Sitting of 2 December 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—

  BCCI
  Keith Vaz: What discussions he has had with the First Minister concerning compensation for the victims in Scotland of BCCI. [140743]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no recent discussions with the First Minister on this subject.
  Keith Vaz: As my hon. Friend will know, when BCCI closed on 5 July 1991, many people in Scotland and a number of local authorities, such as the Western Isles, were affected. At the time, they were told that no money was left in the bank. Twelve years later, 70 per cent. of that money has now been repaid to those individuals and local authorities; therefore, 30 per cent. is still left. Will she meet the First Minister and press upon him and other members of the Government the need to draw that sorry state of affairs to a close? After so many years, is it not time that all the money was now paid out?
  Mrs. McGuire: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I assume that he wants me to meet the Chief Secretary, rather than the First Minister, because this is a matter for the United Kingdom Government. I understand that Western Isles council has recovered all but a relatively small sum of what it lost in 1991, as a result of the dividends paid by BCCI's liquidators. The whole issue is now a matter for the liquidators. Having said that, I will of course raise the issue with the Chief Secretary in the light of my hon. Friend's question this morning.

  Oil/Gas Exploration
  Sir Robert Smith): What discussions he has had with the
  352
  Foreign Office about the impact of the draft European constitution on investment in oil and gas exploration jobs in Scotland. [140744]
  Angus Robertson: What discussions he has held with the Foreign Secretary on the energy provisions of the draft constitutional treaty of the EU. [140746]
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling): I have met representatives of the oil industry, and we have made it clear that we will not agree to any proposal that is inconsistent with the United Kingdom's energy interests.
  Sir Robert Smith: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, which is helpful in so far as it goes. I must declare an interest related to oil and gas exploration that is registered in the Register of Members' Interests. Last night, at the sitting of the Standing Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference, the Foreign Secretary said that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and that, therefore, we will never know what the outcome will be until the final draft constitution comes out of the IGC process. Does the Secretary of State recognise that if the energy chapter remains unamended, it will put uncertainty into the minds of investors, damaging vital investment in the exploration and production of North sea oil and gas, which provides so many jobs in Scotland?
  Mr. Darling: I do recognise that, and I was in Aberdeen last week and met representatives of the oil industry. I am in no doubt about the importance of North sea oil not just to Scotland, but to the whole of the United Kingdom, but the proposals as drafted are not acceptable to the Government. We have made it clear that we are extremely concerned about the proposals on taxation, which we regard as a matter for member states' national Governments. We are also concerned about the proposal in relation to the extraction of oil from the North sea, as well as powers in times of emergency. Those matters are of great importance, which is why we are pressing them—the Prime Minister made that very clear in the House a couple of weeks ago—and we shall continue to do so. As for the outcome, the Foreign Secretary was simply pointing out the obvious to the hon. Gentleman: the conclusions are reached at the end of the day, not now. We have not yet reached the conclusions. We are continuing to press the matter.
  Angus Robertson: Yesterday, at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the IGC, Foreign Office Ministers refused to confirm the text of the amendment on the controversial energy chapter; less than half an hour ago, the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services did so at a sitting of the European Scrutiny Committee. The amendment shows that the UK Government are not seeking to retain the power over treaty negotiations and boundary issues, and that they did not even include the text about important fiscal measures. Will the Secretary of State confirm what that text states and what the Government intend to do on

  353
  boundary and treaty negotiation issues? When will they pull their finger out and pull their weight on this important subject?
  Mr. Darling: As I told the House a few moments ago, the Government are very concerned about the text that the Commission has proposed. We are holding discussions with other member states. The matter was discussed with Foreign Ministers at the weekend, and we are currently discussing with other member states a redrafting of the text to meet the United Kingdom's concerns. The issue is of great importance, which is why we will continue to press it.
  Mr. Frank Doran: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the commitments that other Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have given. The North sea oil and gas industry is extremely important not just to the north-east of Scotland and East Anglia, but to the whole country. I know from the Secretary of State's visit to Aberdeen last week, which was very welcome, that he will be seized of that fact, but ending the uncertainty is important to the oil industry. This is the time of year when investment in the North sea for next year—the period following April—is negotiated, and not always with the London or UK offices that are fully seized of the issue, but with the Houston and Dallas offices, so is it not important that the uncertainty should end as soon as possible?
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about the North sea and the taxation regime there, is quite right. The matter is of immense importance not just to the north-east of Scotland and East Anglia, but to the whole country. That is why we attach considerable importance to making sure that the United Kingdom's interests are safeguarded.
  The point that my hon. Friend makes about certainty in the North sea oil regime is equally important, and I am well aware of the fact that companies prize knowing where they stand more than just about anything else. That is why the Government have gone to considerable lengths over the years to ensure that we consult and talk to the industry and try to take it with us. As I told the House a few moments ago, we are continuing to press the matter because it is of great importance to all of us.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: May I take a different view from the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) and congratulate the Government on the very hard work that they have been doing over the past month to insert amendments into the clauses of the new constitution? I stress that the biggest advantage for Scotland is probably its nearness to the Norwegian fields, and the vital ability of our Government to sign a deal with another nation will be under threat if we do not have specifically in the constitution—it is not in the amendments that we saw today at the European Scrutiny Committee—provision for the right of a sovereign Government to sign a treaty with another nation without the EU keeping that competence to itself.
  Mr. Darling: My understanding is that, notwithstanding what is being offered by way of a draft, it is within our competence to sign treaties with
  354
  countries such as Norway. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of that. Because of the negotiations that took place between this country and Norway, we were able to secure gas supplies that will ensure the continuation of work at St. Fergus and Mossmorran.
  I return to the point that discussions are still continuing; they were not concluded at the weekend. The Government have made it absolutely clear that we attach considerable importance to getting this right and we intend to continue to do that right up until the constitution is eventually agreed, whenever that may be.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: As the Secretary of State has indicated how important this issue is to the north-east, is it not right that oil and gas workers should have a referendum on the new draft constitution whenever it comes out of the mangle?
  Mr. Darling: As I said to the House and as the hon. Lady suggests, the matter is of great importance to the north-east of Scotland, but it is also of great importance to people living in Beckenham. The whole of the United Kingdom benefits from the industry. As for a referendum, the Government have made their position clear time and time again, and I am in complete agreement with everything that has been said on that.
  Mrs. Helen Liddell: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his recognition of the seriousness of these matters? Security of supply issues are very important in relation to oil and gas, and to energy in general. The European Union has long had ambitions to extend competence into energy matters, so can he reassure me that he will take the message from the House that there is grave concern about the energy chapter, and will he echo the remarks of the Prime Minister that he will resist it at every opportunity?
  Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. This appears to be an example of the Commission trying to go further than we believe it should. We believe that it is very important in matters of taxation and our ability to regulate, and extract, the supply of oil from the North sea that we retain the competence and right to do so as a member state. That is very important to us. As Members have said, this issue is not just about the United Kingdom's short and medium-term interests. If we want to ensure that we continue to extract the considerable supplies that are still in the North sea, we must have a stable regime—stable in taxation and stable in regulation so as to ensure that investment stays in place. As I have said, we believe strongly in that and will continue to press the point in the discussions that are continuing.
  Malcolm Bruce: Given that there is more oil and gas to be extracted from the North sea than has yet been produced, does the Secretary of State recognise that it would be utterly unacceptable for the United Kingdom to give up its sovereign right to control the depletion policy and licensing? Although he has said that it is not over until it is over, the fact remains that any suggestion that that right would be given up means

  355
  that the draft constitution would not be a tidying-up exercise, but would involve the total surrender of sovereignty in a crucial area.
  Mr. Darling: With the possible exception of the SNP, which almost gives the impression that it has a vested interest in hoping that the discussions do not succeed, the rest of us completely agree about the importance of oil and of getting the provisions absolutely right. I do not think that I should detain the House further by repeating what I have said. The matter is important; that is why we are continuing to press it.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: When he next expects to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss his proposal to disperse civil service jobs.[140745]
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling): Scotland will continue to get its fair share of posts created by UK Departments or dispersed from London. The House may recall that last week I announced that the Inland Revenue will create 500 new jobs in a new call centre in Bathgate in premises previously occupied by Motorola.
  Mr. Donohoe: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. On the Lyons review, what mechanism is being put in place to monitor performance on the transfer of jobs? Will he especially address the fact that in the west of Scotland, including Glasgow, there is a deficiency of civil service jobs? In north Ayrshire, we maintain a level of unemployment that is 1 to 1.5 per cent. above the national average, and it has been estimated that the fact that there are few civil service jobs in Ayrshire is the sole reason for that. Is he aware of that deficiency?
  Mr. Darling: I am very well aware that despite the fact that we have large numbers of people in employment, there are parts of the country, including Ayrshire, in which unemployment is higher than we want and where we want to reduce it. On civil service jobs in the west of Scotland, the Ministry of Defence has a significant presence in Glasgow and on the Clyde; the Department for International Development employs 500 people in East Kilbride; the Department of Trade and Industry has offices in Glasgow and the Inland Revenue has offices in East Kilbride; and, of course, the Department for Work and Pensions has set up a new pension centre in Motherwell. I appreciate my hon. Friend's point about Ayrshire, which he has raised with me on several occasions, and when further jobs are dispersed I hope that Ayrshire will benefit. He asked about the west of Scotland, so it should be put on the record that a significant number of UK jobs are based there. I am interested to note that nationalist Members are muttering, because if they had their way, none of those jobs would be there at all.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: The Secretary of State will be aware that people in rural Scotland are suspicious that they are not receiving a fair deal from the Government on job dispersal. In the light of the debacle surrounding
  356
  Scottish Natural Heritage, what reassurance can he give that the Government will pay more than token lip service to public service relocation commitments? When will rural Scotland get its share of the promised 20,000 jobs to be dispersed from London?
  Mr. Darling: Jobs have been dispersed. The hon. Gentleman is right to the extent that rural Scotland, where there has been high unemployment, should benefit. When I was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, jobs were dispersed to Stornoway, and the Scottish Executive have dispersed jobs to Galashiels. I shall make one point to the hon. Gentleman that he might want to bear in mind when talking to rural Scotland: under his party, given its public spending policies, there would not be such jobs to disperse in the first place.
  Mr. Calum MacDonald: I acknowledge the relocation of the jobs to Stornoway that my right hon. Friend mentioned and thank him for that. When he next meets the Chancellor, will he point out that figures published last week show that the population of all the Scottish islands taken together has fallen to less than 100,000 and that it is still declining? Does he agree that those figures suggest that the Scottish islands should be a priority area for public sector job relocation for the simple fact that it will always be harder to attract private sector investment to those areas and therefore increase the number of private sector jobs?
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. Some areas, especially the western isles, have found it difficult to attract and retain jobs. The Government want to try to ensure that we have a balance. As he knows, discussions are being held to bring private sector jobs to Lewis in connection with its wind farm and we hope that they will bear fruit. Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the local council have done a great deal to encourage that. He is also right that public sector jobs could be located in not only the western isles but other Scottish islands, especially as that is easier than before because communications are better and distance is less of a factor. I would like there to be further dispersal. A lot of the work done in Stornoway by the DWP relates to the south of England and I would like such situations to happen more often. His point also applies to other islands and parts of the north and west of Scotland.
  John Thurso: What plans does the Secretary of State have to disperse jobs from the Scotland Office? In his statement of 9 September, he announced a reduction in posts from 96 to 65. Can he confirm that with the 31 posts in the Advocate-General's office, there are now 96 in the Scotland Office as a whole, compared with only 69 in 2000? Why are so many needed and what plans are there to reduce them?
  Mr. Darling: The Scotland Office has reduced the number from just over 100 to 65, as the hon. Gentleman said. There are no plans to disperse staff at the moment because I am trying to get them into one building to save considerable sums in renting buildings all over Scotland. They will be in one building in Melville crescent in Edinburgh. Members of staff are also in Dover house in London. That is inevitable. If there is an opportunity for

  357
  individuals to be dispersed, I shall certainly bear it in mind. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will hand me a brochure for Thurso or Wick if there is a possibility of relocating some jobs there. In the spirit of being straightforward with the House, however, it is unlikely that those jobs will be dispersed—
  Mr. Oliver Heald: From the right hon. Gentleman's constituency.
  Mr. Darling: They may be in my constituency now, but thanks to the boundary commission they will not be there for much longer.

  Elections
  Mr. John MacDougall: If he will make a statement on the findings of the Electoral Commission in its report on elections in Scotland. [140747]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): I recently met the chairman of the Electoral Commission who briefed me on the official report on this year's Scottish Parliament and local government elections. I very much welcome this report. My right hon. Friend will consider very carefully all the recommendations made by the commission.
  Mr. MacDougall: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Does she share my disappointment about the declining turnout at elections, especially among young people? Will she assure me that she will use her good offices to do everything she can to improve the figures and to get young people to appreciate the value of their vote?
  Mrs. McGuire: I think that the House shares my hon. Friend's disappointment at the turnout at the last elections, in particular at the decision by so many young people not to vote. There was a 10 per cent. reduction from 1999. I share the view that elections lie at the heart of a representative democracy. It is incumbent on all of us who support democratic politics to do everything we can to ensure that young people recognise the value of our democracy. Part of that value is their participation in elections.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: Is the Minister content with a situation in which the Electoral Commission finds that more than one third of the non-voters in May's elections decided to abstain in excess of one month before those elections? Why might that be the case?
  Mrs. McGuire: Perhaps the Conservative party had a disaffecting effect on the Scottish people. In all seriousness, however, the issue is not one of party political banter. There is a major difficulty of engaging with young people. All political parties share that problem. No hon. Member can say, hand on heart, that we are invigorating young people in the way that we should. Instead of making cheap jibes across the Floor
  358
  of the House, the hon. Gentleman should participate in a positive discussion on how we engage young people in the process.
  Mr. Duncan: Leaving aside the fact that the Minister wanted to ignore party politics but then proceeded to blame the Conservative party, perhaps as part of her big conversation she will listen to the voice of ordinary Scots, who believe that Scotland has too many politicians and that they are over-governed by a burgeoning Administration. Is not the lesson of the Electoral Commission report that by promising 129 MSPs, when there is a commitment to reduce them, 22 Ministers and one part-timer to do the jobs that used to be done by five, with the cost of the Scottish civil service up by £125 million a year, the people in Scotland are apathetic and disaffected with what the Government have done to government in Scotland?
  Mrs. McGuire: There is absolutely no evidence to underpin the hon. Gentleman's statements— [Interruption.]—By any objective calculation, people in Scotland support the idea of a Scottish Parliament. That is not why they did not vote at the election. I am not making party political points. There is a serious issue about how we engage with young people, which was at the core of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall). We should have a positive discussion on that instead of bantering words across the Floor of the House. I am willing to meet the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) to hear his ideas on how we can all engage young people in the democratic process, not necessarily in party politics.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: Does the Minister recall that when proportional representation was introduced for the Scottish elections we were promised that voting participation would increase? Given that it has not, does she agree that the time has come to end proportional representation for the Scottish elections and to move to a system of two first-past-the-post Members for each Westminster constituency?
  Mrs. McGuire: That is a debate for another occasion.

  ADVOCATE-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  The Advocate-General was asked—

  Devolution
  Miss Anne McIntosh: What devolution issues she has considered since 28 October. [140758]
  The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): Since 28 October 32 devolution issues have been intimated to me, all in the context of criminal matters. Although the majority concerned delay in court proceedings, others related to self-incrimination under

  359
  the Road Traffic Act 1998, the offence of breach of the peace and the system for setting the punishment part of life sentences.
  Miss McIntosh: I wonder whether one of the Road Traffic Act cases has involved the question of Scottish police forces immediately imposing fines on the now illegal use of mobile phones while driving. What answer has the Advocate-General given? Is it not inconsistent and unfair that although there is a two-month period of grace in England, in Scotland the penalty is being applied immediately?
  The Advocate-General: I am sure that the hon. Lady recognises that we have two separate jurisdictions. The Lord Advocate is in charge of criminal prosecution in Scotland, and he is perfectly entitled to come to his own decision in relation to these matters.
  Ann McKechin: What devolution issues she has considered since 28 October.[140759]
  The Advocate-General: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh).
  Ann McKechin: I would be grateful if my hon. and learned Friend could confirm what discussions she has had recently with civic society in Scotland and the Scottish legal profession regarding the possible consequences of the civil partnerships Bill that was announced in the Queen's Speech.
  The Advocate-General: I have had some general discussions about legal issues, but generally the policy matters are not for me. The legal issues are still to be worked out, and my legal officials will be actively involved in taking forward the Bill. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has been actively involved in policy matters.
  Mr. Alan Reid: What devolution issues she has considered since 28 October.[140760]
  The Advocate-General: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh).
  Mr. Reid: If the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill currently before the House were to be passed, thus removing Crown immunity from the planning system, and if the Ministry of Defence were then to apply for planning permission to construct a radioactive waste dump in Scotland, and if a Scottish Minister then
  360
  refused planning permission, are there any circumstances in which a UK Minister could overrule that decision?
  The Advocate-General: That is an interesting hypothetical question, and I do not give answers to hypothetical questions.
  Annabelle Ewing: What devolution issues have been raised with her since 28 October. [140761]
  The Advocate-General: Again, I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I gave some moments ago to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh).
  Annabelle Ewing: I hope that I might do a little better than my colleagues by getting an answer to my question. The Advocate-General will be aware of the outrage in Scotland over the Home Secretary's latest immoral proposal to punish asylum seekers, by taking their children into care. Will she take the opportunity to confirm that the children's panel system in Scotland has jurisdiction over those matters, not the Home Secretary?
  Angus Robertson: Say yes.
  The Advocate-General: I am afraid that legal questions do not have clear yes or no answers. The hon. Lady will be aware that there is a whole legislative structure under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 which relates to taking children into care. So far as asylum is concerned, there is no question of any punishment. When the proposals are introduced and debated, the hon. Lady will see that they are designed to protect children. Whether or not matters arise under the Social Work (Scotland) Act is still to be resolved.

  SCOTLAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—

  Energy
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: If he will make a statement on the change in Scotland's energy mix over the last five years. [140748]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): Comprehensive figures for Scotland are not available. However, trends for individual fuels between 1998 and 2002 show falls in the use of oil and coal. There was a small fall in the industrial use of gas. The use of electricity and domestic gas has increased slightly over the period.
  Mr. Atkinson: I thank the Minister for her answer. Is she aware that the drive for green energy in Scotland is threatening jobs in Scotland in the wood panel industry and in my constituency? A plan for a new wood-burning power station at Lockerbie will mean that the company will compete with the wood panel industry for the essential raw material that both need, which is wood chips. As the Lockerbie plant will effectively be

  361
  subsidised under the green energy initiative, it will be able to outbid the wood panel industry for its essential raw material. Jobs are threatened because the companies involved cannot afford the on-costs. Will the Minister undertake to carry out an investigation? A plan that may be entirely sensible on the face of it could do considerable damage to the rural economy of both Scotland and Northumberland.
  Mrs. McGuire: I undertake to speak to the hon. Gentleman after Question Time to obtain the details of the specific issue. I will raise it with colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry.

  CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was asked—

  Land Registry
  Jim Knight: What progress has been made with putting the Land Registry online. [140728]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): Many of the Land Registry's key services are already available online. My Department is also increasingly enabling customers to make land registration transactions electronically, which I hope will culminate in a full electronic conveyancing system from 2006.
  Jim Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. As he knows, the Land Registry is the second largest employer in Weymouth, in my constituency, with high quality jobs. It is a tribute to the Land Registry and to the Government that they can run such a successful agency and even manage a successful IT procurement, which seems quite unusual for government. Can my hon. Friend give some reassurance to those who work at the Land Registry in Weymouth and elsewhere that the development of IT will not result in deskilling and redundancies at the agency?
  Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend rightly identifies the fact that the Land Registry, being one of the largest databases of its kind in Europe with more than 90 million titles registered, is a significant operation. Moving to an electronic basis for business-to-business activities and for providing information to the public will be the right way forward I am told that the strategic plan at the Land Registry does not involve any major changes in employment levels in the foreseeable future. I think that its business will be expanding, which is good news for my hon. Friend's constituents, particularly those in Weymouth where I know the registry is a big employer. My hon. Friend has been a good advocate on his constituents' behalf in raising the success of the Land Registry today.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Minister will be aware from various written questions that I have tabled to him that people in my constituency who are involved in online conveyancing businesses are
  362
  interested in how the national land information service is working. Does he recognise that there is still concern about the difficulties for local authorities dealing with searches online? Does he recognise also that there is great concern about the Government's decision to reintroduce the concept of home information packs? The Government tried to introduce them earlier and then, humiliatingly, had to withdraw. Will the Government carefully examine some of the issues that went wrong before in terms of the links between home information packs and online conveyancing?
  Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman highlights an issue. Issues will always arise in shifting from paper-based processes to electronic conveyancing. I believe that the Land Registry has managed to cope with the issues admirably. The national land information service is on track. Although it is aimed at conveyancing professionals it will have a big impact on the wider market. I think that e-conveyancing will help with the seller's pack—the home information pack development—as the hon. Gentleman says. I am fairly confident that the progress being made is adequate and that we should be on course with the plans that are already published.

  Miners' Compensation
  David Taylor: What representations he has received about the level of legal fees imposed on former miners and their families making compensation claims in relation to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and if he will make a statement. [140730]
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: If he will establish a legal services complaints commissioner to examine complaints about the level of fees levied by solicitors in handling claims for compensation for mining-related diseases. [140731]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): While my Department has received no direct representations on the matter, I should like at the outset to express my sympathies to all the individuals and families afflicted by mining-related diseases who, I hope, can gain some recompense from the Department of Trade and Industry claims handling agreement, which has been in operation since 1999. I am aware of the early-day motion calling for an examination of the alleged activities of certain solicitors who are overcharging for mining health claims. In the first instance, the Law Society, through the office for the supervision of solicitors, is responsible for investigating claims, and it has assured me that it will investigate any cases of this type with urgency and as a matter of priority. However, in general terms, the Department is planning to take steps to strengthen the oversight of the Law Society's complaints handling by appointing a new legal services complaints commissioner.
  David Taylor: Early-day motion 94, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), does indeed draw attention to solicitors' activities in relation to mining

  363
  compensation claims. Is the Minister aware that some firms that cold-call vulnerable former miners and their families in North-West Leicestershire and elsewhere proceed, when claims are settled, to rip them off in a most extortionate fashion? Will he condemn such utterly obnoxious practices, which sully the entire legal profession, and will he institute an inquiry into the whole sorry scandal?
  Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend makes an entirely proper point. The DTI claims handling agreement of September 1999 was designed to meet all legal costs incurred by claimants, so there can be very few excuses for levying excessive fees on them. There must be firmer action to eradicate improper practices. There is an initiative to establish a new post of legal services complaints commissioner, who will, I believe, have better oversight of the supervision of solicitors.
  Mr. Blizzard: I put this question in a spirit of solidarity between an oil and gas constituency and coal-mining constituencies, because this is a very serious matter indeed. I am pleased that my hon. Friend is now aware of the evidence against those solicitors who have been behaving in such a terrible way, and that he wants to take action. However, will he clarify the way in which the new legal services complaints commissioner will relate to the office for the supervision of solicitors? Will the work of the OSS, which has not been particularly rigorous in dealing with complaints, be taken away from it and given to the new commissioner?
  Mr. Leslie: The Law Society will still be responsible for investigating individual complaints, but the Secretary of State, having looked at failings in the efficiency and effectiveness of the pursuit of complaints, has now agreed to the establishment of the post of legal services complaints commissioner under reserve powers in the Access to Justice Act 1999. The commissioner will oversee the OSS so that its handling of complaints is more effective and, if necessary, fines can be levied on the Law Society, in appropriate circumstances, if it fails performance criteria.
  Mr. David Heath: I, too, represent a former coal-mining constituency, although I am not aware that this deplorable practice has occurred there. I accept that the hon. Gentleman does not have a direct regulatory role, but is it not open to the Lord Chancellor to write to solicitors as officers of the Supreme Court to remind them of their responsibilities and suggest that the only fee that they should accept is the DTI-recommended fee? Any other fee, if already taken, should be returned or, if promised, should be rejected.
  Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman highlights the fact that the DTI claims handling agreement made arrangements for a certain number of solicitors to be approved for activity under the scheme. The scheme was generous to those solicitors, and the DTI has actively discouraged claimants from using solicitors outside the scheme. For example, it has advertised in local mining communities to warn people about potential malpractice by a small number of solicitors. As I have said, I hope that any hon. Members who have received reports about such incidents will pass them on to the
  364
  OSS, but the House can certainly be assured that the Government take the mater exceptionally seriously. We want to make sure that justice is done for those mining families.
  Mr. Graham Allen: I thank my hon. Friend for his replies and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on the campaign that he has led. This matter is of great concern throughout the former coalfield communities. On local radio this morning, three former miners outlined what had happened to them. In one case, a miner had been awarded £10,000 and had had to pay £2,500 in fees. That is unacceptable. Will my hon. Friend make it clear that if he and the office for the supervision of solicitors do not bring the solicitors involved to book, a large number of hon. Members will have no compunction in using the privilege of this House to name and shame those companies?
  Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend is an assiduous campaigner on this issue, and I know that he will take every opportunity to stand up for his constituents. It is perfectly reasonable that he wants a firmer crackdown on any malpractice by a small number of solicitors. It is also important that we have taken the extra step of creating the new legal services complaints commissioner to oversee the office for the supervision of solicitors, which has, frankly, not been as efficient and effective as it could have been. The DTI handling agreement is the biggest personal injury scheme in British legal history, and possibly one of the biggest in the world. I believe that it is amply generous to the solicitors involved, and it has now worked for almost 100,000 claimants. I hope that all potential future claimants will agree that it is important to work with approved solicitors in that scheme.
  Mr. Eric Illsley: May I emphasise one point to my hon. Friend? A constituent of mine in her 80s recently received a compensation payment of about £40,000, from which solicitors deducted £10,000 as a success fee for a case in which the DTI had accepted liability and there was no risk. What such solicitors are doing is morally indefensible, but, technically, it might not be an issue of complaint, because as a result of a loophole they are entitled to act in such a way. Will he ensure that those solicitors are removed from the handling agreement and prevented from taking any more claims?
  Mr. Leslie: I shall certainly pass on to the DTI the details of the case that my hon. Friend mentions, with a view to ascertaining whether the solicitor in question was involved in the approved scheme. I doubt whether that is the case; it sounds as though something has gone very badly wrong in that instance. I think that the legal fees awarded under the scheme are amply generous. As I said, there are few excuses for excessive fees. Some malpractice may have occurred in the smallprint, which the claimant might not have seen, but that is not acceptable. The office for the supervision of solicitors, which has a Member of Parliament hotline whereby it can be contacted in respect of any cases, should get on to that case as soon as possible.

  Law Centres
  Mr. David Kidney: How many law centres have been opened since the launch of the community legal service. [140732]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): Six law centres have been opened since the launch of the community legal service, in Devon, Surrey, Stockport, Trafford, Bury and the Isle of Wight. Law centres provide legal advice and support to an increasing number of communities and play an important part in the fight against social exclusion.
  Mr. Kidney: I am pleased to hear about those expansions in the community legal service by way of law centres. Is it part of the Department's thinking that, under a comprehensive community legal service, there is a greater role to be played by law centres and salaried staff in achieving wider access to justice?
  Mr. Leslie: It is true that the number of law centres, which are not the only providers of advice through the community legal service, is increasing. There are 52 law centres across the country, 45 of which are funded by the Legal Services Commission, but a large number of solicitors are also contracted to provide advice. I know that my hon. Friend does not have a law centre in his constituency, but I assure him that there are many solicitors with contracts to give legal aid advice. There is also an outreach service in the Stafford citizens advice bureau, of which I know he is well aware.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: May I say that I very much look forward to being the Minister's opposite number? It risks becoming midget wars with attitude, but we shall try to pitch the tone good and high.
  Does the Minister agree that law centres have an important role in liasing with citizens advice bureaux, but that the problem is that the Government keep loading ever greater burdens on to local authorities, including expecting them to support law centres and citizens advice bureaux, without providing any dedicated funding to enable them to carry out such work? How much of the budget does the Minister estimate will be exclusively devoted to such support?
  Mr. Leslie: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new portfolio, although I am not sure about being characterised as a midget, given that at 6 ft 5 in I tower over the Dispatch Box. I am surprised that he cannot recognise that it must be the angle at which he is sitting.
  The Department for Constitutional Affairs invests about £7.6 million in community legal service law centres, compared with £4.3 million in the first year of the CLS in 2000–01—a massive increase in funding. The hon. Gentleman urges more expenditure. We have to budget prudently for such matters, but we want more law centres to open up if we can afford it.

  Miners' Compensation
  John Cryer: What assessment he has made of the efficiency of the office for the supervision of solicitors in dealing with complaints from hon. Members about the level of fees charged to miners and miners' widows for mining-related disease claims. [140734]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): On 26 September, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs announced that in his view the Law Society's office for the supervision of solicitors was not handling complaints efficiently or effectively. As a result, the Government are to appoint a legal services complaints commissioner with powers to oversee more closely the work of the OSS. Nevertheless, the Law Society remains responsible for investigating individual complaints, and it has assured me that it will investigate with urgency cases where solicitors are allegedly overcharging claimants for mining-related diseases.
  John Cryer: On that basis, why do we not move towards abolishing the OSS and replacing it with a truly independent body? As my hon. Friend knows, it is seen as being far too close to the legal profession and far too timid when it comes to dealing with complaints.
  Specifically in relation to complaints by miners and miners' widows, does my hon. Friend agree that the OSS—or the Law Society, which now deals with such matters—should be urged to get off its backside and go out to encourage people to register complaints? It should make clear the service that it provides vis-à-vis complaints and bring those complaints in, not just wait for them.
  Mr. Leslie: I understand my hon. Friend's frustration. That is why the Secretary of State took action by introducing a new legal services complaints commissioner properly and more rigorously to oversee the work of the Law Society in these matters. My hon. Friend makes the reasonable suggestion that instead of just reacting to complaints, it should engage more proactively with users of legal services. We need to monitor the situation closely. I assure him that my Department will not tolerate malpractice by solicitors.
  Paddy Tipping: Will the Minister get on to the Law Society hotline and tell it directly that, in view of the comments made in the Chamber today, hon. Members are fed up with miners who have given their health and their lives being ripped off? Solicitors in the handling agreement have already received payments in excess of £20 million: enough is enough.
  Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend's anger is understandable. He is aware, as is the office for the supervision of solicitors, of cases where miners and their families have not been well served by the legal profession. As I said, more than 100,000 claimants have gone through the handling scheme at the Department of Trade and Industry. The typical charge by solicitors under the DTI-approved scheme is £1,800 per claim, so there can be few excuses for excessive legal fees.

  European Parliamentary Elections
  Mr. Bill Tynan: What recent discussions he has had with the Electoral Commission on the piloting of new voting methods in Scotland at the 2004 European parliamentary elections. [140738]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): My Department has asked the Electoral Commission to advise on up to three regions or nations that, in its view, would be suitable for piloting all-postal or electronic voting in the combined local and European parliamentary elections next June. The pilot provisions are the subject of measures that have been carried over into the Session. I anticipate that a decision will be taken in principle before Christmas.
  Mr. Tynan: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. He will accept that turnout in the previous European elections was abysmal. I have been pressing for Scotland to be treated as a pilot area for European elections. Will he reinforce that argument and ensure that Scotland is included as a pilot area in those elections?
  Mr. Leslie: I sense that there is a great demand for all-postal voting in Scotland, but I wait for the Electoral Commission to give its advice, on which I shall base my decision. Where all-postal voting has been piloted locally, it is clear that it has an appreciable impact on turnout. A typical turnout of 33 per cent. at the previous local elections was increased to 49 per cent. in areas where all-postal voting took place. It is therefore understandable that so many hon. Members want their region or nation to be part of the pilot scheme.

  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

  Catering
  Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on proposals to alter catering arrangements in the House. [140762]
  Sir Patrick Cormack: In the absence of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) on parliamentary business, I have been asked to reply.
  The House of Commons Commission has endorsed the view of the Finance and Services Committee that the current catering subsidy, which is nearly £6 million a year, is unjustifiable and must be reduced. Meals are provided for more than 4,000 pass holders who visit the parliamentary estate daily and the subsidy extends to all catering facilities, including those in the Press Gallery. In the first instance, the Commission is seeking a reduction of £350,000 a year in running costs. The Refreshment Department and the Catering Committee were asked to work out details and the measures
  368
  recently communicated to hon. Members were drawn up accordingly. Hon. Members' views are welcome and should be directed to the Chairman and members of the Catering Committee.
  Mr. Chapman: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his task this morning and accept that the concept of value for money must be pursued. However, given that last year represented the best trading year for the Refreshment Department since at least 1993, is not he as surprised and disappointed as I am that the proposals appear to have been issued without adequate consultation, without apparent consideration for staff and without sufficient justification? Given that they appear to be based on the concept that success means cuts, will the Commission consider the proposals perhaps with a view to increasing the facilities' use rather than discouraging it? Does he agree that the real villains of the piece are the so-called modernised hours that we have adopted and that so many of us would like to be changed?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman knows that, personally, I have great sympathy with his last remarks. It is undeniable that if the House decides to change its hours, the pattern of life for hon. Members changes with that. As the hon. Gentleman said, the catering facilities have been widely used in the past 10 years. However, it is only fair to point out that, although their use has increased, there has been a decline from 17,000 to 7,000 covers in the Members' dining room.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend recall that when a previous Leader of the House sold us the new hours he assured us that facilities would remain available to Members? Many people view the changes that will happen as a breach of that promise. The proposal got through with only a slender majority.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend will of course accept that I am not responsible for what the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) may or may not have said, but the fact remains that there is a subsidy. It represents only 4 per cent. of the Commission's budget, but it is still a large figure and the Commission is anxious to reduce it. The letter sent by the Chairman of the Catering Committee to Members reflects the Committee's attempt to grapple with this problem and to achieve a £350,000 reduction in the first year, but I urge my hon. Friend and others to make representations to the Chairman of the Catering Committee if they have specific suggestions about how the changes can be revised.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously we ought to look at the top, not the bottom, before anybody loses their job and if any wage cuts are to be made. I believe that compulsory notices have been issued to catering department staff, who are at the bottom of the tier. Is not that premature when we ought

  369
  to be looking for a change in the hours, which will protect jobs, bring in the income and therefore alleviate all the problems we are seeing at the moment?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The Leader of the House, who is present, will have heard what the hon. Gentleman says about the hours. I pay tribute to the staff, who have served us so well in the catering department and throughout the House. They do a wonderful job and one does not want to think of them being subject to undue anxiety. I am assured that no redundancy notices have as yet been issued, but discussions are taking place with the unions. It is hoped that, if there are any redundancies, they will be voluntary.

  The Leader of the House was asked—

  Private Members' Bills
  Hugh Bayley: Whether he has examined the feasibility of increasing the time allocated to consideration of private Members' Bills in the current Session. [140763]
  The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): Many Members, and outside commentators, have proposed alternative to the current system for private Members' Bills. The Procedure Committee has recently reported on this matter. The Government will consider its report carefully.
  Hugh Bayley:I have been a Member of the House for almost 12 years, yet I have never been fortunate enough to have my name come up in the ballot for private Members' business. Private Members introduce important legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) introduced a Bill on high hedges and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) introduced important legislation on fireworks this year. It appears that the House has the opportunity, given the new hours, to provide more time for private Members' business. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House talk to the Procedure Committee to see whether more time could be made available so that people such as me might also be able to put legislation before the House?
  Mr. Hain: I share my hon. Friend's desperate plight of never having had a private Member's Bill as a Back Bencher and I agree that such Bills are important. I am keen to uphold the rights of Back Benchers in this respect. He mentioned Tuesdays and Wednesdays. I asked for work to be done on that point. If we take the 13 sitting Fridays and convert them into hours on, say, Tuesdays, we require 22 evenings to achieve the rough equivalent of those Fridays. The Procedure Committee, to which he referred, looked at that, but did not recommend it. However, when we conduct the review of sitting hours, which we are obliged to do before the end of this Parliament, we shall be able to return to the matter.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Is not half the trouble the large number of Government
  370
  handout Bills each year, which squeeze genuine private Members' Bills? This year, the Government, in breach of convention, have not included in the Queen's Speech eight Bills that they wish to introduce. We have to go through a ludicrous game whereby I ask the Leader of the House, "Is this Bill coming forward?" If he can identify it, we find out whether a Bill is going to go ahead. So far, I have managed to find three.
  Has that ludicrous situation arisen because the Leader of the House and his colleagues want to propose as handout Bills the Government Bills that they feel they cannot fit into the timetable? If so, will not that squeeze genuine private Members' Bills from Back Benchers even more than usual?
  Mr. Hain: Not everything is mentioned in the Queen's Speech. None of the Bills additional to those listed in normal fashion by Her Majesty the Queen is a private Member's handout Bill. The hon. Gentleman seeks to deprecate the Government's record in this matter, but 13 private Members' Bills received royal assent in the previous Session. That is a pretty good achievement. Hon. Members are able to choose which private Member's Bill to take forward. Many choose to exercise their right to take forward a handout Bill that they feel pretty confident they can get on to the statute book, but it is equally their right to propose some other provision.
  Mr. Stephen Pound: I appreciate that some private Members' Bills are off the shelf, and that others are off the wall. However, the excellent private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), which would have allowed motor cyclists to ride in bus lanes, represented the House at its finest. Does my right hon. Friend accept that private Members' Bills are a unique contribution to the tapestry of the nation, and that they should be encouraged, even when—heaven forfend!— they are a tad inconvenient on occasion?
  Mr. Hain: I strongly endorse the sentiments so eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend, who I know is an enthusiastic motor cyclist. I am sure that everyone will listen carefully to his plea.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Leader of the House agree that we should have fewer private Members' Bills, but that they should be given a much greater chance of success? In the 21st century, is not it totally irrational to subject such Bills to the luck of the draw, the raffle, or the bran tub that is sitting in the No Lobby today? Should we not have sensible criteria for such Bills, including the requirement that any proposal has support in all parties?
  Mr. Hain: I should be happy to listen to any practical suggestions that the hon. Gentleman might have. As he knows, the Procedure Committee has considered the matter, and its report is available to the House.

