie to be eaten when it comes back, given the speeches that some have made. The Leader of the House mentioned the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope), who has put difficult questions to Conservative Members. We look forward to the rematch on that issue when the Bill comes back from the other place.
  Where does the Bill lead us? What effect does it have on wider reform? What does it say, not about the contents of stage 2, but about how we are to proceed to whatever the next part of the process is? I wonder whether the Government understand the full consequences of the Bill. In removing the hereditary peers, they will change entirely the ethos of the upper House. That will have two effects. It will increase the appetite of reformers for reform and it will make it easier for those who were reluctant to have
  944
  reform to accept any reforms that are proposed. It will perhaps increase the appetite for radical reform of the other place.
  Our position is clear. We set up the Mackay commission under the former Lord Chancellor, who will report in a short time. We were well ahead of the Government. The royal commission should have been set up when we set up the Mackay commission to examine the wider implications of the proposals. Therefore, we shall have our position ready long before the Government. We will give party evidence to the royal commission and have a definitive position.
  The Leader of the House asks reasonably two direct questions—first, if we win the next election, will we return to the hereditary element? No, we will not. Secondly, would we seek in a fully appointed House—which is what the Government seek at present—to appoint a majority of Conservatives? Clearly, we would not.
  We have made the point that the aim in the upper House is to bring the Executive to account. We want an increase in the power of the upper Chamber, not a reduction. That is one of the differences that is emerging during the passage of the Bill.
  We will make specific proposals; I am sure that the Minister would not expect me to detail them now. As the Opposition, we will do so in our own good time, when it suits us and when it causes the Government the most discomfort, but we will make our proposals clear well ahead, it appears, of the Government, who have introduced the legislation without knowing where it is going.
  The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): If the hon. Gentleman accepts the end of the hereditary peerage, why is he opposing the Bill?
  Dr. Fox: Because it is a bad Bill. It is incoherent, piecemeal and does not take us clearly from one stage to another. It is fair to say that, in every part of the debates on the Bill, we have never questioned the legitimacy of the Government in carrying out what was clearly in their manifesto, but we have always said that we needed to know what the whole process was going to be.
  The Government ask us to accept a fundamental change to the way in which we are governed without telling us what the change will mean. That is unacceptable. We do not know what the end point of the process will be. As with many other things, the Government are starting a process without thinking through how it will finish.
  The Government do not seem to know what they want. They do not know when they want it. They do not seem to know where the process will lead and, frankly, they do not seem to care what they get. The Leader of the House has said that anything is better than what we have at present, without us knowing how the new system will work, whether it will be stable or whether it will be effective. That seems utterly ridiculous.
  If they want to be credible, the Government will have to come up very soon—they should have done so already—with concrete ideas about how they want to take the process further. Simply to set up commissions and to talk about Joint Committees with no clear steer about what they actually want for the government of the country

  945
  is unacceptable. It shows their lack of courage. Perhaps I am being unfair; perhaps it just shows the lack of thought that has gone into the process.
  The Leader of the House mocked what I said on Second Reading about requiring the Bill to fit into wider constitutional reform. I said at the outset of my speech that we had to consider the Bill as it fitted into the wider constitutional architecture. I stick by what I said on Second Reading.
  Properly thought out reform would decide what Parliament would do. There is a strong case for reforming Parliament. The most important part of that is increasing the powers of Members of the House of Commons against the Executive, but we have to consider—I repeat what the Leader of the House quoted—what we want Parliament to do, and the relationship of a bicameral Parliament as a whole with the Executive. What will the relationship with an ever more politically active judiciary be?
  What is to be our relationship with Europe? Given the events of the past 24 hours, it might have been better if the Government had been expending their energies in reforming parts of the European constitutional architecture, rather than trying to tackle the operation of the other place.
  Dr. George Turner: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is a matter not of whether, but of when we should consider those issues? If the Government had presented in the Bill a full blueprint for reform, might we not be accused of having misled the electorate in our manifesto, and of trying to make major constitutional changes that we had not presented in our manifesto to the electorate? Moreover, will we not require an election if we cannot reach a consensus on the second Chamber?
  Dr. Fox: I am rather confused by that intervention. However, I do not think that the electorate would have minded being misled on yet one more promise in the Government's manifesto.
  A proper debate on the issues would have been welcome. During the Bill's passage, especially in Committee, a cross-party consensus began to emerge, that the House could very usefully concern itself in overall reform of Parliament and its operation. One of our final debates in Committee, on an Opposition amendment, was the most interesting one, in which a genuine cross-party consensus seemed to be developing that the House of Commons was not holding the Executive sufficiently to account. In that debate, we gave the example of Ministers' ability to go to a European Council of Ministers and agree a measure that would become a directive that would, by law, apply to the House of Commons. That is undemocratic.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I repeat what was said earlier: the Bill has been quite tightly drafted, and the House must discuss only its contents. References to what may or may not happen in other places and other times are permissible, but are not to be dwelt on in any detail.
  Dr. Fox: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that ruling, and for allowing me to finish the paragraph before stopping me.
  946
  One of our suspicions about the Bill is that we may never reach a subsequent stage, and that we shall end up, perhaps for a considerable time, with what is called the interim House. In her failure today to give us any clear steer on a time scale, the Leader of the House has merely reconfirmed those specific fears.
  The Government have given us no idea of what they want in subsequent stages. Therefore, we have to suspect that they have no plan to reach subsequent stages. That would be a great pity, as hon. Members on both sides of the House think that the imminent interim Chamber will be an unsatisfactory part of Parliament's operation.
  What role do Ministers envisage for the second Chamber? What powers do they want it to have? The suspicion must remain that the Government are creating in the Bill a compliant halfway House of yes men who will do the Executive's bidding and fail to bring the Government to account.
  Our basic criticisms of the Bill remain. Its proposals are piecemeal and incoherent, and, ultimately, will create instability. For those reasons, we oppose the Bill.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. Peter Mandelson: When the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was challenged to say what the Conservative party's own views were on reform of the House of Lords, he summed up very eloquently that party's attitude to the Bill and the subject. What did he say? He seemed to say, "We will bring forward our own proposals when we like, when it suits us, and when it can cause the maximum discomfort and damage to the Government." He said nothing about the wider implications for government in the United Kingdom or the modernisation of Parliament, and expressed no thought on wider United Kingdom constitutional reform. There was not one bit of it.
  Conservative Members' whole attitude might be summed up by the single phrase, "What we have, we will hold; thank you very much. Everyone else, and everything else, can go hang." Their protestations about the United Kingdom constitution are completely bogus. We have heard nothing from them but endless pretence about their concern for the democratic operation and underpinning of Parliament.
  Three features have characterised our debates on the Bill, through which many of us have sat very enjoyably and constructively. The first feature has been the Government's complete dominance in their arguments for making the changes; there has been a complete lack of any coherent, sustained or well-argued position to the contrary. No well-argued position against the Government's proposals has been articulated by the Opposition, or by anyone else who opposes the proposals—and I know why. Not only do the Government's proposals make eminent sense, but the Government's proposals chime with what the public want us to do.
  It is perfectly clear to the public that hereditary peers sitting as of right in the House of Lords have no place in a democratic and modern legislature. It is very clear also that the public should like there to be some erosion of the powers of patronage exercised by the Prime Minister.

  947
  I think that the public have it right. The public are not revolutionaries, or at least they were not when I most recently consulted them, either directly or—
  Mr. Shepherd: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mandelson: They were not revolutionaries when I consulted them, either directly or using one of those spurious focus groups that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) continually refers to, right on cue.
  Mr. Shepherd: I am, as always, bemused by the prince of spin. However, his characterisation of one side of the House did not dwell upon some of his own colleagues, who—in our consideration of some of the Bill's clauses—fought and argued coherently against the Bill. I simply refer him to the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). One should not think that the House is not trying to wrestle with a great principle of the United Kingdom legislative process, which is important. There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman spinning away like that. He should start telling the truth about why it is a worthwhile Bill.
  Mr. Mandelson: Certain individual hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman included, have very directly addressed some of the substantive issues. I was describing the official position of the Conservative party, and what we have heard from Opposition Front Benchers, whom I clearly distinguish. Nevertheless, if he does not mind, at the end of my speech, I shall return to the subject matter that he sought to introduce.
  The Government's arguments have dominated in our proceedings on the Bill because of the very clear, precise and well thought through manner in which the then Opposition Labour party constructed the section of its manifesto on reform of the House of Lords. That section in the manifesto was not casually penned by some toiler down at Millbank, but flowed from the rather expensive fountain pen of a very eminent lawyer, who now occupies a very senior and prominent place in the House of Lords.
  What was carefully considered and constructed was a two-stage process—a two-stage journey—in which the clear principles of initial reform were stated. It was a process that would enable us to proceed with important albeit limited reform, and without getting bogged down in such procedure and debate in this place that any reform, at any stage, would be prevented—which is exactly what happened when previous Governments and Parliaments embarked on the journey of reform of the other place.
  Another very important feature of the Government's manifesto was our desire to take into account other people's views—to listen to other people, and to hear what other people, parties, hon. Members and interested bodies had to say—on the future of the House of Lords. The two-stage process that the Government have set out allows us to get under our belt a limited but important reform that fulfils the principle set out in the Bill, while proceeding concurrently with our desire to take the views of others into consideration when formulating a longer-term approach.
  Dr. Fox: The right hon. Gentleman does not understand our criticism. It is not that there is a two-stage reform,
  948
  but that we have one stage without knowing what the second stage will be. We are on a mystery tour of constitutional change. Either the Government do not know what they want and what their guiding principles are for the second stage or they are not telling us. Which is it?
  Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point of what I am saying. We do not have to agree on our eventual plans for reform of the House of Lords to fulfil the principle set out in our manifesto and enshrined in the Bill that hereditary peers should not sit as of right in the House of Lords. That is a simple, elementary principle that is unaffected by any other consideration or wider reform of the House of Lords. Surely even the hon. Gentleman accepts that the Government would be open to immense and justified criticism if they tore in to the House with a ready-made, ready-baked, pre-cooked set of reforms that had been the subject of plentiful discussion and debate behind closed doors in various Cabinet committees, but which had not attracted the views of anyone outside the Government and on which no one had had an opportunity to express their opinions.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am fascinated by the right hon. Gentleman's wonderful, flowing, honeyed words of soothing reassurance to the British people about consultation and measures that are eminently reasonable. If he is concerned about what other people think, will he reflect on the fact that an ICM poll conducted last November found that 68 per cent. of those consulted thought that the Government should not proceed with the first stage until they were prepared to put an alternative before the British people? The Government have failed to do that.
  Mr. Mandelson: The people sampled in the ICM opinion poll are probably the same people who, by supporting the Labour manifesto, voted for the two-stage process that the Government are implementing. Having set out in their manifesto a clear two-stage process, it would be outrageous for the Government to abandon that the moment that they were elected to office. I do not know what democratic principles the hon. Gentleman is trying to espouse by suggesting that we should jettison the manifesto pledge on which we were elected and proceed in a different way six months later.
  Mr. Wells: If the Government intended to implement the two-stage process that the right hon. Gentleman describes, why did they not appoint a consultative body—a Speaker's Conference or a royal commission—as soon as they came to office? That would have given opportunities for proper discussion, bringing in those on all sides of the argument, including the Official Opposition. I am not aware of any consultation having taken place with the Conservative party on the issue before the Bill was introduced. Does that not give the lie to the right hon. Gentleman's honeyed arguments about a two-stage process?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are straying further and further from the contents of the Bill. I should be grateful if we could return.
  Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to you for saving me from this torture, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I regard it as a

  949
  torture to be led astray in that way. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) would have achieved the same end that has befallen other Governments that have embarked on a process of reform—endless, continuous and constant wrangling and debate between parties, without anyone being able to move a step further on reform of the House of Lords.
  I am not surprised that the Conservatives find the process so worrying and fear that the approach set out in our manifesto will undermine them. Throughout their contributions during the debates on the Bill, the Conservatives have been on the horns of a democratic dilemma. On the one hand they desperately desire to oppose and upset the Government's plans, because that is what they think that they are there for.
  In the process, they want to keep their inbuilt majority in the other place, which is the ulterior and not very well hidden motive of most of their contributions on the Bill. On the other hand, they know that championing unelected legislators as they have done and defending, extending and prolonging the life of hereditary peers does not play very well in the pantry—or is it in the kitchen, or on the kitchen table, or under the kitchen table; wherever the discussion is taking place between the Conservative party and the handful of members of the public who are interested in what they have to say on this or any other subject. They find it very difficult to make an argument against the Bill that does not sound like what it is—a defence, using one permutation of argument or another, of the hereditary peers.
  The effect of that is that the Conservatives have taken a long time to fail to lay a glove on the Government's position, adding not a scintilla of sense or improvement to the Bill. They have succeeded only in embarrassing themselves by their rhetorical contortions and linguistic gymnastics, as they have wriggled and squirmed on the horns of the dilemma that I have described.
  I do not want to dwell on the third feature of the House's consideration, but the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills asked me to comment on the genuinely felt and interesting debate on the further changes to the Lords that the Bill will make possible. The hon. Member for Woodspring rightly said that the Bill will create a new ethos in the House of Lords. It will whet the appetite for further reform. I have two points on that in conclusion. There is clearly a strong and widely held surface desire in the House for an elected second Chamber to give a thorough, democratic underpinning to Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who has spoken before and may speak again if he is lucky enough to be called, will no doubt repeat that argument. It is a matter that I understand, but on which I feel agnostic.
  I suggest that as the debate grows, however, other factors will find greater weight in people's consideration. One is the rather unattractive prospect of confrontation and gridlock between the two Houses of Parliament. Many have spoken of the immense contribution that the House of Lords has made to the legislative procedures of Parliament through its ability to review, to revise and to improve legislation without the tendentious grandstanding that more adversarial politics brings to debates in this place.
  950
  As the debate about further reforms goes on, people will find it increasingly possible to resist the attraction of the second Chamber being taken over and dominated by party politics to an even greater extent than it is at the moment, which would be the inevitable result of the second Chamber being elected, with all of the selections, re-selections and elections and with the party machines rolling into place to dominate the composition, powers and procedures of the House of Lords—something which I, for one, do not find attractive.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I would not wish to follow the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) into a discussion on the nature of an elected second Chamber, and how it might operate—simply beyond entering a slight note of dissent with what he said, for I see no reason why gridlock should be the necessary consequence of election, if the powers of the two Houses are distinct and clearly defined and the possibility of second-guessing is not written into the constitution. However, as the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, that debate is for a later date.
  What is remarkable about the debate and the Bill is that a major step is being taken to reform the House of Lords as we know it—a step that has eluded the grasp of Governments over the past 50 years. The grandfather of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I did say that I was not proposing to follow the right hon. Gentleman's speech closely. That could be taken as an indication that he was free to go.
  Mr. Christopher Fraser: It is a discourtesy.
  Mr. Maclennan: I do not take it is as a discourtesy.
  Mr. Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not appropriate to respect the traditions of this House by listening to the debate after one's contribution? Is not the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) abusing the House by leaving the Chamber?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is a strong convention of this House that hon. Members should stay to hear at least the speech following their own. Leaving the Chamber without doing so is to be strongly deprecated.
  Mr. Maclennan: I regret that I have triggered this exchange.
  When the post-war Labour Government were elected—with a substantial majority, and an upper House in which there were no appointed peers—the proposed abolition of the hereditary peers would not have been regarded either as a high priority or as a practical proposition. How our constitutional affairs have rolled on since then is a matter for comment and note. Even the later attempt, in the 1960s, to bring about a change comparable to this one defeated a Labour Government with a substantial majority.
  To some extent, what has been different on this occasion is that the Labour party has not only recognised the importance of making the reform, but was prepared to think it through in advance before it came to office. It was recognised that removing the hereditary peers from the

  951
  upper House was not a matter that would command enormously high priority in the minds of the British public, but none the less it was an important step towards modernising our legislature—and one for which we should be prepared.
  Therefore, it was right for the Labour party to enter into discussions with the Liberal Democrats before the election as to how to bring the change about. Those were constructive discussions, and the two parties reached agreement on how to proceed. The Government have proceeded with all due diligence and speed to give effect to that pre-election agreement, which was reflected in the Labour party's manifesto—as it was in ours. There is reason for a little satisfaction, in that something that was clearly thought through in advance is proceeding according to plan.
  The passing of the hereditary peers is a moment in which one can look back and consider with gratitude the work that has been done by many of the noble families who have served the public interest of our nation down the centuries—the Cavendishes, the Cecils, the Russells and so forth. I agree with the Leader of the House that the prospects of those families serving the public again are not in any way diminished by the enactment of the Bill.
  My noble Friend Earl Russell speaks with eloquence, incisiveness and knowledge on matters concerning the students whom he teaches and the social security system, which he has studied. Those activities can be continued, and I hope that people such as my noble Friend will find a place in the interim house—.
  Dr. Starkey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maclennan: I will when I finish my sentence. I know that I speak in rather long sentences, but I will be happy to give way then.
  Those people have a part to play—a part which I hope they will find—but I also do not doubt that their offspring will contemplate a career in the public service and that, like other citizens of this country, they will think it appropriate to stand for election.
  Dr. Starkey: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the advantages of the electoral, as opposed to the hereditary, route is that rather more members of those important families—the women, as well as the men—will be encouraged to put themselves forward to carry on the traditions of public service?
  Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Lady has a good point. The tradition of public service will be sustained, and the Bill will do nothing to stop that.
  The Leader of the House was right to emphasise that although the Bill will not give us an ideal upper House, it will give us a better and more effective House than the present one. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] I will explain how. Viscount Thurso is a hereditary peer who comes from the part of the country that I have the honour to represent. His grandfather was the Member of Parliament for that constituency. He has said, in contemplation of his job in the House of Lords, that he puts a great deal of time and effort into it and into the policies that he wants to see promoted there. He finds it frustrating that, because the upper House lacks legitimacy, its most careful and deliberate views are inevitably given second rank to the views of this House if there is a conflict.
  952
  It is baffling to those who sit in the House of Lords and try to make the views of that House carry that, ultimately, they can be told on a matter of great controversy, such as the Scottish student fees, which divided the two Houses, because they are not elected and are merely hereditary, their views will have to be overturned. If one seeks genuinely to create a strong second Chamber to hold the Executive to account, one must take account of that criticism and recognise that the principle of election will be essential if that Chamber's power is to be strengthened.
  Among the most vocal and persuasive of those arguing that case in the upper House are hereditary peers who recognise, as have some distinguished Members of Parliament of all parties, that the time has come for the electoral principle to be enshrined at the centre of our constitution. Having taken the step that we have, we have advanced the process in deliberate fashion to the point where we will certainly get there. A dynamic force has been released that will result in the second phase being much more in accord with the experience of second Chambers in other countries.
  Mr. Grieve: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if hereditary peers believe that further reform is needed, it would have been appropriate for the Bill to come into operation at the conclusion of this Parliament? That would have sealed the fate of the hereditary peers but deferred it, enabling them to participate in the process of formulating an elected second Chamber.
  Mr. Maclennan: No, I do not agree, because there are many ways in which the second Chamber could be constructed to meet the democratic principle. Many arguments can and will be advanced about the shape of the second Chamber, the nature of its constituencies, its precise powers, and whether it can second-guess the House of Commons. All those matters do not directly follow from the Bill, but the dominant presence of the hereditary peers in the upper House greatly complicates the deliberations on them. Undue weight is given to a section of the public that owes its presence in our legislature to an accident of birth. That does not make sense. Debates about reform have in the past fallen at that hurdle.
  We may feel a certain nostalgia for such distinguished public servants as those members of the Cecil family and other families to whom I alluded, when their automatic occupation of the red Benches comes to an end, but we will also rejoice at the prospect of an upper House that will be a more effective and efficient participant in the democratic process, capable of performing roles that could never have been contemplated for a House dominated by hereditary peers.
  The upper House will, for example, be able to scrutinise the prerogative powers of the Crown exercised in treaty making. As of right, I believe, the legislature ought to be able to do that, but it has not been done and could not have been done by an upper House as currently structured.
  It would not be possible to give to a House dominated by hereditary peers powers over subordinate legislation, but it would be reasonable for those in a reformed upper House to enjoy those powers if we are to extend the effectiveness of our democratic scrutiny of legislation.
  I congratulate the Government on taking this important step, and taking it early in this Parliament. It is perfectly timely. It has gone ahead with an eye to making it possible

  953
  to proceed to the next stage of reform even within the lifetime of this Parliament if, as may be thought desirable, there is a consensus about the second phase; but if there is no consensus to enable the enactment of the second phase to take place by agreement—there should be agreement, if at all possible—at least proposals can be made that can be ratified either in a referendum or in a general election following the proposals' publication.
  This is a typically British, incremental approach to reform, but at least it is a deliberate approach, one that has been thought out and one that, unlike previous attempts, can and will work.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I am delighted to be here on a day that I regard as historic, to fulfil the pledge that I gave my constituents at the general election by implementing the Government's manifesto commitment, on which all Labour Members fought.
  The manifesto stated:
  "The House of Lords must be reformed. As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will end by statute. This will be the first step in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative. The legislative powers of the House of Lords will remain unaltered.
  The system of appointment of life peers to the House of Lords will be reviewed. Our objective will be 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 committed to maintaining an independent cross-bench presence of life peers. No one political party should seek a majority in the House of Lords.
  A committee of both Houses of Parliament will be appointed to undertake a wide-ranging review of possible further change and then to bring forward proposals for reform."
  That is what we promised and that is what has been delivered.
  The Third Reading of the Bill moves us a giant step towards fulfilling the objectives and keeping the manifesto commitment. It is the first step in the essential modernisation process.
  Mr. Tyrie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Steinberg: I have only just started, but I will.
  Mr. Tyrie: If we have a vote on the Weatherill amendment, will the hon. Gentleman vote against it, on the grounds that it diverges from the manifesto pledge to which he is clearly so deeply attached?
  Mr. Steinberg: If that occurs, I will decide at the time. I will probably follow the party Whip.
  The reform, which is on the point of enactment, is long overdue. It will ensure that Parliament is ready for the 21st century. We are not abolishing hereditary peers, as some have tried to imply, but simply their automatic right to vote in Parliament—a right derived only from the accident of birth. It is indefensible that people whose only claim is of birth should be able to legislate in a democracy. I am completely amazed that anyone can defend that.
  954
  On reflection, perhaps it only almost amazes me. It is no wonder that the Conservatives want to keep the status quo. That historic process has given the Conservative party a built-in majority. In the House of Lords, the Conservatives outnumber Labour by nearly 3:1. As we have seen over the years, they do not hesitate to use their majority to try to pervert the course of democracy. Recent examples include the banning of handguns following the Dunblane tragedy. The whole country wanted to get rid of handguns, but not that lot sitting at the opposite side of this building.
  More recently, the minimum wage—a manifesto commitment for which millions of people voted at the general election—passed through this House, but was not supported by the House of Lords.
  The most recent challenge—on the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999—demonstrated that the House of Lords had deliberately set out to undermine the authority of a Government elected with a huge popular mandate. That action led to the use of the Parliament Act 1911 for only the second time in 50 years—and only 20 months into a Labour Government. We can see what the attitude of the House of Lords was from the beginning. Within 20 months they took action to try to stifle legislation coming from the Labour Government.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is clearly very concerned about challenges to this House from the other place. Could he tell us what will happen when this Bill goes through and the other place is reformed? Does he expect that the other place will always follow the line of this House, or does he expect it to challenge this House in the future?
  Mr. Steinberg: If the hon. Gentleman listens to my speech, I will make that clear later. In the previous Session, even though the Conservatives had just lost a general election overwhelmingly, they were able to defeat the Labour Government 33 times by using their hereditary peers. Suppose the situation had been reversed, and Labour had had three times as many peers as the Conservatives. Is it possible to imagine the Conservatives allowing the situation to persist for 18 years? Would Mrs. Thatcher have accepted such a situation? She could not even accept that the Greater London council, carrying out its democratic mandate, should be allowed to continue. We all know what happened to the GLC, because it became a thorn in Mrs. Thatcher's side.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman seems to be confused. He said that the Parliament Act 1911 had to be used 20 months into this Government, but it did not. The last time that the Parliament Act had to be invoked was by a Conservative Government who were seeking to get their legislation past the House of Lords. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that most of the remarks he has just made are complete nonsense?
  Mr. Steinberg: I am not confused. I may be wrong and I apologise to the House if I am, but I seem to remember that the Parliament Act was used recently, and I was here when the Parliament Act was used to get through the War Crimes Act 1991.
  We do not want to remove the ability of the House of Lords to ask the Government to think again, and Labour will not have an overall majority.

  955
  The hereditary system is not only undemocratic: it is unrepresentative. I am sure that the statistics have been cited many times during our debates, but can anyone really argue that the hereditary peers are representative when 45 per cent. of them went to Eton; when, of the 635 sitting in the House of Lords, only 16 are women; when 42 per cent. had careers in the armed forces; when 60 per cent. claim land management and farming as their occupation; and when only two—a staggering 0.31 per cent—are from ethnic minorities? Is that truly representative of the people of this country? I am sure it is not.
  Many attempts have been made to reform the House of Lords—in 1911, 1917, 1948 and 1967. In all those attempts, the hereditary principle was not felt to be credible or legitimate, but all of them failed because of the smokescreen put up about what should be put in its place. Now we have a Government who will not be put off. The Tories have argued that we should do nothing until we have a total package—and we have heard that argument again today. They realise that that approach is a tried and tested formula for doing nothing and safeguarding their built-in, gerrymandering majority, which will continue to thwart Governments—as long as they are not Tory Governments.
  The fact that the Tories now argue that we should do this or that gives rise to the question of why they failed to tackle this unrepresentative and undemocratic body in their 18 years in Government. Eighteen years of inaction speak louder than the weasel words that we have heard from the Opposition in the past few weeks. The Conservatives used the hereditary peers to force through unpopular measures such as the poll tax and rail privatisation. They need only 37 per cent. of their peers to vote to defeat 100 per cent. of the Government's vote. No wonder they want to keep the hereditary peers.
  The Tories do not want to remove hereditary peers from Parliament because their presence means that, whoever wins the general election, the Tories stay in power in one of the Houses of Parliament, while a Labour Government get through only the legislation that the Conservative hereditary peers allow.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: How many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents go to Scottish universities and are grateful to the other place for overturning Government legislation that would have charged £1,000 extra in fees to those of his constituents attending Scottish universities?
  Mr. Steinberg: I have not got a clue. I will write to the hon. Gentleman—as the response goes.
  The 1997 Conservative general election campaign guide said that the hereditary principle was
  "An asset to Democracy. Hereditary peers bring colour, tradition, youth and a wealth of experience to Parliament. They are a link to the customs and traditions that formed and shaped this country …It is important to defend the hereditary principle in its own right."
  The Conservative manifesto contained three lines on the subject, opposing our manifesto pledge. It said that the Tories
  "would oppose change for change's sake".
  That is hardly an indication of a commitment to democratic reform. If the Tories had won the general election, we would have had almost 25 years—a quarter of a century—of a Tory Government with no desire or willingness to reform the House of Lords.
  956
  The Tories' arguments have lacked any credibility. I was not surprised to learn that a recent poll found that 49 per cent. of Tory Members of Parliament did not want any change at all. Recent history has shown that the hereditary peerage is incapable of changing—and unwilling to change—to reflect the attitudes of society. The most recent proof of that was found in the results of the general election, when an estimated 5 million voters switched directly from the Tories to the new Labour Government. In addition, two Members of the Conservative party crossed the Floor to the Labour Benches. How many Tory peers said that they could not stand the stench of Tory sleaze, the little Englander mentality or the bankrupt policies of the Conservative party? None.
  The Labour party gained more than 13.5 million votes in the election. With only 17 hereditary peers, Labour's representation in the House of Lords is some 797,000 votes to one hereditary peer. The Tories polled 5.9 million votes and have 300 hereditary peers, bringing their representation in another place to 32,000 votes to one hereditary peer. That is hardly a fair reflection of electoral support.
  Mr. Fraser: For the sake of clarification, would the hon. Gentleman tell us the source of the poll on Conservative voters to which he has referred, and who conducted it? I should be happy if he would write to me on that point.
  Mr. Steinberg: I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
  The people would not stand for a House of Commons that had such an in-built bias. Why should we tolerate it in the House of Lords? The Government are determined to implement reform before the millennium to make sure that the principle of democracy—not birth, not privilege—should be our driving force. There will be wide-ranging consultation and debate. The argument that the timetable for that process is open-ended is spurious. The royal commission's terms of reference are explicit:
  "Having regard to the need to maintain the position of the House of Commons as the pre-eminent Chamber of Parliament and taking particular account of the present nature of the constitutional settlement, including the newly devolved institutions, the impact of the Human Rights Act and developing relations with the European Union:
  To consider and make recommendations on the role and functions of a second chamber and
  To make recommendations on the method or combination of methods of composition required to constitute the second Chamber fit for that role and those functions.
  To report by 31 December 1999."
  That is clear.
  A tight timetable will enable the commission's recommendations to be completed in sufficient time for the Government to respond before the next general election. That shows the Government's resolve that there will be full reform of the second Chamber.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Steinberg: I will give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman because he will make a sensible intervention.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I have listened carefully to his argument.

  957
  If the Bill is enacted in its present form, the House of Lords will be wholly nominated. Does he believe that that is democratic?
  Mr. Steinberg: No, that will not be fully democratic, and I hope that once the commission has reported and the necessary consultations have taken place, there will be a democratic second Chamber. My own view is that it should be wholly elected. However, a transitional Chamber is better than what we have now.
  It would be wrong at this stage to debate the pros and cons of the various options. There will be plenty of time for that in future. Whether the Chamber is directly elected, or constructed, perhaps, by having elected regional assemblies elect it on the basis of proportions of their political make-up, the most important point is that whatever the royal commission comes up with cannot be worse than the existing House of Lords. Whatever it is, it will be a damn sight better. I would go so far as to say that to have no second Chamber at all would be better than having our current system. I do not advocate scrapping the second Chamber, but it would be better than having the current House of Lords.
  The House of Lords suffers a lack of credibility that makes the use of its powers almost impossible. On the occasions on which that power is used, it is deeply offensive in a democracy. Even a transitional House will be more representative, more balanced, more modern and fairer than the existing House of Lords.
  There is no intention to change, reduce or emasculate the legislative powers of the House of Lords. It will still be able to act as a check on the Executive and on the House of Commons, asking both to think again. The most important point is that it will not be a biased, Conservative Chamber—a Chamber which has in the past been prepared to act as a check only on Labour legislation, and which has supported Conservative laws no matter how dreadful they have been.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Steinberg: No, I have given way enough, especially to you.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not given way at all to me. He must use the correct parliamentary language.
  Mr. Steinberg: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. To be frank, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) gets under my skin and makes me forget proper parliamentary language.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be the first holder of his office to reduce, voluntarily, his own powers of patronage. He will give up his current right to nominate life peers, retaining the ability to influence only nominations from his own party. The Conservatives have been happy to continue with a Chamber dominated by inheritance and by new Tory patronage.
  The Government have a mandate to modernise, and we are modernising schools, hospitals, the criminal justice system, economic institutions and our welfare system.
  958
  Part of the drive for renewal is the modernisation of the democratic framework of our country. We are not doing that for its own sake, but to make Parliament better. The United Kingdom needs a second Chamber that is representative of the people of the UK. The transitional House will be better than the one we have now. The royal commission has been asked to ensure that we will ultimately have a second Chamber fit for a new millennium.
  Everything that I have said today has been said before in the past few weeks. It has also all been said before since 1911—on many, many occasions. The Bill leaves the Commons in the same shape in which it started. Now the Lords can have their say. It will be interesting to see whether they accept the will of the House of Commons and of the people. If they do not, they will show how out of touch they really are.
  7.46 pm
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I apologise to the President of the Council and my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) for being unable to be here for their opening speeches.
  It is our tradition in Third Reading speeches to discuss what is in the Bill, not what is not in it. I must say that that is a bleak prospect. Although we heard useful debates in Committee on the Bill, the fact remains that the Bill is at present nothing more than an act of destruction. It destroys finally what was for 500 years—until 1963—the primary foundation of the second Chamber in Britain.
  I do not complain about that, because I do not seek to support the hereditary principle as the long-term basis for the House of Lords. I do, however, complain that the Bill puts nothing in place of the existing House. As the Bill leaves the House of Commons, it leaves the future House of Lords an entirely nominated body, albeit mildly but usefully spiced by the corporatism—the only corporatism that we have at present—of the Law Lords and the bishops.
  The original justification for the hereditary principle in the upper House was that it represented the power bases of the land—as it genuinely did for many hundreds of years. Initially, peerages were not hereditary. The early monarchs summoned the great power bases of the land by sending out spies to all corners of the kingdom to find out who were the great men. Those men were then invited to attend the monarch's councils. Monarchs gained the benefit of the support—or at least the views—of the powerful, thus bolstering their royal positions.
  The obtaining of the views of those who represent the power bases is today confined to a wholly nominated system. It is worth reflecting that we abolished rotten boroughs in 1832 because they were wholly nominated by powerful individuals. The Bill leaves something of a vacuum, and that requires us to focus on two points essential to the future working of an effective upper House—the composition of the Chamber pending stage 2, and what the royal commission should propose for that stage.
  Angela Smith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be complaining that once hereditary peers are

  959
  removed, the only peers remaining will be those who were nominated. Does he not accept that all hereditary peerages are rooted in a nominated system?
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: The point about hereditary peerages is that they represented a power base. The only power base represented by currently nominated peers is that of the Prime Minister, or of the current parties. The nominated peers have no democratic legitimacy, a fact that the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) was good enough to recognise.
  During our earlier debates, I set out in detail my views on the proper balance of the upper House at stage 2: partly nominated, as it now is; partly corporate, with some extension to the groups who find representation currently confined to the law and the Church; and partly elected for a substantial term on a rolling basis. That way, one can hope to recreate an upper House that has diversity, independence and a basis of legitimacy. I suspect that that proposal will gather a good deal of support in the coming months and years. Those who are elected must be elected for a substantial term and on a rolling basis, otherwise they will lack the essential ingredient of independence.
  That is for the future, however. The Bill in its present form demands that we consider further how, in the interim, to recreate what is being sacrificed on the altar of modernization—the huge spectrum of experience and independence which, as Labour Members have been good enough to recognise, can still be found among the ranks of hereditary peers. The answer is readily to hand, for it is what the Government themselves, the Opposition and the whole country have been discussing over the past 20 months, first behind the scenes and then, since the Cranborne debacle and the Weatherill amendment, quite openly: that is, the proposal to keep at least 91—or perhaps at most 91; certainly approximately 91—hereditary peers in the interim. That has to be a sensible approach, because it is those 91 hereditary peers—in fact, it is rather more than 91, as I shall explain in a moment—who in practice do a significant amount of the day-to-day work in the upper House.
  In my earlier speeches, based on research through the House of Commons Library, the careful work by David Shell in his book on the House of Lords in 1989 and some welcome further research by a body calling itself Common Sense for Lords Reform, which has recently circulated a briefing to all hon. Members, I have shown that the actual number of hereditary peers who still play a significant role in the workings of the upper House is not a mere 91, but is between 100 and 200. If it is ever possible to persuade any Member of this Chamber of anything, I should like to persuade Ministers that there is merit in considering increasing the 91 to a somewhat higher number for the interim period.
  If Ministers are anxious that that might lead to the Government being voted down, a quick reckoning will show that that is not at all likely. On the basis of 91 or of 150 hereditary peers remaining, the Government would be defeated in the upper House only in circumstances where they had lost the argument—where they were voted against, not only by the Conservatives, but by the Cross Benchers as well. If the Government have lost the argument, it is right that they should be checked, at least to the extent that the upper House is entitled to check them. To identify those 100 or 200 hereditary peers and to permit them to continue to play an active role would
  960
  keep the House of Lords alive and help to restore some of the Government's lost reputation—a reputation that they were busy losing until they began to consider the Cranborne amendment.
  Constitutional reform is not the perquisite of any one party, however large its majority after a particular general election. Although theoretically possible, it seems highly unlikely that we shall actually see legislation that details the future composition of the upper House during the lifetime of this Parliament. The royal commission reports at end of this year—a swift achievement indeed, if it meets that deadline—and consultation on its proposals or the options it puts forward will need to be exceptionally snappy during the millennium year if a Bill is to be drafted in time for the 2000–01 Session, which must be done in order to encompass the next general election. One does not have to be a cynic to doubt whether any Government are particularly likely to embark on such major constitutional reform in the final year of a Parliament.
  The Bill as it stands leaves the upper House as little more than a destructive totem to Labour's manifesto pledges. Like so many of the Government's policies, their pledge on the House of Lords was shown to have been ill thought through at the outset. What is to come after the fulfilment of that pledge appears to have remained a vacuum in the Labour mind until public outcry demanded that the matter be given further thought. However, there is hope of redemption, since what the Government—somewhat shamed by the reaction of thoughtful commentators—are now, belatedly, thinking is based on the Cranborne-Weatherill proposals, on which the Government can build and I hope will build. That will not threaten their power, for the current Government, like most Governments, lose in the Lords only when they have lost the argument and are unable to persuade both the Conservative peers and the Cross Benchers of their case. The hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) shakes her head, but she has not examined the position. On the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, the Government were defeated time and again because they could never persuade the Cross Benchers of their case.
  Let us look ahead a few months, to the time when the Bill returns to us from another place. Let us hope that it contains, at that stage, clear provisions to preserve for the interim as much as possible—and almost everything is possible—of all that is still best in the current House of Lords. What is kept in being by the acceptance of the Weatherill amendment, or some similar amendment, will inevitably have been vitrified, and the position can be preserved for only a limited period—a few years—because there will be no opportunity for fresh blood to be introduced through the hereditary system, although some fresh blood can be introduced through the nominated system. It is to be hoped that, in the next Parliament, if not in this one, stage 2 can be agreed and we can have proper constitutional reform.
  As I said, one does not have to be a cynic to wonder whether matters will proceed so quickly as to achieve reform even in the next Parliament. However, if we can make progress by keeping a sensibly active House of Lords in the interim and making the best use of the existing hereditary peers who play a full and constructive role, and if we can keep up the impetus to get stage 2— am glad that the hon. Member for City of Durham is keen on this—we shall have moved from an unpromising

  961
  beginning to the right way in which to carry out constitutional reform in this country, which is not through acts of destruction and revolution, but through evolution.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Mark Fisher: Like many people, I welcome the Bill—democrats have been dreaming of it and waiting for it for a century. It a great credit to the Government that they have broken a parliamentary taboo by introducing the Bill. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have enumerated the attempts made by other Governments which have failed, rather weakly and feebly. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, the Government are doing something momentous in this Bill: we are rethinking Parliament, rebalancing the two Houses and rebuilding our political constitution. That effort goes to the heart of why we are Members of Parliament—what we do and what we want to do in this place.
  As Members on both sides of the House have said, the Bill is only a start. It destroys one aspect of the second Chamber that is undemocratic—the hereditary principle—but does not touch the other aspect of the second Chamber that many of us find totally unacceptable, which is that it is a nominated Chamber. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) emphasised that nominated aspect. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the rotten boroughs as being a different source of nomination, but—
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rise to seek your advice about a written answer that I received from the Chancellor today. I asked him on 10 March whether he had received, had knowledge of or discussed a Select Committee report on the taxing of child benefit—either a draft or the eventual report—prior to its publication. In answer, the Chancellor said:
  "A preliminary draft of a report was given to my Parliamentary Private Secretary, but not the final report."
  That is surely a further abuse of the processes of this House.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is impossible for me to deal with a point of order if I cannot hear it.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Mr. Deputy Speaker, given the huge import of that written answer—which displays the Government's total disregard of the House and of the public whom these processes serve—will you now adjourn the House in order to allow the Chancellor time to come to the Chamber and make a statement about exactly what he had to do with the leaking of that report?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That information is sufficient to allow me to deal with that point of order. Select Committees have procedures laid down for investigating such matters and, if things are as the hon. Gentleman says, the Committee concerned will undoubtedly follow the
  962
  normal procedures. In any case, it is not a matter for the Chair, and it certainly should not disrupt this evening's important debate.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have dealt with the point of order. We shall now continue with the important debate before the House. I call Mr. Fisher.
  Mr. Fisher: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: On a point of order,Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a separate point of order?
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: It is a separate, but related, point of order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have dealt with the matter for this evening. I call Mr. Fisher.
  Mr. Fisher: I shall resume my separate, but related, speech. Here was I thinking that members of the shadow Cabinet could not wait to hear my views on the constitution.
  Angela Smith: Has my hon. Friend noticed that, further to that point of order—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the point of order for hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  Mr. Fisher: As I was saying, I think all hon. Members hope that the Bill will mark the beginning of the process that takes us towards a full and modern democracy. That process has two parts: the transitional House, to which the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) referred; and the royal commission. We must also consider how the two parts relate to each other.
  The Leader of the House talked today about the transitional House. I agree with the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) that the transitional House will be better for several reasons—some of which he identified—not least because it will be a smaller House. The second Chamber has swollen to nearly 1,200 Members in the past 50 years. That does not make it an effective Chamber and, at the very least, this legislation—pace the Weatherill amendment—will reduce its size by more than half, to 503 Members.
  I believe that the transitional House will be a better Chamber. However, for those hon. Members who, like me, want to see an elected second Chamber, it will remain totally unsatisfactory. I hope that, in responding to the debate, the Minister will elaborate slightly on the remarks of the Leader of the House about the transitional House and make it clear that the Government would share a general democratic unhappiness if the second Chamber—which is a transitional and interim Chamber—were to be permanent.

  963
  The Leader of the House mentioned the virtues of life peers, their independence on the Cross Benches, their diversity and the expertise and excellence that they bring to the second Chamber—all of which is indisputable. However, the fact remains that they are not accountable to or representative of anybody and, in that sense, they cannot play a permanent and constructive role in our democracy—however expert they are and however great a contribution they make.
  Dr. Fox: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the logic of that point means that it would be unacceptable for any political party to go to the next general election without a clearly defined policy on what stage 2 should be if we have not already achieved it at that point?
  Mr. Fisher: I am sure that that will be the case. The royal commission will report at the end of the year and we will then begin a major debate. I hope that the House—perhaps the Minister will help us when he responds to the debate—will understand the role of the royal commission and its relationship to the Government's responsibilities. It seems to me that it is the responsibility of the Government—and subsequently of the House—to decide the principles upon which both the remit and the membership of the second Chamber will be based. It is not for the royal commission—a group of people—to consider fundamental constitutional issues. The royal commission should act as a gathering house for all views and should comment intelligently on the nuances of different approaches, their implications and what their implementation would mean.
  We are dealing with a huge constitutional change that we have not addressed in this Chamber this century. The Government must lay down the principles. It is for the royal commission to do the decorative work and for the Government to establish the political principles. Although we do not expect the Government to make those principles clear tonight, I hope that the Minister will agree that there is a distinction between the Government's responsibilities and the opportunities that are open to the royal commission. There is a rather important distinction between those two things, and I hope that the Minister will express his views about it tonight.
  I believe that this is a good Bill in that it destroys something that is no longer acceptable or relevant in our democracy: the hereditary principle. However, as other hon. Members have said, it is essentially a destructive Bill: it destroys something that is unacceptable but replaces it only with a vacuum or by implication. That is acceptable only in a transitional and interim sense.
  Unspoken in the debate so far is the future of this Bill to which we are giving a Third Reading tonight. The strong likelihood of the Weatherill amendment overshadows our debate. If that is accepted, this Bill will go to the other place and return a completely different Bill: hardly a word will remain the same. Clauses 1, 2 and 4 will have to be completely deleted and rewritten. If the Weatherill amendment is accepted, we will see a wholly separate Bill. It was right to initiate debate in the House. We have had six or seven days of interesting debate, and it is to the Government's credit that they have given us that opportunity and are driving the legislation through. However, we must recognise that, when the Bill returns to this place following the Lords' scrutiny, it will be very different and we shall have to consider it afresh.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. Michael Fallon: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). If I may say so, I should have thought that he was an example of an hereditary politician whose family did not have an in-built majority, because they have been represented on both sides of the House.
  The House has today received reports of the institutionalised shortcomings, at the very least, of one wholly appointed body nominated by politicians and heard much talk of the need for more democracy and accountability and an independent element in the European Commission. I find it ironic that, on the very same day, we shall create one half of a Parliament that will be wholly appointed and consist only of a Prime Minister's placemen and nominees. The Bill will turn the second Chamber into a quango or commission.
  The Bill is short, but extremely dangerous. It will expel 40 per cent. of the membership of the Houses of Parliament without proposing how a future Chamber might be reformed or committing the Government to carrying through that reform. Hon. Members who have already spoken have referred to that proposal as the stage 1 House, the temporary House or the transitional House, but the only circumstances in which we might have been prepared to consider a Bill that set up a temporary House would have been those in which there was at least a commitment to the legislation that would follow.
  The Government do not even do us the courtesy of including in the Bill a preamble that would set out that commitment. Previous Bills did. The ill-fated Parliament (No. 2) Bill in 1968 had a preamble and the Parliament Act 1911 had the now-famous preamble that has so often been quoted in our debates. When the Minister winds up, will he tell us—this point was raised about the Government of India legislation in the 1930s—whether the fact that the Bill has no preamble means that the Government regard the preamble to the 1911 Act as still valid? Is that why the Bill has no preamble?
  There is no commitment in clause 4, where it could be enshrined, which deals with the commencement and transitional provisions. All we have to rely on is the curious sentence in the White Paper that states:
  "If there is consensus, the Government will make every effort to ensure that the second stage of reform has been approved by Parliament before the next election."
  First, those are vague, heavily qualified words. No Minister has explained what consensus would be required before that commitment was deemed to be met. Secondly, the words commit the Government only to best endeavours; they make no firm commitment to introduce proposals. Thirdly, there is no commitment in that sentence to legislation. All it suggests is that the Government's proposals should be approved by Parliament. That could simply be a White Paper debate.
  The House that the Bill will create is therefore one that we shall be stuck with for, I venture, at least 10 years, and perhaps 30 or 40 years. Half our legislature will be wholly appointed. It will be a permanently insecure House, and thus incapable of holding the Executive to proper account.
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Have I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly? I presume that, if the Bill is so bad, and if there were ever another Conservative