BILLS PRESENTED
  HORSERACE BETTING AND OLYMPIC LOTTERY
  Secretary Tessa Jowell, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Reid, Ms Secretary Hewitt, Mr. Secretary Clarke, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mr. Peter Hain, Mr. Paul Boateng, Mr. Richard Caborn and Estelle Morris presented a Bill to make provision for the sale of the Tote; to make provision for the abolition of the horserace betting levy system; to make provision for the establishment of National Lottery games designed to raise money in connection with the hosting by London of the Olympic Games in 2012; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Wednesday 3 December, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 8].
  EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
  Ms Secretary Hewitt, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Smith, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Peter Hain, Mr. Secretary Murphy and Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the recognition of trade unions and the taking of industrial action; to make provision about means of voting in ballots under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; to amend provisions of that Act relating to rights of members and non-members of trade unions and to make other provision about rights of trade union members, employees and workers; to make further provision concerning the enforcement of legislation relating to minimum wages; to make further provision about proceedings before and appeals from the Certification Officer; to make further provision about the amalgamation of trade unions; to make provision facilitating the administration of trade unions; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Wednesday 3 December, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 7].

  Points of Order
  12.32 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the Foreign Secretary given you notice of his intention to come to the House to make a statement about his White Paper on a strategy for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as foreshadowed in his remarks in the House last week? Is it not ironic and shameful that, in the very week that the big conversation was launched, the same facility was not extended to Members of the House? Considering the vital importance of Britain's foreign policy, do you agree that simply issuing a written statement is gratuitously insensitive and offensive to Parliament and to the skill and dedication of our diplomats abroad?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman rightly noted that there was a debate last Thursday, which was opened by the Home Secretary. Therefore, what has been done today does not constitute a breach of the rules of the House.

Orders of the Day

  Debate on the Address
  [FOURTH DAY]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [26 November],
  That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament—[Mr. McFall.]
  Question again proposed.

  Home and Constitutional Affairs
  Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have not selected the amendment tabled by the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru.
  12.33 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): Mr. Speaker, let us engage in the big conversation this afternoon. Over the past day or two, I have been battered and bruised. I have even been stitched up, but I am unbowed. After walking into a ladder on Friday night, I learned that, in the game of snakes and ladders, we should be more afraid of the ladders than the snakes.
  The Queen's Speech is about preparing Britain for the future. It is about anticipating, and not merely responding to, the events and challenges of the future. It is about modernising for an era to come rather than simply reacting to the issues of the moment. It is about being bold in changing, rather than just tinkering with, the challenges that we face. It is about legislating because we need to for the future, rather than picking Bills that have been on the stocks for a long time. Whether changing for the better the way that we protect victims and witnesses or protecting our borders, it is about ensuring that government works in the interests of people.
  The Queen's Speech is as much about building trust in our communities, or mobilising them to be part of the solution themselves, as it is about the legislation itself, for we all know that legislation is only part of the picture. Ensuring that the framework, powers and resources are in place is important, but the speech is actually about changing the culture. We need a culture of respect and accountability, in which people are prepared to respond and take on challenges—to be self-interested in the way they look after their family, but self-determining in a way that engages with the wider community. In other words, we are interdependent. We are mutually responsible for each other, and we gain strength by achieving that, rather than being individuals fighting alone. That is the spirit of the home affairs and constitutional affairs sections of the Queen's Speech.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), will be holding the fort gallantly on
  374
  constitutional affairs at the end of the debate, but I can say now that the dramatic changes and wide range of Bills on constitutional matters that we are introducing are indicative of a Government who are prepared to take on the challenges of the future. In home policy, building on the foundations that we have already put in place, we are laying out the measures that will build the trust and confidence, and the ability of communities to respond, that I have mentioned.
  We have already taken enormous steps: 12,000 extra police officers over the last three years, the introduction of more than 2,000 community support officers, the development of the street warden scheme, the massive expansion by 10,000 of the number of civilian workers in the police service, the introduction of DNA and forensic services in a way never before envisaged—
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Before the Home Secretary ends his brief reference to constitutional affairs, I want to ask him something, because I suspect that he had a role in the matter. As major constitutional changes were announced as part of a reshuffle, and were therefore not the subject of consultation with anybody, was he consulted about the shape of the constitutional changes that the abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor and the creation of the supreme court would bring about, and did he express a view at the time?
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Oh, dear.
  Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend sums things up admirably: the past is the past, and the future is the future—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That goes down as the tritest soundbite of the week; it just happens to be true.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does that mean no?
  Mr. Blunkett: Let me deal with the question asked by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). As he will remember, the changes had been the subject of considerable speculation and debate. I remember it well, because my Department was apparently going to be dismembered, and there was going to be a wholesale change in the way in which the justice elements of my portfolio were handled—none of which turned out to be true. Of course, the conversations that we had on the day of the reshuffle were about reflecting on how best to achieve the Prime Minister's goals, rather than second-guessing them beforehand. That is the answer to the question.
  Engaging with the issues that are in front of us, I can say that all the changes are about ensuring that we can prepare for the future, and that we have a constitution and crime reduction measures that deal with the 21st century rather than the 12th century. We have measures that reflect that, as does the legislation that we pushed through the House just two weeks ago—it seems a long time now since four home affairs Bills went through in the final week of the Session, but it is only a fortnight ago. That goes all the way through to the crime reduction measures that we are building on today.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: In preparing for the future, are the Home Secretary and the

  375
  rest of the Government aware of the disastrous results of the elections in Northern Ireland, which were brought about principally by the lack of faith of many in the majority community in the Prime Minister's reshaping of that local constitution? Does the Home Secretary expect that legislation will have to be introduced to enable people in Northern Ireland to express an opinion on the Good Friday agreement, in order to replace that which was expressed last week?
  Mr. Blunkett: That was a disgraceful intervention. Here we are, three and a half weeks away from Christmas day, with people walking freely and shopping in Belfast and Derry—
  Patrick Mercer: Londonderry.
  Mr. Blunkett: Londonderry, if the hon. Gentleman wishes.
  Patrick Mercer: Yes, we do.
  Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman may wish that, but some of us wish more for the peace and tranquillity that allows people to walk freely in the streets, to shop and to enjoy Christmas in the way that the rest of the United Kingdom takes for granted. That has been brought about by the Good Friday agreement, by removing the causes of the problems and by getting people to work together. Those who wish to stir things up should be aware that, of those who voted, 70 per cent. voted for parties and politicians who are committed to the Good Friday agreement.
  If demolishing the agreement is an objective of the official Opposition, I hope that their Leader, who has graced us with his presence this afternoon, will intervene—snarling, scratching and biting, as he did last Wednesday—to tell us what his policy actually is.[Interruption.] It was not me who introduced the topic of the Good Friday agreement—the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) did.
  The crime reduction measures that we have taken—a 27 per cent. reduction in crime in the past six and a half years; crime and disorder reduction partnerships; antisocial behaviour orders; and the measures in the Bill that we passed a fortnight ago, which are now being put in place—are transforming the life of the community. Yet there is much more to be done. The legislation that we fought for in Parliament lays the foundations, which are stepping-stones to enabling people in the professional services and in the community to take control, and to exercise the power to make a difference.
  The steps that we took through our balanced approach to nationality and asylum brought about a 50 per cent. reduction in the number of asylum seekers in the first half of this year. Given that the Leader of the Opposition is present, that reduction should be contrasted with the 45 per cent. increase that occurred during his time as Home Secretary. We have also introduced new legal migration routes, and new channels, through the United Nations, for people to reach our soil. All those measures have to be built on and enhanced if we are to ensure future trust and confidence in the system.
  Keith Vaz: Nobody doubts the Home Secretary's commitment and willingness to
  376
  ensure that the asylum system is robust, but the fact remains that there is a major problem with the way in which the immigration and nationality directorate operates. It is too slow, the backlog is too big and it takes too long to deal with cases. What effective steps is the Home Secretary going to take, other than introducing another Act of Parliament, to make that system much better?
  Mr. Blunkett: I acknowledged those sentiments two years ago, and substantial steps have been taken to achieve precisely what my Friend seeks. Just over 80 per cent. of initial decisions are now taken in the first eight weeks, compared with an average time of 20 months under the previous Government. We have dramatically cut the numbers waiting for an initial decision, and the numbers waiting for their appeals to be heard. Some 6,000 people per month are now passing through the appeals system, but legislation is necessary. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, whose Department cooperated with us in looking at what else needs to be done.
  It has been suggested in the media that we are somehow doing away with the right of appeal.
  Keith Vaz: You are.
  Mr. Blunkett: We are not. [Interruption.] Well, when is a right of appeal not a right of appeal? When it consists of multiple appeals, presumably. If those who do not like an initial decision are permitted to take their cases to a tier of appeal in which appeals can be dealt with differentially, according to the type of appeal being made—for instance, non-suspensive appeals are dealt with differently from straight forward cases—that means that we provide not only a right of appeal, but a sensitive appeals system that is appropriate to the particular case. If someone wishes to take their case to a further appeal—such as to the Appeal Court on a point of law—they will be permitted to do so. At the moment, applicants not only have the right of appeal on the initial decision to the immigration appeal tribunal, but they can have multiple judicial review appeals that string out the appeals process month after month. My hon. Friends and Opposition Members asked for the process to be speeded up, but we have to change the law to do so, if individuals or, more likely, those representing them, string out cases. We are accused of not completing cases, when those involved are responsible for it.
  Keith Vaz Keith Vaz rose—
  Mr. Blunkett: I give way to my hon. Friend in the full knowledge that he will be able to enlighten me about how he would organise the system differently.
  Keith Vaz: I will enlighten the Home Secretary. The problem is bad decision making and the inefficient way in which such matters are handled. I have great respect for him and the work that he has done in the community and in policing. However, this afternoon, he is playing with words. If he takes away a whole tier of the appeals system, he will restrict the right of appeal.
  Mr. Blunkett: No. We do not give income support appellants or disability living allowance appellants the

  377
  right to make multiple appeals. If they do not like the decision that has been made, they go to appeal. It is not the case that the system is unfair or that the appeals process is failing unless they have layer after layer.
  I shall restate the statistics, so that there is no misunderstanding. After initial decision, 20 per cent. of those who go through the appeals process have their appeals upheld. That figure is too high, so initial decisions need to be better. However, in the appeals process that we are curtailing, only 3 per cent. of appeals are successful. That is a 97 per cent. success rate for the process that we are retaining and enhancing. I do not know where the statistics that some use come from. Perhaps people listen to the pressure groups instead of looking at the reality. I appreciate that not everyone can be an expert on such matters, but I do ask that if peopleߞnot least on my own sideߞcriticise proposed legislation, they do so on the basis of facts rather than on what they have read in the newspapers. After all, the Leader of the Opposition made the terrible mistake last Wednesday of believing what he had read in the newspapers rather than what I had said in the press and on radio and television.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: The newspapers put what the right hon. Gentleman told them.
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall deal with that intervention in a minute. On 24 October, we published for consultation the exact proposals that appear in the Bill. We spelled out exactly what we world do in respect of family subsistence, benefits and the removal of children. At that time, we made it clear that we were not talking about taking asylum seeker children from their parents. We were talking about destitution in cases in which, despite our best efforts, people refused to leave and so their benefits were no longer paid, because they wereߞby definitionߞillegal immigrants.
  I heard a sedentary intervention that suggested that I told the newspapers what they printed. I must make it clear that if I were going to brief on an ultra-right wing policy of grabbing asylum seeker children from their parentsߞas ITN put it to people in the streetߞI would not have briefed The Observer on it. I would have a little more nous after 33 years in public life than to brief a liberal newspaper on what would be an illiberal policy.
  Mr. Michael Howard: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving us that insight into his briefing habits. We all appreciate how sensitive he is on these issues. If what he is now telling the House is correct, why did the Prime Minister not take the abundant opportunity that he had last Wednesday to deny what I was putting to him? Why has the Prime Minister still not replied to the letter that I wrote to him last Friday in which I asked him to clarify the Government's intentions on these matters?
  Mr. Blunkett: But the Prime Minister did indicate to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he was wrong. Not only that, we put a statement out on the Sunday of The Observer article indicating that it was wrong, drawing attention to the fact that we had
  378
  published the proposals on 24 October. I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) is new to the job, but he really should have whispered in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's ear before the initial debate on the Queen's Speech last Wednesday that this was not an issue on which the Leader of the Opposition should home in, not least because in 1996 he had passed through the House an Actߞfor which his hon. Friends had votedߞthat withdrew benefit not simply from failed asylum seekers but from all those applying as asylum seekers. To use a phrase that he used last Wednesday, that really was despicable. Had I been proposing to intervene with asylum seekers and take away their children willy-nilly, which was suggested in some newspapers, and last Wednesday, and by the shadow Home Secretary in interviews, of course, I would have been despicable. Despite the tendency of some of the liberal media to believe that I am, I do not espouse that particular cause.
  Annabelle Ewing: I have listened carefully to the Home Secretary, but it seems to me that he has not totally ruled out taking the children of asylum seekers into care. Is he aware that, as far as Scotland is concerned, the children's panel system has jurisdiction, and his writ in this matterߞthankfully, some would sayߞdoes not run in Scotland on what is deemed to be in the best interests of the child?
  Mr. Blunkett: Dealing with asylum seeker families is a central, Westminster responsibility and will remain so. The hon. Lady is simply wrong. Let me take her question head-on. What we have are those who want us to speed up the asylum system but to continue to have multiple rights of appeal in judicial review, those who want us to remove people from the country but not to raid their homes and take away their children who have been embedded in the community, those who do not want us to have removal centres but do not want us to take action with families in the community, and those who do not want us to have removal centres but somehow want us to continue paying benefit to asylum seeker families even when their claims have failed. And when asylum seeker children, because of the responsibility in relation to their parents, are treated in exactly the same way as any child in my constituency or in other hon. Members' constituenciesߞwhen the child is at risk, social services interveneߞwe get criticised for that. I am asked what should we do once an asylum seeker family has refused to go, and, even after trying to raid the household, cannot be removed, subsistence has been taken away, the family are destitute and the child is at risk; the answer is exactly the same as what would be done with any other child. It is then suggested that that is despicable and that I ought to be ashamed of myself. Well, I am neither despicable nor ashamed of myself.
  Mr. Frank Field: While some Members of the House think that this is an important issue, for my constituents the issue above all is the collapse of decent behaviour. As in the past, they look to the Home Secretary to be sensitive in the way that he responds to this issue. They know that for the first time for a couple of hundred years politicians are having to concern themselves with the issue of behaviour. We have taken it for granted that families function properly and

  379
  that neighbours behave to one another properly. Knowing what the Home Secretary has already done, and as in his introductory remarks he said that the Government would be thinking of an interdependence between them and the people, may I plead for such a relationship with Back Benchers on both sides of the House? When he brings forward measures to counter antisocial behaviour, can he frame them in such a way that those of us who have ideas from our constituents on what should be done find it easy to amend those Bills?
  Mr. Blunkett: I will always seek to facilitate—and I have always encouraged the Ministers in my team to facilitate—changes in Committee and on the Floor of the House, and we have always sought to respond to amendments. We did so with the Sexual Offences Bill, with the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, as far as the terms of the Bill would allow, and we did so—I say smiling—with the Criminal Justice Bill, even to the very last moment. We will certainly do so on the Bills before us, including the measures on domestic violence, crime and victims, which will be very important.
  I pick up the wider point that my right hon. Friend makes: what we are seeking is not big government or no government but enabling government—effective and empowering government—that enables people to make a difference in their own lives.
  Mr. McLoughlin: While the Home Secretary is on this point, may I ask him, as the head of the Home Office, to look at the way in which his Department responds to Members of Parliament? I received an answer just before the House rose to a parliamentary question that was tabled in March last year, and it said that the Minister would reply shortly. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) tabled a question in January and received a similar answer last week. Will the Home Secretary look at the way in which his Department deals with written answers?
  Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) has written back to him. If any Member has correspondence or questions that have been outstanding for any length of time, I would be happy to hear from them, and I will deal with the matter. I am keen that the Department's record should be improved year on year and month by month. We have improved dramatically the turnaround time of both correspondence and questions, which happens to be a particular fetish of mine.
  I want Government to be engaged not disengaged, including with hon. Members, and I want policies to be in partnership with people and working alongside them. I want us to ensure that we are responsive and that services are responsive to people's needs.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: Before we move from the point of substance on either the incarceration of children of asylum seekers in detention centres, removal centres or former prisons, or the unforgivable idea that we should breach the UN convention on the rights of the child even further by dividing families—children and parents—because of
  380
  circumstances relating to social security provisions, is the Home Secretary trying to pretend that he does not know that most people who have their social security removed, as is happening throughout Scotland and in the city of Glasgow, work illegally and are paid exploitative, low wages but still survive? To single out those people who have children and to take their children into care may not make him feel ashamed, but it will certainly make me feel ashamed.
  Mr. Blunkett: I do not know what happens in Scotland, but in my city the social services department intervenes to look after children who are at risk, whether because their family is dysfunctional or no longer capable of looking after them. That is why, regrettably, we have more children in care than I believe is warranted, and more children in care than any of us would want. I am not entirely sure what my hon. Friend is suggesting. Is he saying that we should pay people benefits when they are here illegally, or that we should be more robust in removing them?
  I am well aware of my hon. Friend's interest in the Dungavel removal centre and the difficulties of holding families there. I am aware of the inspection report, and the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration will go to Scotland and make statements on that issue shortly and deal with those children who inevitably have to be held at the moment, pending removal. All those issues are deeply sensitive, but they are not affected in any way by the changes that we propose in the Bill because social services authorities, certainly those south of the border, have the same obligations for asylum seeker children or those who have failed in their asylum claims as for any other child.
  Kali Mountford: A moment or two ago, my right hon. Friend mentioned the domestic violence Bill. This morning, all the press herald the fact that that Bill contains great measures, including the right of the victims to be protected under the law by prosecutions brought by the police, rather than themselves. That is an important measure for the protection of victims. Can he confirm that he will continue to work across Departments so that all the social effects of domestic violence, not only those that relate to his own Department, are dealt with?
  Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I can confirm that, and I shall be pleased to discuss that Bill; obviously, I will not make a Second Reading speech, but can confirm that, as with the statement that I made in July, we are now moving forward to implement those policies.
  Mr. Richard Allan: Can the Home Secretary confirm that there is a crucial difference between any other family in his constituency who suffers from destitution and a family seeking asylum? If social workers came across a destitute family in his constituency, they would have a duty to lift the family out of destitution, so that they are not split up, using powers under the National Assistance Act 1948. However, asylum-seeking families are explicitly excluded from those provisions, so there is a crucial difference: social workers cannot keep those families together by lifting them out of destitution, which is what they would like to do.
  Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman suggests that, under the Children Act 1989, social workers can make