  965
  Government, they would take action on it. He has therefore admitted that there will not be a Conservative Government for 40 years.
  Mr. Fallon: The hon. Gentleman is trying to be a little too clever. I was suggesting that, if we take the Government's commitment at face value and if they are re-elected, we will not have a proper second Chamber, but will be stuck with the measures that we are considering tonight.
  Because the Bill will set up a temporary Chamber—a House of insecurity—those nominated peers will, from November, be for ever anxious to ensure their own personal transition to any stage 2 Chamber that may result. If that is to be an elected House, they will want to be sure that, after tonight, they keep in with their Whips and central party offices. If it is to be a part-nominated House, they will be equally keen to ensure that they stay in the team. That will be an insecure House which is far less likely than the present House to hold the Government to proper account.
  Dr. George Turner: I am not certain whether the hon. Gentleman is talking about what the Bill will produce or what he imagines will happen after the Bill goes to the Lords. I should have thought that, unless we changed the nominations to make them annually renewable, once people were appointed to the House they would have an independence that many an elected Member does not have.
  Mr. Fallon: But that independence is limited by the knowledge that the hon. Gentleman's Government are committed to one day producing a stage 2 House of which that nominated peer may not be a Member.
  The Bill could have been improved by the amendment that was so skilfully moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing). That would have introduced, upfront and honestly, the transitional element that was first proposed by Lord Weatherill—who is my constituent—before Christmas. That would have allowed continuity in experience of the present House, but it was voted down.
  We saw the extraordinary spectacle of the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) complaining about the present unbalanced and biased membership of the House of Lords, but telling us at the beginning of his speech that he would slavishly obey the party Whip to vote in favour of the Weatherill amendment that he voted against only a couple of weeks ago. I assume that he held up that situation as a model of democracy that the second Chamber should replicate.
  The Weatherill amendment would undoubtedly strengthen the Bill's overall effect, and that amendment should have been made when it was first tabled. If the amendment is made, even the 91 hereditary peers who survive will still have to weigh up their chances of election or selection in any new model that is devised. They, too, will become part of a hostage House that will be less able to use even the existing powers of the Lords properly in case they accelerate their own replacement.
  Dr. Starkey: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument, but does he agree that it seems to contain a
  966
  logical inconsistency? My understanding is that he is saying that the Government are highly unlikely ever to move on from the transitional Chamber to the final Chamber, but in that case the Members of the transitional Chamber will not experience any uncertainty whatsoever and will be able to be entirely independent.
  Mr. Fallon: The Government started with good intentions. They probably thought that the whole process would be a lot easier and simpler than it has turned out to be, but we are unlikely to have legislation on a stage 2 House in this Parliament, as hon. Members who have spoken before me have said. Who knows what composition the next Parliament will have? The House that the Bill will create is likely to be around for a while, but working on the knowledge that its own legitimacy is not as good as it should be and that proposals for a stage 2 House can be made.
  Dr. Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fallon: No, I must make progress.
  Our proceedings have been enlightened by two very odd speeches by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), to which I shall refer. In a number of ways, he seems to be waking up to the implications of his policies. On Second Reading, he was fretting about the glue that held the United Kingdom together. He thought that it was dissolving under the proposals for devolution, and suggested that that might provide a role for the second Chamber. In this debate, he warned us, quite bizarrely, of the dangers of gridlock if we had an elected second House. Clearly, the architect, the Lenin of new Labour, is belatedly waking up to the implications of what his Government are doing.
  The Government, too, have learned far too late in the day, as these proceedings have unfolded, that we cannot ever separate the issue of composition from that of powers. We must decide, first, what the second Chamber is for and, secondly, what its proper relationship with the Commons should be. However, there is nothing in the Bill about powers. A royal commission has been set up, but the notorious chapter 7 of the White Paper suggests a series of ways in which even the existing powers should be circumscribed.
  The result of all this botched reform and the Bill will be not a stronger second House, but a weaker one—this, when the Government have a huge majority and are already treating this House with contempt. The Government will probably get their Bill through later tonight, but they will no longer be able to pretend that it is part of some serious constitutional reform. On the contrary, by this one Bill, they are simply expelling hereditary peers as an act of political spite.
  That is not the Conservative way of constitutional reform. Our reforms have been evolutionary, gradual. We introduced life peers alongside hereditary peers, building on what worked, going with the grain of our constitution. This Government have chosen a very different route and a fundamentally un-British way. This is a lopsided reform. It leaves the House of Lords weaker and less secure—and, even worse, it makes for a weaker Parliament.
  8.22 pm
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House introduced this debate, she made the point that this is a very simple Bill. The arguments in support of the Bill are also very simple, although they have been considerably obscured by extremely lengthy debates on Second Reading and in Committee, through which I have sat.
  Although the Bill is simple, it is momentous. I am surprised that Opposition Members have agreed that it is momentous. Many of them appear to think that it is quite a threatening measure; yet, although numbers swelled momentarily in the excitement over a point of order, the Opposition Benches immediately emptied once we returned to the momentous business of discussing fundamental reform of our constitution. That rather belies Conservative Members' comments; they do not really think that the measure is particularly important, and certainly cannot spare the time to participate in the debate on it.
  The arguments over the Bill are extremely simple and very clear. Our lengthy debates have allowed the exploration of many interesting byways of those simple arguments. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) amused many of us with his extensive research on the multifarious reasons why various people had inherited peerages. I seem to remember custard powder looming fairly large in the debate as a particularly derisory reason why one should be entitled to participate in proceedings in the House of Lords.
  Opposition Members have deployed several arguments. They suggested that life peers, although extremely estimable persons on the whole, were incapable as a body of carrying the business of the House of Lords unless they were stiffened by the injection of hereditary peers. There was also an interesting excursion down the byways on the position of Lord Cranborne. I am terribly grateful to hon. Members who illuminated the intricacies of the fact that one family can have two seats in the House of Lords at once by sharing the peerages among them democratically—provided, of course, that they are all men. There was also an interesting and sudden recognition among Opposition Members that perhaps peers should be paid, which seemed to escape them over 18 years in government.
  We have undergone a lengthy and fascinating exploration of the proper relationship between the House of Commons and the powers of the Lords. We have debated whether there should be only one Chamber—with which I do not agree—whether the final shape of the second Chamber should be decided purely by election, by appointment, or by a mixture of the two, whether there should be regional representation and whether there should be some representation of Members of the European Parliament. The royal commission will of course explore such matters. I hope that all Members who contributed to the debate on such issues will have put their ideas in writing and sent them to the royal commission.
  Opposition Members have also explored how hereditary peers somehow represent the only protection of the British people from the excessive power of the Executive. I found that idea particularly curious, since it seemed to require Opposition Members to run down hon. Members—irrespective of whether they belong to the Conservative party, the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats. If they
  968
  think that we need hereditary peers to stand up to the Executive, they must believe that this House is not fulfilling its duties properly. I hope that, if that is indeed what Opposition Members feel, they will support the measures proposed by the Modernisation Committee to give hon. Members greater opportunities to hold the Executive to account. I look forward to seeing those Opposition Members who have spoken very strongly about the inability of this House to control the Executive being at the forefront of the debate on reforming this House and giving Back Benchers greater powers.
  Although I have found all those arguments extremely interesting, they are largely a smokescreen. The Bill is about two or three very simple things, which I want to repeat to make clear. First, the hereditary principle in the legislature is indefensible. I think that the Conservative party agrees with that, and that that was the purport of the comments of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox); although he supports the hereditary principle in the monarchy, he does not support it in the legislature.
  The variety of arguments expounded by Labour Members on how Members of the House of Lords are unrepresentative, and those on whether hereditary peers are competent, are irrelevant. Regardless of whether they are representative, and they are largely unrepresentative, and regardless of whether they are competent, and some are highly competent, while others are less so, it is wrong that they should be in the House of Lords by virtue of their birth, and their birth alone. It is entirely irrelevant whether they are good or bad at their job. I have not heard one single Conservative argument to gainsay the fact that the hereditary principle in the legislature is indefensible. The Bill's purpose is to get rid of that indefensible principle.
  The second reason why the Bill is excellent and an improvement to our democracy is that it cannot be right to have an entrenched one-party majority in part of our Parliament. I simply need to repeat the statistics which have been quoted over and over again in these debates which illustrate that the House of Lords is interested only in defeating Governments when they are Labour Governments.
  According to the Library, on average, the House of Lords has defeated the Government eight times a Session when there is a Conservative Government and 63 times a Session when there is a Labour Government. Interestingly, the number of defeats is highest soon after a general election, when the Labour Government's mandate is the clearest. There cannot be a clearer demonstration of the fact that the House of Lords seeks to frustrate the mandate of the electorate when the electorate choose to vote Labour.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does the hon. Lady accept that the only time that the Parliament Acts were used was by the Conservative Government against the other place when the latter sought to frustrate the will of the House during the passage of what became the War Crimes Act 1991, and that they have never been used when the Labour party has been in government to promote and ensure the passage through the House of Government legislation?
  Dr. Starkey: Of course I accept that.
  Mr. Tyrie: And on the Bill that became the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999.
  Dr. Starkey: Yes, the European Parliamentary Elections Bill recently, but the hon. Gentleman cannot

  969
  gainsay the huge weight of defeats that Labour Governments have sustained compared with Conservative Government defeats.
  Labour Members would cite the poll tax as the most obvious example of a measure that, although it was not in the Conservative Government's manifesto and was hugely opposed by all the professional bodies concerned with local government and local government finance, the House of Lords—which had a rather specific interest in it, as it was largely composed of Lords, not dustmen—did not seek to overturn.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: As one who consistently voted against the poll tax, may I point out that it was indeed in the manifesto?
  Dr. Starkey: I do not have the requisite manifesto before me. My recollection, having been in local government then and having had to explain to various voters, when the poll tax was implemented, that they should have noticed that it was coming, is that the Conservative manifesto said that the Conservatives would be committed to the reform of the rating system—it did not explain what the reform would be. It was the detail of the poll tax to which people took such enormous exception, not the fact that it was a change to the rating system. I suspect that we are starting to go off on a byway.
  On Second Reading, some Conservative Members suggested that the House of Lords defeated this House more often when there was a Labour Government because Conservative Governments had much more common sense than Labour Governments. I was astonished by that view because it denotes considerable contempt for the electorate.
  The electorate choose the Government. Although, naturally, hon. Members think that the Government of the opposite party is the wrong one and that the electorate probably did not consider things enough, it demonstrates contempt for democracy to say that the electorate are wrong when they choose a Labour Government and that the House of Lords is right to send back a Labour Government's measures.
  The truth—which has been repeatedly stated in the House, including in the 1911 debate on the Bill that became the Parliament Act—is that the Conservative party favours the continuation of the hereditary principle in the House of Lords because it means that, even when it loses elections to the House of Commons, it retains power in the second House. That was clearly spelled out by a Liberal Member of Parliament in the 1911 debate; the Liberals were then arguing what Labour Members are arguing today.
  Thirdly, the two-stage reform set out in the Bill is essential. It cannot be right that the membership of the current House of Lords should be allowed to decide the final composition of the second Chamber. That is why we must go by way of a transitional Chamber—ridding the transitional Chamber of hereditary peers, so that they have no voice in the final shape of the second Chamber, which will be decided after the royal commission has expressed its views.
  Mr. Grieve: I should be very interested if the hon. Lady amplified her reasons why, in practical terms, that
  970
  is unacceptable. If the principle is established of change and of the hereditary element leaving by the next general election, why should the present House of Lords not contribute to the discussion, especially as, whatever happens ultimately, the House of Commons will have the deciding voice on the issue?
  Dr. Starkey: It is obvious. The hereditary Members of the House of Lords have a huge vested interest. They are unrepresentative of the population at large. They represent, largely, a certain class of person, with a certain class of interest—and certainly with a certain gender. The reason for getting rid of them from the second Chamber is that they have no democratic legitimacy. It is for precisely that reason that they do not deserve to have a special voice, over and above anyone else, in the designation of the future shape of the legislature.
  Mr. Grieve: Why, in those circumstances, should the appointees of previous Prime Ministers have any better right to decide those issues? That is the question on which I am trying to draw the hon. Lady. I understand her point about lack of democratic legitimacy, but does she not agree that those who were appointed have no more democratic legitimacy than those who are there by hereditary right?
  Dr. Starkey: Life peers do not have any more democratic legitimacy, but they are more representative. There is a better gender balance among life peers, and there is a slightly better, but still not very good, representation of the cultural diversity of our society. Life peers have much wider experience than hereditary peers. They are more representative, but they are not as representative as one hopes a properly elected Chamber would be. They are an improvement on the hereditary Members of the House of Lords, and they are only a transitional Chamber.
  Mr. Alan Clark: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Dr. Starkey: I am rather disinclined to give way to a Member who has only just come in and has not listened to the whole debate.
  Mr. Clark: I have been listening to the hon. Lady from behind the Speaker's Chair. I have a huge respect for the way in which she expresses her argument. I hope that, if I catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will be able to repudiate aspects of it.
  The hon. Lady said that there was a better gender balance among appointed peers than among hereditary ones. Would she moderate her opinion of the hereditary Chamber, were eldest daughters of hereditary peers to be allowed to inherit the title and sit in that Chamber?
  Dr. Starkey: That is, of course, an entirely hypothetical question. I am aware that a Member of the House of Lords tried to introduce such a reform at some time in the past; it would have been a slight improvement. However, the question that I was asked was about the transitional House and its composition vis-a-vis the current House of Lords. Therefore, the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman is not relevant, although it may be an interesting debating point.

  971
  The Bill is an absolutely necessary first step in modernising Parliament as a whole and moving this country into the 20th century, just before we get into the 21st century. To most people outside the House, the Bill's aim makes good sense and is self-evident. I imagine that most people would be amazed at the time that we have all spent discussing simple legislation.
  I understand, especially as I have been involved in extremely lengthy discussions in the Modernisation Committee, that the main weapon of an Opposition party in this place is delay, but the Conservative party seems to have used the weapon of delay in the reform of the House of Lords not only when in opposition, but when in government.
  I look forward to the fact that, 88 years after the Parliament Act 1911, which was taken by Parliament as a form of transitional measure—a first step, so to speak, in limiting the powers of the House of Lords, with a view to moving on to better and more substantial modification of the second Chamber—we are finally moving to establish a legislature that is based on the democratic principle and has no place for people to be Members by privilege of their birth.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I disagreed with almost all that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) said, except the last few words about a second Chamber based on democratic principles, a matter to which I shall return.
  When we look back on these events in a few months or years, it will be clear that we were brought to a constitutional crossroads by the Bill. Either we will end up going down the road of unicameralism, or there was, and still is, an opportunity for creating a genuine bicameral system as a result of the reform of the second Chamber.
  We have had six days of fascinating debate. A number of Labour Members, but some Conservative Members as well, at least by implication, have made it clear that they are unicameralists. They do not believe in a second Chamber; they want only one Chamber. Quite a large number of hon. Members have also moved from an unclear view to a much clearer view in favour of a second Chamber, many wanting an elected second Chamber. I remain firmly in the latter camp.
  It would be ridiculous to suggest that bicameralism is essential to democracy, but we need to ask ourselves whether this Chamber, in its present form, is capable of doing the job prescribed for it in the constitution of scrutinising the Executive. It is the shortcomings of this place which make the Bill so relevant and important to our constitution's future.
  With control of the business of the House through Standing Orders, with the decline of the independent Back Bencher, with the doubling of the payroll vote during the past 40 years, and with the supremacy of the Whips over both parties, which dominates the Chamber, the scope for genuine scrutiny, as traditionally used to take place, has been gravely restricted. The only exceptions have been when there has been a near party balance in the Chamber.
  972
  It would be inappropriate to return to 19th century scrutiny. I want a strong Executive, but with a duty to explain their actions to Parliament in detail. I think that few hon. Members sincerely believe that the scrutiny of the Executive in this place is adequate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Member has now made sufficient allusion to proceedings in this House by reference to the Bill and he must now return to the Bill itself.
  Mr. Tyrie: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is the inadequacy of this place that leads me to want a Bill other than the one that we are discussing tonight.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to put that argument and he is now putting it for a second time, but he cannot use it as a bridge to discuss in some detail proceedings in this House.
  Mr. Tyrie: Many accept the argument for a second Chamber, but none the less feel that we need go only as far as the Bill provides. Perhaps with only some modest changes further down the road, those people would be happy with that state of affairs. However, it is extremely unlikely that the Executive will be scrutinised effectively if this House stays as it is and the other House is reformed and kept broadly as an interim Chamber, as the Bill suggests.
  The risk is that the interim Chamber created by the Bill will feel even less legitimate, even less capable of holding the Executive to account than the existing House. The reason for that is fairly obvious. The interim House created by the Bill will have a perfectly understandable and overwhelming objective, a desire for survival, as anything called interim usually does. It will be vulnerable to threats from the Executive. It will all too easily be reduced to supine subservience in the hope of lasting a few more years. The biggest threat of all would be a whiff of a stage 2 with substance.
  The odds must be that, when it matters, an interim House will toe the Executive line. The fear must be that a strong coalition could easily build up to prevent a stage 2 of substance ever coming before the House—a coalition between the Members of the interim House created by the Bill and the Executive.
  Many on both sides of the House have also alluded to the power of patronage which the Executive will wield in the interim House. We debated that in Committee, and that remains a serious concern about the interim Chamber.
  It is becoming clear that the Executive do not want to create a second Chamber that could ever cause them too much trouble. That is why stage 1 has been described as a stand-alone change, not dependent on further reform. The Government would clearly rather stop here. The last thing that the Executive want to do is to give the second Chamber any legitimacy.
  I may be wrong and the interim House might push hard for a more legitimate and democratic replacement of itself, but it is asking an enormous amount of a group of men and women to plead for an opportunity to go to the gallows, and that is what we would be asking the interim House to do.
  Mr. Alan Clark: The guillotine.
  Mr. Tyrie: They will go to the guillotine, as my right hon. Friend says. That is exactly what will happen to

  973
  Members of the interim House if they embrace, or push for, a democratic alternative to themselves. For democracy is as much a threat to the lifers as the Bill is to the hereditaries.
  We have heard that the movers of the Weatherill amendment would not mind stopping at stage 1—they have already formed that coalition. Lord Weatherill himself gave the game away when he said:
  "The government has got something"—
  from this deal—
  "if its business is not disrupted … I'm saying to my friends I believe if this works, as I hope it will work, it's within the bounds of possibility that the Royal Commission may say this has been working well—let's leave it alone. That would preserve continuity …Surely a consummation devoutly to be wished!"
  Those are the words of Lord Weatherill on his amendment.
  Dr. Ladyman: I am finding it difficult to accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. Surely it is ultimately up to this House to decide whether the interim Chamber should be replaced. Labour Members have said that they are determined that there will be a further reform, as have the Liberals. I understand from what the Conservatives are now saying that they are also determined that there will be a further reform. What possible political upheaval could stop a further reform?
  Mr. Tyrie: The overwhelming power of the Executive to avoid creating something that might in any way interfere with their legislative plans and their plans to run the country. As Labour Members have pointed out, that has been a major obstacle to all reform of the House of Lords for so many decades after the passing of the 1911 Act. Only the Lords getting in the way of the Executive in 1911 resulted in any reform being pushed through.
  I have read the White Paper carefully and I am afraid that I do not trust the Government's pledge to introduce a democratic alternative. Those are weasel words. The commitment in the White Paper is basically to reduce the powers of the second Chamber, not to increase them. The commitment to democracy is wafer thin and scarcely visible. It comes as an afterthought, framed with reference to opposition to the hereditary principle, rather than as a principle in itself.
  Mr. Maclennan: Is not the hon. Gentleman rather underestimating the strength of his own arguments which, if deployed to the country, could make an all-appointed House that was anything other than an interim Chamber appear to be a constitutional monstrosity? Surely he is not alone in thinking in such a way and the Government are sufficiently politically astute to be aware of the power of his arguments.
  Mr. Tyrie: The right hon. Gentleman sits in Cabinet Committees with the Labour Government and I am sure that he has been persuaded of their conviction that they intend to introduce stage 2 legislation of substance and content, but I am a little less convinced of that than he. I gratefully take on board the idea that my arguments might
  974
  have some strength and merit, and I hope that they resonate somewhat. Towards the end of my speech, I want to discuss how they might resonate more effectively.
  The most likely outcome of a coalition between the interim House and the Executive, which might be created as a result of the Bill, could be a damp squib of a stage 2—an unappealing damp squib, which would be quite the opposite of what the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) suggested a moment ago. Such a stage 2 would be little better than stage 1 and, at worst, could amount to little more than a retirement home for ex-politicians and civil servants with a few industrialists, trade unionists and the great and good thrown in, perhaps with a few elected Members from the new Parliaments—all bedded down on a reduction in the powers of the second Chamber, as set out in the White Paper. Such a Chamber could scarcely be expected to play an effective bicameral role. The risk is that, by then, we would be living in a virtually unicameral constitution—a one-Chamber Parliament in all but name.
  I believe that only democracy can save the bicameral system in Britain. The only way to give the second Chamber legitimacy is to grant it a mandate from the people. Many Members of the House of Commons are uneasy about that idea. Would not such a system dilute our own legitimacy? Would not such a second Chamber encroach on our turf? Those are legitimate concerns, although I think that they are largely misplaced. This Chamber should, and can, remain supreme. I shall not develop that argument now, but I hope to do so when we debate the White Paper. In any event, the argument is more germane to the White Paper than to the Bill.
  The Government have not been prepared to tell us where the Bill will lead. At no point have they been prepared to say what the end result will be. During our most recent debate, we have been presented with no evidence suggesting that we can rely on the Executive to secure and preserve a genuine bicameralism; nor, as I have said, can we rely on those who are likely to survive in the interim House to push through such a change.
  One group, however, can make a major contribution when the Bill goes to the House of Lords. I refer to the hereditary peers. It is with those who are already condemned to death by the Bill that the best hope lies for a democratic and effective second Chamber. There is some irony in that, but I believe it to be the case. The hereditary peers can make that contribution because, quite simply, they have little to lose. It is the Conservative and Cross-Bench backwoodsmen who can play one last role on the constitutional stage, by making amendments to the Bill that can force the Executive back down the road of bicameralism. Unlike us, they can force the Government to deliver a stage 2 of real substance.
  I urge peers to consider three amendments. First, they can and should add a "sunset clause": they can force the Government to present proposals for reform to secure an effective second Chamber, or to accept—after, say, three years—the reconvening of the existing House of Lords. Secondly, better still, careful redrafting of the Bill should enable them to add a clause specifying what they would reconvene to achieve. They should add a clause stating that, say, within 12 months of reconvening, they would send a Bill to the House of Commons providing for the replacement of the other place by an elected second

  975
  Chamber. That would enable us to debate the option of such a Chamber when the Bill returned to the Commons—a debate that we have been denied so far.
  As for the third possible amendment, the House of Lords could reform the Bill to ensure that a referendum took place. The Lords should demand that, whatever the content of stage 2 and whether it is framed by the second Chamber itself or by the Executive, the Government should put it to the country in a referendum.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair ruled earlier that, in Third Reading debates, Members can normally speak only about what is in the Bill, but accepted that some references can be made to the situation created by the Bill. The hon. Gentleman, however, is going much too far.
  Mr. Tyrie: I am trying to say what I think will happen when the Bill goes to the Lords, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We already know almost for certain that a clause will be added to it; I am making suggestions—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is exactly my point. The hon. Gentleman had a legitimate thread in relation to the first point that he tried to make, but he is now trying to build on that to go well outside the scope of the Third Reading debate.
  Mr. Tyrie: Thank you for that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  All the constitutional reforms that the Government have proposed since their election in May 1997 have been put to the country, or to parts of the country, in referendums. Why should not this reform be treated in the same way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems not to have heard what I said. I advise him to return to the terms of Third Reading.
  Mr. Tyrie: I believe that, although the Government had a mandate to push through the abolition of hereditary peers, they never had—and still do not have—a mandate to allow the interim situation to rest where it is. Almost certainly, the Government's original intention was never to go beyond this Bill, which they described as a stand-alone measure. I think that, if they intend to let the interim House continue, they should at least be prepared to go to the country, and arrange a referendum to justify it, or whatever further reform they propose to bring about, in what they will then describe as stage 2. That is why it is a tawdry Bill. It lacks any clarity about what direction the Government want to follow in reforming the Lords. We have no clear description of what the end point should be. That is why I cannot support the Bill.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. Martin Linton: I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I intend to stick to the proposals in the Bill: stage 1, as set out in the White Paper. I have no doubt that we will progress to stage 2, perhaps even in the current Parliament, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House suggested.
  I agree with the Leader of the House that stage 1 will be an improvement and a prize in its own right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central
  976
  (Mr. Fisher) said, it will provide a better House. It will be better for at least four different reasons, none of which seem to have impinged on the contributions of Conservative Members.
  The first reason is purely political and I make no apology for making it. In the House of Lords, the majority are there by hereditary right. Out of the majority—those who have the writ, who are not on leave of absence and have the right to vote—80 per cent. are either Conservatives or Cross Benchers. While I do not imply that Cross Benchers are really Conservatives, on many issues, many Cross Benchers vote with the Conservatives. The net result of the fact that 50 per cent. of hereditary peers are Conservatives and more than a third are Cross Benchers is clear: the House of Lords is a Conservative House in its ethos and another hurdle for any Labour Government to deal with.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson): at the root of the Opposition's arguments is the simple philosophy that, what we have, we hold. That is at the centre of the debate. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) also made the point that that is the central issue for the Opposition. That is a prime reason why it is timely that we should deprive hereditary peers of their right to vote.
  The second reason why stage 1 is a prize in its own right is that it removes the hereditary principle. I shall not insult hon. Members by rehearsing the reasons why the hereditary principle has no place in politics. All but the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) have finally come round to that view, although I mention in passing that the House of Lords is not based on the hereditary principle. If it were, I suspect that every hon. Member who is here today would be a Member of the House of Lords. Let me explain.
  The barony de Ros is now represented in the House of Lords by the 28th baron. The barony was created in 1264. If we make the simple assumption that the first baron had two descendants and each of those had two descendants—a conservative estimate—there would now be 134 million descendants of the Original Baron de Ros. By all means check my arithmetic. That would mean that every person in this country would probably be a descendant of the original Baron de Ros two or three times over, and that is only one peer, so we are talking about not the hereditary principle—the notion that the qualities of the parent pass to the child—but male primogeniture.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman had better be careful because he is beginning to justify the continuation of hereditary peers on the basis that they are a random sample of society as a whole.
  Mr. Linton: That is interesting, but the point is that those peers are not a random sample, but an arbitrary sample. There is a difference. They are chosen by arbitrary selection—the eldest son of the eldest son—which means that only one of those 134 million has the seat. It is not random, because they are not a representative cross-section. By the very nature of their upbringing, they comprise a completely unrepresentative cross-section. For example, 45 per cent. of peers went to Eton. That is hardly the mark of a random sample.
  The third and—to me—most important reason why reform is good in itself is that many of the people who are now represented in the House of Lords are there