  381
  payments in lieu of benefits that people are not entitled to, to keep families together. In some cases, they do that. I was a chairman of a social services committee for four years and the chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities social services committee for about eight years, so I am very familiar with the Children Act and the measures that can be taken, but I am also deeply aware of the intervention that social workers have to make to protect the rights of the child.
  I repeat again that all that was spelt out for hon. Members on both sides of the House on 24 October. It was repeated the following Monday, 27 October, when the specific measures were followed up, and it was spoken about alongside the indefinite leave to remain proposals, which I announced at the time and which lifted the threat of removal or destitution from 15,000 heads of families—approximately 45,000 to 50,000 asylum seekers—who had put in their claims before 2 October 2000 and who had not been removed from the country. I should have expected a warm welcome for that, but it is funny how some of the people who are now critical of what I am doing did not welcome that proposal at the time.
  Keith Vaz: We welcomed it.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am very glad that my hon. Friend welcomes it. It is really nice that some of the things that we do are welcomed by our hon. Friends on the Labour Benches. That always cheers us a little and it gets our blood flowing again.
  Mr. Gwyn Prosser: I certainly support a lot of the changes that have been made already, but my right hon. Friend must be aware that we have concerns about the consequences of the ruling that we are talking about now. Having said that, does he agree that a failed asylum-seeking family who decide to allow their children to be taken into care purely to keep them off the streets and keep them safe are saying more about themselves and their own judgment than about the proposals?
  Mr. Blunkett: They certainly are, because they have a choice—they could pick up the package of free travel, plus resettlement back in the country of origin. If we are not to have a completely dysfunctional system and if there are those in all parties who believe that we should lay down regulations and laws but not implement them, we have to follow through the logic. As I was spelling out a moment ago, the logic is that people take responsibility for their own actions. It is an absolutely key precept of politics that we cannot do everything for people. We cannot second-guess them. We cannot take all their decisions for them. They have to take responsibility for themselves, their families and their children. If we offer people a decent package, having undertaken the whole process, and they refuse to return, we are left with only one obligation: to look after those
  382
  who are vulnerable and who cannot make those decisions for themselves—they happen to be the children.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I will make a little progress before giving way again.
  It is funny how Opposition parties demand less government, but then demand more government when it suits them. Let me give an example. Let us take counter-terrorism or, as the Opposition like to call it, homeland security. The Opposition have proposed with vigour on several occasions that we ought to have a homeland security tsar in the Cabinet, despite the fact that the holder of that shadow post is not a member of the shadow Cabinet.
  Mr. Skinner: They picked it up from Bush.
  Mr. Blunkett: Yes, the idea is modelled on America, but without the American system behind it. It is an interesting proposition because, of course, a homeland security tsar would—by the very nature of the post, which would be detached from day-to-day responsibility for other matters-be up and down in the media and in the House, constantly justifying their existence in the Cabinet and constantly talking about events in the public arena.
  I draw attention to that only because the shadow Home Secretary said on the radio this morning what a disgrace it was that I had answered a question about a police counter-terrorism and security service operation that took place last week in Gloucester. We cannot have it both ways. On a number of occasions, I have been criticised for not appearing in the House enough to talk about anti-terrorism and security, despite all that we have pushed through, or in the media, telling people about what is taking place and answering questions often enough. The criticism is that we need a homeland tsar to do that instead because I am too busy with policy, immigration, criminal justice, tackling drugs and civil renewal to speak often enough on counter-terrorism.
  Mr. Edward Gamier: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I will give way in a moment.
  When I was asked a perfectly reasonable question—it was put to me on a day when I did not make the headlines, by the way, because I was already making them with the proposed asylum legislation—about an incident with which I was familiar, I answered it. Even one of my long-standing critics—the former Master of the Rolls, Lord Donaldson—described the answer as perfectly reasonable. I answered in a way that did not infringe anyone's rights. Although he said that he was a long-standing critic, he said that he could not find fault with what I said on that occasion.
  I draw attention to the letter in The Times this morning from Walter S. Greenwood, who has some real experience in such matters. Again, he criticised those who jumped on to a rather silly bandwagon. I just want to put this on the record, so that we get it straight. I did

  383
  not mention the name of the individual, his background, his religion or what he has done. I drew attention to the fact that section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is not used unless there is a prima facie case to believe that someone has been engaged in terrorism; otherwise, they would be deemed a burglar and they would be dealt with under a different sort of law altogether. What is going on at the moment is silly nonsense, and I am sorry that the shadow Home Secretary has been drawn into it. Now, I give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman who was desperate to intervene.
  Mr. Garnier: I can assure the Home Secretary that I am not in the least bit desperate, but he may become increasingly desperate. The answer that he has just given to the criticism that has been made of his interviews with the press about the Gloucester investigation is foolish, if I may say so. He clearly knows the difference between identifying and commenting on a particular case compared with talking about terrorism generally, police efforts in general and Home Office efforts to sustain the fight against terrorism. It really will not do for him to come to the Dispatch Box and try to ally the two concepts. That is foolish and unwise, and he is being silly.
  Mr. Blunkett: I do not really give a toss what the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks about me, but it is very interesting that he obviously thinks just the same about Lord Donaldson or those who have very clearly indicated, as I do, that the hon. and learned Gentleman is talking nonsense. Those who throw about meaningless criticism in an effort to make party political points need to listen to those who have a great deal of experience and actually know whether someone has prejudiced a trial or has in any way undermined the right of someone to the justice of our country. I am very confident that I did not do that, and I would do it again.
  Let us be clear about the legislation outlined in the Queen's Speech and in the Bills that we will introduce. I refer not just to those that will be debated under the subject of home affairs, but to the housing Bill and the Department of Trade and Industry's Bill that will introduce community interest companies. We are seeking to develop a raft of measures that will enable people to live their lives more freely, to have greater confidence and trust in the system and to be able to move forward in terms of developing their lives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) suggested, that is true of the legislation on domestic violence and of the charities Bill that we will publish.
  The charities Bill will modernise laws that go back to 1601 and, at the request of voluntary and community organisations, it will modernise the way in which local communities as well as national charities can engage with the solutions to their own problems. It will bring about greater accountability and revise the advice on campaigning that will ensure that we can modernise that without party political engagement by such groups. It will also ensure that we separate out the issues. The wider review will also, of course, be taken forward alongside the legislation that is needed. I hope that hon. Members on both sides will join us in making that draft legislation better and will engage in the debate.
  Equally, mobilising society involves us in a commitment to supporting victims and witnesses. I think that both sides of the House have said over the
  384
  years that we needed to do a great deal more. Therefore, the victims commissioner, the new updated code and the enforcement measures behind it, the way that we will engage with the courts—we have done so already in terms of protection—and the way in which we can develop that alongside the domestic violence legislation will all make a difference to people's lives and the way in which they are prepared to support and work with the justice system in the wider interests of the community.
  Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone) (Lab): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way on the issue of victims. As he will be aware, restorative justice is working successfully in some areas. However, will he consider more pilots to include adult victims in the restorative justice procedures?
  Mr. Blunkett: The answer is very strongly yes. We need to spread much more quickly the pilot programmes on restorative justice that have been so well exercised through the Youth Justice Board and the youth offending team programmes. As my hon. Friend said, they have been doing a very good job in responding to the wishes of victims.
  Some 25 per cent. of all violent crime arises out of domestic violence. That is why tackling domestic violence is such a priority. Work has been done by a whole range of Front-Bench and Back-Bench colleagues from a number of parties, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-Genera] has been in the forefront of that. It means working alongside those who, over the years, have fought to get improvements to the system. Today, we are able to say categorically that we will be able to do that.
  I also wish to announce that we will take forward the proposals on familial killing that we have worked hard on over the past two years. They relate to cases in which families have been able to get away with the death often of a child by no one admitting to the killing and because there is no evidence distinguishing between the two or more people involved. The measures that we are adopting will go some way to overcoming that problem and will ensure that people cannot get away with the most heinous crimes by covering each other's tracks.
  Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that announcement about familial killing. Will his proposals be broadly based on the Law Commission's conclusions?
  Will the right hon. Gentleman also be urging the police to take a more active interest in cases of domestic violence? It is not just the legislative framework that is at fault. The police have a propensity not to intervene successfully in cases that they still too often consider to be "domestics".
  Mr. Blunkett: I think that we all agree on that. At the time of the statement, we said that changing professional practice, attitudes and culture was just as important as changing the law. Empowering the police in the way that we described in the statement and that will be replicated in the legislation is an important step in that direction. We also made it clear that we had to change the attitudes of young men, in particular, and consider how the education service could assist with that. We want to take that point forward alongside the Bill.

  385
  The Bill on domestic crime and its victims will deal with the issue of multiple charges that we touched on at the end of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. I confirm that we will introduce proposals on that issue and reiterate that we shall take forward the Corruption Bill, which is being scrutinised in draft. We shall introduce proposals to fulfil the commitment that I gave two weeks ago in relation to serious fraud and we shall consider that matter alongside the other powers.
  Ross Cranston: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on all these measures, including those that deal with domestic violence and familial killing. They are necessary steps. However, may I ask him about the Bill to deal with corporate killing? In particular, if a draft Bill is to be introduced, will it provide for the removal of Crown immunity?
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall publish very shortly the draft legislation on corporate manslaughter. I do not intend to pronounce on it until we have put the draft together and introduced it in a way that will give all Members of the House the opportunity to scrutinise it. We are addressing the issues that have been raised by the Joint Committee and the point about Crown immunity that my hon. and learned Friend has just raised, difficult though it is.
  To clarify the position, I am talking about the draft Corruption Bill and the draft legislation on corporate manslaughter. They are separate pieces of legislation, and I want to make that point clear because we have consulted on the scrutiny of one and are about to scrutinise the other.
  Glenda Jackson: Before the Home Secretary moves on from the issue of domestic violence, may I ask the Government to consider the point that far too many deaths of children have taken place at the hands of their fathers who, not infrequently, then commit suicide? Will the Government consider the possibility of denying any unsupervised access to his children by a father who has been guilty of violence—either physical or verbal—against the children's mother?
  Mr. Blunkett: When my hon. Friend raised this point on the statement in July, I said that a lot depended on the definition relating to the severity of the crime committed. The protection of children from those who have committed heinous crimes is an absolutely prime requirement, but we also need-at the opposite end of the spectrum—to maintain contact whenever we can and rebuild the family whenever that is possible. We will seek to try to ensure that we meet that requirement and meet the difficult balance between the two objectives when the legislation goes through the House.
  I now want to make progress by mentioning other legislation. The civil contingencies legislation will be taken forward by the Cabinet Office. It is not, of course, about anti-terrorism but civil contingencies. I make it clear that part 1 of the Bill will address the civil protection framework and part 2 will provide for the modernisation of emergency powers. The Bill will update the Emergency Powers Act 1920 and the Civil
  386
  Defence Act 1948 but will not introduce dramatically new changes. It has already been scrutinised, so when we debate it we will be prepared to respond to that scrutiny and suggestions made by hon. Members of all parties. I hope that we can get the Bill right because it is important for it to have all-party support and for people to feel comfortable with the changes. The required measures for use in extremis will not necessarily be needed only due to outside intervention but sometimes because of acts of God.
  Let me return to the asylum legislation. It represents the third strand of our process of establishing a set of building blocks to get the nationality and asylum system right. Balance is important and although some people say that they do not see balance in our programme, the White Paper that we published almost two years ago spelled out clearly our policy of balancing legal and economic migration, the UN gateway for asylum seekers, and the need to clamp down on clandestine entry and circumstances in which asylum is used as an alternative economic route. That is why the Bill will build on three key areas. First, the attitude and presentation of those who seek and facilitate asylum should be honest. We must ensure that people do not throw away their passports and documents when they get off planes or refuse to tell the truth about where they came from or their country of origin. Secondly, we must clamp down on organised criminals who traffic people throughout the world for considerable gain. Thirdly, we need to speed up the clarity and decisiveness of the system, including the process for appeals and removals. The Bill is concentrated entirely on those three reasonable and laudable aims.
  Mr. John Denham: Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about measures to clamp down on people trafficking? The Government consulted on proposals to require airlines to copy the documents of passengers who board planes on certain routes but such a provision is not in the Bill. Do the Government intend to make a decision on whether to include that measure before the Bill completes its passage through the House?
  Mr. Blunkett: We are consulting with the carriers. If we introduce a measure to require copying, it should be universal so that all carriers that transport people into the country would be on equal terms thus ensuring that it would not disadvantage any carrier. We think that that would secure fair competition and ensure that no companies' commercial operations would be disadvantaged. There are different views on the subject but I hope that we will be able to resolve the matter quickly so that we may introduce measures.
  Of course, 70 per cent. of those who claim asylum dispose of their passports or documents before presenting themselves. We accept the fact that some people would never have had passports or documents and that they would have been transported across the continent in the back of vehicles or another clandestine way. If those people explain how they got here, that will be sufficient to ensure that their claims are heard. However, many people destroy their documents to evade proper scrutiny of their claim and deceive those who undertake such scrutiny about the specific country in a region from which they came, and others do that at the behest of their facilitators' instructions. Such actions

  387
  make the system difficult to operate. Every time that we close a loophole, a new one opens up, which is why it is necessary to continue, as this third strand does, to block loopholes and deal with the innovative ways in which people try to destroy a robust system.
  In the end, the measures will need to be linked to proper methods of identification so that people who enter the country—legally or otherwise—and disappear into the community will not be able to draw on our services, get work or abuse our country's hospitality. Indeed, such methods would prevent the exploitation of people who disappear into the community to work to try to sustain themselves because they are not entitled to benefit, which was described earlier. The policy is all about developing stability and order and the difficult job of laying down the terms of the way in which we can establish foundations on which others may build.
  This is not a job in which accolades are handed out for doing things that are immediately popular, with the exception of introducing welcome measures on sexual offences, domestic violence and, in the near future, I hope, the radical reform of our correction services. The job is about laying down requirements on which other changes can be built, on which safety, security and stability may be assured, and on which the progressive agenda that we want can be won. By doing what we have to do now and anticipating future changes and difficulties and likely points of attack, we can secure for those who come after us a platform to take forward many of the things that we hold dear. That is why we will ask the House to vote for the measures in the Queen's Speech on home and constitutional affairs today and why we shall ask the House to vote for them so that they become Acts of Parliament that will ensure that people in the communities we represent will know that we are on their side.
  1.26 pm
  David Davis: May I start by sympathising with the Home Secretary about his black eye? I have had one or two myself, so I know how he feels.
  This year's Queen's Speech has yielded yet another bumper crop of Bills which, at the very least, confirms the Government's reputation for activism. During the course of the year, I intend to address the substance of Bills on home and constitutional affairs in the constructive manner characteristic of my predecessor as shadow Home Secretary.
  Elements of the Bills will certainly find support on this side of the House. Conservative Members have, for example, long supported measures to tackle domestic violence. I understand only too clearly what the Home Secretary said about several of the issues being extremely difficult, so we shall help him to wrestle with them. We are pleased that the Government have found time to introduce a Bill on charities, and we welcome the Bill on civil partnerships. Both will allow the House to address and correct long-standing legal anomalies and unfairness. I also look forward to discussing with the Home Secretary, as he promised that we would at the end of the past Session and reconfirmed today, how we may deal effectively with serious fraud without losing the twin pillars of British justice—the presumption of innocence and trial by jury.
  388
  We are also pleased by the announcement of a civil contingencies Bill in the Queen's Speech. Despite what the Home Secretary said, action on that front should surely have been taken four weeks after 11 September rather than 104 weeks afterwards. Despite the Bill's excessively lengthy gestation period, it is still flawed and was criticised by the Committee of hon. Members and peers that was set up to review. We shall examine all those criticisms carefully when the Bill comes before the House, but I share the Home Secretary's hope that we can adopt a reasonably bipartisan approach.
  There are some worthwhile Bills in the Government's programme but we have been here before in previous years. Indeed, the Government have introduced at least 30 Home Office Bills, but their effect on crime has been far too small. Despite the Home Secretary's frenetic activism, the programme will do little to tackle the appalling levels to which crime has risen during the Government's tenure.
  The Home Secretary obviously has a selective memory when it comes to statistics, so let me restate the facts. During the past century, recorded crime rose throughout the industrialised world, and Britain was no exception. However, between 1992 and 1997 the number of crimes committed in Britain dropped by almost 1 million. That was better than what happened in any other country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which is a tribute to the energy, talent and commitment of the then Home Secretary, who is now, of course, the Leader of the Opposition.
  This Government have achieved quite the opposite. Between 1998 and 2003, crimes recorded in Britain rose by almost 800,000. Violent crime alone has risen by nearly two thirds in just five years. Burglaries have almost doubled, and gun crime has doubled. Drug crime is up; theft is up; sexual offences are up. Some 60,000 incidents of antisocial behaviour—the insidious, corrosive behaviour that is tearing at the fabric of our communities—are reported every day. The only figure that has fallen is the level of crimes detected. Indeed, the Home Secretary's own figures report that the number of crimes detected in England and Wales has fallen to fewer than one in four. The Government have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. They have turned their back on an open goal and scored an own goal instead.
  Let us be perfectly fair, however. The failure to stem the appalling rise in crime under the Government's stewardship has not been for want of activity on their part. In addition to the 30 Bills proposed since 1997, initiatives have been announced and re-announced weekly, if not daily. There have been cash-point fines, child curfews and night courts, all uniformly unsuccessful. To implement that initiative frenzy, the Home Office has recruited 20,000 more administrators. Those have, in turn, multiplied and divided into five groups, six directorates, 10 teams and 63 units. By 2005, the cost of simply running the Home Office will have gone up by 46 per cent. That is well over £1 billion, which could have paid for countless thousands of police.
  Mr. Blunkett: I have listened quietly to most of the right hon. Gentleman's distortions, but I need to put the record straight on the last one before it gets legs. Much of what he describes is theoretically true but only