  977
  because their titles were bought. It is a stain on our constitution that, over the generations and centuries, seats in a House of our own legislature were effectively sold to their holders.
  I do not dispute that many hereditary peerages have been bestowed on eminent people—admirals, generals, lords-lieutenant, governors-general—in grateful recognition of their services to the nation. However, many hereditary peerages have murkier origins, in some long-forgotten favour that the original titleholder did either for a monarch or a Prime Minister.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) said, I have previously mentioned one or two of the more famous cases. The Duke of Norfolk, for example, is in the other place because his ancestor was believed to have helped Richard III to the throne. There is also the well-known case of the four Dukes, who are there because their ancestors were the love children of Charles II. However, I shall deal not with such cases but with cases in which it is clear that the original titleholder gained his position because of a financial transaction.
  Although monarchs very rarely give invoices when they sell peerages, in some cases, it is very clear that there was a financial transaction. The oldest case of which I am aware is that of Lord Teynham, whose ancestors bought his barony, for £10,000, not from James I himself, but from his favourite, George Villiers—who himself held the title of Duke of Buckingham. Another clearly established case is that of Earl Romney, who bought his title, for only £5,000, from George I. Earl Ilchester bought his title from the Countess of Yarmouth, the mistress of George II. There are many cases in history in which the precise sum that changed hands is known.
  Mr. Shepherd: I am not sure what distinctions the hon. Gentleman is making. Does he not recognise that, in some cases, the holders of life peerages have made contributions to political party funds? One could perhaps say that that is not so dissimilar from the circumstances that he is adumbrating. I am not sure why we are going down this pathway interminably.
  Mr. Linton: That issue will be for the hon. Gentleman to address when we are dealing with stage 2 and life peerages. I am dealing now with the existence of hereditary peerages, many of which are based simply on the purchase of titles over the centuries.
  William Pitt was one the first Prime Ministers to sell peerages in a big way. He scandalised the aristocracy of the day by giving peerages to the new industrialists—the best-known case being that of Lord Carrington, whose ancestor was a Nottingham draper who paid the gambling debts of the Prince of Wales, who was later George IV. For his pains, he was made Lord Carrington. When he took his seat in the House of Lords, the landowners walked out in protest at the elevation of the first tradesman to the House of Lords.
  The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) was quite right to say that, this century, contributing to party funds has been the main reason why people are given hereditary peerages. The practice goes right back to the days of Arthur Balfour—who, in 1903–05, created the first press barons, and completely and overtly rewarded the first contributors to party funds.
  978
  David Lloyd George, the Liberal Prime Minister, took the practice on to greater heights when he created five press barons. He also rewarded many industrialists who had been willing to write a sufficiently large cheque to the Lloyd George fund. I have mentioned Lord Borwick, who was a custard powder manufacturer. There were many others, including the Earl of Iveagh, a Guinness brewer, and Lord Forteviot of Dewar's whisky. There were also many industrialists who made their fortune out of the first world war. Although Lloyd-George condemned people who made money out of the war, he also ennobled them—notably, that included Lord Forres, who was accused of selling oil to German nitrate factories, yet was rewarded with a peerage. There was the case of Baron Vestey, who gloried in the fact that he paid no tax, but who paid £20,000 to the Liberal party. There was also a famous retailer who was quoted as saying that he was not going to buy a peerage, but if he became a peer he would give £25,000 to the Liberal party. I could go on.
  Mr. Alan Clark: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to add to his repertoire for the next time that he entertains the House with this list. He might care to remember Lord Farquhar, who elevated himself from a viscountcy to an earldom and was the treasurer of the Conservative party. When it was time to pay for the literature for the 1922 election, Lord Farquhar's cheque bounced because he had used party funds when raising himself from a viscountcy to an earldom.
  Mr. Linton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is my parliamentary neighbour, for casting that light. Lord Farquhar's elevation was a classic case of the trade in peerages that went on throughout the 1930s and may have continued until much more recently. Even though the sale of peerages was made illegal in 1925, it continued apace with the elevation of known Conservative party donors such as Lord Brassey, Lord Palmer of Huntley and Palmers biscuits, Baron Luke the Bovril tycoon and many more press barons. All those families are still represented in the House of Lords.
  Mr. Tyrie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a good number of the peers appointed by the current Prime Minister are listed as having donated more than £5,000 to Labour party funds?
  Mr. Linton: I said at the beginning of my speech that I would stick to the subject of the debate. It is open to the hon. Gentleman to raise his point when we discuss the White Paper, the second stage of reform or the future of life peerages. I may well support him then. I am concentrating on the effect of having a Chamber of this legislature that, for 700 years, has been based to an alarming extent on the sale of seats. All the families whom I have mentioned are still represented in the House of Lords by their sons, their grandsons or their great-grandsons. All those who attend are Conservatives or Cross Benchers. In the next few weeks, they will have a chance to vote on whether to agree to their abolition.
  The fourth reason why the Bill is a good reform in itself is this country's need to see the end of the last vestige of the feudal system and the aristocracy before the end of the century. The explanatory notes to the Bill say:
  "The Bill does not affect the rights of holders of a hereditary peerage to keep all the other titles, rights, offices, privileges and precedents attaching to the peerage which are unconnected with membership of the House of Lords."

  979
  Why not? Why do we want to keep in existence privileges and precedents attaching to membership of the aristocracy? Once the right of a peer to sit and vote in the House of Lords has been done away with, as I very much hope that the Bill will do, all the rest will disappear like a house of cards. There is nothing to the aristocracy other than the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords.
  Mr. Grieve: Given that the hon. Gentleman is going on with this extraordinarily irrelevant peroration, would he care to comment on why the aristocracy in continental countries has been so successful in maintaining its position and status, even though it has no legislative function?
  Mr. Linton: Far from it; the aristocracy in every other European country has no political power. In every country but ours, the aristocracy has lost any meaningful role in society. One or two titles may still be used, but that is all. The French abolished their aristocracy by the use of the guillotine. I do not advocate that in any way. The Swedes did the opposite, and circulated a memorandum to all Government Departments—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying into byways where he should not be.
  Mr. Linton: I merely ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to explain the statement that the rights, titles, privileges and precedents of the peers will remain after the Bill has been passed.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I shall try to confine myself strictly to the contents of the Bill, and to address my remarks—in so far as they go outside that—solely to the issues that make me take the view that the Bill is seriously flawed. In an interesting speech, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) referred to the hereditary principle's lack of justification. I have always taken the view that it is an historical anachronism.
  Before I pass on to the contents of the Bill—and because I suspect that this may be the valedictory moment to say something about the hereditary principle—it is probably right to say that, in so far as it concerns the legislature as it has existed in this country, the hereditary principle has served us extremely well, and acted as the principal power to break monarchical tyranny.
  The principle was established precisely because it was discovered that when people succeeded to hereditary rights, they tended—because of that—to be more respectful of other people's rights, rather than trample on them. It is for that reason that hereditary peers have tended to act as a check and a balance in the constitution, and why they have tended to be respectful of the rights of others.
  That tradition continues to this day, and the various complimentary remarks about the role of hereditary peers—even by the Leader of the House—derive straightforwardly from the fact that most of them have a tradition of service, a good understanding of the limitations on their own rights and an appreciation of the need to respect the rights of others.
  980
  There have been occasions when this House has tended to be willing to ride roughshod over the rights of people, simply because it claimed an electoral mandate to do so. We should be grateful to the hereditary peers for having set the ethos in the other place, which has tended to put a check on this House, and has often insisted on rights and liberties that have subsequently been upheld elsewhere—even by the European Court of Human Rights—when we have failed to respect them in this place.
  The hereditary principle is an anachronism—particularly when one considers the changed state of society. It was probably an anachronism in the 16th century, when there were comments about certain peers who were becoming too poor and were thought no longer to be able to represent themselves or their proper interests. This is an old chestnut.
  The principle has become an anachronism because we live in a fluid society, and there must be good and powerful arguments why this House and the other place should look carefully at trying to find a replacement that might be better. However, this is where we come back to the initial problem. I am happy to go down that road, and I believe that the end result, almost certainly, will be an elected second Chamber. I do not believe that any intermediate stage will prove to be acceptable, or will provide the necessary legitimacy to the other place that is required.
  I am even prepared, since the Government established on Second Reading the principle that there would be a two-stage reform process, to accept that we have to regard the Bill as the first stage, but I want to consider whether it is legitimate or could be improved on, given the Government's insistence on an appointed second Chamber. There are some serious flaws in the way in which the Government have decided to proceed.
  The major flaw that will never go away is the issue of patronage. Labour Members have said a great deal about the lack of legitimacy of the hereditary peers because their ancestors were simply placed there by the patronage of others, but the new second Chamber will be based purely on patronage, which I find profoundly unacceptable.
  It has been suggested, based on some comments in the White Paper that we are assured will be reflected in the way in which the Bill operates, that in certain areas, the Prime Minister's power of patronage will be curbed, because he will hand it to a commission or to other party leaders. That is all very well, but it would have been perfectly possible to preserve the principle of an appointed second Chamber as an intermediate stage and to get rid of the patronage of the Prime Minister and other party leaders altogether, replacing it with an independent commission. That would be the first and most compelling step in reassuring me that the future constitution of the House of Lords will be very different from what it is now.
  There appears to be universal agreement among life peers that the much-praised ethos in the other place is entirely derived from the independent standpoint of the hereditary peerage, members of which are dominant there. I cannot believe that if we follow the Government's policy, we shall end up with an upper House that is similar, but with the illegitimate element of hereditary peers removed. I believe that there will be a rapid deterioration in the quality of debate and the ability to provide adequate scrutiny of the Government, because of the lack of that independence. I hope that I am proved wrong, but I have great anxiety about that real danger.

  981
  Anything that could have been done to remove the impression and effect of patronage in placing life peers in the other place would have been mightily desirable. It is a major flaw in the legislation which could have been remedied now without in any way interfering with stage 2.
  If the Weatherill amendment is to be accepted at some point, our failure to make it now is simply wrong. It is an extraordinary way to legislate for the Government themselves to vote down a proposal that is thought to be acceptable to them.
  I took it as a compliment when the Minister described me as being someone who comes up with bizarre constitutional issues. I find it odd, when we are embarking on a constitutional proposal designed to create greater democratic legitimacy—the Government's words—that we should start by failing to respect the established rights under our constitution of others, who are deprived of the vote in return for the right to represent themselves, for the duration of the Parliament in which they sit in the other place. Of course that is a minor matter, as there are only 750 of them, even if their vote might have influenced at least one or two results in seats at the general election.
  The Government had available an easy method of passing now the legislation ensuring the oblivion of the hereditary peers at the next general election, and then setting about the discussion of stage 2 with the hereditary peers, who, knowing that they were facing oblivion, might have contributed the most creative discussion of sensible alternatives to succeed them.
  The Bill will ultimately sound the death knell of the life peers, and I shall not shed many tears over their disappearance. However, there will be a problem if they remain as a powerful vested interest for their own position, balanced only by the small corporate element who are unlikely, because of the nature of the debate that will take place, to be willing to voice their views very forcefully.
  Far from the Bill being a sensible paving Bill for a better and more accountable democracy, it is in danger of being the opposite. I accept that the President of the Council may have good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with them and, in this context, the road to a permanent, appointed second Chamber is also paved with them. I do not want that and many Labour Members agree with me. The power of the Executive is the principal menace that threatens our democratic life and liberties. It is growing, and this Bill will contribute to it. For those reasons, I shall not vote for it.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  9.21 pm
  The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): This has inevitably been a wide-ranging debate. It is not surprising that it sometimes strayed from the contents of the Bill, given the importance of the issues. The Bill's provisions are clear, simple and straightforward. They are—perhaps surprisingly, given the sound and fury of earlier stages—now relatively uncontentious. I say "now", because the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) accepted that there will be no permanent place for hereditary peers, whichever party wins the next general election. I do not
  982
  understand why, having made that considerable concession, the Conservatives intend to continue to oppose the Bill. They have, in the short time since the general election, abandoned a fundamental principle on which they were each elected.
  The Conservative manifesto made it clear that Conservatives see no need to reform the House of Lords and it contained no proposals to do so. It is now clear that, one by one, Conservative Members are ripping up the manifesto on which they were elected, presumably in order to find a new manifesto in time for the next general election.
  As my right hon. Friend the President of the Council pointed out, notwithstanding the fact that we have reached the conclusion of the first main stage of proceedings on the Bill, we still do not have any clearer an understanding of the Opposition's position on the question of House of Lords reform. We know what the Conservatives are against, although it seems to be limited only to the contents of the Bill and—it would seem—any Bill that would deal with House of Lords reform in separate, discreet stages.
  Dr. Ladyman: I must disagree slightly with my hon. Friend. He suggests that Opposition Members have dropped their support for the hereditary principle, but I have not detected that happening. Only a few moments ago, we heard a speech from the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) who clearly said that he was still in favour of the hereditary principle.
  Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend may have missed the significant speech in which the hon. Member for Woodspring said that, in the highly unlikely event of the Conservatives winning the next general election, they would not seek to restore the hereditary element to a second Chamber. In the light of that concession, I invite Conservative Members to consider why they continue to oppose the Bill. If that is to be their policy at the next election, we are surely assisting them by sorting out one difficulty before they prepare their proposals on what a reformed second Chamber should look like.
  We have heard that the Conservative party is against the tradition of evolutionary change that is the hallmark of our constitutional arrangements. Instead, and quite inconsistent with the manifesto on which each of them was elected, Conservative Members have argued in favour of what has been described as a big bang. They have argued that all House of Lords issues—composition and powers—should be resolved at the same time in a single stage, however complicated the process.
  I observed previously that a Conservative Government carried through the Life Peerages Act 1958, a single-stage reform that, according to Conservative Ministers of the day, significantly altered the composition of the House of Lords, improving its efficiency and operation. They argued precisely the virtues of single-stage reform to improve the operation of the second Chamber, just as we are arguing the same today to justify our reform of the second Chamber.
  Mr. Tyrie: Is the Minister aware that when the Conservatives tried to introduce life peerages in 1958,

  983
  the Labour party opposed the Bill on Second Reading, and that Gaitskell made an impassioned speech against the proposals?
  Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. The Labour party opposed that Act, arguing that there should be more fundamental review of the House of Lords.
  Mr. Tyrie: That is exactly what we are arguing. We do not want a half-way House. We want to go the full hog, just as the Labour party did in 1958. Allusions to 1958 do nothing for the Minister's case.
  Mr. Hoon: The difference is, of course, that the Labour party lost the argument in 1958. The reform provided by the Life Peerages Act 1958 was a successful single-stage reform of the operation of the second Chamber. History has proved that the Labour party was wrong and Conservative Ministers were right in 1958.
  Mr. Fisher: My hon. Friend is beginning to worry me. Is he saying that the Government intend to stop at single-stage reform? The White Paper—and all that I have heard from my right hon. Friend the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons—gave an absolute and clear commitment to a second stage, presaged by the royal commission. Will my hon. Friend confirm that there will be a second stage?
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, because I would not want to give him or anyone else the impression that the Government were not committed to the second stage. I shall deal with that commitment in a few moments.
  Dr. George Turner: Does my hon. Friend accept that we will not know what the Conservative party and many Members of the House of Lords really think until the Bill is enacted? The argument over the Bill has been bedevilled by bluff and double bluff, by arguments designed to raise cohorts of opposition rather than to get down to the nitty gritty of what we really want. The advantage of proceeding as the Government are is that there might be an honest debate in the country once the Bill is an Act.
  Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend anticipates my argument. By proceeding as we are, and by demonstrating our commitment to the first stage, we have opened up a serious debate about the second stage of reform. That would not have been possible but for our determined commitment to carry through stage 1, which has been advantageous to all those who take seriously the reform of the second Chamber.
  We have not been told precisely what reform Conservative Members favour; no doubt, in due course, we shall hear their proposals. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made more eloquently than I can the observation, which I paraphrase, that the Conservatives' position is essentially, "Make me virtuous, but not yet." That appears to characterise their attitude toward reform of the House of Lords. From their opposition to change, we can conclude that they are at least being consistent—consistently conservative and, like all conservatives,
  984
  arguing that change is difficult, dangerous and will inevitably open the floodgates. Woodrow Wilson defined conservatism. He said:
  "make no change and consult your grandmother when in doubt".
  Whenever I hear the hon. Member for Woodspring talk about constitutional reform, I am sure that he has consulted an ancestor before speaking, but that attitude has characterised the approach taken by all Conservative Members' towards each of the important constitutional changes that the reforming Labour Government have introduced.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) made the point, echoed by others, that the Conservatives' opposition to the Bill is a smokescreen for their determination to do nothing, to preserve the hereditary element by default and to ensure that there can be no change at all because of the complexity of sorting out both composition and functions in a single stage. That complexity has repeatedly frustrated reform in the past. When we discuss the composition of the House of Lords, as the Bill enables us to do, Conservative Members furiously debate the question of functions, so it is likely that if we were to set out proposals on functions, they would get extremely anxious about composition.
  My suspicion and cynicism have been confirmed this evening by my taking a look at the manifesto on which Conservative Members were elected. It contained no reference to any intention to reform the House of Lords; indeed, there was a clear commitment to retain the hereditary element in the legislature. It was an attempt to satisfy the electorate that the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom were quite satisfactory. The hon. Member for Woodspring has started a process of abandoning those commitments, but it has taken him some time to do so.
  Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend is on the subject of the Conservative manifesto, but I wonder whether the Conservative canvassers guide for the last election has been brought to his attention. In that document, Conservative canvassers were instructed to argue on the doorsteps in favour of the hereditary principle.
  Mr. Hoon: Entirely by coincidence, I have a copy of that document here. It states:
  "It is important to defend the hereditary principle in its own right".
  As I said, the hon. Member for Woodspring has moved a little from that position today.
  Dr. Starkey: Does my hon. Friend suspect that that instruction might have been a last desperate attempt by the Conservatives to try to keep their voters with them by relying on the hereditary principle when the argument had been defeated?
  Mr. Hoon: It would not have done them much good in Ashfield.
  If one doubts the Conservatives' intentions, one need only examine their record of achievement between 1979 and the introduction of the Bill. Not once in that entire period has any senior Conservative Front Bencher called for fundamental reform of the House of Lords—or, indeed, for any sort of reform of the House of Lords.
  Mr. Peter Bradley: I am somewhat confused, because I am unsure whether the Conservative party is being

  985
  consistent with its manifesto pledge to stick with the hereditary principle, or whether, in opposition, it is capable of breaking its promises to the electorate. Can my hon. Friend enlighten me?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is on Third Reading of the Bill, not anything that is happening on the other side of the Chamber.
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, it is relevant to Third Reading to consider why the Conservative party might be anxious to maintain a composition for the House of Lords that is different from the one set out in the Bill. Judging from the arguments that we have heard in the course of the proceedings, because Labour Governments have suffered consistently at the hands of a Tory-dominated second Chamber, Conservative Members might be content to preserve the rights of hereditary peers precisely because, having lost an election, they want to retain their rather tenuous grip on some remaining legislative power.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: If Conservative Members are advancing that argument, Conservative peers certainly are not. As evidenced by not just the arguments on this side of the House but the lack of arguments on the other side and the failure to defend what was accepted along the corridor, surely it is Conservative Members who are out of step. Indeed, Conservative peers—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have heard quite enough about that issue.
  Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, but I will not risk your further wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The point that I was setting out was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) who pointed out that, in the short time since the 1997 general election, the Labour Government have been defeated 33 times in the House of Lords. That point was developed further by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West.
  Dr. George Turner: Can my hon. Friend think of any example when a Conservative Government were defeated only by the votes of hereditary peers? Conservative Governments have suffered a modicum of defeats in the other place but, on every occasion that I can recall from my interest in politics, they were defeated also by the Cross Benchers.
  Mr. Hoon: I certainly cannot recall any such occasion.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth rose—
  Mr. Edward Garnier rose—
  Mr. Hoon: I see that I am about to get some help.
  Mr. Garnier: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) was about to cite an example that even the Minister will remember: the War Crimes Bill.
  Mr. Hoon: The essential question that we are debating is whether the Government are right to make the reforms
  986
  in two separate stages. The Government firmly believe the answer is an emphatic yes, and there are several reasons for that.
  Dr. Ladyman: Before my hon. Friend continues, he should refer to the occasion when hereditary peers in the other place kept one of the Conservative Government's Bills going. Hundreds of hereditary peers were bussed in to support the Maastricht treaty and force through a Bill that Conservative Members now say was completely wrong.
  Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Ever since the passage of that legislation, many Conservative Members have complained about the fact that it was passed at all.
  Mr. David Winnick: Is it not interesting that the only example the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) could give of the other place's defeating the previous Government involved the War Crimes Bill, which the vast majority of Labour Members believed was absolutely essential? We have no apologies to make about it.
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's observation.
  There are clear reasons why the Government are right to proceed in two stages. Arguably, the least important reason is that it was a clear manifesto commitment. However, the Opposition must not ignore the fact that that commitment was carefully drawn, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) pointed out in his typically elegant contribution. Conservative Members should be cautious about the consequences of claiming too stridently that that is irrelevant. They should bear in mind also the thoughtful words of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan).
  The commitment appeared in the manifesto in a particular form for several very good reasons. First, the hereditary membership of Parliament is, in principle, wrong. We are not debating the monarchy or the inheritance of a family home: we are discussing the power to make laws by which the rest of the country is required to live. The social and economic conditions that might once have been said to justify the hereditary element in the legislature have long since passed into history. Even in the heyday of the hereditary peerage, many of the most distinguished Members of the House of Lords were the peers of first creation, not those who sat as the result of inheritance. In those days, the House of Lords constantly renewed itself by new appointments, as confirmed in the interesting historical survey made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) and the more entertaining survey by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton).
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because he is just getting to the point, which is that, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said, the Bill is destructive, whatever the Minister may say. What is important is what will happen in the interim between now and the second stage. Will he say a little about the contribution that the hereditary peers

  987
  continue to make and the plans that he and his Government have to enable them to continue to do so as long as they are not frustrated in their overall objectives.
  Mr. Hoon: I shall not be tempted on to that subject, because it is not within the terms of the Bill that we are debating. In the event of such an amendment being tabled in the other place, there will clearly be opportunities for further discussion of that point.
  The second argument for our proposal is that experience suggests that small evolutionary steps to reform are the way to make effective progress in changing our constitution. That is, as the Conservative party's general election manifesto indicated, completely consistent with our country's constitutional arrangements. I have previously related the comments made by Conservative Ministers in debates on the Life Peerages Act 1958 which support that view.
  The House of Lords is not the same as it was in 1900. Its powers and its composition have been altered. Attempts in 1948 and 1968 further to change it foundered. Progress was made in 1949 because the then Government had a fall-back of partial reform already decided. This Government have learned those lessons of history.
  There is also a practical difficulty in having any sensible debate on the future while the position of hereditary peers remains unresolved. By removing that issue, we are all forced to consider the future, instead of merely debating the past. That strategy, as I said in response to a question from one of my hon. Friends, is already working. We already now have a detailed debate about the second stage and what will happen when the Bill is passed.
  It has been suggested that we do not intend to proceed with a second stage. I refute that. The royal commission has been appointed and started its work. It has been asked to report by 31 December. That is an entirely realistic timetable. We have said, moreover, that we shall use our best endeavours to ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to approve the second stage of reform by the next general election.
  It has been suggested that we intend to subvert the House of Lords in the meantime. Again, I shall set out the principles on which the transitional House will operate, in particular to answer the questions asked by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) in his opening remarks.
  First, there should be broad parity between the two major parties, with appropriate and proportionate creations for the other parties and Cross Benchers. Secondly, we have made a public pledge to allow party leaders a free hand with their nominations within the previously agreed ballots. That is the first time that such a public pledge has ever been made, and we could not have expected it from the Conservative party.
  Mr. Winnick: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hoon: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I must make progress.
  Mr. Winnick: That's gratitude for you.[Laughter.]
  Mr. Hoon: Fortunately, I did not hear that remark.
  988
  Thirdly, there is a pledge to maintain the independent Cross-Bench presence. Those peers will be genuinely independent and can be life or hereditary peers. The Government are committed by our manifesto and White Paper to retaining that presence.
  Finally, a power to recommend non-political appointments and to vet all appointments will be passed to an independent appointments commission, itself appointed under Nolan principles and subject to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. That adds up to a considerable reduction in the Prime Minister's powers of patronage. It is the first time that a Prime Minister has volunteered to reduce his patronage in that way, and I hope that that is a complete answer to the criticisms of patronage made by the hon. Members for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).
  This Bill, despite its modest length, provides for a significant, long-overdue constitutional reform. It constitutes a vital step in modernising our Parliament, preparing it for the conditions of the 21st century. It is not simply about the legislative process and the role of a second Chamber. It is fundamentally about the rights of the British people to have the kind of government and legislation for which they vote in parliamentary elections. It is about the kind of democracy in which we live.
  It is right to place on record the fact that we are grateful to those hereditary peers who have served with distinction in the House of Lords. The more thoughtful of them have known that there can be no real justification for their presence in Parliament. The time has come for them, and for the country, to move on.
  9.45 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The one thing for which the people of this country did not vote at the general election was a Government who would treat Parliament with contempt and seek to steamroller legislation through the House using their huge majority, and with absolute disdain for any other point of view. This debate has been a classic illustration of the Government's intolerance.
  I do not remember any previous occasion in this House when the Minister's winding-up speech has been made before that of the Opposition spokesman. Nor do I remember an occasion on which the Deputy Chief Whip has so blatantly toured his Back Benches, asking Labour Members not to make a speech but to intervene on the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department so that his speech could continue for 25 minutes.
  Before the Minister got up to speak from the Government Front Bench, several hon. Members—I can see at least two of them in the Chamber—rose in the hope of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not accuse any Government or any Opposition Member of trying to filibuster; this has not been a long debate. There were three statements and a ten-minute Bill, so it was 6 o'clock before we began Third Reading. Members on both sides of the House have taken a close interest in this Bill, and wanted to contribute to Third Reading. Had they all been allowed to do so—speeches were averaging no more than about 12 minutes—we would have concluded our proceedings at about 10.30 pm which is hardly a very late

  989
  hour of the night. Instead, the Deputy Patronage Secretary has been urging his hon. Friends not to take part. Then, the Minister—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing Third Reading.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: That is precisely what we are trying to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and what some of my hon. Friends have been deprived of doing.
  The Leader of the House described the Bill as significant, simple and exquisite. I certainly accept that it is a significant measure, because it attempts to re-write the constitution, and there can be nothing more significant than that. I accept that the Bill is simple, because it is very brief. But to describe it as exquisite is about as gross a misuse of the English language as I have heard in this Chamber.
  There have been some interesting speeches, but none has been more interesting, and none more significant, than that of a fellow Staffordshire Member, my hon. Friend—I deliberately call him that—the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who made the very pertinent point that all the indications were that, when the Bill comes back to us from the other place, it will have been wholly re-written. I see him nodding.
  There are very few precedents for such legislative change. The Leader of the House and other Ministers have indicated that an amendment similar to the one voted down in this place at the behest of the Government Whips will, if tabled in the other place, be accepted—as long as their lordships behave themselves. Then those very Members who, a couple of weeks ago, were dragooned through the Lobby to vote down the amendment when we proposed it, will be dragooned through the Lobby to do the opposite.
  Dr. George Turner: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the vast majority of Labour Members will go with joy through the Lobby to see the Bill reach the statute book, and that the vast majority of us will be delighted if it does so without amendment by the Lords.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I fear that one of the dangers of the present Parliament is that the vast majority of Labour Members would go through the Lobby with joy to vote for anything and everything that the Government sought to place before them. If ever there was a negation of parliamentary democracy—a denial of what this place should be about—it is that.
  We had several significant speeches—
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I seem to remember that, some years ago, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues went through the Lobby willy-nilly on something called the poll tax. Is there any difference?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I never went through the Lobby in support of the poll tax. I consistently voted against it—I was one of only two Tories who did not support its introduction in Scotland before the 1987 general election—so the hon. Gentleman had better be careful what he says to me on that subject.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: But did the hon. Gentleman vote to set aside the 1689 Bill of Rights,
  990
  which allowed his friend Neil Hamilton to bring an action against The Guardian for matters which were being discussed—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is completely out of order.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Had I so voted, it would have been out of order, but I did not.
  The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) launched into an extraordinary diatribe. He said, with some reluctance, that he was not actually proposing the guillotine, but I nevertheless felt that the sea-green incorruptible Robespierre had been changed for the drab grey uniformity of the hon. Gentleman, who stands for everything that is colourless in our national life. The hon. Gentleman wants to reduce everything to a sort of digital anonymity; what a ghastly speech it was.
  Tonight we are discussing the removal from the House of Lords of the hereditary peers. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and I—and our right hon. and hon. Friends—have made it abundantly plain that, although we agree with the hereditary principle, as anyone who is a monarchist or who wants to leave his house to his child must, we accept that the Government have a mandate for removing from the other place those who are there because of their birth.
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that selection on the basis of first-born sons may be better suited to the biblical plagues than to British Parliaments?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: When I look at the hon. Gentleman I am certainly warned of plagues, but we entirely accept that the Government have a mandate. We are very much opposed to the Government's giving so much priority to the Bill, but we accept that they have a mandate. We nevertheless believe that they are doing a great disservice to the institution of Parliament by the way in which they are proceeding. What the Government are seeking to do, by removing the hereditary peers without telling us in any detail what they have in mind for constitutional reform, is to place the institution of Parliament in jeopardy.
  Labour Members said that the Bill would improve the House of Lords. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) was especially eloquent on the subject. However, when we sought by amendment to ensure that the House of Lords could continue to perform its vital functions of debate and of scrutiny of legislation and its vital Committee work, every amendment that we tabled was rejected by the Government, including the so-called Weatherill-type amendment, which the Government, by their own admission, accept will be necessary if the other place is to function. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh yes. What we have been able to demonstrate as we have debated during these six, or, rather, seven days is that about half those who regularly attend the House of Lords are hereditary peers. By that, I mean those who play an active part in its deliberations.
  I have cited before the fact that some 10 members of the European Communities Committee, which scrutinises European legislation, and does so to the admiration of the legislatures of the world, are hereditary peers. If we

  991
  wanted any reminder of the need for proper scrutiny of European legislation, we had it in the Chamber this afternoon, with the first statement that followed questions.
  If we are to have a functioning House of Lords able properly to perform the functions that we expect it to perform, we must do something about the numbers. Every time we have tried to do that in Opposition amendments, the Government have denounced us; the Government's troops have voted against those amendments and we are still left with the Bill.
  I remind hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Bill does not mention the word "interim". The Bill will take away from the House of Lords a large percentage of its active and diligent membership and will put nothing in its place. Nor is there any timetable for the emergence of a new type of second Chamber. There will almost certainly be at least four years, and much more likely 10, of the so-called interim Chamber, which is not referred to as such in any part of the Bill.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is not the logical consequence that the Government, through an excessive application of patronage, will have to appoint a vast raft of new Members to the interim House, who will have no experience, and will therefore be unable to exercise the necessary scrutiny? That means that the Government will enjoy a huge majority in this House and will be subject to no scrutiny in the other place.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend makes an extremely pertinent point.
  Mr. Keith Bradley(Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 326, Noes 152.

  Division No. 106]

  [9.58 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Borrow, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Allen, Graham

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Browne, Desmond

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Banks, Tony

  Burden, Richard

  Barnes, Harry

  Burgon, Colin

  Barron, Kevin

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Battle, John

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bayley, Hugh

  Caborn, Richard

  Beard, Nigel

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Caplin, Ivor

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Caton, Martin

  Benton, Joe

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Chaytor, David

  Berry, Roger

  Clapham, Michael

  Best, Harold

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Betts, Clive

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Blackman, Liz

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  992

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hoey, Kate

  Coleman, Iain

  Home Robertson, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hope, Phil

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Corbett, Robin

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cranston, Ross

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Crausby, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hurst, Alan

  Cummings, John

  Hutton, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  (Copeland)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jamieson, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jenkins, Brian

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davidson, Ian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Denham, John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dismore, Andrew

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dobbin, Jim

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kemp, Fraser

  Doran, Frank

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dowd, Jim

  Kidney, David

  Drew, David

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Edwards, Huw

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Efford, Clive

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Laxton, Bob

  Etherington, Bill

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Levitt, Tom

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Fisher, Mark

  Linton, Martin

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Livingstone, Ken

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Flint, Caroline

  Lock, David

  Follett, Barbara

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McAllion, John

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McCabe, Steve

  Fyfe, Maria

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Galloway, George

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gerrard, Neil

  McDonnell, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McFall, John

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Godsiff, Roger

  McIsaac, Shona

  Goggins, Paul

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McNulty, Tony

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McWalter, Tony

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mallaber, Judy

  Grogan, John

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hain, Peter

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hanson, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Martlew, Eric

  Healey, John

  Maxton, John

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Meale, Alan

  993

  Merron, Gillian

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Singh, Marsha

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Snape, Peter

  Mountford, Kali

  Soley, Clive

  Mullin, Chris

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Spellar, John

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Norris, Dan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stevenson, George

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Olner, Bill

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Stott, Roger

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Pearson, Ian

  Stringer, Graham

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pike, Peter L

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Pond, Chris

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pope, Greg

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Timms, Stephen

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Todd, Mark

  Purchase, Ken

  Touhig, Don

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Trickett, Jon

  Radice, Giles

  Truswell, Paul

  Rammell, Bill

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rapson, Syd

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Vaz, Keith

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Rooker, Jeff

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Rooney, Terry

  Wareing, Robert N

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Watts, David

  Roy, Frank

  White, Brian

  Ruane, Chris

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Winnick, David

  Salter, Martin

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Woolas, Phil

  Sawford, Phil

  Worthington, Tony

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wyatt, Derek

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mr. David Clelland and Jane Kennedy.

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Allan, Richard

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Burnett, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burns, Simon

  Bercow, John

  Burstow, Paul

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Butterfill, John

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cash, William

  Boswell, Tim

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  994

  Chope, Christopher

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Madel, Sir David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Maginnis, Ken

  Collins, Tim

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cotter, Brian

  Maples, John

  Cran, James

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Moore, Michael

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Norman, Archie

  Duncan, Alan

  Öpik, Lembit

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Ottaway, Richard

  Evans, Nigel

  Page, Richard

  Faber, David

  Paice, James

  Fabricant, Michael

  Paterson, Owen

  Fallon, Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Prior, David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Randall, John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Rendel, David

  Fraser, Christopher

  Robathan, Andrew

  Garnier, Edward

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gibb, Nick

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Gill, Christopher

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Ruffley, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Gorrie, Donald

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gray, James

  Sanders, Adrian

  Green, Damian

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Greenway, John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Grieve, Dominic

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

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

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hammond, Philip

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hancock, Mike

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Spring, Richard

  Steen, Anthony

  Hayes, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Heald, Oliver

  Syms, Robert

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Horam, John

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Thompson, William

  Hunter, Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Tyler, Paul

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Wardle, Charles

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Waterson, Nigel

  Webb, Steve

  Keetch, Paul

  Wells, Bowen

  Key, Robert

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Whittingdale, John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Lansley, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Leigh, Edward

  Willetts, David

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Willis, Phil

  Lidington, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Woodward, Shaun

  Livsey, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Loughton, Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Mrs. Eleanor Laing.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 340, Noes 132.

  Division No. 107]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cranston, Ross

  Ainger, Nick

  Crausby, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Allan, Richard

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Allen, Graham

  Cummings, John

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Ashton, Joe

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Banks, Tony

  Dalyell, Tam

  Barnes, Harry

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Barron, Kevin

  Davidson, Ian

  Battle, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Beard, Nigel

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Dawson, Hilton

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Denham, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dismore, Andrew

  Benton, Joe

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Berry, Roger

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Best, Harold

  Doran, Frank

  Betts, Clive

  Dowd, Jim

  Blackman, Liz

  Drew, David

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Edwards, Huw

  Boateng, Paul

  Efford, Clive

  Borrow, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Etherington, Bill

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Fisher, Mark

  Browne, Desmond

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Burden, Richard

  Flint, Caroline

  Burgon, Colin

  Follett, Barbara

  Burnett, John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Burstow, Paul

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Fyfe, Maria

  Caborn, Richard

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Caplin, Ivor

  Godsiff, Roger

  Caton, Martin

  Goggins, Paul

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Chaytor, David

  Gorrie, Donald

  Clapham, Michael

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Grogan, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hain, Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hancock, Mike

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hanson, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Coleman, Iain

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Connarty, Michael

  Healey, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Corbett, Robin

  Heppell, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hesford, Stephen

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cotter, Brian

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  996

  Hoey, Kate

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hope, Phil

  Moore, Michael

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Howarth, George (KnowsleyN)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Mountford, Kali

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mullin, Chris

  Hurst, Alan

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hutton, John

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Norris, Dan

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jamieson, David

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jenkins, Brian

  Olner, Bill

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Öpik, Lembit

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pike, Peter L

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Plaskitt, James

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Keetch, Paul

  Pond, Chris

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pope, Greg

  Khabra, Piara S

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Kidney, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Purchase, Ken

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Laxton, Bob

  Radice, Giles

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rammell, Bill

  Levitt, Tom

  Rapson, Syd

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Linton, Martin

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rendel, David

  Livsey, Richard

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Lock, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Love, Andrew

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McAllion, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rooney, Terry

  McCabe, Steve

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Roy, Frank

  McDonnell, John

  Ruane, Chris

  McFall, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McNulty, Tony

  Salter, Martin

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McWalter, Tony

  Sawford, Phil

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Singh, Marsha

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Meale, Alan

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

  997

  Snape, Peter

  Trickett, Jon

  Soley, Clive

  Truswell, Paul

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Spellar, John

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Stevenson, George

  Tyler, Paul

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Vaz, Keith

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Stott, Roger

  Wareing, Robert N

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Watts, David

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Webb, Steve

  Stringer, Graham

  White, Brian

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, David (NWLeics)

  Winnick, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Woolas, Phil

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Timms, Stephen

  Wyatt, Derek

  Tipping, Paddy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Todd, Mark

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Touhig, Don

  Jane Kennedy.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bercow, John

  Day, Stephen

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Body, Sir Richard

  Duncan, Alan

  Boswell, Tim

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Nigel

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Faber, David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Fallon, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Cash, William

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Fraser, Christopher

  Chope, Christopher

  Garnier, Edward

  Clappison, James

  Gibb, Nick

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Gill, Christopher

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Gray, James

  Cran, James

  Green, Damian

  998

  Greenway, John

  Paice, James

  Grieve, Dominic

  Paterson, Owen

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Pickles, Eric

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Prior, David

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Randall, John

  Hammond, Philip

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hayes, John

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Heald, Oliver

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Horam, John

  Ruffley, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hunter, Andrew

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Shepherd, Richard

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Soames, Nicholas

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Key, Robert

  Spring, Richard

  Kirkbride Miss Julie

  Steen, Anthony

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Streeter, Gary

  Syms, Robert

  Lansley, Andrew

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Leigh, Edward

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Lidington, David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Thompson, William

  Loughton, Tim

  Trend, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Wardle, Charles

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Waterson, Nigel

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Wells, Bowen

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Whittingdale, John

  Madel, Sir David

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Maginnis, Ken

  Wilkinson, John

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Willetts, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Maples, John

  Woodward, Shaun

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Yeo, Tim

  Moss, Malcolm

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Norman, Archie

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ottaway, Richard

  Mrs. Eleanor Laing and Mr. Tim Collins.

  Page, Richard

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

  Prevention of Terrorism
  10.27 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move,
  That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.
  I am aware of the long line of Home Secretaries who, since 1974, have risen to speak at the Dispatch Box, as I do now, to propose the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 for a further year. In doing so, many of them have reflected on the mixture of signs of optimism and violence that have characterised the preceding year. I, too, shall draw the House's attention to some of the key events, encouraging and depressing, over the 12 months since the previous renewal debate.
  However, I am perhaps the first Home Secretary in 25 years to say that I hope that this may be one of the last—although maybe not the last—of the annual debates on the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act. As the House will be aware, the Government propose the introduction of permanent counter-terrorist legislation, which we hope will do away with the need for the annual renewal of temporary provisions.
  That approach recognises the sad but incontrovertible reality that even a lasting peace in Northern Ireland—something that we all pray and hope will be firmly established soon—would not of itself remove the need for counter-terrorist legislation. Terrorism, and the threat of terrorism from a range of fronts, is likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future. Although the focus of today's debate is on the renewal of the powers under our current prevention of terrorism legislation, I also intend in closing to say something about our plans for future legislation.
  Looking back over the past 12 months, I am struck by what an extraordinary period of highs and lows it has been. Less than six weeks after the House agreed the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act for a further 12 months, the Good Friday agreement was signed. It was subsequently endorsed by 71 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland and provides the means to take Northern Ireland on the road to lasting peace.
  My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and many others on both sides of the House continue to work tirelessly with all the parties to achieve the full implementation of the agreement and to see the Executive established by the first anniversary of the Good Friday agreement. I think that the whole House recognises that this is Northern Ireland's best chance for peace in decades and it must not be allowed to slip from our grasp.
  By contrast, the interception in July in London of six primed fire-bombs, and the appalling Omagh bombing on 15 August last year—in which 29 people lost their lives, and over 200 were injured—brought home forcefully the residual threat from renegade groups opposed to the Northern Ireland peace process.
  Yesterday, we had a further shocking reminder of the depths to which terrorist groups in the north of Ireland will stoop. Rosemary Nelson, the prominent human rights lawyer and mother of three young children, was murdered
  1000
  in cold blood outside her own home. Her death was claimed by the Red Hand Defenders, a loyalist splinter group bitterly opposed to the Belfast agreement. The proscription of the group and—subject to parliamentary approval—its specification was announced less than two weeks ago, and rightly so.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I join my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in mourning the loss of Rosemary Nelson in yesterday's terrible events. Is he prepared to examine the question of the security provided to Rosemary Nelson, who clearly was a target of extreme groups, and suffered accordingly?
  Mr. Straw: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be happy to look into those matters if representations are made to her by representatives of the family of Rosemary Nelson.
  The Royal Ulster Constabulary has invited David Phillips, the chief constable of Kent, to oversee the inquiry into Rosemary Nelson's murder. It has also invited the Federal Bureau of Investigation to provide an input into the investigation. Those measures, which the Government welcome, demonstrate the RUC's commitment to a full and independent inquiry into this terrible crime.
  I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in conveying our sympathy to the family of Rosemary Nelson at this time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that that was reiterated on both sides of the House. We must restate our commitment to see peace established in Northern Ireland, and the actions of those dreadful murderers must not be allowed to succeed.
  There is also the threat of international terrorism. The bombings—also in early August last year—of the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, with the loss of more than 250 lives, were a shocking illustration of the scale of indiscriminate violence that international terrorists are prepared to unleash whenever they see their opportunity.
  In the past few months, the horrific events in the Yemen, and more recently in Uganda—which resulted in the deaths of four and eight tourists respectively, including seven British citizens—have further emphasised the global reach of international terror.
  Our response to all this is twofold. We will do all that we can in the international and domestic context to help to establish peace and stability, and, alongside that, we will do all that we can with the police and security agencies to counter terrorism directly.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend—a senior member of the Cabinet—reflect on the fact that, however terrible the events in east Africa were, we endorsed the American bombing of the A1 Shifa factory in Khartoum without any evidence—and, it now transpires, almost certainly no grounds whatever—for doing so? Day by day, Tornados and American aircraft are raining down mayhem on Iraq, and we are threatening to bomb the Serbs. Ought there not to be some reflection on the fact that violence begets violence?
  Mr. Straw: I have great affection for my hon. Friend, with whom I dislike disagreeing—but, I am afraid, I do disagree on this occasion. There has been enormous

  1001
  reflection on any military action that the Government have supported, as was the case with the American action over the Sudanese so-called pharmaceutical factory, and in terms of Iraq and Serbia. Before such action can be taken, there is a huge degree of careful reflection in the Cabinet by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence and all those involved in those decisions.
  I am not a pacifist, and I do not think that my hon. Friend is. There are occasions when military action has to be taken. There is a world of difference between action endorsed by the United Nations and/or NATO for a specific, lawful and legitimate purpose and the wholly indiscriminate violence against the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which 250 lives were lost and many more were injured. As far as I recall, nobody was killed in the action against the alleged pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. The action was proportionate to the problem that the United States and we had identified.
  The twin approach of which I was speaking was well illustrated by the recall of Parliament in early September to enact the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, to strengthen our anti-terrorist laws against dissident Irish terrorist groups and our conspiracy laws in relation to terrorism and other crimes.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: The Secretary of State spoke about possible sources of terrorism, such as Iraq. What is the potential for extreme Islamist terrorism within the United Kingdom? There are links with the United Kingdom in the case in Yemen. Is there a growing threat within our own territory?
  Mr. Straw: There is some threat within our territory. I must first make it clear that, although the phrase "Islamist terrorism" is used in common parlance, we ought to avoid it. We do not use the phrase "Christian terrorism", or indeed "Catholic terrorism" or "Protestant terrorism", to categorise some of the terrible events that have taken place in Northern Ireland. We avoid implying that the religions followed entirely lawfully by the vast majority of people are somehow a cause of terrorist activities. The overwhelming majority of followers of Islam here, as in every other country, are wholly law abiding.
  The problem is middle eastern terrorism based on territorial challenges and on tribalism, which seeks to justify itself by reference to Islam. The lawful Islamic groups in this country are very sensitive on the matter. I make that point at some length because it is a real issue of sensitivity for the British Muslim community, which is entirely lawful. Middle eastern terrorism is an acknowledged threat, and the security and intelligence agencies and the police take it very seriously and monitor it carefully.
  The key to the prevention of terrorism is to ensure that the police and others have all the powers that they need to deter, disrupt and investigate. I pay tribute to the diligence, the immense hard work and the bravery of the police and the security forces in their daily efforts on our behalf.
  Informing our debate today is the report prepared by John Rowe QC. I am very grateful to Mr. Rowe for the work that he has undertaken in the past 12 months, as he
  1002
  has in previous years. He advises that the powers in the Act, including the powers of arrest, detention and stop and search, and the terrorist investigation powers, were all used appropriately and proportionately in 1998 and should remain in force for 1999. As exclusion order powers were not included in last year's order, Mr. Rowe has not considered those powers in his report.
  The order does not contain exclusion powers. It has been the Government's long-standing view that exclusion orders are wrong on policy grounds—in that they may be used to exclude British citizens by Executive order from part of the national territory—and that they have in any case proved to be of limited utility.
  As long as the powers remain on the statute book, as they will have to until there is primary legislation, they could of course be reactivated on security grounds, but I find it hard to conceive of the circumstances in which I would decide that that would be expedient, and our consultation paper on our proposals for future legislation makes it clear that we do not envisage carrying them across into our new permanent anti-terrorist laws. Of course our ability, under the Immigration Act 1971, to deport, or deny entry to, suspected international terrorists will remain unchanged.
  Returning to the issues raised in Mr. Rowe's report, I was especially pleased to read of the care that he found was taken in respect of all the relatively small number of complaints received about the operation of the powers under the prevention of terrorism Act. We must never lose sight of the fact that the powers available under this legislation are exceptional and must be exercised with the utmost integrity and diligence. It is absolutely right that any complaints are treated seriously. Therefore, it is pleasing and reassuring to learn that there were relatively few complaints in 1998 and that Mr. Rowe considers that all those were dealt with conscientiously.
  The specific anti-terrorist provisions in the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, which amended sections of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, also fall to be renewed for the first time in the order before the House. I shall remind the House what those measures mean. First, they mean that the opinion of a senior police officer is admissible in court as evidence of membership of proscribed and specified terrorist organisations. That includes the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA but, subject to parliamentary approval, not the Irish National Liberation Army. Secondly, courts may draw inferences from a suspect's refusal to answer questions during an investigation into membership of a proscribed and specified terrorist group. As hon. Members may remember, it is not possible, under the legislation, for a suspect to he convicted solely on the basis of inferences allowed under the Act or on the statement of a police officer alone.
  As Mr. Rowe points out in his report, there have not so far been any convictions in connection with the new provisions, but that cannot be the sole criterion for judging their effectiveness. The measures were introduced as a targeted response to the small, but very dangerous, renegade groups who are bent on destroying the Northern Ireland peace process, and have no regard for the human life that they would destroy at the same time. The fact that similar action was also taken in September in the Irish