  389
  because the national probation service, which was decentralised to a localised system, was brought back together in 2000. All the staff working for it and the resources applied to it were brought into the Department at the same time.
  David Davis: How many of the extra 20,000 administrators does that account for? Not that many. I note that the Secretary of State did not challenge the idea that we might have got more policemen for that £1 billion, because he cannot.
  Mr. Mark OatenIs it still the right hon. Gentleman's party's policy to have an additional 40,000 police funded from putting asylum seekers on an island?
  David Davis: It is certainly my party's policy to have an extra 40,000 police funded from savings made on the Government's disastrous asylum policy.
  What is the result of the prodigious explosion of energy and public spending? It is declining confidence and rising crime. The people of this country are losing confidence in the ability of the police to protect them and to deliver criminals to our courts for justice. A recent ICM poll shows that in two thirds of crimes reported to the police, officers tell the victims that little or nothing can he done to apprehend the perpetrators. That may be why one victim in seven does not bother reporting crime to the police even when it is a serious offence. Half of them decide not to report it because they believe that the police would not catch the person responsible.
  Nothing in the Queen's Speech will seriously remedy that situation. There is a Bill that is designed to provide increased support to victims of crime and witnesses of crime. If it provides victims with more help than they currently receive, we will support it and try to amend it to ensure that it is more effective than previous legislation from this Home Secretary.
  Mr. Bellingham: There is also nothing in the Queen's Speech to reduce the appalling amount of paperwork that ties policemen into sub-beat offices and police stations. Surely more can be done about that.
  David Davis: The first thing to do would be to cut the 20,000 extra bureaucrats that the Home Secretary has taken on.
  I can tell the Home Secretary what the victims of crime really want: criminals to be caught and punished. At the moment, 97 per cent. of crimes go unpunished. No wonder public confidence in the criminal justice system is at an all-time low. What the public want, in short, is more police—40 000 more police in case the Liberals are interested. What the Home Secretary offers instead is more and more draconian legislation that impinges on the liberties of ordinary citizens but does little to catch real criminals. Those measures were corrected in the last Session only by the House of Lords, which brings me to the next subject: constitutional change.
  Again, I am afraid that there is no evidence in the Queen's Speech that the Government have managed to produce any meaningful or coherent policy. Earlier this
  390
  year, the Prime Minister embarked on a programme of fundamental change to our constitution as a spin-off from a botched and mismanaged Cabinet reshuffle. Proper consideration of the judiciary and the Executive, and the role and position of the Lord Chancellor, was thrown out of the window in favour of a blatant exercise in cronyism and power politics.
  Let me remind the House how the Government dealt with our constitution. The Home Secretary made it clear that he did not have even a little conversation on the subject. On 12 June, as part of a reshuffle, No. 10 issued a hastily drafted press release announcing that the centuries—old office of Lord Chancellor was being abolished, to be replaced by a Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs in the form of Lord Falconer. No. 10 made it plain that the Lord Chancellor would no longer fulfil the function of the Speaker of the House of Lords. On Friday morning, however, the Government discovered that they could not abolish the office of Lord Chancellor without an Act of Parliament. They also discovered that the Lord Chancellor's attendance in the House of Lords was required by a Standing Order that goes back to 1660. So their grand plan went off the rails within 12 hours of being announced. That is hardly evidence of a well planned programme of constitutional change; it is more a case study in incompetence.
  The Prime Minister has treated our constitution with an arrogant disdain that is shocking even by the standards of new Labour. Let me emphasise that it is our constitution. The Prime Minister seems to have forgotten that it belongs not to him, his Government or, indeed, any Government, but to the people of the United Kingdom. It is, of course, quite in character that he should deliver his proposals with no consultation, no debate and no thought for the consequences.
  The Government now claim that their proposals are all about modernising the constitution. I wonder whether Labour Members remember their manifesto commitment to make the House of Lords "more democratic and representative". Perhaps they remember the pledge:
  "We will abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a proper democratically elected second chamber with a new electoral system to go with it"
  In case they have forgotten, those were the words of the Prime Minister.
  What happened to those promises? Are the Government planning to make the upper House democratic? Did I miss that aspect of the Queen's Speech, or have the Government redefined, in some Orwellian fashion, what democracy means? If the Prime Minister does not stand by his commitments, the House and the people of Britain will be left with no other conclusion than that the Government's reforms are simply a sham. They will be seen as nothing more than an attempt to bring to heel an upper House with principles and powers that have proved inconvenient to the Government, and nothing more than an attempt by the Prime Minister to stuff the upper Chamber with yes men who will do his bidding.
  Mr. Clive Soley: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear it in mind that for 100 years or more the House of Lords has been nothing other than a constituency Conservative party? Will he also bear it in mind that it is the right of the two

  391
  Chambers to reform the House of Lords, and this Chamber failed to find a satisfactory solution? Perhaps he might like to consider a real option, which it is for both Houses to propose, of a hybrid chamber—my preferred option—that would represent us in this century.
  David Davis: Plenty of options are available. This House did not reach a majority on any of them. However, many are much more popular than the Prime Minister's proposals. As for the Tory upper Chamber, the Government have been defeated 78 times in the House of Lords. On only six of those occasions were there more Tory than Labour Members of the House of Lords in the No Lobby. On 72 out of 78 occasions, they were defeated by their own Members, Cross Benchers and others.
  Mr. Oaten: Others?
  David Davis: Others, yes.
  What is the rationale for the Government's attack on the House of Lords? Is the problem that it is not democratic? No, it is not, because the Prime Minister has no intention of making it democratic. Is the problem that it is full of political appointees? No, it is not, because the Prime Minister wants more of those. Or is the problem that the House of Lords has actually done its job and stood up to an arrogant and over-mighty Executive?
  Were it not for the House of Lords, we would already have lost jury trials for countless offences. Without the House of Lords, the Government would have assumed huge powers to intercept private e-mails under the snoopers charter. Without the House of Lords, we would have seen draconian legislation, with everybody from church choirs to pub pianists being covered by the Licensing Act 2003. The House of Lords does its job every day, revising legislation and making it better and stronger. The House of Lords remains a practical check on Government, working not on the basis of party politics but on the basis of what is right for Britain. No wonder the Government want to see it permanently neutered.
  The Government claim that their proposals are about making the judiciary independent of Government. I would have thought that anybody who has witnessed the arguments of the Home Secretary, or indeed of previous Home Secretaries, with the judiciary could hardly doubt its independence. Perversely, the Government's proposed judicial appointments commission could undermine the independence of the judiciary, unless there are transparent safeguards, and we will work towards that.
  David Burnside: Would not my right hon. Friend include in his list the role of the House of Lords in stopping the draconian ban on hunting with dogs, which was a defence of the individual liberty of sportsmen and women in this country?
  David Davis: I have no difficulty in welcoming all actions of the House of Lords in defending liberty. It is one of its important functions, and one not understood by Members on the Labour Front or, indeed, Back Benches.
  392
  The Government have consistently undermined the powers of the Commons; they must not undermine the Lords simply because it is an effective check on an arrogant Executive. What is so wrong with the constitution that there is this sudden, urgent need for change? It may be a depressingly conservative question for Government Members, but it is not one that they seem ever to have asked. They see something old, and with the well—honed intellect of one of Pavlov's dogs, they conclude that it must be bad. It is not necessarily bad because it is old; indeed, it might well have become old because it is good.
  I have covered a number of subjects and a number of Bills. Where it is appropriate, Conservative Members will not hesitate to support the Government. I have referred to a number of such Bills. There is one, however, that I have not yet covered. This year, we have another asylum Bill—the Home Secretary told us about it—the third under this Government. Again, I remind him of the figures. In the last full year of the Conservative Government, 37,000 asylum seekers entered the UK. Last year there were 110,700—a 200 per cent. increase. Responsibility for the shambles in the asylum system belongs to this Government. Since coming to power, their record on asylum has been a dismal litany of failure.
  Mr. Tom Harris: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on further developing Conservative asylum policy on this morning's "Today" programme. I understand that he will not want to name the islands or peninsulas that are being targeted by the Conservative party as a dumping ground for asylum seekers, but it would be useful to the House and the electorate if his party could produce a shortlist of islands or peninsulas that the current residents could examine in the run-up to the next general election so that the electorate may make an informed choice.
  David Davis: I would be careful if I were the hon. Gentleman—he will get into the bad books of the Home Secretary, who gets very upset when one does not read his press releases and statements. On 24 November, the Home Secretary was talking about where the Government could find a place abroad as part of reviewing the whole question of asylum.[Interruption.] Yes, he was.
  Last week, the Government boasted that the number of asylum seekers had halved.[Interruption.] Labour Members do not want to hear this either. However, the number remains 50 per cent. higher than it was in 1997. After losing any grip on the system, this Government have wasted billions of pounds of taxpayers' money that might otherwise have been spent on schools, hospitals and the police. The Home Secretary has brought the numbers down only by reintroducing Conservative measures—measures that his party slammed as "racist, uncivilised and unjust" when it was in opposition, so I will not take too many lectures on responsible comments from Labour Members.
  Now we come to the third asylum Bill, the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, Etc.) Bill, which was announced in the Queen's Speech last week and mentioned by the Home Secretary today. I should put it on the record that much in the Bill sounds

  393
  eminently sensible, such as measures to penalise those who destroy their travel documents, about which the Home Secretary talked today. I understand from the papers that he has had difficulties with his Cabinet colleagues, but there are practical ways of taking those measures, so we will support the right hon. Gentleman on that.
  Frankly, however, despite the Home Secretary's protestations, there has been nothing sensible or responsible about the way in which the Government have handled the announcement of the Bill. The way in which the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have treated the issue over the past days shows the depths to which they have sunk for a quick and easy headline. On Sunday, under the headline, "Asylum children may be taken in care",The Observer, the Home Secretary's favourite document, reported:
  "Asylum seekers will have their children taken into care in a draconian attempt to force them to go home."
  Throughout the week, similar stories and headlines appeared in the press and on the airwaves.
  Mr. Blunkett: May I just ask one simple question? Is it the thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's query that I, or someone working on my behalf, placed that story?
  David Davis: Well, somebody in the Government did, that is for sure. I shall come to the right hon. Gentleman's Department in a moment. The Home Office had plenty of opportunities to deny the story. At any time, the Home Secretary could have gone on air to set the record straight. This, let us remember, is the Government who invented rapid rebuttal. They rebut things between the first and second editions, when they want to, not between Sunday and Thursday. They could have used their armies of spin doctors to knock the story down. Instead, they chose to defend it, and now I turn to the Home Secretary's question, because a Home Office spokesman described the measure as
  "an incentive for people to return voluntarily before removal is enforced".
  That was crass, insensitive and profoundly distasteful. On Wednesday, the Leader of the Opposition challenged the Prime Minister on those reports. He made absolutely no attempt to deny the allegations.
  We now know that the Bill makes no mention of taking children into care. This was an exercise in grabbing the headlines. It was designed to make the Government sound tough It was a calculated effort by the Government to cover up their failure to manage an orderly asylum system.
  Claire Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  David Davis: No, I will not. I am coming to the end of my remarks.
  Is not this evidence that the Government have sunk to a new low, even by their own shabby standards? How can anybody trust or respect a Government who are willing to chase headlines at the expense of innocent children?
  394
  The Home Office's motto is
  "Building a safe, just and tolerant society",
  but what is safe, just and tolerant about the Bills in this Queen's Speech? What in these Bills will make our citizens feel safe on the streets of our cities? What is just about risking the independence of the judiciary? Who would say that forcing the children of asylum seekers into care is an act of tolerance? We have a Government and a Home Secretary who are addicted to posturing: posturing on asylum, grand gestures and meaningless initiatives on crime, and pointless grandstanding on the constitution. The Home Secretary's reckless comments on the individuals arrested in Gloucester last week were the latest example of an addiction to cheap populism.
  The British people are sick of grandstanding. They want results. It is time for this Government to get off the stage and make way for a Government who will deliver.
  Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I remind the House that there is a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, which operates from now.
  1.49 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: Contrary to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), I think that the Government have done remarkably well on constitutional reform. We are embarked on a course that we need to spell out in more detail, and we must pace ourselves rather well over the coming years.
  The quest or the plan for a supreme court is precisely right. Our judges are not failing in any way, but the system is seriously out of date and puts us at risk of being in breach of article 6 of the European convention on human rights. We have signed up for a clear distinction between the legislature and the judiciary. We have judges sitting in our second Chamber and we need to bring that to an end. I do not want to go much further down that road. The Select Committee whose remit is constitutional affairs, of which I am a member, is considering, for example, the issues of independent selection measures for judges, where the proposed supreme court should sit and the way in which it should be organised. The Committee will report in due course.
  It is important to modernise the separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature. As I have said, that is not because of any criticism of our judges, but because time has moved on and we need to move with it. In a sense, the criticism of the British system is not that we do not have a written constitution; in many ways I regard it as an advantage to have an unwritten constitution. However, we have not made enough changes in recent times. There have been changes, of course, and we are now embarked on the right track. I shall focus mostly on reform of the second Chamber. Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden was saying, I think that the House failed, not the Government, to produce a workable proposal for a second Chamber.
  The Joint Committee of the two Houses sat for a long time to contemplate a number of options. In my judgment, the Committee was too large to come up with really good suggestions on which the House could have voted with more effect. I suppose my main appeal is that we should reconstitute that Committee early next

  395
  year with fewer members who are drawn from both Houses, with a duty to continue to explore reform of the second Chamber.
  I believe that there is a majority in this place and, I suspect, in the second Chamber who know that reform cannot stop. The reality is that we cannot leave the second Chamber as it is. There are, for example, some relatively minor issues such as the size of the second Chamber and whether there should be a retirement age, but the much bigger issue is how the Chamber should be constituted. Other issues that we are addressing elsewhere in the constitution indicate to me that the second Chamber should be a hybrid Chamber. I shall return to that.
  David Davis: The hon. Gentleman rather reinforces my view that the constitution should be changed carefully and slowly in order to get the outcome right. It is difficult to reverse the process. The hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that the House did not provide a clear decision when the issue was debated previously. Would it not be better to start with decisions that were the most popular—maybe they did not get a majority vote—and principally were the most democratic?
  Mr. Soley: I understand that approach and I have some sympathy for it. I believe that for the best part of 100 years the big bang approach has failed when it has come to solving the problem of the second Chamber. Time and again, attempts have been made by Labour, and in the early part of the previous century by the Liberal party, to reform the second Chamber. Those attempts never really worked. Big steps were taken when the Liberals appointed more peers to get legislation through. There was the introduction of life peers, and so on, but the reality is that any attempt to arrive at a total solution, which is then imposed on the second Chamber, is unlikely to get support in this Chamber or in the other Chamber. That is why we constantly run into trouble. In that sense, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is right in his intervention. We need to pace ourselves on progress and reform.
  How do we do that? I do not think that there is any real chance of a fully elected second Chamber being voted through in the two Chambers in the near future. Nor do I think that there is any credibility in a system that is wholly appointed along the present lines. We must move forward differently. It seems that everybody is signed up to an independent appointment system. In terms of the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, we are moving fairly rapidly towards a system of devolved regional government. We have it in London and we have it in Scotland and Wales in the form of devolved assemblies. It is to be hoped that there will be such an assembly in Northern Ireland in due course. It is a matter of time before the English have devolved government. Some English regions will go for it quicker than others, but I guess or estimate that the idea will catch on and that we will have devolved regional government.
  Around the world, many second Chambers are not made up of wholly elected Members. Instead, they are in some way made up of local regions. In a sense, the prize for Britain is to create an elected part of our second Chamber that represents the regions. The beauty of having a hybrid Chamber—by that I mean part
  396
  appointed and part elected—is that it is made clear that the second Chamber is junior to this Chamber. The problem of having a wholly elected Chamber when we do not have a written constitution is that power could move between the two Chambers without let or hindrance. In a way, that is what happened in the 19th century. At one moment we had the then Prime Minister in the second Chamber, and then he was back in this Chamber. If we do not want to go back down that road, we need to make it clear that the House of Lords is a second Chamber and not the first Chamber.
  Kali Mountford: Perhaps my hon. Friend will clarify for me what he means when talking about his hybrid view for the future of the House of Lords, or the second Chamber. What exactly does he mean in taking that hybrid view? Is he talking about a directly elected part, or would he consider an indirect election for certain Members chosen from the regions, and perhaps for particular interest groups?
  Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend helps me in my argument. If we agree to set up the Joint Committee of the two Houses again early in the new year, as I would wish, I would like it to consider the advantages of direct as opposed to indirect election in the second Chamber in representing the regions. I would not go down the road of interest groups—that would be full of problems. The key is to recognise that the Government have devolved a great deal of power. Contrary to popular opinion, it is not a centralising Government of the sort that we have had before. If we continue down that road, which English regional government moves us along, we must bring the United Kingdom back together again in the second Chamber. That is the reason for having the regions—in the widest sense of the term, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but also the regions of England—represented in the second Chamber in some way. In that way we would strengthen the constitution.
  My plea to this Chamber and to the second Chamber is to allow thinking to develop within the Joint Committee, if it is set up again. It would be a Select Committee and would be able to take evidence on, for example, the virtues of direct versus indirect election. It could then make proposals a step at a time to the two Chambers. I believe that we would get through a reformed House of Lords ever the next few years. We will not get a reformed House of Lords by trying to push through a wholly appointed Chamber. Nor will we get through a wholly elected Chamber. That is why I argue that we should allow ourselves to be paced by a Committee that reports regularly to the House and puts proposals to both Houses on which they can vote.
  I do not believe, and have never believed, that we can leave the House of Lords as it is. It needs to change, and that is the way forward. If we take the judges out of the second Chamber, questions are raised about who else should be there. There are difficult questions, including those about religious representation in a society that is much more diverse in its religious views. I am talking about one of the core ways forward.
  We should not divorce what we are doing on constitutional change from what we need to do on the Floor of the House and elsewhere with the modernisation of this place. If we compare the House now and in 1979, when I became an MP, we can see that

  397
  it is radically different and, in many ways, much better. The Committee structures work better and Westminster Hall, to which I can claim to have given birth, if that is the appropriate phrase—[Laughter]. It is probably not, but never mind. However, the introduction of debates in Westminster Hall was a useful development that has proved its worth. There are other options that we ought to look at. For example, I have already suggested to the Leader of the House that we ought to look at whether, in Westminster Hall, it is possible to allow Members of the Commons to question Ministers who are Members of the Lords. That would give a clear signal that the House of Lords is a second Chamber, but it would also allow hon. Members to cross-examine Ministers from the other place.
  We also need to look at ways of allowing MPs to cross-examine European Commissioners as part of a wider examination of our constitution. I am not suggesting that those Commissioners should be called over here-not because they would not attend, but because if they had to attend assemblies in every country there would be a problem. However, sessions could be held in which European Commissioners would be questioned in an open format by Members of Parliament—that would be another useful step forward. My plea generally is that we should recognise that the way in which we modernise our constitution will have dramatic consequences. Although it may not be the burning question of the moment and may not cut much ice on the streets of Shepherd's Bush, Acton or indeed any other constituency, it affects everyone in the country. The way in which our constitution works determines the quality of our democracy and Government. We should therefore replace the Joint Committee early in the new year, but we should also be careful not to take our eye off the ball when taking a genuine opportunity that we have not had for at least 100 years to make basic, major reforms to the constitution and the way in which the two Houses work.
  2.1 pm
  Mr. Mark Oaten: I congratulate the Home Secretary on his incredible energy levels and those of the Home Office. Once the Bills piloted by his Department are introduced, 48 Home Office Bills will have been introduced since the Government came to power. There is a growing tendency for politicians to do too much. While some of the Bills include measures that the Liberal Democrats have supported in the past, Members on both sides of the House share a genuine concern that far too much legislation is being introduced.
  There is, however, much on home affairs and constitutional matters in the Queen's Speech that Liberal Democrats support. In particular, I am pleased that a civil partnership Bill will be introduced, as its content was originally worked up by my colleague, Lord Lester, as a private Member's Bill. Proper legal rights should be in place recognising those individuals and couples who live together. We therefore very much welcome that legislation. We also welcome, as I think all parties do, the proposed legislative changes affecting domestic violence victims and witnesses. Those measures are long overdue, as the Home Secretary said. Domestic violence is an awful crime and, sadly, leads to
  398
  a number of deaths every week. It is often a hidden crime that goes unnoticed, so it is important that measures should be in place so that we have recourse to positive action to try to tackle the problem. I also hope that, simply by having legislation in place, awareness will be raised among the police and society in general that those issues need to be tackled. I welcome, too, the establishment of the post of an independent commissioner for victims.
  On the code of practice for victims, I have been lobbied about the issue of victims of road traffic accidents. The draft code did not deal with some of the big concerns of the many victims of road traffic accidents, so I hope that the Home Office can look at it again. On domestic violence, I hope that the Government can look at prevention. Many of the measures that we are discussing will kick in once an attack has happened, but we need to do more to prevent attacks in the first place. I therefore hope that the Government will address the issues of proper marriage counselling and mediation.
  Liberal Democrats welcome the measures on charities, as there is clearly an enormous need to modernise charity law. I also welcome the proposals for much greater integration of the work of the voluntary sector with that of other sectors, giving the voluntary sector an enormous opportunity to play a much greater role. Members on both sides of the House have big arguments about our public services and whether they should be run privately or by the public sector. However, a third way is to include the voluntary sector much more in the provision of those services. I hope that in a small way the measures in the charity Bill will result in a big growth in the embedding of voluntary groups in the running of our public services.
  We welcome some of the measures introduced by the Department for Constitutional Affairs. We certainly support the abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor and the creation of a supreme court. I hope that colleagues will have a chance to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to expand on that. However, there are two measures in the Queen's Speech with which we fundamentally disagree, the first of which is the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill. We have major concerns about some of the provisions that are being introduced. Last week, there was an announcement about the reduction in the number of individuals coming to this country. First, I should like to raise with the Home Secretary the folly of going down a route that establishes targets on those issues. The Government have achieved their target, and I do not question it or the way in which they have counted the numbers. According to their own measurement, they have achieved their target. However, is a new target going to be put in place for next year? If not, why not? According to their own judgment, a target-based approach is desirable. However, the folly of targets is that they do not take into account international circumstances that may vary from year to year. For example, situations may arise in various parts of the world that will result in a different demand on the asylum system. I am pleased that the Home Secretary has said that there will not be any more targets, so I hope that, now the reduction has been achieved, we have seen the last Government target in this area.

  399
  Turning to the measures that the Government are putting in place, does the Home Secretary expect that the proposals on children will be debated in future? Will he give us a categorical assurance that there will be no more references to the issue? We have had a debate about it this afternoon, but one way or another, whoever is right, and whether or not it was the Home Office that was briefing The Observer, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that, regrettably, the issues of children and asylum were linked last week.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not intend to return to the issue. It was never in the draft legislation. As I said, it was referred to on 24 October as part of a response to questions about what happens to children in circumstances of destitution. I do not normally say so on the record in the House, but I would be happy if anyone could produce a journalist who was keen to say that we briefed them, gave them the story and spun it, which they then gave to the public.
  Mr. Oaten: I am grateful for the Home Secretary's clarification of the fact that we shall not be hearing about these issues again. However, does the right hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that the question of whether a child is taken into care or given support has nothing to do with the Home Secretary but everything to do with the social services system? With that in mind, it is critical that social services decide whether or not children are suffering or are in need, particularly whether they have financial needs. Does the Home Secretary accept that usually when social services get involved to try to help a child in such circumstances their initial response is to try to find financial support for that family? By taking away that financial support, which is what he is doing, he is creating a problem for social services—[Interruption.]If the families are creating the problem, that is not, to some extent, their choice. Society must help to solve the problem. The instinct of any social services department will be try to put money back in, putting the children first and reducing the chance of their being taken away.
  On the question of appeal, we are playing a numbers game, and I should like to probe the Home Secretary a little more. We all agree that a number of decisions, about 20 per cent., are overturned during the first stage of appeal, which suggests that the current system is failing and incorrect. The Government plan to take away, in crude terms, the second stage of appeal. The Home Secretary gave a figure of 3 per cent. for success in that second stage. I would welcome clarification as to whether that is 3 per cent. of the overall cases—in other words, the cases that presented for the first appeal—or whether it is 3 per cent. of the cases going through to the second appeal.
  Mr. Blunkett: To be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, I am talking about 3 per cent. of those who were allowed to be referred from the first immigration appellate authority appeal to the third stage of decision making.
  Mr. Oaten: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for clarifying the point. The briefings that I have been given—I accept this openly—suggest that the figure is much higher at the second stage. Some of the figures
  400
  presented to me by legal teams working on such cases are indeed as high as 20 per cent. When we consider the matter in Committee, we will want carefully to probe the Government to establish what is happening at that second stage of appeal.
  Mr. Blunkett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as it may help hon. Members for me to explain. Following the first decision, a large number of cases go to first appeal with the immigration appellate authority, as the adjudicators. Some 20 per cent. of those appeals are currently allowed. A further tranche seek to go to the next round of appeal. A large number are currently allowed to put their case, and 3 per cent. of them are successful.
  Mr. Oaten: We seem to have reached a point at which the Home Secretary may be telling me that 20 per cent. of those people are allowed to put their case. We will clearly have to revisit the issue in some detail. I would have extreme concerns about moving a tier of appeal that could be accessed in at least 20 per cent. of cases.
  David Davis: I suspect that there may even be consensus between all three parties on this matter. The implication of what the hon. Gentleman has described-the one-in-five failure rate in the first round—is that the quality of decision making is too poor at that stage. Effort should therefore be focused on that round, rather than on infinite extensions of the appeal process.
  Mr. Oaten: There is full agreement on that issue. I am sure that we will return to the figures later, as I want to be clear that we are not ruling out the possibility of appeal for a number of individuals. I think that there will be agreement on all sides, however, about the principle of establishing a proper, fair and effective system much earlier.
  With that in mind, there are concerns that the Government's proposals on legal aid and its reduction—they are not in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill, but have been announced elsewhere—will have a negative impact on getting the decision right in the first place. We all agree that that is our objective, and, as a layman. that suggests to me that proper legal aid should be in place at an early stage. That should ensure that no individual is left without the legal aid that they need or finds that the team that is briefing and advising them is not of the quality that would have been provided if full legal aid had been made available.
  When the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs considered changes to legal aid, the majority of the 260 submissions that it received opposed such changes. The Committee said:
  "The Government's original proposals were hurried and not obviously thought through and its 'alternative approach', proposed to us at almost the very last stage, is unhelpfully vague."
  I hope that the Home Secretary can give us some indication of the current thinking on plans to change legal aid. Perhaps there is a case for not making such changes until we have seen how the changed system, with the reduction of appeal—or streamlining, if he wants to call it that—has bedded down. Making a fundamental change to the appeal process while also

  401
  making the changes that he is planning in respect of legal aid seems to be folly. There is a strong case for delaying the legal aid changes until we see how the matter develops.
  Keith Vaz: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The other risk is that many well qualified solicitors who should be giving legal advice under the legal aid scheme are withdrawing from it simply because of the limits that are placed on it. The applicants are left consulting people who are simply not qualified to advise them.
  Mr. Oaten: If we have consensus on the requirement to improve the process in that first stage, I suspect that, when we explore what is going wrong, we will find that the hon. Gentleman's point is accurate and that the quality of the advice given at the first stage is not as good as we would like. I suggest that the planned legal aid changes will not help that situation, but make it worse.
  There could be broad support on the Liberal Democrat Benches for introducing some form of punishment for individuals who burn their documents and are clearly trying to abuse the system. We obviously want assurances about ensuring that people who have genuinely fled their countries and got rid of the documents that they brought with them on the plane because they were nervous about arriving in this country will not end up suffering severe punishment. None the less, subject to a bit of probing, I think that we would be broadly supportive of what the Government are suggesting.
  I should like to make a couple more points about the same issue. I welcome the statement that the Home Secretary made three or four weeks ago, I think on "Newsnight", in which he spoke very well about the tolerant attitude that this country should have about asylum and talked about welcoming economic migrants to this country. I was impressed with what he said, as he spoke in a tone that many Liberal Democrats have wanted to hear much more from the Government. The announcements hidden away in the Bill, however, which include the power to increase charges for immigration visas, contradict some of the language that he was using only a few weeks ago. It would be helpful for the Home Office to confirm that it is now planning to charge more in relation to immigration visas than the actual cost of the process itself. That is wrong, as it could mean that people coming to this country for perfectly good reasons, such as attending a funeral or visiting family members, are turned into it money-making scheme for the Home Office.
  Let us hope that we can have a sensible debate about asylum. It will be a much more mature debate if the Home Secretary can confirm that the 28 clauses currently in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill will remain as such, and that we will not see all sorts of right-wing, headline-grabbing initiatives being tagged on to it at various points.
  I turn to identity cards with some trepidation, as the Home Secretary had great sport and fun when I last raised the issue, when he, pointed out that I had
  402
  expressed support for a private Member's Bill introduced a year ago. I admit that the view that I took is slightly unusual on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
  Mr. Garnier: I encourage the hon. Gentleman not to be too worried about changing his mind. About 18 months ago, the Government were staunchly in support of the continuation of the role of the Lord Chancellor.
  Mr. Oaten: Indeed, I could be slightly cruel and point out that, in 1989, the Home Secretary himself voted against a Tory private Member's Bill involving the introduction of a personal identity number in an attempt to tackle fraud. I shall not go down that line, however, as I suspect that he has better researchers than I have and could probably come back at me with things that I have done in the past. [Interruption.] I was not here in 1989.
  If I could be convinced that there was a system that could do all the things that the Home Secretary would like and guarantee an ability to tackle crime, more security from terrorism and major benefits in respect of benefit fraud, I might be prepared to set aside some of my concerns about civil liberties and consider such a proposal. However, I am not convinced.
  David Davis: I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for changing his mind. In an era in which massive issues such as 9/11 have come along, those of us who were nervous of ID cards have become more cautious. The sensitive issue, however, is the holding of a database and how the Government database is dealt with. That is much more sensitive an issue than carrying a card in one's wallet. It is in that area that civil liberties come into play. I tell him now that that is where Opposition Members will focus most of our concern—on protecting individuals from misuse of the information held about them. I hope that that his party will support us in that.
  Mr. Oaten: There would certainly be support on the Liberal Democrat Benches in relation to the database.
  I want to take on some of the myths about the ID card. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) mentioned 9/11, and the first point is the concept that ID cards can stop terrorism. We know anecdotally that some of the terrorists involved in 9/11 had fake cards. Despite biometric technology, I am concerned about whether a full sense of security can be created by introducing ID cards. The biggest myth relates to benefit fraud issues. There will be some cases in which people create false identities, but in a vast number of cases individuals do not pretend to be somebody else, but claim benefits to which they are not entitled.
  The biggest problem that I have with the proposal is cost. I am convinced that the scheme will run to £1 billion or £2 billion. From my perspective, much more could be done to guarantee safety and security in this country if those billions of pounds were fed into providing more police and technologies such as closed circuit television. Initiatives of that kind would have a real day-to-day impact on crime, as opposed to introducing a Bill that will cost billions. Implementing a scheme on that scale will be virtually impossible. No party has had a particularly good record in government in that respect. The scheme would be complex enough if

  403
  it merely required every citizen to have a card, but that is not all—if it is to work, every hospital, post office and benefits office will need a system to read the cards. Nobody seriously suggests that those two things can be put together in a way that has any serious impact on crime or benefit fraud.
  Mr. Beith: I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind the experience of those who have suffered from errors and delays by the Criminal Records Bureau or the Child Support Agency and recognise that it is unlikely that it will be possible to manage an operation on such a scale without transgressing the rights of individuals who find that their identity is not properly recorded.
  Mr. Oaten: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: the track record in this country is not good.
  David Burnside: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Oaten: No, I must make some progress.
  This issue will come back to haunt the Home Secretary as it lurches from disaster to disaster.
  I want to conclude by highlighting a number of issues that are not in the Queen's Speech. It is disappointing that the Government chose to focus on asylum and ID cards when there is so much that still needs to be done in relation to crime and disorder. Once again, we have had a debate about whether the figures are up or down. One could welcome the fact that they are down, according to the British crime survey, or be disappointed that they are up, according to the figures on recorded crime. I do not want to get into a Dutch auction, but the figure that sticks in my mind is that last year 5.5 million offences were committed. Whether the figures are marginally up or marginally down, that is an awful lot of offences. The public want to see those issues being tackled effectively, not debates about asylum or ID cards. That means that we must somehow get more police on to the streets. It also means that—as the Home Secretary would wish—the police should be more visible as they are out doing their work. I should like to hear the Home Secretary and the police Minister announce more measures to take away the 41 per cent. of a policeman's time that is tied up—and completely wasted—on paperwork. The police could be making better use of technology—I have been handed a list of 72technological innovations that could be put in place—but the Government have been far too cautious in that respect. There may be a case for introducing a system of national procurement to ensure that our police are "teched—up" to allow them to be out on the streets tackling crime, and to be seen to do so, instead of filling in bits of paper back at headquarters.
  The best way to start making a big impact on tackling crime is to reduce reoffending rates. Politicians do not talk enough about that, but it could have a dramatic impact, because 58 per cent. of prisoners go on to commit another crime. If that could be tackled it would have an enormous impact on reducing crime. The figures are even higher for young offenders. It is a national disgrace that we have a captive audience of prisoners but cannot do something sensible with them, with the result that more than half come out and reoffend. That leads not only to rising crime, but to a rising prison population. It is a disgrace that the
  404
  Government have not got a grip on the situation: apparently, their solution is either to have more sentences that require people to go to prison or to build more prisons. Will the Home Secretary think again and start to put into our prisons a serious, radical programme that builds on education and training? The Government have made some progress, but they need to do much more. For example, if the ability to take and pass exams were linked to early release dates, that would build an incentive into the system.
  Jane Griffiths: The reoffending rate is indeed approximately 58 per cent., but is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Reading prison it is 7 per cent. as a result of various Government—backed initiatives on work training for inmates?
  Mr. Oaten: I fully support what is taking place in Reading. Indeed, I took time to see it at first hand with Transco, the organisation that is doing that work. It is a fantastic scheme—well done to the Government for supporting it—whereby prisoners go out to work for Transco on a day—to—day basis, so that many of them end up with jobs when they leave prison. My complaint about the Home Office is its caution and lack of investment: I should like more Readings and more Transco schemes.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Mention has rightly been made of Reading prison, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that the scheme is rolled out much farther than that? At Wymott prison in my constituency, people have got full-time jobs through National Grid Transco. Those on the scheme are not only getting educated, but have jobs at the end of it. It is a super scheme that has had such a success rate that only 7 per cent. of participants have reoffended.
  Mr. Oaten: Both hon. Members make the point that such success levels mean that we should be less cautious in doing more faster. Many prisoners spend 23 hours a day in their cells and half of them share a cell. At one end of the corridor there is a classroom with a computer, and at the other end there is a prisoner in his cell, but there is no prison officer to get him from A to B. That is a ridiculous situation that shows that something has gone wrong with the system.
  Mr. David Kidney Mr. David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab)rose—
  Mr. Oaten: I must get on.
  I want to conclude with two brief observations. First, we wait with interest to see where the Government are heading with their review of police authorities. I suggest that it would be a mistake to assume that many of our policing problems could be resolved by establishing a new directly elected police authority. There is not enormous enthusiasm for elections in this country, and the idea that people on run-down estates will suddenly think, "Yippee—this is a fantastic chance to have a say in our policing", and run to the ballot box is flawed. I urge the Home Secretary to think carefully about using the existing system by enlarging the number of members and making the chief constable and those on the elected police authorities much more visible. The Conservatives suggest that an elected mayor—some kind of "Deputy

  405
  Dawg"—would be a solution, but that is not sensible: the best way forward is to use the existing structure. Failure to do so could lead to members of the British National party becoming elected mayors—if the Conservatives had their way—or dominating directly elected authorities, because BNP-like areas would tend to get involved in such elections.
  Finally, I put on record the fact that Liberal Democrat Members will be looking with great interest at what happens to trial by jury. I welcome the Home Secretary's compromise—I will not say backing down—on that issue a few weeks ago. We will play a full part in the discussions and negotiations on how we move forward. I hope that in the case of this Queen's Speech, we will not end up facing the situation of two weeks ago whereby the compromise had to come at the very end of the process, but that there will be close co-operation with all parties along the way to try to make genuine progress, particularly on immigration and asylum.
  2.27 pm
  Miss Anne Begg: I am glad to be called to participate in today's debate on the constitutional and home affairs section of the Queen's Speech. There is much to welcome, including the changes to the House of Lords to get rid of the final group of non-elected Members. Reflecting the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), there are a variety of views in this House on that issue. I am an abolitionist—I should like to see the House of Lords abolished and the functioning of this House more radically reformed. I hold on to the hope that perhaps in my lifetime I will finally see that wish granted.
  As a Member of Parliament from Aberdeen, I hope that by the end of this legislative year we will see a measure on the statute books with regard to corporate killing. That has been a live, issue in Aberdeen for the past 10 years since the Piper Alpha disaster. It would be nice to believe that this Lab cur Government are able to introduce a measure that can be applied in such circumstances.
  I also welcome the Bills on domestic violence and on civil partnerships. I want to concentrate, however, on an issue to do with civil rights.
  The legislation that I want to consider is crosscutting, and although the legislative competency for the Bill rests with the Department for Work and Pensions. it is also relevant to the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Home Office because that is where all the other equality legislation resides. Indeed, that is where the responsibility for the measure on civil partnerships lies. The issue of equality that I want to consider affects me personally: it is the proposal to introduce a draft disability Bill.
  Disability is a civil rights issue and an equality issue, and it relates to access to democracy. While disabled people do not have their full rights, we will never be full citizens of this country. I welcome the Government's intention to introduce a draft Bill in the Session, but I make a plea that we speed its passage as fast as we can so that a new disability Bill will soon be on the statute book.
  406
  Why is a disability measure necessary? This morning, I was with representatives of the charity, John Grooms, which provides housing for people with disabilities. We were handing a letter to No. 10 Downing street that pointed out that many people, especially those in wheelchairs, live in unsuitable accommodation. There are no rights for those of us in wheelchairs to have accessible accommodation, yet that should be an expectation. Local authorities and others should have a duty to ensure equality in housing provision for people in wheelchairs or with other disabilities.
  It is also pertinent that the celebrations that mark the end of the European year of disabled people take place this week. Tomorrow has been earmarked as the European day for disabled people. Such events—I was going to call them celebrations, but they are not-highlight how far we still have to go to achieve equal rights and full civil rights for disabled people in this country.
  The Government's proposals are in draft form and I hope that the Government will listen to disabled people before they introduce a Bill. I am making a bid to be involved in the draft process either as a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions or of any Committee that is especially set up. It is important that the voices of disabled people are heard.
  I pay tribute to what the Government have already achieved. At such times, it is useful to reflect on the achievements of the six years in which I have been a Member of Parliament. The Disability Rights Commission has been established, and I am using its briefing today. It is therefore fulfilling one of its functions of ensuring that hon. Members are well informed about the issues that affect disabled people.
  Access to education has now been included in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which means that an enormous omission from the legislation has now been righted. In October next year, part III, which covers physical access to goods and services, will be implemented. That is perhaps the most revolutionary measure in that it will affect the lives of disabled people possibly more than any other. It means that, for the first time, we will have access to many of the things that other people take for granted. Part III of the 1995 Act is challenging and I am not sure whether many shops and businesses are truly geared up for it or aware of its obligations. At least the legislative framework exists for businesses and public bodies. If they do not fulfil their obligations, they can be taken to court.
  The Government have also acted in many other ways to help disabled people, for example, through the new deal for disabled people and the work on pathways to work. Yesterday, I attended the launch in Aberdeen of "Progress to Work", which is a specific scheme that was set up to help recovering drug addicts to work. It was one of the most up-beat, energetic events that I have attended for a long time. A group of young people, who believed that their lives had come to an end, and had no expectations for their future, suddenly thought that they were starting their lives anew. For them, it was the first day of the rest of their lives. I pay tribute to the Government on the spread of such new deals throughout the country. Many relate to disabled people and many to those who are hard to place in work. They are working and delivering.