  1003
  Parliament sent a powerful signal of the total repudiation from people both sides of the border of those renegade groups and all that they stand for.
  However, the provisions are more than a symbolic gesture. They are there so that it is possible to take robust action against any who, in the face of the express wishes of the people of the island of Ireland, choose to support groups not observing total and unequivocal ceasefires. All of us hope that the support for those groups withers away, but, if it does not, the strengthened provisions are there to assist in bringing those people to book.
  That leads me to touch on the observations that Mr. Rowe offers in his report about the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act and the European convention on human rights. In his report, Mr. Rowe concludes that most of the measures in the Act do not raise issues of possible incompatibility. Indeed, he points out that, although it has been possible for individuals to bring cases to the European Court of Human Rights since 1966, only two cases have been dealt with by the court in all that time, and a violation was found in only one of those. It is fair to say, therefore, that our ECHR record, vis-a-vis the prevention of terrorism Act, is good.
  However, Mr. Rowe does raise concerns about the compatibility of the new membership provisions, enacted last September, with article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which provides for a right to a fair trial. It may not surprise the House to learn that I part company with him on that point. I can assure the House, as I made clear when the emergency legislation was introduced in September, that the whole issue of compatibility with the ECHR was looked at extremely closely before the Bill was published and that I was, and remain, satisfied that the provisions are compatible with the convention. We would not have introduced the legislation in that form if we had believed that it was incompatible with our obligations under the convention.
  We have, of course, looked again at the provisions in the light of the specific points made by Mr. Rowe in his report, and I do not lightly take issue with his conclusions, but his arguments—which we have studied with great care—have not caused us to change our position. That is something on which we will have to agree to differ, unless and until these questions are settled in the courts. As Mr. Rowe himself has pointed out, his conclusions are very provisional indeed, and the matter will ultimately be decided by the courts.
  I shall make a few remarks about our proposals for new counter-terrorist legislation. The House will be aware that the Government issued a consultation paper, "Legislation Against Terrorism", just before Christmas, inviting, as it happens, responses by 16 March, which is today. In it, we argued that, because of the range of terrorist threats that the United Kingdom faces, there will be a need for continuous United Kingdom-wide anti-terrorist powers, even when lasting peace is established in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. James Gray: Will the Home Secretary take this opportunity to feel the slightest twinge of embarrassment at the fact that, from 1983 to 1995, the Labour party consistently opposed renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act? Will he apologise to the
  1004
  nation for getting it wrong for 12 years? His remarks tonight make it quite clear that we were right to renew the Act on every occasion.
  Mr. Straw: I am not remotely going to apologise, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chooses to mix it in what ought to be a bipartisan debate. If he cares to read the debates over the years—I have studied every one of them—he will find that there was never an argument about the need for anti-terrorist legislation. We never made that argument, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear during his first debate as shadow Home Secretary in 1993, and again in 1994.
  Our arguments were about proportionality in the use of the powers, which was on a different scale during the 1980s. We also argued over the question of a judicial element in extensions of detention and, in particular, over the use of exclusion powers. We have made it clear that there will in future be a judicial element to extensions of detention. As for exclusion powers, I have done exactly what I told the House we would do when I spoke in the final two PTA debates before the general election. I said that we would not use the exclusion orders, and they were wound down quickly after the election. They have since been suspended from the face of the Bill.
  As is widely recognised, the time has come to put anti-terrorist legislation on a permanent footing. We envisage legislation that is flexible enough to be able to respond to the ever-changing nature of terrorism, that is effective and proportionate to the threat that the UK faces, that protects the rights of individuals and that complies with our international commitments.
  We hope and expect that, by the time new legislation is introduced, the threat from Irish terrorism should have diminished to the point at which no additional special powers are necessary to combat it. If the security situation suggests that some particular measure is needed, it will be included in a temporary additional section of the Act, subject, as the prevention of terrorism Act is at present, to annual independent review and to Parliament's annual approval to its staying in force. Whatever the circumstances in Northern Ireland, we shall ensure that powers necessary to the security forces in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the UK will be on the statute book and will be available to the security forces and the police.
  This is not the place to detail the measures that we propose to take. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members have had the opportunity to read our paper. We are determined to strike the right balance between giving the police and other agencies the powers that they need to fight terrorism and guarding the civil liberties of people affected by the exercise of those powers. We recognise that it will not be an easy task, and we will carefully consider all the responses that we receive to our consultation document.
  Let me turn again to the focus of today's debate. The question before us is whether the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act should remain in force for a further 12 months. I judge that it is vital that those engaged in the fight against terrorism should have the powers that they need. The Act must therefore be renewed.
  10.49 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: I shall be brief. I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to Mr. Rowe for his report. The report argues—to my mind, utterly convincingly—that the Act is needed for a further year, and we support that continuance absolutely. If any extra argument were needed, that was provided by the appalling murder of Rosemary Nelson this week—something that the whole House deplores as yet another example of the sickening use of the car bomb by a terrorist group. I applaud the action of the Chief Constable of the RUC in emphasising the independence of the investigation into that murder.
  Such terrorist atrocities have continued for more than 30 years. When I was a journalist on The Times, I was sent to cover some of the earliest violence in the late 1960s, and that violence has continued throughout the time that I have been a Member of Parliament. During my days as a journalist, I spent some time with the RUC and the then Chief Constable; a lasting result of that experience is a great admiration for the men and women of the RUC, who have suffered terrible casualties in the battles and actions in which they have taken part, year after year.
  What is significant about Mr. Rowe's report is that it demonstrates that, even in 1998, the level of violence was enormous and the terrorist challenge immense. Chapter 4 succinctly describes the situation in Northern Ireland:
  "Paramilitary organisations are still in being, and some of them have not announced a ceasefire. There are dissident elements who are intent upon causing injury and damage, and they have the capacity to do so. All in all there is a real threat that some terrorist activity will continue in Northern Ireland and there is no reason to think that it will not extend to Great Britain.
  Mr. Rowe continues:
  "There have been explosions of bombs, and attempts to carry our bombing attacks … There have been hundreds of beatings carried out for a paramilitary purpose, many of them in circumstances of great brutality, and some of them ending in death."
  He adds that, in 1998:
  "In Northern Ireland there have been 55 deaths, caused by terrorist attacks."
  He ends:
  "My conclusion is this: criminals with a terrorist or paramilitary disposition have the means to carry out attacks with explosives and firearms at any time; furthermore, some of them have maintained an organisation which has structure and influence. Therefore there is a need for the PTA so far as concerns terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland."
  I entirely agree with him, and accept his conclusion.
  The Conservatives' position is that the Belfast agreement offers the prospect of a genuine and lasting peace underpinned by stable political institutions. There is now a real chance that the terrorist events that have characterised the past 30 years might be brought to an end, but no one should doubt that difficulties still lie ahead. The peace in Northern Ireland is in many respects imperfect. The main terrorist organisations, with their command and control structures, remain firmly intact; they are continuing to target potential victims and recruit and train members. Far from making a start on decommissioning their illegally held arms and explosives as they are required to do under the Belfast agreement, the evidence suggests that, at times, they are even seeking new and more sophisticated weaponry.
  1006
  Even in the event of the agreement succeeding, the terrorist threat is likely to remain at a high level, perhaps for some time. As the Home Secretary said, the Omagh bombing in 1998—the single worst atrocity of the past 30 years—was carried out by a republican splinter group; and the murder of Rosemary Nelson is the work of another splinter group. The terrorist threat remains, but it is by no means confined to Northern Ireland: there are other forms of domestic terrorism and the problems of international terrorism, to which the Home Secretary has referred. The Government's consultation paper rightly points out that, not only has the threat from such groups increased in recent years, but they have access to increasingly sophisticated weapons and methods. That was recognised by the previous Conservative Government, who extended the powers of the Prevention of Terrorism Act to cover that development.
  Faced with the continuing threat from all forms of terrorism, Conservative Members support unequivocally renewing the legislation for a further year. We have always taken the strongest stance against terrorism and backed measures designed to deal effectively with it.
  Mr. Steve McCabe: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the persistent, and perhaps tedious, interventions by his hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) of the kind that we have witnessed most recently—suggesting repeatedly that the Labour party is opposed to this approach—undermine the sincerity of his bipartisan case? Does the right hon. Gentleman regret his hon. Friend's interventions?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I do not regret my hon. Friend's interventions. I add, in passing, that our backing for the Government on the Prevention of Terrorism Act contrasts with the actions of the then Labour Opposition. From 1983 to 1995, Labour opposed the Act's annual renewal. In 1995, Labour took the decision to abstain from the vote—the Home Secretary appears to find this rather amusing, but he abstained in 1995. I do not intend to mix it in any shape or form, but I must point out that Labour has changed its position. We welcome that, and we will support that position in a bipartisan manner—which is exactly what we are doing.
  We also believe that the improvements in the security situation made possible by the progress in Northern Ireland make this an opportune time to examine the future requirements of the United Kingdom in respect of counter-terrorist legislation. We are examining the Government's consultation paper. The Government's recommendations build, in large part, upon the work of Lord Lloyd, and make practical sense. Like Lloyd, they are predicated on the establishment of lasting peace in Northern Ireland. While we agree that it is right to move forward in this area, nothing should be contemplated that diminishes our ability to deal with the existing threat and any threat that might occur in the future.
  Therefore, I add one point about the position in Northern Ireland. We know the difficulties and the dangers. Successive Governments have worked for peace, and the position is more hopeful now than it has been for the past 30 years. As the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Sir Ronnie Flanagan, put it:
  "Despite all of these barriers to the ultimate elimination of violence, there remains a solid basis for optimism and hope for the future. Of course, there will be setbacks. Of course there will be

  1007
  attempted attacks by those desperate to resist peace and reconciliation but the overwhelming trend of movement is clearly in the positive direction. Things have changed dramatically for the good and all those of influence must continue to positively exert that influence".
  They are wise words, and it is very much in that spirit that we support the order.
  10.59 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am concerned about one thing: misdirected vengeance. For example, nearly two years ago, with the Home Secretary's agreement, I went to Scotland Yard to see Assistant Commissioner David Veness about the brutal murder of Woman Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher. That case has repeatedly been given as a reason for our maintaining support for rather brutal sanctions against Libya. If there were no doubt whatever about that case, that position would at least be understandable, but Scotland Yard continues to press for a decision—I am told that one is just around the corner—on an investigation that I do not doubt they take extremely seriously.
  David Veness said to me, "We have about half a dozen cases that, above all, we really want to solve. Yvonne Fletcher was one of our own. You can take it, Mr. Dalyell, that we really want to solve that case." I do not doubt that Scotland Yard is working extremely hard on it. Will the Home Secretary therefore tell the House when that case is likely to be concluded? If there is a degree of uncertainty about that case, how in heaven's name can it be a basis for international policy?
  Reference was made earlier to the Al Shifa factory. I have been to see R. J. P. Williams, who has been a fellow of Wadham college at Oxford for some 40 years and is professor of inorganic chemistry at that university, a Royal Society professor and the greatest European expert on EMTA, or O ethyl methyl phosphonoic acid. In long letters which make up part of a huge correspondence with the Prime Minister, Professor Williams says that he is now certain that the Al Shifa factory had nothing whatever to do with the VX precursors that apparently caused all the trouble. He said also that anyone would have to be out of their mind to make VX precursors in a factory that did not even have airtight doors in a built-up area in a capital city. No one would do that.
  There comes a time when we say that the vengeance that has been wreaked is ill-directed and wrong. This is not the occasion, in such a short debate, to take up time discussing Iraq, but I plead with a senior member of the Cabinet to imagine what it must be like for traumatised kids and old people to face the threat of bombing night after night. I say gently to the Home Secretary that those of us who are of a generation that has done national service or have experience of Northern Ireland—a subject on which I speak with great humility—know what horror is being unleashed. Is there a moral justification for that? What justifies it?
  A brutal fact must be faced: in whole swathes of Africa and Asia, let alone the Arab world, President Clinton and the British Prime Minister, Defence Secretary and Foreign Secretary are regarded as terrorists. That is very disagreeable for us, but it is nevertheless a fact. Once we start unleashing such bombs, God help us if we try to take on the Slays, with all that that entails. We are tarred with that which we deprecate. I shall leave it at that, but I should like the Home Secretary to comment on the Fletcher situation.
  11.3 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: In previous debates on our annual review of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, hon. Members may sometimes have felt a sense of deja vu as seasoned participants recited their well-known and well-rehearsed positions. This year, the debate is different. For the first time in our review of anti-terrorism legislation, we may consider aspects of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 and take into account the implications for the PTA of the Human Rights Act 1998. Also for the first time, we can take into account the Government's wider thinking on anti-terrorism legislation, as outlined in the Home Office consultation paper. Each of those factors is novel to this debate.
  As Mr. Rowe makes clear in his report, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 will affect the implementation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, not least where the PTA gives effect to the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998. Mr. Rowe's report does not make entirely encouraging reading. It opens the Government to the accusation that what they are trying to do with one Act, the renewal of the PTA, they undermine with another, the Human Rights Act 1998.
  Under the Human Rights Act, the courts will be required to interpret the PTA to uphold the European convention on human rights. The fact that they will be required to take into account any relevant judgment of the European Court of Human Rights and the fact that case law of the European Court will be part of the jurisprudence of the United Kingdom may, as Mr. Rowe acknowledges, affect the implementation of the PTA—some parts more than others. From now on, to a far greater extent, the important matter will be how the powers of the PTA have been exercised in an individual case.
  The Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act—I make this point in relation to what has been said earlier in this debate—has not had any effect on the pursuit of the Omagh bombers.
  Section 2A of the PTA, which was introduced under the terrorism and conspiracy Act, provides that on a charge of membership of a proscribed organisation, a police officer may give evidence that in his opinion the defendant belongs to a specified organisation. There is legitimate cause for concern here. Paragraph 58 of Mr. Rowe's report states:
  "In my view there may, in the use and application of this section, be a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, where the police officer speaks of what another person … told him, or what sensitive information tells him."
  On inference from silence, Mr. Rowe comments in paragraph 62 in respect of the Human Rights Act:
  "Whether there will be a breach of the European Convention will depend upon the circumstances of the particular case."
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: Does my hon. Friend agree that the matter goes beyond simply a possible breach of the European convention? We were certainly led to believe in debates on incorporating the convention that it was the bottom line. Does he therefore agree that simply as a departure from normal legal practice in this country, the two provisions to which he has referred ought to give cause for considerable concern?
  Mr. Hunter: Yes, I do. My hon. Friend makes the point that I am trying to make more succinctly. If he bears with me, I will continue to develop it. Another section in Mr. Rowe's report substantiates his argument.

  1009
  In paragraph 63, Mr. Rowe points out that because "PACE inference" is different from "PTA inference", there is a danger of confusion where several charges are brought against a defendant, and that could constitute unfairness, as defined by the European convention on human rights. Mr. Rowe also suggests, as no doubt my hon. Friend is aware, that in some circumstances the same can be said of sections 14 and 16A. To put it mildly, it is profoundly unsatisfactory that the Government have created what, at the very least, is a grey area, and may prove to be much worse. That and the fact that the powers of the new section 2A have not been used since they were enacted goes a considerable way towards justify the cynicism that some of us feel about the interaction of the PTA and the Human Rights Act 1998.
  As for the order in the wider context of the Government's review of legislation against terrorism, I do not object in principle to the proposition that the PTA and the Emergency Provisions Act should be replaced with one piece of permanent legislation, provided some flexibility is retained to enable the Government to respond to exceptionally serious or unforeseen circumstances.
  With regard to the consultation paper and the order, to be ultra-selective, first, on balance, I believe that the Government are probably right to think in terms of introducing a judicial element into the extension of detention—section 14 of the Act. I changed my thinking on that issue towards the end of the previous Parliament. However, I still maintain that the case for judicial involvement is not so overwhelming as some of its advocates maintain. There are dangers and there are difficulties, not least the risk of compromising the judiciary by widening its role from being only and strictly judicial, and involving it in the process of prosecution.
  Secondly, I hope that the Government will take very serious note indeed of Mr. Rowe's emphasis on the key role of port and border controls in detecting and detecting terrorism. He especially stresses the importance of adequate manpower. He reports in paragraph 114 that
  "there is as much need as ever for the presence of port officers, from the point of view, of both terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, and terrorism in the international field."
  Thirdly, with regard to the consultation paper and this order, there remain two areas where, without apology, I continue to quarrel with the Government. I shall not repeat the arguments in detail—they are well rehearsed—but merely refer to them. It remains my belief that the Government are making a monumental error in dispensing with the power to intern and the power to exclude. I note with interest, however, that the Government are retaining the power to exclude from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland; I approve of that.
  In my judgment, the powers to intern and to exclude, when used on a basis of sound intelligence, can be an effective means of severing the chain of command and communication without which terrorists cannot commit acts of terror. I am convinced that both powers should be available for use, and I remain convinced that the Government's ability to deter and detect terrorism is weakened by abandoning them.
  Notwithstanding my objections in those respects, and unlike Labour Members when they were in opposition, if there is a Division, I shall vote in support of the order.
  1010
  To conclude, as far as the order goes, I support the Government. Mr. Rowe has concluded that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 has been used properly in the past year and that, in respect of both terrorism related to the affairs of Northern Ireland and international terrorism, its powers are still needed. Continuing terrorist activity in Northern Ireland and on the mainland in relation to the affairs of Northern Ireland, and the escalating reality of international terrorism confirm that. I do not believe that the House has good reason to disagree with Mr. Rowe.
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: Here we are again—same old story. Rosemary Nelson happens to be the latest victim of the long, sad catalogue of violence that caused us to implement the Prevention of Terrorism Act in the first place. Responsibility for that attack seems to rest on the Red Hand Defenders. What does that name mean? What are they defending—the right to violence, the right to kill? Such events hold no promise of hope for those involved, and call for no half-hearted response from us, any more than the legislation lends itself to compromise. It is all or nothing.
  If we vote against the continuance of the order tonight, we would not be voting against any one part of it, but throwing out the whole thing, leaving Northern Ireland and Britain less protected than experience has shown we need to be at present. Therefore it will not come as a surprise for me to reveal that the Liberal Democrats will support the continuance order tonight.
  It is a case of balancing the rights of the public, and civil liberties, with the rights of people rightly or wrongly accused of heinous terrorist crimes. If those crimes are committed, some members of the public will lose their lives. However, as civil democrats, none of us in the Chamber can support the removal of some fairly fundamental rights from an individual for less than fundamental reasons.
  The questions that we need to ask when deciding whether to support the order are whether it has saved lives, whether it will continue to save lives, and whether it helps the terrorists to perpetrate their crimes by offering some perverse justification on the grounds that their rights have been limited. The considerable evidence in the Rowe report and elsewhere suggests that the answers are respectively yes, yes and clearly no. There is no justification for the terrorists to perpetrate their crimes on the basis of the PTA.
  The legislation is, in our view, a regrettable necessity, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said last year. That is the world in which we live, unfortunately.
  We look forward to the Government's proposals to bring together all security legislation under one Act. That is rather overdue. Clearly, the potential for further well-planned and co-ordinated terrorist violence in Northern Ireland is a significant factor in our decision tonight whether to support the continuance of the PTA. In a few weeks, it will be an extremely significant factor in our consideration of the Emergency Provisions Act. There are other pieces of legislation justified by the threat of terrorism in Northern Ireland. We will save our comments for the proposals, when they are announced.
  I hope for three things above all—first, that all security measures are combined in a single piece of legislation. Secondly, I hope that when that legislation comes before

  1011
  both Houses for renewal in future years, it can be amended, so that we are not faced with the all-or-nothing choice before us tonight. Thirdly, I hope that the legislation is not introduced on a wave of hysteria, following widespread revulsion aroused by a particular atrocity. We need to be sober when such serious legislation is introduced, and not act on impulse.
  The Rowe report has called at least twice and possibly three times for more staff to be on duty at ports. Although we commend the valiant people who are in the front line against terrorism, we should never imagine that terrorists are not cunning enough to go round the back way. Ports are the back door that needs to be kept locked. I would welcome some comment from the Minister, as it seems to be a recurring failure. I am sure that he would agree that if reductions were motivated purely by Treasury cuts and financial considerations in the short term, those savings could prove to be false economies in the matter of terrorism.
  We are concerned about apparent breaches, which have already been mentioned, of the European convention on human rights, to which the Government have laudably committed themselves. Mr. Rowe's annual report this year raises the question whether the new powers incorporated into the PTA as a result of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 breach the European convention on human rights. Whereas the report concludes that other powers are not considered to breach that convention, Mr. Rowe concludes that the new provisions in relation to a police officer's evidence and drawing inferences from silence may lead to breaches—but, admittedly, only in certain circumstances.
  On page 11 of the report, Mr. Rowe states:
  "In my view there is a potential breach of Article 6.3.d, which establishes the right to examine witnesses against him"—
  that is, the defendant.Taken at face value, those words appear to prohibit hearsay evidence. The witness giving adverse evidence should be in court and available for cross-examination.
  I was slightly concerned when the Home Secretary said that he was comfortable with a different interpretation from that provided by Mr. Rowe. I am not convinced that he has satisfied those of us who are unhappy about the decisions that have been made in the past on the matter.
  For the future, the implication is that a key concern will be to ensure that the process of replacing the existing temporary legislation with permanent legislation does not result in unnecessary powers remaining in operation, and that the proper means for scrutiny of the operation of the powers are in place.
  In fairness, we welcome the Government's stated aim for complete normalisation, whereby exceptional powers that do not apply in the rest of the United Kingdom will not apply to Northern Ireland. That will, of course, depend on developments within the Province, but maintaining a consensus among UK parties must be a key element of that.
  In that context, I again highlight our continuing concerns about provisions on international elements which were introduced, in a rather Machiavellian fashion, last September when the House was suddenly recalled. We were opposed then, as we are now, to some of the additional powers, and still maintain that the powers that have been introduced to try to control international terrorism go beyond in their reach what may be regarded as liberal.
  1012
  I am concerned once again that individuals with whom I worked in the past when the Soviet Union was still an entity could have been arrested in the United Kingdom and found guilty of a crime simply for supporting the justifiable aspirations of the emerging democracies, such as Estonia, the Baltic states and others, and trying to stand up to the tyranny under which they lived. It is easy to be tough, but it is important to be fair.
  Mr. John Bercow: I am genuinely perplexed by the example that the hon. Gentleman has just given. I simply ask him to elaborate on it and to try to justify it to those of us who are deeply sceptical about the validity of the analogy.
  Mr. Öpik: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the extensive 16-hour debate last September on the matter. I do not want to digress too far from the issue at hand. I merely add one additional sentence. I am saying nothing new. We have had this debate in the past when we highlighted the importance of balancing the requirement to be seen to be just and fair with the reasonable need, which we all support, to tackle international terrorism. I am happy to discuss the matter further, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that in these matters, we have to be scrupulously clear and careful not to undermine the very values that we are attempting to uphold with legislation. In that sense, replacing terrorism with injustice is not an equitable trade. I hope that the Home Secretary will take that seriously when we seek to replace the temporary provisions with more permanent legislation in the future.
  Notwithstanding that point, we recognise that this Act is necessary and will continue to be so in the current environment. The best prevention of terrorism act is the act of laying down one's arms for good. It is what we all hope for and what the agreement in Northern Ireland expects. I hope that in 12 months' time, we shall look back at this debate as the last time that the House felt the need to uphold legislation that, when all is said and done, applies to exceptional circumstances in Northern Ireland, which there is some hope that we can now resolve for good.
  The Act is no more perfect than human nature and simply serves to remind us that, in the resolution of conflict, our species has some way to go.
  11.24 pm
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: When the Home Secretary spoke tonight he alluded to the death of Rosemary Nelson and very properly condemned it without reservation. I share that sentiment and believe that all decent people in Northern Ireland do likewise. Whoever Rosemary Nelson was, or whoever any other victim of violence is in Northern Ireland, there is no justification within a western democracy for anyone taking a life to promote a political aspiration.
  The society that we live in should not be barbarous, but one in which there is respect for other traditions and for individuals—even those with whom we might strongly disagree. Although I would have disagreed with many of the things with which Rosemary Nelson was associated, she was doing her job as a solicitor and whatever associations she would have had in connection with that job cannot be used, as some people whisper behind their hands, in relation to the sort of life that she led.

  1013
  On the other hand, the media and those who do not have the courage to address the reality of the situation in Northern Ireland will attempt to lionise Rosemary Nelson, but all that I do on behalf of my party is express my sincere sympathy with her husband, her children and her family. I do so as I would for any other victim of violence in Northern Ireland, whether it be a single victim or a member of a group—one of about 30, depending on whether we count the unborn children who died in the Omagh bomb.
  I hope that this is the last time that the PTA is continued. It is intended that new legislation, incorporating the PTA and the emergency provisions Act, will replace it. If that is so, it is appropriate to look forward to the nature of the society for which the new Act will cater. I believe that the one thing that is missing from our approach to emergency legislation is the education of society about the nature of terrorism. So many myths surround the terrorism that we have in the United Kingdom at present that it is difficult to understand what we are trying to achieve. So much is talked about the rights of the individual—by the very people who would deny individuals the right to life—that the rights of society as a whole are often neglected within that debate.
  The Home Secretary and this House can legislate as much as they like to prevent terrorism, but, after reading some of today's press and participating in some of the television and radio programmes examining the death of Rosemary Nelson, I believe that terrorism is treated almost as an entertainment. I worry about what we will achieve; old legislation or new legislation, it will not matter.
  We have to understand that international terrorism is not a three-stage rocket from North Korea, which the Americans are taking steps to prevent. They are talking about putting in place anti-missile defences. For the next 20 or 30 years, terrorism will mean the nuclear device that is loaded on to a ship and sailed up the Thames and into London docks, or into Boston, or the nuclear device that is placed in the back of a container lorry and driven from eastern Europe to this country, or somewhere else. Unless people appreciate that concept of what terrorism brings to society, all the legislation that we can produce here, and all the debate that can take place, will be for nothing.
  I saw a Labour Member shake his head when I spoke of terrorism being a subject of entertainment in the press and on television. We need only examine the propaganda that has been peddled by terrorists in my community—loyalist and republican terrorists—and assess the validity of their terrorism. We need only look at the way in which the exponents and advocates of that terrorism have been welcomed by some Members of this House, and have been supported and buoyed up by them over the past 30 years. They are being buoyed up by Congressmen like Chris Smith and Ben Gillman, chairman of the House international relations committee in Congress.
  Ben Gillman is now suggesting that he should conduct an inquiry into the RUC—an inquiry that will coincide with the winding up of the Patten commission, which is looking at the future of the RUC. I have not heard him suggest that he might examine the activities of the Israelis on the Gaza strip. I have heard no Member who is present consider the motivation of Congressman Peter King—a
  1014
  member of the committee—who supported and endorsed the mortaring of Newry police station in which policemen and policewomen, Protestant and Catholic, died. He endorsed that, yet we are prepared to be, as we would say, bird-mouthed about the activities of people who act as advocates for terrorists. It is time that the House, our Government and those with responsibility educated the public about the real threat, and the nature of that threat.
  The RUC, which has had to withstand the scourge of terrorism in Northern Ireland for 30 years, is now the organisation against which the most venom and negative propaganda is being launched. There have been scandalous arguments in our weekend papers. The Sunday Times, for instance, carried an allegation by a convicted murderer that one man, dead at the hands of terrorists—Superintendent Harry Breen—had been involved in the promotion of terrorism. I mention that case in particular because I knew Harry Breen. I also knew his brother, the late Winston Breen, who was headmaster of Banbridge academy. I know his family, who live in my constituency, and a better, more Christian family—I am talking about the way in which they lead their lives, not the way in which they preach to others—I have yet to meet. Yet some scoundrel who murdered Catholics can come out, sell, I presume, his story to a paper and demean the memory of someone such as Superintendent Harry Breen. It is a disgrace. It is something that Government after Government have ignored when they have spoken about terrorism and the scourge of terrorism: the rights of those who have the responsibility to stand between the law-abiding community and the terrorist.
  The RUC is being accused of collusion. A total of 12,000 men and women serve in the RUC. I am not naive enough to believe that every one of them is the most upright citizen one could meet. Many of them are. Inquiry after inquiry has vindicated them with regard to collusion, yet where are we today? We still hear the allegations and who do they come from?—those who, within minutes of poor Rosemary Nelson's death, were able to come out on to the streets holding their anti-RUC posters; people who are organised to demean the RUC.
  It appears to us quite often that no one is prepared to stand up and to defend those in the RUC. If we look at the record, we find that they brought 48 per cent. of loyalist terrorists who committed murder through the courts in my constituency, but were able to bring only 8 per cent. of republican terrorists through the courts for a similar offence. That had to do with the co-operation that those in the RUC received and with the way in which they exercised their responsibilities.
  Who colluded in the deaths of 2,200 people who were killed by the IRA? Who colluded in the attacks on my colleagues and me over the years? No one needed to collude in a society where we live together and where the IRA can move freely and attack us. In the same way, there is no—
  Mr. Hunter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maginnis: No. I am over my time. I am not giving way.
  No one needs to collude with loyalist terrorists who have exactly the same opportunity as republican terrorists to wreak havoc in our society, so it is time that each and every one of us fulfilled our responsibility to educate our

  1015
  society as to what terrorism can do to our society if we let it go unchecked. That is where we have to look when we introduce not only the legislation that is to be renewed tonight, but new legislation that will incorporate both the PTA and EPA.
  11.38 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I do not intend to trouble the House at any length, but I would not be taking my opportunity if I did not say a few words about the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, which was introduced last September.
  I support the broad thrust of the PTA and the order. It is clear that society needs to be protected from the activities of terrorists. It is equally clear that, in seeking to provide such protection, we sometimes have to introduce, and keep going, orders and legislation which may at times offend against our view of what we would like in an ideal society.
  I am bound to say, however, that, last September, when the House considered the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act, I had the very gravest reservations. I was not able to develop my arguments then—perhaps fortunately for my own conscience—because, as I had to organise my father's funeral the following day, I had been released by the Whips. I left the House only after hearing what the Home Secretary had to say about that Bill, and there was enough in what he said to cause me considerable disquiet. Once the House had re-assembled after the recess, I spoke to many colleagues, including plenty of Labour Members, and found that my disquiet was shared.
  I simply want to say this about the 1998 Act. It has been suggested that the two provisions with which we are particularly concerned today—a police officer's statement of opinion being sufficient as evidence of membership of a proscribed organisation, and the inferences to be drawn from an accused's failure to mention any material fact that he could reasonably have been expected to mention at the time of his arrest in connection with that—do not offend against the Human Rights Act 1998. I do not know the answer to that. All I can say is that it is a matter which is, fortunately, untested. I also have some rather serious doubts about whether it would pass that test.
  Even if that were not the case, it is difficult to imagine—it always seemed to me to be the most extraordinary feature of the two provisions—that anyone could ever be convicted in a case that is brought based on them. If such a prosecution were to be brought, I should be very surprised if a judge, exercising the discretion open to him in the interests of justice, were to allow a conviction to be entered on that basis.
  If that is the case—I should say that that is the view of the matter that I took when I considered it last September—I regret very much that, in the immediate aftermath of the atrocity at Omagh, we should have passed legislation which I believe to be hasty and ill-considered.
  Let me simply tell the Home Secretary that I am mindful of the fact that, at this stage, it may not be possible to do anything about it. I am equally mindful of the fact that we all have real hopes that, in 12 months' time, we may be able to bury everything connected with this order and with the whole Prevention of Terrorism Act, because the situation will have improved so much. That is certainly my hope. I share the Government's hopes on the issue.
  1016
  In 12 months' time, if that happy state of affairs has not yet arrived, and if, as I believe will be the case, the two provisions have never been used in the interim—I have very serious doubts that anyone would risk using them—I hope that the Home Secretary will think long and hard about whether they should be renewed. They offend very deeply against fundamental principles of law, fairness and the way in which we deal with evidence in our courts.
  I should certainly have had great difficulty—if, as I said, it had not been for my perhaps fortunate absence—in supporting the legislation when it was first passed. I do not believe that it is well directed to serve its purpose, and hope that it will be kept under close review. In 12 months' time, if the provisions of the 1998 Act are found to be unnecessary, but it is necessary to renew the Prevention of Terrorism Act, I hope very much that we shall consider dropping those provisions from it.
  11.43 pm
  Mr. Straw: With the permission of the House, I should like briefly to respond to the points that have been made in the debate.
  I tell the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that, although I do not share his rather apocalyptic view of the provisions that we passed in part I of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, I have always accepted that they were exceptional measures which I happen to think are proportionate. We shall, of course, keep the matters under review regardless of whether the powers are used in the intervening 12 months. Powers such as those should not be on the statute book and available for use unless they are clearly necessary.
  The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) expressed his support for renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, as he and other Conservative Members have done consistently since 1974. I am grateful to him for his support. He also referred generously to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It is worth remembering that since the troubles began in Northern Ireland in the late 1960s, more than 300 RUC officers have been killed, and many hundreds more have been injured.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked about the investigation into the murder of Yvonne Fletcher. I am aware that I have used the same adverb to my hon. Friend several times, but I am afraid that I am going to have to use it again. The inquiries have taken a great deal longer than anticipated, but I understand from the Metropolitan police that they will be concluded shortly. I am afraid that I cannot give an exact time scale.
  The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) asked about staffing levels at ports. Paragraph 114 of Mr. Rowe's report says:
  "staffing levels of port officers should not be allowed to fall."
  However, Mr. Rowe goes on to say:
  "I do not in any fashion assert that staffing levels are too low at any particular place".
  There has not been a suggestion that staffing levels have been reduced. I understand that the number of port police officers has not reduced in recent years.
  The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said that to do justice to the memory of Rosemary Nelson, we should express our sincere sympathy for her husband, children and family—and her friends, I might add. I agree with him on that.

  1017
  I hope that the renewal order will be passed without a Division. It is widely accepted that the renewal is justified in the circumstances and I commend the order to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.

  NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That—

  (1) the matter of the draft Report of the Department of Economic Development's Economic Strategy Review, being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee; and

  (2) at its sitting on Thursday 25th March—

  (i) the Committee shall consider the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above;

  (ii) the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings thereon at Five 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.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  LIBRARIES
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That the draft Public Lending Right (Increase of Limit) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  Question agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (WALES)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That the Special Grant Report (Wales) 1999 (No. 2): Special Grant for Asylum Seekers (HC 250), which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved. —[Mr. Jamieson.]
  The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 24.

  Division No. 108]

  [11.48 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Benton, Joe

  Allen, Graham

  Berry, Roger

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Best, Harold

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Blackman, Liz

  Banks, Tony

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Barnes, Harry

  Blizzard, Bob

  Barron, Kevin

  Boateng, Paul

  Battle, John

  Borrow, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  1018

  Browne, Desmond

  Hain, Peter

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Burden, Richard

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Burgon, Colin

  Hanson, David

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Caborn, Richard

  Healey, John

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Caplin, Ivor

  Heppell, John

  Caton, Martin

  Hesford, Stephen

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Chaytor, David

  Hill, Keith

  Clapham, Michael

  Hoey, Kate

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hope, Phil

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clelland, David

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hutton, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Coleman, Iain

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jamieson, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jenkins, Brian

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cranston, Ross

  Crausby, David

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Davidson, Ian

  Kemp, Fraser

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kidney, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Denham, John

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Dobbin, Jim

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Laxton, Bob

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Leslie, Christopher

  Doran, Frank

  Levitt, Tom

  Dowd, Jim

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Drew, David

  Linton, Martin

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Edwards, Huw

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lock, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Love, Andrew

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  McAllion, John

  Fisher, Mark

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McCabe, Steve

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Flint, Caroline

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Follett, Barbara

  McDonnell, John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McFall, John

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Fyfe, Maria

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Galloway, George

  McNulty, Tony

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McWalter, Tony

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mallaber, Judy

  Goggins, Paul

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Grogan, John

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  1019

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Meale, Alan

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Spellar, John

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mountford, Kali

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stevenson, George

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Norris, Dan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stott, Roger

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Olner, Bill

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stringer, Graham

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pearson, Ian

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pike, Peter L

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Plaskitt, James

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pond, Chris

  Timms, Stephen

  Pope, Greg

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Todd, Mark

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Touhig, Don

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Trickett, Jon

  Purchase, Ken

  Truswell, Paul

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rammell, Bill

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Rapson, Syd

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Vaz, Keith

  Rooker, Jeff

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Rooney, Terry

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Roy, Frank

  Watts, David

  Ruane, Chris

  White, Brian

  Ruddock, Joan

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Salter, Martin

  Winnick, David

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Sawford, Phil

  Woolas, Phil

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Worthington, Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. Clive Betts and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  NOES

  Beggs, Roy

  Randall, John

  Bercow, John

  Ross, Wlliam (E Lond'y)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

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

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Gray, James

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Syms, Robert

  Hunter, Andrew

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Thompson, William

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Wallace, James

  Livsey, Richard

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Moore, Michael

  Mr. Andrew Lansley and Mr. Dominic Grieve.

  Öpik, Lembit

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (SCOTLAND)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That the Special Grant Report for Scotland (No. 1 1999): Special Grant for Asylum Seeker Assistance (HC 228), which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 24.

  Division No. 109]

  [12.1 am

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Allen, Graham

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Dalyell, Tam

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Davidson, Ian

  Banks, Tony

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Barnes, Harry

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Barron, Kevin

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Battle, John

  Denham, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dismore, Andrew

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Benton, Joe

  Doran, Frank

  Berry, Roger

  Dowd, Jim

  Best, Harold

  Drew, David

  Blackman, Liz

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Edwards, Huw

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Boateng, Paul

  Etherington, Bill

  Borrow, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Flint, Caroline

  Browne, Desmond

  Follett, Barbara

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Burgon, Colin

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Fyfe, Maria

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Galloway, George

  Caborn, Richard

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Caplin, Ivor

  Godsiff, Roger

  Caton, Martin

  Goggins, Paul

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Chaytor, David

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clapham, Michael

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Grogan, John

  Hain, Peter

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clelland, David

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clwyd, Ann

  Healey, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coleman, Iain

  Heppell, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hill, Keith

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hoey, Kate

  Cranston, Ross

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Crausby, David

  Hope, Phil

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cummings, John

  Howells, Dr Kim

  1021

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Pearson, Ian

  Hutton, John

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pike, Peter L

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Plaskitt, James

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pond, Chris

  Jamieson, David

  Pope, Greg

  Jenkins, Brian

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Rammell, Bill

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Rapson, Syd

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kemp, Fraser

  Rooney, Terry

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Roy, Frank

  Kidney, David

  Ruane, Chris

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Ruddock, Joan

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Salter, Martin

  Laxton, Bob

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Leslie, Christopher

  Sawford, Phil

  Levitt, Tom

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Linton, Martin

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Lock, David

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Love, Andrew

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  McAllion, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McCabe, Steve

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Soley, Clive

  McDonnell, John

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  McFall, John

  Spellar, John

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  McIsaac, Shona

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McNulty, Tony

  Stevenson, George

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  McWalter, Tony

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mallaber, Judy

  Stott, Roger

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Stringer, Graham

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Martlew, Eric

  Maxton, John

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Meale, Alan

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Merron, Gillian

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Timms, Stephen

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Tipping, Paddy

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Todd, Mark

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Touhig, Don

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Trickett, Jon

  Mountford, Kali

  Truswell, Paul

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Norris, Dan

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Olner, Bill

  Vaz, Keith

  O'Neill, Martin

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Walley, Ms Joan

  1022

  Wareing, Robert N

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Watts, David

  Woolas, Phil

  White, Brian

  Worthington, Tony

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Clive Betts.

  Winnick, David

  NOES

  Beggs, Roy

  Öpik, Lembit

  Bercow, John

  Randall, John

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Rendel, David

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

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

  Gray, James

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Syms, Robert

  Hunter, Andrew

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Wallace, James

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Livsey, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Mr. Andrew Lansley and Mr. Dominic Grieve.

  Moore, Michael

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 38): Special Grant for Asylum Seekers (HC 230), which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 9.

  Division No. 110]

  [12.12 am

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Burden, Richard

  Burgon, Colin

  Allen, Graham

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Caborn, Richard

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Banks, Tony

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Barnes, Harry

  Caplin, Ivor

  Barron, Kevin

  Caton, Martin

  Battle, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Chaytor, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clapham, Michael

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Berry, Roger

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Best, Harold

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Blackman, Liz

  Clelland, David

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clwyd, Ann

  Blizzard, Bob

  Coaker, Vernon

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Boateng, Paul

  Coleman, Iain

  Borrow, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cranston, Ross

  Crausby, David

  Browne, Desmond

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  1023

  Cummings, John

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jamieson, David

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dalyell, Tam

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davidson, Ian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dobbin, Jim

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Doran, Frank

  Kidney, David

  Dowd, Jim

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Drew, David

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Edwards, Huw

  Laxton, Bob

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Leslie, Christopher

  Etherington, Bill

  Levitt, Tom

  Fisher, Mark

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Linton, Martin

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Livingstone, Ken

  Follett, Barbara

  Livsey, Richard

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Lock, David

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Love, Andrew

  Fyfe, Maria

  McAllion, John

  Galloway, George

  McAvoy, Thomas

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  McCabe, Steve

  Gerrard, Neil

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McDonnell, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  McFall, John

  Goggins, Paul

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  McNulty,Tony

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McWalter, Tony

  Grogan, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hain, Peter

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hanson, David

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Healey, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Maxton, John

  Meale, Alan

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Merron, Gillian

  Heppell, John

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Moore, Michael

  Hill, Keith

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hoey, Kate

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Hope, Phil

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mountford, Kali

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Norris, Dan

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Olner, Bill

  Hutton, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Öpik, Lembit

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  1024

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Pearson, Ian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Stevenson, George

  Pike, Peter L

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Plaskitt, James

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pond, Chris

  Stott, Roger

  Pope, Greg

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Stringer, Graham

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Purchase, Ken

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Rammell, Bill

  Rapson, Syd

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Rendel, David

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Timms, Stephen

  Rooker, Jeff

  Tipping, Paddy

  Todd, Mark

  Rooney, Terry

  Touhig, Don

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Trickett, Jon

  Roy, Frank

  Truswell, Paul

  Ruane, Chris

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Salter, Martin

  Vaz, Keith

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Sawford, Phil

  Wallace, James

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wareing, Robert N

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Watts, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  White, Brian

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Worthington, Tony

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

  Soley, Clive

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Clive Betts.

  Spellar, John

  NOES

  Bercow, John

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gray, James

  Syms, Robert

  Hunter, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Mr. Andrew Lansley and Mr. Dominic Grieve.

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Question accordingly agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

  TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGING
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
  That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 10778/98, the Commission White Paper: Fair Payment for Infrastructure Use: A phased approach to a common transport infrastructure charging framework in the EU; and endorses the Government's approach to discussions on the document.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 12.

  Division No. 111]

  [12.22 am

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Doran, Frank

  Allen, Graham

  Dowd, Jim

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Drew, David

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Edwards, Huw

  Barnes, Harry

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Barron, Kevin

  Etherington, Bill

  Battle, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Bayley, Hugh

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Follett, Barbara

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Berry, Roqer

  Best, Harold

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Blackman, Liz

  Fyfe, Maria

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Galloway, George

  Blizzard, Bob

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Boateng, Paul

  Gerrard, Neil

  Borrow, David

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Goggins, Paul

  Browne, Desmond

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Burden, Richard

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Burgon, Colin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Grogan, John

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Hain, Peter

  Caborn, Richard

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Hanson, David

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Caplin, Ivor

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Healey, John

  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)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hoon Geoffret

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hope, Phil

  Clelland, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Coaker, Vernon

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Coleman, Iain

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hutton, John

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cranston, Ross

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Crausby, David

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jamieson, David

  Cummings, John

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Davidson, Ian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dobbin, Jim

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  1026

  Kidney, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Rooker, Jeff

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Rooney, Terry

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Roy, Frank

  Laxton, Bob

  Ruane, Chris

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ruddock, Joan

  Levitt, Tom

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Linton, Martin

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Livingstone, Ken

  Salter, Martin

  Livsey, Richard

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Sawford, Phil

  Lock, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Love, Andrew

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAllion, John

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Skinner, Dennis

  McCabe, Steve

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  McDonnell, John

  McFall, John

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

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

  McNulty, Tony

  Soley, Clive

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  McWalter, Tony

  Spellar, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mallaber, Judy

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Stevenson, George

  Marshall, David (Shettieston)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Martlew, Eric

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Maxton, John

  Stringer, Graham

  Meale, Alan

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Merron, Gillian

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Moore, Michael

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Timms, Stephen

  Mountford, Kali

  Tipping, Paddy

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Todd, Mark

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Touhig, Don

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Trickett, Jon

  Norris, Dan

  Truswell, Paul

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Olner, Bill

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Vaz, Keith

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pearson, Ian

  Wallace, James

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pike, Peter L

  Wareing, Robert N

  Plaskitt, James

  Watts, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  White, Brian

  Pond, Chris

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Pope, Greg

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Winnick, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Woolas, Phil

  Rammell, Bill

  Worthington, Tony

  Rapson, Syd

  Raynsford, Nick

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Clive Betts

  Rendel, David

  1027

  NOES

  Beggs, Roy

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Bercow, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Syms, Robert

  Gray, James

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Mr. Andrew Lansley and Mr. Dominic Grieve.

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Question accordingly agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  CRIMINAL LEGAL AID (FIXED PAYMENTS) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 1999
  Ordered,
  That the Criminal Legal Aid (Fixed Payments)(Scotland) Regulations 1999 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Clelland.]