  407
  The disability Bill is intended to fill the gaps that continue to exist on a range of issues, for which different Departments are responsible. The measure will therefore be cross-cutting. The first issue is definition. Disability is currently defined as an enduring, long-term and possibly permanent impairment, but that is not necessarily the case in real life. Someone who has cancer may be severely disabled by the disease, but luckily medical science has advanced to the extent that we expect people to recover from cancer and a range of other debilitating conditions. Existing legislation does not cover people who have a variable condition, from which they expect to be cured. It is important that the definition is wider so that disabled people can have access to the cover of the law. That would mean that if an employer sacked someone for having a condition such as ME or cancer, the employee would be covered by the anti-discrimination legislation that currently covers those of us who have an enduring condition.
  I should like a single equality Act, and it would be up to the Home Office to introduce it. That legislation would deal with many of the problems in existing law to do with the definition of disability. If someone is discriminated against, the grounds do not matter—it remains discrimination. A single equality Act would mean that the Government did not need a workable definition of disability because discrimination would be the determining factor.
  I also believe—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has had her time.
  2.38 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I should like to deal with several themes, although 10 minutes is not long to cover them. My remarks must therefore be brief, broad and impressionist. For all that, I hope that they are worth while.
  First, I want to consider constitutional affairs and especially the abolition of hereditary peers. There is no doubt that the old system was irrational. However, in a strange way, it worked, perhaps because the weight of tradition was behind it. There is no evidence that the new system, which is based on the Canadian Senate, will work any better. That Senate, which is entirely appointed, is probably the weakest and least well regarded upper Chamber in the world. We are creating an upper Chamber of the great and the good and, of course, the party faithful—and perhaps some of the small and the bad. It is not clear to many of us that what we throw out will be worse than what we gain.
  Let me try, in a spirit of being positive, to take up some of the wise remarks of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley). I hope that I can support him. We will not achieve consensus on a big bang solution. Although it may be desirable to have a wholly democratically elected upper Chamber, we shall not achieve that. We have to proceed by small steps.
  The first step we might take could be a moderate injection of democratically elected Members. In the modern world, I suppose that they would have to he elected by proportional representation—I hope under an open list system, so that individual characters could
  408
  break through from the party ranks. I hope also that when elected they would be in place for at least a couple of terms. This is a well-worn debate, however, and we are going to get no consensus this afternoon, but what a pity that in the Queen's Speech we do not at least have some road map—some way forward—that would give us hope for the future of achieving an upper Chamber that we could all be proud of.
  I want to make one point that I think is particularly important, but which is not often made in debates on reform of the upper Chamber, although it interests me and therefore I want to stress it. Were we to proceed down the route of injecting democracy into the other place, there would be no point in creating elected clones of Members of Parliament There would be no point in having in the other place people who are young, ambitious would-be Ministers controlled by the party Whips. Therefore, there is a lot to be said for learning from the American experience of a Senate that is there to advise and consent.
  People who are placed in that upper Chamber cannot become Ministers. Once we had that simple device in place for elected Members of our upper Chamber, they would instantly become more accountable to the electorate, more democratic and more able to take a wider and broader view. There we are—we must wait for progress to be made. Of course, there are some who argue against a democratically elected upper Chamber, saying that it would somehow affect the dominance of the lower House, but what dominance? We have one of the weakest Parliaments in the western world.
  This year, I would also like progress to he made on lessons to be learned from the Hutton inquiry, when it finally reports. Eventually, we may have to pass legislation on that. The Hutton inquiry has shown up the weaknesses of our Select Committee system. The way in which Hutton was able to require whatever persons and whatever papers it wanted to achieve a first-rate investigation of a national issue will be taken up by the media. When there is a similar disaster, the media will ask for—demand—a Hutton-type inquiry under an independent judge and will reject the predominance of our own elected Chamber.
  We should reassert the predominance of the elected lower Chamber, and I speak as a Select Committee Chairman. A lot of progress needs to be made in reviving and reinvigorating the Select Committee system to give the Committees real powers to conduct Hutton—like inquiries.
  Mr. Garnier: If the Hutton inquiry has shown up those weaknesses, has it not also shown up the strength of the way in which we select our judges? Lord Hutton is a product of that judicial selection system, and does he not demonstrate precisely NN by it should remain as it is?
  Mr. Leigh: My hon. and learned Friend speaks on those matters with a great deal of personal experience, and I would not want to deny for a moment what he says. The fact is that our judicial system is second to none in terms of skill. There is no question of it being corrupt and no question of people being appointed for political reasons, as happens, for instance, in the United States. We are embarking on a very dangerous course indeed.

  409
  Enough of constitutional affairs. May I turn to home affairs for a moment and support what the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) said, particularly on prison overcrowding? The Public Accounts Committee paid a visit recently to Her Majesty's prison Altcourse, which happens to be a private finance initiative prison, but that is irrelevant to the point I am making. The fact is that it is one of the best-run prisons in the country, and prisoners there are given time to exercise, train, study and be rehabilitated.
  I do not know how many Members have walked round a prison recently, as we have, to talk to prisoners. They refer constantly to the other prisons in the Liverpool area, where people are banged up for 20 hours a day and where there is no prospect of training or rehabilitation. That leads directly to these appalling reoffending figures—over half the people who pass through our prisons reoffend. Members on both sides of the House have to ask the Home Secretary whether we really think that a prison population of more than 73,000, rising to 78,000, in ancient, underfunded, overcrowded prisons where people simply learn to reoffend is the best way forward. I put that question and hope that we might get an answer.
  On another Home Office point, we have heard today from the shadow Home Secretary about the call for more policemen. Of course, there is one type of policeman who is very cheap indeed, although we hear so very little about him. There is a need for new special constables. I wish the Government would offer more incentives to encourage special constables. I favour a Territorial Army-type system, whereby people would be given a payment to encourage recruitment, which is a problem.
  May I put one idea of my own to the House? Some people wish to serve as special constables, but in their own area, their own village or their own community. We should create a new type of special constable who is not required to serve in the wider community, but will serve in his own village.
  Turning from home affairs, may I make one comment about the civil partnership Bill, which I do not think has been mentioned but which we will consider later in the year? I do not want to say anything about gay marriage, but I want to say that the fact is that traditional marriage has been supported because it is a unique institution designed to nurture children. If we are to make special rights in respect of gay marriages, what about other co-dependants? Should we not also bear in mind examples involving a daughter with an infirm mother whom she looks after for many years, a disabled person with a friend carer, and two sisters? Under the Bill, they will have no rights whatever. One does not need to make any statement on gay rights or not to raise this question: if we establish new rights for particular people in society, we have to consider the denial of rights to other, very worthwhile people.
  In my remaining minute or so, let me say a word about health and education, on which the Government are somewhat schizophrenic. On the one hand, they pay lip service to local action and local democracy; on the other, a blizzard of targets is tying our education and health systems up in red tape. The PAC has studied the French and German systems. I do not believe that there
  410
  is any big bang solution that we can impose, but we can have confidence in local decision making in our schools and hospitals.
  We must try to free local democracy, especially local government, from ring-fencing and targeting, which are destroying and inhibiting it. Therefore, we must have Bills to create schools, and perhaps hospitals, that straddle the public-private divide and perhaps Bills to enable universities to charge different fees, as long as that is not a hidden tax on middle class people. We recently visited Ravenscourt Park hospital, which is an NHS hospital that is dedicated to one type of operation. That is what we do in our own lives—mix and match, jumping from the private to the public sector—but what is so sad and disappointing about the Queen's Speech is that there are no dynamic proposals to make that possible in our legislation this year.
  2.48 pm
  Anne Picking: It is the Government's intention, as outlined in the Queen's Speech, to open up and amend the Scotland Act 1998 to retain the 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament. That, I fear, could open a political Pandora's box. I do not wish to refer to the issues that may or may not arise on opening up the Scotland Act, but rest assured that many will see this as an opportunity to amend other aspects of it.
  The emphasis of my speech will be on maximising voter participation and the direct consequences for the United Kingdom of retaining 129 MSPs while simultaneously reducing the number of Scottish Westminster MPs from 72 to 59. I fear that everything is undermined by the unnecessary haste in implementing changes to an already unwieldy, confusing and inefficient collection of voting systems. The way in which we organise and set up our constitution and methods of election strengthens and secures our commitment to democracy. It is the responsibility and duty of this House to use all the powers at its disposal to ensure that democracy prevails over hereditary patronage and privilege.
  An ever-decreasing number of people are exercising their right to vote, at a time when the number of voting systems in the UK and of ways in which people are expected to cast their vote is ever increasing. Voter participation is low, and voter apathy high. We must act to put matters right.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: On the question of the democratic process, was the hon. Lady as disappointed as I was that the Queen's Speech contained nothing about the West Lothian question? Does she think that it is democratic that people are sent here from Scotland who can vote on issues that affect only England or England and Wales?
  Anne Picking: Absolutely.
  We need to create a uniformity that is understood and endorsed by the populace, rather than a plethora of systems that confuse and switch off the electorate. At the moment, we have one system for electing European representatives, but a different one for electing UK representatives. Different again are the systems for electing people to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh

  411
  Assembly and Stormont, and for electing local government councillors in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We have single-member, multi-member, list-member and additional-member systems.
  An example of how confused things can be is Pinkie road in Musselburgh in my constituency. Its 381 voters are represented by two local councillors voted in by the first-past-the-post system, two Westminster MPs voted in by the same system, eight Members of the European Parliament voted in by the party list using the d'Hondt system, and—the daddy of them all—16 Members of the Scottish Parliament voted in by the additional-member system, two of whom are constituency Members, while seven have second-vote and seven list-assisted places. As it stands, 28 people have been legitimately elected to represent the 381 good voters of Pinkie road. If my maths is right, that works out at an elected representative for every 13.6 voters. All 28 representatives can claim a mandate from the electorate, but most are disconnected, invisible and unknown to them. Quite simply, it is a dog's breakfast.
  Not only do the people of this country have a fundamental right to participate in a democratic process and to vote for whomever they want to govern them, they also expect a system and method of voting that facilitates and accommodates their right to vote and that at the same time is understandable and transparent to them. What people do not deserve—and I cannot emphasis this enough-is to be part of a suck-it and-see experiment in the pursuit of political purity that ends up missing the mark completely. It should not be in the gift of, or to the advantage of, any political party to dictate what our electoral processes should be.
  I recognise that this House determined the system for electing representatives to the Scottish Parliament, and I further recognise our right to change it, especially when the system is seriously flawed, as in my view it is.
  Mr. Beith: Did the hon. Lady see any interviews with voters coming out of polling stations in Northern Ireland? When asked whether they found the single transferable system confusing or difficult to manage, they all said no, not at all. One said that, as long as people are able to count from one to 10, it is perfectly all right.
  Anne Picking: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that contribution, but the people of Northern Ireland have had so many difficulties in respect of how to cast their vote over many hundreds of years that they have taken it upon themselves to know exactly how and when to vote to maximise the effect. Unfortunately, the same enthusiasm is not evident in Scotland. That is why we should improve the system.
  I know that the voting system in Northern Ireland was established before I came to the House, and that there was a degree of negotiation and consensus to it. Also, a review was promised. In contrast, blatant political opportunism in Scotland has led to proportional representation being foisted on Scottish local government. That was achieved through threats that measures and policies that were good and which would benefit all Scots would be abandoned. No pretence is made that that will create better local government, or that it will lead to greater voter participation, or that it will make the process easier or
  412
  even fairer. The Liberal Democrats are prepared to sacrifice the welfare of Scots for the chance of political advantage by the back door.
  It is now long overdue for this House to face up to the situation, and to take control of it. We should delay—and I mean only delay— the implementation of any boundary changes or any reduction in the number of Scottish MPs. I understand that we have given a commitment, but there is no obligation to fulfil that before 2006. Acting before the next general election would add to the already rapidly growing problem that I have identified.
  Further serious consideration needs to be given to the merits of coterminous boundaries. Why should such boundaries be introduced in Scotland at a different time from in England and Wales? The whole sorry mess should be referred to the Department for Constitutional Affairs, which should initiate and organise a review of electoral procedures throughout the UK. It is more important to get it right than to do it quickly. Continuing with the knee-jerk, piecemeal approach would only exacerbate the problem.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Does the hon. Lady accept that a solemnly promised consequence of devolution was that there would be a reduction in the number of Scottish seats in this House?
  Anne Picking: Yes, and I agree with that. To make matters clear, I was speaking about the timing of that reduction. We should not implement it before we need to, and I believe that there should be a review of all electoral systems. I say that as someone who will gain by the proposed boundary changes, not as someone who will be adversely affected. The House should move as quickly as possible to take the steps necessary to halt any further expansion, before the review is complete, in the number and type of electoral systems that are deployed.
  Finally, apathy is the enemy of democracy. We ignore it at our peril.
  2.56 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I want to touch on some of the issues on which the Constitutional Affairs Committee has been working, and which fall within the ambit of the Queen's Speech. I also hope to squeeze in one other matter before I end my contribution.
  I shall begin with asylum. The Constitutional Affairs Committee reported very quickly, at the request of the Lord Chancellor, on legal aid in asylum cases. We were very concerned about the Government's original proposals. The Government have now responded, in some ways helpfully. The five-hour cap has now become a threshold, although we still do not believe that that five-hour period is based on either principle or evidence.
  However, some puzzling features remain. We are told that consideration has been given to whether legal aid is needed at the initial stage in all cases. In other words, it could be completely withdrawn at the initial stages, when it might be very significant. In addition, we know that the Government propose to remove a tier from the appeals system. No consideration has been given to the consequences that might ensue for the legal aid system, and no explanation is forthcoming.

  413
  Those two factors have not been taken into account, even in the Government's revised proposals. One can only assume that the removal of a tier from the appeals system might lead to a significant reduction in legal aid costs, and therefore render unnecessary some of the unwelcome limits on legal aid. The Government need to come clean on that.
  Mr. Gamier: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) have said about the quality of legal advice given to applicants to immigration and asylum tribunals. That is the key to good decisions being made in respect of such matters. However, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, not only is there an artificial limit on the amount of time that lawyers can devote to such matters, but that there is a growing desert in the legal aid map—that is, people cannot get access to lawyers because those lawyers increasingly refuse to take on that type of work?
  Mr. Beith: The Committee intends to move on to more general matters to do with legal aid. However, the problem is at present exacerbated by the concerns to do with asylum. The Government are trying to make an announcement quickly, in the hope that a number of lawyers will be persuaded to remain in legal aid work. However, there is considerable doubt about whether that will work, as the changes are not sufficient.
  I turn now to the constitutional changes featured in the Gracious Speech. The real problem is that the changes were introduced as part of a reshuffle. Major constitutional changes require the widest possible consultation and discussion, and the one thing that a Prime Minister does not consult widely about is a reshuffle. Prime Ministers tell nobody anything, until they get to the moment when they point out to people that their services are no longer required, as was the case with the former Lord Chancellor.
  In reply to my question at the beginning of the debate, the Home Secretary implied that he read about the changes mainly in the papers-or at least, he read speculation about what might happen to his Department, so he made his views clear, and, it appears, changed the eventual outcome. However, neither he nor anybody else read in the papers—because it was not said-that the Government were thinking of abolishing the position of Lord Chancellor entirely, so that was not the subject of much discussion. There was no discussion at civil service level, nor, so far as I know, among Ministers, or with the devolved Administrations—who have a very relevant role in the matter—on such issues as the supreme court.
  That means that we are trying to legislate on those matters with a tight timetable for carrying out the consultation that normally precedes such fundamental changes. The consequence is a feeling, even among supporters of the principles of change, of whom I am one, that this has been mishandled, and the perception among the judiciary that the abolition of the Lord Chancellor will upset a delicate balance, to the detriment of judicial independence.
  414
  It could be said that the office of Lord Chancellor has found many more friends since it was condemned to death than it had before, and that far more speeches in favour of the office seem to have been made than at any time in the past, certainly in my political lifetime.
  Perception is the key to this matter. The Government are not creating a new judicial appointments system because of any feeling that the present system does not work impartially or that it cannot respond to the desire for a bench that more fully reflects the whole of society. The first aim is already achieved, and the second can be achieved, with the present system. The Government are making a change because of the perception that a Cabinet Minister could, at least in theory, exercise improper influence over judicial appointments, so they ought not to be in the hands of a Cabinet Minister. We would recommend to any other country in the world, and certainly to any new democracy, that it did not set up its system in that way.
  Perception is certainly the key. Yet the perception that Cabinet Ministers could wield too much influence over judicial appointments—although in England in recent years, in practice they have not—is not dispelled if it appears that under the new system the Prime Minister, or another Cabinet Minister who, unlike the Lord Chancellor, does not have a special role and responsibility, will exercise influence. He could do so by choosing names from a shortlist of candidates, or by deciding not to accept the names put to him by the judicial appointments commission.
  The Government must recognise that they have to refine the proposals so that the new proposals do not give rise to a perception that they could be open to political influence over appointments. We have to ensure that that perception does not carry over from the old system to the new, or the whole point of the exercise will be lost. The Government must therefore examine the crucial part of the process when the commission puts forward names and somebody has to advise the Queen whether to accept one name, or one name from a group of names. That fundamental point must be addressed.
  The Select Committee reported on the experience of the Judicial Appointments Board in Scotland, which had to face some of those issues, and some of the other issues that we are now concerned with, and we found that it appeared to be working well. Personally, I am convinced that a judicial appointments commission is the solution, but we need to get it right.
  The same goes for the supreme court, which represents an important and far-reaching change. That change, too, is about principle and perception, not about any failure of the House of Lords to carry out its judicial functions effectively. It is about separating the judiciary from the legislature. However, even the early evidence that we have taken in Committee, which has been published, reveals complex issues that are difficult to resolve under the very tight timetable of the proposed legislation, with a Bill due to come before us early in the new year.
  One example is the situation in relation to Scotland. If the new supreme court is to be compliant with article XIX of the Act of Union, it must not be an English court, and cannot be administered by the Court Service as an English court. If it were, it would contravene a fundamental principle of the Act of Union. It has to be