  National Stadium (Northern Ireland)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]
  12.32 am
  Mr. John Grogan: St. Patrick's day has begun and I am delighted to begin this national day of celebration by advocating the creation of a new national stadium in Northern Ireland to host great sporting occasions, pop concerts and other large events.
  I start by outlining the role of sport in Northern Ireland society. During the past 30 years, sport has provided, throughout the troubles, moments of relief and joy for all, such as in the triumphs of Mary Peters in the Olympics or Barry McGuigan in the boxing ring. Northern Ireland still apparently claims to hold the home nations football championship, because it won the last championship to be held before England stopped playing. England had previously claimed that it would no longer play in the championships because it always won.
  At the best of times, playing and watching sport have provided a common currency between the different communities—at times, perhaps the only common currency. The power of sport to transcend boundaries was demonstrated to the world recently in the rugby European cup triumph of Ulster against French opposition at Lansdowne Road, Dublin. The capacity crowd attracted the widest possible range of Unionist and nationalist politicians. More important perhaps, 60,000 ordinary people from Northern Ireland wanted tickets when only 28,000 tickets were available. As the Deputy First Minister commented,
  "The Ulster players have done the impossible. They have created the situation where the entire island of Ireland, North and South, is behind them. People want to be part of it, people want to be there and what they do not want in any shape or form are these labels of religion or anything else being put on the game."
  Sport has also managed to help the economy going through difficult years, employing 12,500 people. According to opinion poll evidence, 80 per cent. of people in Northern Ireland believe that sport can help to build positive links between people of different communities.
  At a grassroots level, the Sports Council for Northern Ireland has pioneered programmes such as Youth Sport, which has been widely copied elsewhere. Youth Sport seeks to integrate the school, the club and the community, keeping school sports facilities open until late at night. It aims to get more people to play the sport of their choice, regardless whether that is the traditional choice of their school or community. The Sports Council recently launched a public awareness campaign under the slogan "Participate, celebrate and tolerate".
  It is worth noting that Northern Irish sport at a local level has benefited from the fact that, unlike England, Scotland or Wales, sport is a statutory responsibility of local councils, and has been since Stormont days.
  Sport led the way on creating all-Ireland bodies long before the Good Friday agreement. There are 35 sports organised on an all-Ireland basis, of which perhaps rugby is the most notable. In a move underscoring the case for all-Ireland sports bodies, the Northern Ireland Athletics Federation recently ruled that its athletes would compete for Northern Ireland in the Commonwealth games, and, if they chose, for the Irish Republic in the Olympics.

  1029
  The Irish and Northern Ireland Sports Councils co-operate closely. Recently at the Omagh leisure centre a Sport for All programme which covers the border counties of Ireland between the north and the south was introduced.
  At the worst of times, sport has emphasised the most bitter sectarian divisions in Northern Ireland. Nelson Mandela observed that normal sport is impossible in an abnormal society. Even today, members of the security forces are not allowed to participate in Gaelic sports. A change in rules is as long overdue in that case as it was in regard to the admission of women to the pavilion at Lord's cricket ground.
  The beautiful game, the world game of soccer has faced many problems in Northern Ireland, perhaps because, uniquely, it has been loved in equal measure by both communities. Soccer has perhaps never fully recovered from the bitterness left by the sectarian violence that occurred after the Boxing day derby match in 1948 between Linfield and Belfast Celtic in front of 33,000 spectators at Windsor Park. A post-match riot led to a horrific mob attack on 20-year-old Belfast Celtic centre forward Jimmy Jones, who had accidentally earlier fouled an opposing player. Jones survived, but the club folded in the aftermath of the incident.
  Jimmy Jones was saved by a goalkeeper from Ballymena, Sean McCann, who single-handedly fought off scores of attackers. Jones recently told The Daily Telegraph:
  "The irony of it all is that I am a Protestant, the people who were trying to kill me were Protestant and Sean is a Roman Catholic."
  Almost exactly 50 years later, there are renewed signs of hope in soccer. Glentoran and Linfield played a match around Christmas time 1998 watched by a crowd of 13,000, compared with about 4,000 in recent years at the same fixture. That is the sort of difference that the peace process can make to life for ordinary people, who can simply feel more confident about doing the normal things in life, such as going to watch a soccer match over Christmas.
  In 11 days—or probably 10 days now—Northern Ireland play Germany in a European championship qualifying match at Windsor Park. The capacity, I understand, is only about 13,000. The chairman of the Sports Council, Mr. Allen, recently commented:
  "If we had a stadium in a neutral venue and Northern Ireland were playing Germany, then the minimum I expect would be around about 30,000. If we had a stadium in a neutral venue, it would encourage people to go into a peaceful and enjoyable atmosphere to support a team whether they win or lose, and that would be very significant in peace and reconciliation terms."
  That is one argument for creating a new national stadium. It would symbolise a new beginning for Northern Ireland by creating a venue at which everyone would feel comfortable.
  Northern Ireland lacks top-quality international facilities to complement its network of leisure centres at grassroots level. The rugby ground Ravenhill seats only 2,500 people, with space for another 5,000 or 6,000 people standing. The state of the soccer grounds, which were not covered by the legislation following the Taylor report, is a disgrace, which will be highlighted by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) in an Adjournment debate tomorrow.
  1030
  Northern Ireland is in danger of being left out. London will soon boast the revamped Wembley and Twickenham; Cardiff Arms Park will host the rugby union cup final; Scotland has Hampden, Ibrox, Murrayfield and Meadowbank; Manchester will soon have an array of indoor and outdoor facilities to host the Commonwealth games; and in Dublin the new Croke Park will soon sport an estimated capacity of 81,000, ready to host the all-Ireland senior football and hurling finals of 2001.
  With regard to the national lottery and the pools, more money is spent per head of the population in Northern Ireland than anywhere else; yet the Football Trust spends almost nothing in Northern Ireland. Money from the national lottery for sport is distributed on a population basis. In Northern Ireland, that figure is 2.8 per cent. of the national total. That will never provide enough capital to help fund a large one-off expenditure, such as a national stadium, which would cost at least £50 million.
  The vision of a national stadium is the subject of discussion between Whitehall, the Department of Education in Northern Ireland, the Sports Council, and some of the potential users. A high political priority needs to be given to assembling a financial package, perhaps including money from the lottery, the Government, the European Union and the private sector. If ever there was a special case, it is Northern Ireland.
  Football, rugby and athletics are perhaps the most obvious potential users of a national stadium. The possibility of including Gaelic sports must be further examined. The dimensions of the pitch would need to be enhanced and the cost would inevitably increase. But the prize of regularly hosting an all-Ireland Gaelic football final or a hurling semi-final would be well worth aiming for if the sporting politics could be overcome.
  The potential for other events is boundless. Last year, 40,000 young people turned up for an outdoor concert in the Botanic gardens. The right event can generate tourists from far and wide. On the same weekend as the Germany versus Northern Ireland football match, the world cross-country championships will bring athletes and enthusiasts from many countries to Belfast. Cheap, frequent and quick transportation is opening up the island of Ireland, and already the two-hour catchment area includes parts of England and Scotland and most of the population of Ireland.
  There are various possible sites for the new stadium. One is in Belfast, adjacent to the Waterfront hall and the new arena, within a few hundred yards of the railway station, with a boat stopping outside and City airport minutes away. I understand that there are other possible venues as well.
  In opinion polls, 94 per cent. of people rarely agree on anything, but that is the level of support in the telephone poll on a national stadium conducted by the Belfast Telegraph earlier this year. That poll generated far more calls than any other that the newspaper has previously undertaken.
  I referred earlier to Jimmy Jones, the Belfast Celtic striker. Now a grandfather of four, he concluded his recent interview in The Daily Telegraph by referring to the site of the old club's stadium. He said:
  "It's nice when people remember me, but I can never stand on this spot and not see Celtic Park in my mind's eye. It's not a shopping mall to me, it's still paradise, as everyone called it. Looking back, I couldn't have told you whether most of my team-mates were Catholic or Protestant. We didn't give a damn about that sort of thing."

  1031
  Jimmy Jones's grandchildren, and all the children of Northern Ireland, need a new stadium, a stadium where they will all feel safe, a stadium that will inspire them and make them proud to come from where they come from, a stadium that will give them a stage in their own backyard where they can witness the excellence of the world's greatest entertainers and sportsmen and sportswomen, a stadium that will give them memories to last a lifetime.
  12.44 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John McFall): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on securing this Adjournment debate, and I wish him and every other hon. Member present a happy St. Patrick's day. I did not expect to be replying to this debate on St. Patrick's day, but it is appropriate that I am. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) will be following this up with another Adjournment debate within 12 hours.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Selby mentioned the sporting heroes, Mary Peters and Barry McGuigan. In my short time at the Northern Ireland Office, I have been privileged to meet both of them. He also mentioned the religious divide and the sectarianism. I remember when Bertie Peacock played left half at Glasgow Celtic, and I think that he still has an executive role at Coleraine. He was a tremendous player, gracing the field at Parkhead in Glasgow. He was a Protestant, playing for a club which was recognised as Catholic, but he crossed that divide and he was a fine servant. Before him, I remember Charlie Tully, who came from Belfast and was a real character, and we all know the inestimable George Best who danced his way around the world and gave people many hours of enjoyment. Northern Ireland sportsmen have played their part in the past and my hon. Friend the Member for Selby is right to ensure that a national stadium for Northern Ireland is very much on the agenda.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Although others have been mentioned, does the Minister agree that we should not overlook the fact that Dave "Boy" McAuley, who comes from East Antrim, was five times world boxing champion?
  Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman has graced the debate with his presence and his contribution and I thank him very much for that. He will obviously be interested in this debate in respect of Larne football club and Ballyclare, which are in his constituency.
  The Government are fully aware of the level of interest in the provision of a national sports stadium in Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend has mentioned, that has been an aspiration of the Sports Council for Northern Ireland for some time, in order to bring the Province into line with England, Scotland and Wales, and I have had a number of discussions with its chairman, Don Allen, on that very matter. My hon. Friend is right to say that the people of Northern Ireland are aware of the major developments for upgrading the national stadiums in the other home countries and of proposals for a national stadium in the Republic of Ireland.
  The success of the Ulster rugby team in winning the European Cup has also renewed interest in the matter. I was privileged to be at the match at Ravenhill, and I
  1032
  think that 20,000 spectators were present. As my hon. Friend said, the official attendance was supposed to be 2,000, but special seats were installed for that fantastic day. I followed that visit up with a trip to Lansdowne Road in Dublin. The cross-community support for the Ulster rugby team was fantastic.
  I made my way into the ground with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, from Dublin airport. There was not a pub that we passed that did not have people standing outside in the street, waving and enjoying themselves. The only sad thing for me was that, after the victory, we had to leave straight away and could not share in the celebration. It was a day of festivity and of celebration for everyone and that pride in the Ulster rugby team lives on in Northern Ireland.
  Many of those who are interested in sport felt that it would have been appropriate for Ulster to have been able to play the semi-final fixture in a national stadium, which would have offered enhanced spectator opportunities. The facilities at Ravenhill show us how far we have to go in that regard and the demand is present for the Northern Ireland community to have facilities at least on a par with those in the other regions of these islands.
  Northern Ireland should have the best possible facilities. A national stadium would provide a whole range of benefits and new opportunities, as well as helping to secure a more positive image of the Province. That goes hand in hand with the Belfast agreement and with the political developments which we hope will take place shortly.
  Since I have assumed responsibilities for sport under my responsibility for the Department of Education, the Sports Council for Northern Ireland has taken every opportunity to point out that Northern Ireland has few facilities which could be classified as suitable for national competition or national training. There are no Wembleys or Hampden Parks and no Celtic Parks, Ibrox Parks or Old Traffords in Northern Ireland. Although I recognise that, I have also to recognise that a national stadium would require significant investment of funds and that assurances about the long-term need for and sustainability of such a development would therefore be essential.
  I do not want to give the impression that Northern Ireland is devoid of facilities and that progress is not being made. I want to affirm that the Government attach great importance to the improvement of the quality of life for all the people of Northern Ireland. That is clearly shown by the fact that the Government have committed significant investment in the Millennium Odyssey project, which includes an indoor, multi-functional sports arena with seating for 10,000.
  I am also pleased that Northern Ireland is being locked into the development of sport at a United Kingdom level, through the development of a network centre as part of the UK Sports Institute. I attended a sports cabinet meeting last week with a number of my ministerial colleagues, at which the issues of sporting facilities in Northern Ireland and the establishment of a national stadium arose.
  The Sports Council is managing the setting up of a network centre, and I hope to be able to announce progress in the near future. Following the establishment of the UK Sports Institute, sports people in Northern Ireland will have the same opportunity to reach the optimum level of performance as their counterparts

  1033
  throughout the United Kingdom. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that significant progress is being made.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) spoke of the great interest in having a national stadium in Northern Ireland—something that I have wanted for many years. Incidentally, in our last game with Germany—in Nuremberg—we drew with them, and we shall beat them on Saturday week. What about private investment? It is all very well to talk about the need for a stadium, and the interest in having a stadium—everyone agrees on that—but is any encouragement being given to private investment, in an effort to make that a reality?
  Mr. McFall: If the right hon. Member will bear with me, I shall explain about the working party that has been set up by the Department of Education.
  Of course a new national sports stadium, on top of the other developments, would be a huge bonus for Northern Ireland but it would be foolish to embark on such a significant and costly project without proper research into need, resource implications and long-term sustainability. We need to be convinced about all those issues. If we fail to address them, there is a danger that we could end up with an arrangement that would be out of step with real need, and would result in a serious misuse of resources.
  I have been looking carefully at what can be done. I am pleased to announce a process that will allow the key issues to be addressed and, hopefully, map out a plan for progress. I have arranged for a working group to be set up, led by the Sports Council, to examine thoroughly all aspects of the establishment of a national stadium, including the private and public finance aspects.
  Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on raising this issue.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) referred to private finance. The Minister may know of the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society's proposal to move from its present site at Balmoral to a new green-field site at Blaris, where it hopes to create facilities for show grounds and so on. It has been suggested that an integrated facility could be developed at Blaris that might include a national stadium, and that private finance might be available for such a facility. I hope that proposal will be included in the working party's deliberations.
  Mr. McFall: It is important for the working party to consider such matters, and I find the integrated element
  1034
  referred to by the hon. Gentleman very attractive. I should be happy if the working party engaged in such discussions.
  The working party will explore the need for, and feasibility of, a national stadium. Specifically, its job will be to consult relevant sporting interests to determine their willingness to participate in the promotion and operation of such a stadium. That is relevant to the hon. Gentleman's question. It will also hope to identify potential promoters, owners and operators. It will be expected to examine the capital and recurrent funding implications, and associated locational issues; to examine the potential relationships and links with relevant public and private-sector organisations; to construct an outline business case; and to determine what further steps should be taken.
  The working group has an important contribution to make in taking forward the concept of a national stadium. It is an important issue in the development of sport in Northern Ireland. Such a stadium has been missing. It is certainly an issue that I take seriously.
  I do not want to break into the Adjournment debate that will take place later in the day, but I have had a meeting with the Football Trust on its contribution; I think that it took place on 21 January. It was a positive meeting. The trust told me that it was keen to become involved in a programme for Northern Ireland, so such a group could give us advice on the way forward and be one of the organisations that help to pan out the future.
  The working party's report and its preliminary findings should be available by the end of June. I do not anticipate being in post to receive that report, but I am sure that my successor will do so. That will be an important element of the Assembly's agenda. If the Assembly tackled the matter at an early stage and ensured that we had a national stadium for Northern Ireland, it would instil pride in the entire community. That was in evidence after the Ulster rugby team's European win. If the stadium matched the quality of the participants, there would be a good future for Northern Ireland.
  I have been delighted to take forward the measures to date and am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Selby has secured the debate, so that the issue can be discussed. It is an aspect of the political agenda in Northern Ireland. I hope that it will remain on the agenda until we see a spanking new stadium that is fit for a new Northern Ireland.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to One o'clock.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Addington, L.

McNair, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Maddock, B.

Avebury, L.

Mar and Kellie, E

Barber, L.

Middleton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Milverton, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Cadman, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Calverley, L.

Morris, L.

Carlisle, E.

Mountevans, L.

Clancarty, E.

Moyne, L.

Clement- Jones, L.

Moynihan, L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Newall, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Northbrook, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Dholakia, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Pender, L.

Effingham, E.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Ezra, L.

Razzall, L.

Gainford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Geraint, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gisborough, L.

Russell, E.

Goodhart, L. [Teller.]

Sandberg, L.

Grey, E.

Sandford, L.

Halsbury, E.

Soulsby of Swalffham Prior, L.

Hampton, L.

Taverne, L.

Hamwee, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hayter, L.

Tordoff, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Trenchard, V.

Hooson, L.

Trumpington, B

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Vivian, L.

Inglewood, L.

Warnock, B.

Kingsland, L. [Teller.]

Waverley, V.

Kirkwood, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kitchener, E.

Wilcox, B.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

McConnell, L.

Wynford, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Crawley, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

David, B.

Alli, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Amos, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Ampthill, L.

Dixon, L.

Annan, L.

Donoughue, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bach, L.

Dubs, L.

Barnett, L.

Eatwell, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Berkeley, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Blease, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Borrie, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Bragg, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Glanusk, L.

Brookman, L.

Glenamara, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Burlison, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

GrayofContin, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Grenfell, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Hacking, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Hardie, L.

Chorley, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Christopher, L.

Haskel, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hayman, B.

619

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Peston, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hoyle, L.

Puttnam, L.

Hughes, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Ilchester, E.

Richard, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Islwyn, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

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

Sandwich, E.

Sawyer, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Judd, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kintore, E.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Laming, L.

Simon, V.

Lockwood, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Stallard, L..

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L

Mallalieu, B

Stafford, E.

. Mason of Barnsley, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Taylor of Gryfe. L.

Mishcon, L

Tenby, V.

Molloy, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Monkswell, L.

Thomton, B.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Tryon, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Varley, L.

Nelson, E.

Weatherill, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Orme, L.

Wharton, B.

Whitty, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

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

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

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

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Addington, L.

Burnham, L.

Addison, V.

Cadman, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Caithness, E.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Carlisle, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Arran, E.

Clement- Jones, L.

Attlee, E.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Avebury, L.

Cox, B.

Barber, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Cranborne, V.

Bethell, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Biffen, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Blatch, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Brentford, V.

Dholakia, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

627

Ezra, L.

Newall, L.

Falkland, V.

Northbrook, L.

Gainford, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Geddes, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L. [Teller.]

Geraint, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Glentoran, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Goodhart, L.

Razzall, L.

GrayofContin, L.

Redesdale, L.

Grey, E.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hampton, L.

Rowallan, L.

Hamwee, B.

Russell, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Sandberg, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sandwich, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Hooper, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hooson, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Inglewood, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Kingsland, L. [Teller.]

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Kirkwood, L.

Swinfen, L.

Kitchener, E.

Taverne, L

Long, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Luke, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lyell, L.

Tope, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Tordoff, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Trenchard, V.

McNair, L.

Trumpington, B.

Maddock, B.

Vivian, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Waddington, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Mersey, V.

Warnock, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Waverley, V.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Wigoder, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Wilcox, B.

Mountevans, L.

Wise, L.

Moyne, L.

Wynford, L.

Moynihan, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ahmed, L.

Crawley, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

David, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Alli, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Amos, B.

Dixon, L.

Ampthill, L.

Donoughue, L.

Annan, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dubs, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Eatwell, L.

Bach, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Barnett, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Berkeley, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Birmingham, Bp.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Blackstone, B.

Glenamara, L.

Blease, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Borrie, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bragg, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Grenfell, L.

Brookman, L.

Hacking, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hardie, L.

Burlison, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Haskel, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hayman, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Chorley, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Christopher, L.

Hoyle, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hughes, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

628

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Ilchester, E.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Islwyn, L.

Puttnam, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal]

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Richard, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Judd, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Lockwood, B.

Sawyer, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Longford, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Shepherd, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Simon, V.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Marsh L

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Mishcon, L

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Molloy, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Monkswell, L.

Tenby, V.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Thornton, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Nicol, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Northbourne, L.

Uddin, B.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Varley, L.

Orme, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Peston, L.

Whitty, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L. [Teller.]

Goodhart, L.

Aldington, L.

Gray, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Greenway, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Grey, E.

Bethell, L.

Hampton, L.

Blatch, B.

Hamwee, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Hanningfield, L.

Brightman, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Byford, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Howe, E.

Camock, L

Inglewood, L.

Chesham, L.

Jopling, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kingsland, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Cross, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Ludford, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Luke, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Lyell, L.

Dundee, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Fookes, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Gisborough, L.

Mancroft, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

677

Monson, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Shrewsbury, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Newall, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Newby, L.

Stair, E.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Stewartby, L.

Northesk, E.

Stockton, E.

Norton of Louth, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Nunburnholme, L

Strathclyde, L.

OxSuird, V.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Park of Monmouth. B.

Teviot, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Phillips of Sudbury. L.

Thurso, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Tope, L.

Poole, L.

Tordoff, L.

Renton, L.

Vivian, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Rowallan, L.

Weatherill, L.

Russell, E.

Wigoder, L.

Seccombe, B.

Wynford, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hughes, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Amos, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord

Bach, L

Chancellor.]

Barnet, L.

Islwyn, L.

Berkeley, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy

Blease, L.

Seal.]

Bragg, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Brooke of Alvenhorpe, L.

Judd, L.

Brookman, L.

Kennedy of The Straws, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kennet, L.

Burlison, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Lovell-Davis, L.

Chandos, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Christopher, L.

[Teller.]

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Crawley, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Desai, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dixon. L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Donoughue, L.

Nicol, B.

Domiand of Easington, L.

Orme, L.

Dubs, L.

Peston, L.

Eatwell, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falconer of Thornton, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rea, L.

Glenamara, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Richard, L.

Goudie, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sawyer, L.

Grantchester, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Grenfell, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hacking, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hanworth, V.

Simon, V.

Hardie, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Haskel, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hayman, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Thomton, B.

Hoyle, L.

Tomlinson, L.

678

Turner of Camden, B.

Wedderhum of Charlton, L.

Varley, L.

Whiny, L.

Warner, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Winston, L.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) revoke the order; or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 111, line 33, at end insert—

("1933 c. 12.

The Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

In section 36, the proviso.")

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

Page 111, column 3, leave out line 42.

Page 112, line 32, at end insert—

("31&32 Vict. c. 72.

The Promissory Oaths Act 1868.

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

Page 112, line 44, at end insert—

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

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

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

Page 112, line 44, at end insert—

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

The Manoeuvres Act 1958.

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

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

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

Page 113, line 5, at end insert—

("1969 c. 54.

The Children and Young Persons Act 1969.

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

Page 113, line 22, at end insert—

("In Schedule 7, paragraphs 27 and 85.

1980 c. 66.

The Highways Act 1980.

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

Page 113, line 28, at end insert—

("1988 c. 52.

The Road Traffic Act 1988.

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

1988 c. 53.

The Road TrafficOffenders Act 1988.

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

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

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

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

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

Page 116, line 32, at end insert—

("(3A) ENFORCEMENT OF COMMUNITY ORDERS

Chapter 1991 c. 53.

Short title The Criminal Justice Act 1991.

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

1998 c. 37.

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Government Borrowing
  Government Borrowing
  VAT
  VAT
  Welfare Payments: Cost
  Welfare Payments: Cost
  Palestinian Authority Legal System: Funding
  Palestinian Authority Legal System: Funding
  Good Governance: Aid Budget
  Good Governance: Aid Budget
  National Curriculum: Outdoor Activities
  National Curriculum: Outdoor Activities
  Individual Learning Accounts
  Individual Learning Accounts
  Freedom of Information
  Freedom of Information
  Schengen Agreement
  Schengen Agreement
  Immigration Centre, Croydon: Visa Backlog
  Immigration Centre, Croydon: Visa Backlog
  Bovine TB: Research
  Bovine TB: Research
  Intervention Board: Performance
  Intervention Board: Performance
  BCMS Passport Numbers
  BCMS Passport Numbers
  Genetically Mhodified Oilseed Rape
  Genetically Mhodified Oilseed Rape
  Severn Tunnel
  Severn Tunnel
  Railway Safety Regulations
  Railway Safety Regulations
  British Rail: Land Sales
  British Rail: Land Sales