  415
  a very different animal, as the House of Lords recognisably is, not part of the court system of England and Wales.
  There are questions about whether the supreme court should take over the functions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in relation to devolution. There are different views about that. So far, there seems to be a majority in favour of its assuming that role, but that is not universally accepted. The assumption that the Judicial Committee was a body to which we could safely entrust questions about powers under devolution was very much part of the devolution settlement. Furthermore, Scottish criminal cases do not come to the House of Lords. Many such decisions are matters for the Scottish Parliament. which needs to debate them. Scots law and the Scottish judicial system are devolved matters, so they cannot simply be dealt with in United Kingdom legislation without certain procedures being followed in Edinburgh, and time must be allowed for that.
  There are also questions about where the new court will sit, and how it will be resourced. I have pointed out that it cannot be administered simply as part of the court system of England and Wales. The Government have not so far convinced us that there is a building available in which its functions can be carried out. We already have a commercial court in London that does not have adequate accommodation. Accommodating judicial functions is already something of a problem for the Department that deals with it.
  There are questions about how the supreme court, as opposed to other levels of the judiciary, is to he appointed, and also about whether retired, or even current, supreme court judges could be appointed to sit in the House of Lords, where their equivalents have certainly given good service in the past.
  That, of course, brings us to the fundamental issue of the House of Lords, because that question could not be raised at all if the House of Lords were elected rather than appointed. That, in turn, brings me to my personal view on House of Lords reform, which is shared by my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Select Committee has not considered the issue, because a Joint Committee was considering it until recently, and the House itself was seeking to make decisions about the fundamental issues involved. The Committee may well get involved with that issue in future, but so far we have not done so.
  The one decision that this House clearly did make was that it did not want a wholly or predominantly appointed House of Lords. A Bill to remove hereditary peers, which is mentioned in the Gracious Speech, is simply a device to remove one of the obstacles to the Prime Minister's preferred solution, which is a wholly appointed House. I want no truck with that, and I do not think that my right hon. and hon. Friends do. either. Only a Bill built on cross-party consensus, which results in a more democratic House of Lords, makes sense. I am very much in favour of removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords-but only if they are replaced by an element with some kind of independence. In my view, that can best be secured by some kind of democratic mandate.
  Another issue that I want to mention comes not from the Select Committee's areas of concern, but from the part of the Queen's Speech that refers to the "other measures" that may be laid before us. Since the day that
  416
  the speech was made, it has been suggested that a draft Bill might lead to fundamental changes in people's rights in respect of school transport-a Bill that would allow local authorities to withdraw free school transport from children living more than three miles from school, perhaps as part of a pilot scheme.
  In rural areas such as Northumberland, in which many pupils have to travel 10 or 20 miles to the nearest school, often using a combination of taxis and buses, it would be totally unacceptable for free transport to be withdrawn. It already has been withdrawn for pupils over 16, and the severely stretched funding of rural local authorities could put them under pressure to be one of the pilot areas for the withdrawal of free school transport. That would have a disastrous effect on families, who might have to pay as much as £10 or £20 a day to get their children to school. It would also destroy the long-standing principle that transport is provided for those who opt for Church schools, including Catholic schools —
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  3.8 pm
  Glenda Jackson: I begin by apologising to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to those on both Front Benches and to the whole House for the fact that regrettably, because of a previous engagement, I will not be present for the winding-up speeches. However, as little that I heard emanating from my Front Bench gave me much pleasure, and I am sure that what I am about to say to them will give them none either, perhaps it all evens out in the end.
  The issues that I want to talk about have to do with the welcome that I give the Government for tackling after more than 30 years, I believe—a law that I hope will begin to eradicate the terrible scourge of domestic violence. I welcome that proposal wholeheartedly. I understand from reading my newspaper that the issue of the law of provocation, about which I am concerned, is still being debated in government. As I understand it, that law currently affords to a man who murders his wife or partner a defence that cannot be exercised by a woman who is defending herself against an abusive partner, because in the latter case we are talking about an abuse that has taken place over some considerable time. So I sincerely hope that the Government will examine the issue of provocation.
  There is another issue that I hope will be examined in no small detail, and which I raised in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary: the apparent ongoing willingness of society at large and the law to allow fathers, however abusive they may be on occasion to their partners or their children, to always have access to those children, in the great good name of balance. I am somewhat bemused as to how balanced a relationship can be if the power of the father is such that he is allowed unsupervised access to his children, culminating—as we have regrettably read far too often of late-in those children being murdered. Indeed, in one particularly ghastly case, the mother of the children in question was informed at the time of precisely what her ex—partner was doing to their children.
  Such cases are clearly extreme, but they are not isolated. I know from my constituency experience of the damage that can be inflicted on a child when a court

  417
  automatically, in the name of the great cry of providing balance in a familial situation, affords the father access to that child. In many instances, the mere realisation that they will see the individual who caused them great trauma, and who subjected their mother to physical and verbal abuse, can increase such trauma. So I hope that this issue will be examined in truly serious detail. A bulk of evidence exists to support my argument that the actions of violent men-the violence is not exclusively physical; often, it is verbal and mental—have a desperate impact on children. There is no balance involved in underlining that relationship.
  Kali Mountford: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend's argument, and in large part I agree with what she says. In such cases, visiting fathers do great damage to children, and often there is not the protection of another adult being present. But should we not listen most to the children themselves? When, in giving evidence, such children say that they do not wish to see the father, their request should be taken seriously, as should their saying that they do wish to see him.
  Glenda Jackson: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's observation that it is the child who should be listened to. However, I am aware of cases in which the child has said that they wish to see the father, only for it eventually to materialise that no small pressure was brought to bear on that child. Of course, the wider family grouping can also bring pressure to bear. As I have pointed out before in the House, it is not only the individual who may exert abusive power on a woman and her children. An abusive partner may well be visited with the power of the law, so that he may not approach his former home, partner and children, but there seems to be little that can be done to preclude members of his family from taking on that particular aspect of a broken family relationship. I hope that a measure to deal with that can be incorporated into the legislation when it reaches the statute book.
  The central issue that I wish to touch on has been raised by Members on both sides of the House this afternoon. It is the marked failure of the power of the state to live up to what it claimed was its basic approach to the issue of asylum: to ensure that asylum applications can be dealt with in a firm, fair and fast manner. When the state markedly failed to deliver in that regard, it decided to exercise its power and deliberately break up families by making them destitute. It then argued that its reason for taking the children of such families into care was to protect them. I listened to Government Front Benchers put forward that argument this afternoon with no small bemusement. The suggestion that that approach is the one that the state takes to every native. born British child, if their family should become dysfunctional is quite amazing. My experience of social services—I should hasten to add that those in my constituency are excellent-is that they work endlessly to attempt to keep a family together. I have certainly never known social services to take it upon themselves to be the hired help and to take children into care, while the state takes a path stemming from its inability to deliver on its policies.
  Mr. Prosser: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the role of the social services; in this regard is not only to
  418
  offer support, but to advise on the best way to proceed? Where such a family has gone through all the processes, do not meet any of the criteria and can be flown home freely as part of the support package, would not the advice be, "Why not fly home?"?
  Glenda Jackson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, but I do not see the need for such advice. If someone has pursued all the avenues currently within the law in order to make the case to the state that the family are genuine asylum seekers, and the law says, "I'm very sorry, but you do not meet the criteria", the next step, so I thought, was that that family had to be removed from the country.
  We have heard the argument that we as a society do not like deportations, but society would like even less the sight of crying children being dragged from their parents and placed into care. On the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser), I should point out that I do not have a vast number of failed asylum seekers in my constituency, although I do have some. They have known of their failed state for some time, yet no official has made any attempt to remove them. Not a single such step has been taken. They come to see me regularly, I ask whether they have been given a date to leave the country, and they say, "No". In the main, they still have to report to police stations or to some other authority.
  The Government's basic argument is that they are offering a choice to failed asylum seeker families by saying, "We'll give you a ticket and send you home. We'll give you money to set up in your native country, if you have a native country to go back to." That is a big "if", because in many instances the country from which they fled has disappeared during their time here, and according to them they no longer have any rights in that country. If they come from a safe third country, it tends to be one in mainland Europe. Even in such cases, it is difficult, so I understand, to ensure that the journey can be completed in time, and negotiations with other Governments have to take place.
  Plunging failed asylum seekers into penury and destitution is not the only alternative to returning them to their home country, or to a safe third country. The history of the 20th century offers examples of what parents will undergo if they believe that their actions will save their child, even if they themselves may be lost. Perhaps failed asylum-seeker parents, once plunged into penury, will allow their children to be taken into care because they believe that, even without them, life in this country is infinitely preferable to life in the country to which they may forcibly be returned.
  What happens in cases where such children were actually born in this country, which is not unusual? We know of the example of the Government announcing an amnesty for 15,000 families who have been in this country for a considerable time, but who are still waiting for an absolute definition in terms of whether they will be allowed to stay.
  It is monstrous that a nation state that failed to deliver on its avowed policies should attempt to shift the blame and the responsibility on to some of the most vulnerable people in our society. In that regard, I exclude adult asylum seekers, because it could be argued that they knew what they were doing, but their children certainly had no say in what they were doing. The

  419
  children who were born in this country, and who had to wait for the nation state to decide their status, certainly had no say. So I hope that when that piece of legislation presents its shameful face in this Chamber, Members on both sides will categorically and absolutely say no.
  3.20 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to have a big conversation with the Chamber. However, as we are limited to 10 minutes, it will be only a quick chat. I applaud some aspects of the Queen's Speech, which is not all useless and vindictive. For example, the children's commissioner for England is long overdue, as we already have them in Scotland and in Wales. I welcome the tackling of asylum fraud. Passenger passport copying has been mentioned, and that is a great idea. I cannot understand why it has not been done already. The airlines have claimed that it will cause great problems, but that is pathetic. There is a real problem that can be tackled by copying passports and it should be implemented as quickly as possible.
  In the main, the Government's legislative programme for the forthcoming Session lacks coherence. The Prime Minister did not sit down and plan to upset great sections of society, but that is the unintended consequence of much of the Queen's Speech. One Labour Back Bencher told me on the day of the Queen's Speech that he was going to read it to see whether it contained anything that he could support. I wish him well. I looked hard at it for any reference to a big conversation, but the prospect of Her Majesty saying, "My Government intend to conduct a big conversation with my people", is even more ridiculous than the Prime Minister sounded when he said it. It might be contained in the catch-all phrase,
  "Other measures will be laid before you."
  That was probably put in just in case there is a group of people who have not had a beating from the Government in the past seven years. We have an inclusive Government: they are at pains to ensure that everyone gets beaten equally and that no one is left behind.
  I have studied early-day motion 7—I am sure that the Government have done so time and again—and the signatories are not just all the usual suspects. Some 147 Members of Parliament have signed it, of whom 145 are Labour Back Benchers. Some of them are former Cabinet Ministers and some are former junior Ministers. It is not just a protest, it is the House of Commons saying no to variable top-up fees. The Leader of the House thinks that the legislation can be tweaked and everything will be okay, but it is he who will be tweaked, not the legislation. The Secretary of State for Education and Skills hopes to buy off the protesters by diluting some of the worst excesses of the proposals. He does not have a chance.
  The top-up fee proposals are not the only problem. Students already have debts, even before the top-up fees are introduced. I received a letter from a constituent on 27 November about the fact that interest on student loans was doubled from I September. She states:
  "After two years my daughter owes over £7,000 and the monthly interest, on the old rate, is £7.50. I dread to think of what it will be on the new rate … I feel we are 'selling our students down
  420
  the river', we are saddling them with major debt. When they Graduate they will have no chance of affording a home of their own with the debt they already have."
  That is the situation even without tuition fees. I remember sitting on the Government Back Benches between 1992 and 1997 and hearing the bleating and howls of protest from the Opposition Back Benches about the student loans that we introduced. We were told that they would prevent students from poorer backgrounds from going to university. The present Foreign Secretary, a former president of the National Union of Students, said then that students would have to choose between books and food. Now, they will have to choose between books, food and tuition fees, except that they have to pay the tuition fees. I applaud Labour Members who remember the protests at that time and who have signed the early—day motion.
  Members are always talking about parliamentary democracy, and the House can be effective in ensuring that the policy on top-up fees is dumped. We do not want it moved to after Christmas: we want it moved to the dustbin of political mistakes. The Government are keen on having a big conversation. Well, the National Union of Students is coming tomorrow and I hope that the Prime Minister will make himself available for a big listen to the students and then a big climbdown. If we had tried this policy between 1992 and 1997, we would have been completely slaughtered. It is a tax on education and it will hit everyone, except the very rich. The vast majority of people will be hit by this policy.
  Mr. Leigh: The tax will be levied on those who are deemed able to pay, which is often those on marginal incomes in the middle classes.
  Mr. Evans: Middle Britain is hit time and again. The Queen's Speech contained another measure, which the newspapers have dubbed, "The means-testing of free school buses." The very people who will be hit by that are the ones who pay full prescription charges. They receive no council tax benefit or other housing benefits. They pay the full cost of school meals and they will pay full tuition fees. They will be hit yet again by the means-testing of free school buses. Why do the Government have so much against middle Britain that they want to whack those people time and again? I wish that they would stop.
  As for the proposed legislation on the House of Lords, is that vindictive or what? It is time that the Government made up their mind about what they want for the second Chamber. So far, their reforms have been nothing short of constitutional vandalism. The Government started on a journey with not the faintest idea of where they were going. They wanted to get rid of the hereditary peers, and they ended up with 92 hereditaries—funnily enough, they are the only elected element of the Chamber now. Baroness Jay said:
  "The House of Lords without the hereditary peers will be more legitimate because its Member, have earned their places and therefore more effective in playing its part in our bicameral constitution."
  That was said by the totally unelected Baroness Jay. The Prime Minister called the old House of Lords an insult to modern democracy. In 1994, in a speech in Cardiff, he said:
  "The House of Lords should he replaced by an elected second Chamber."

  421
  We know that the Prime Minister has made an art form of changing his mind, but that change is breathtaking. It seems that he can find reverse gear when he wants to.
  Whenever the Leader of the House mentions the House of Lords, he spits out the word "unelected", as we saw on Thursday. We can only assume that he wants to see a House of Lords with a larger elected element, if not a fully elected House. We know that there is no unanimity on the issue, but to remove vindictively the only elected element is spiteful, wrecking and mean. While we are at it, let us chuck in the word "ignorant" as well to describe what the Government have done to the second Chamber. We should have a joint Committee of both Houses to work out a destination for the House of Lords, not merely a transition. Let us have a big conversation with the people about what they want to happen to the second Chamber before it is wrecked further. I can only imagine the planning that must go on in the Prime Minister's household about his summer holidays, when he says, "Where are we all going to go? I haven't got the faintest idea. Transitionally, let's go to Tuscany, before going on somewhere else." The whole thing is ridiculous. People should know their destination before they start on any journey.
  It would also be useful if the Government were to have a big conversation with the people about Europe and the European constitution, which is totally absent from the Queen's Speech. Let us find a few reverse gears for the Prime Minister on that issue. He should just get the manual out: every vehicle has a reverse gear; even the bandwagon has a reverse gear, as the Liberal Democrats will no doubt soon find out. The French and the Germans have found their reverse gear on the stability pact, and I have read what Ruth Lea of the Institute of Directors and Digby Jones of the CBI have said about the threat to this country from the European constitution. The people want a say; they want to have a big conversation with the Prime Minister, who has got it wrong—very wrong. We are to have a referendum in the north-west about the lousy, useless regional assemblies, which we do not want, and about the breakup of local government, but no referendum on Europe. I want my say, and I want the people of Ribble Valley to have their say, too.
  While we are on the subject, let us change the hours of the House back to what they used to be on a Tuesday and a Wednesday, so that we have decent opportunities to discuss everything that we need to discuss. Let us bring the voice back to Parliament, and change the hours.
  3.30 pm
  Mr. David Kidney: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman and his entertaining if contentious speech.
  Legal aid was introduced as part of the great welfare state revolution of the Labour Government after the second world war. Labour's Prime Minister then, Clem Attlee, valued legal aid, as does today's Prime Minister, who, speaking before coming into office in 1997, said:
  "Labour's goal of improving access to justice is an essential part of our commitment to social justice".
  Legal aid, however, is a public service that is often overlooked. Perhaps it is seen by some as having less immediate benefit than education and health, but surely
  422
  the rule of law and access to justice are essential features of a working democracy. Perhaps support for legal aid is tempered by the knowledge that it is delivered largely through a network of private lawyers. I can understand that argument, although I declare that for 20 years before coming to Parliament I was a solicitor in private practice.
  Not all delivery is by private lawyers, however. In round figures, about 4,000 lawyers and 400 not-for-profit organisations provide legal aid services, and the community legal service is achieving universal coverage across the country, bringing together the providers and other key players such as local authorities. Anyway, legal aid lawyers are a different breed: they provide legal aid services not to become rich—they do not—but because they genuinely care for public service and justice. This year, the Legal Aid Practitioners Group introduced awards for legal aid lawyers of the year. My congratulations go to the first year's winners: Jeffrey Gordon, Richard Egan, Belinda Greenwood, Nicola Mackintosh and Mark Jewels. I particularly praise Mark Jewels for the family award, because when I was a solicitor he was my partner in private practice. I also congratulate the Legal Aid Practitioners Group on arranging this recognition for an important group of people.
  Gareth Thomas: To refrain from mutual admiration, does my hon. Friend not accept, from another lawyer, that there has been abuse of the legal aid system, and that the Government are right to take that on board?
  Mr. Kidney: Yes, my argument is about those good lawyers who often get no recognition at all, not those few who come to the headlines because of abuse of the system. Abuse is always wrong and should be rooted out, but as Cherie Booth, QC, who chaired the judging panel said:
  "The work of the legal aid lawyer is a vital part of our justice system. Yet practitioners are often maligned, underpaid and misunderstood in the press. I am delighted to take part in these awards, which highlight the true story of the dedication, determination and professionalism of men and women up and down the country who provide a vital service to those in need."
  In the last decade, the cost of running a solicitors' practice has risen by about 67 per cent., but legal aid rates have increased by 26 per cent. The legal aid budget is restricted, but I am not arguing for more money for legal aid. Instead, I want the Government to get a grip on what they want legal aid to pay for. The Government must then ensure that the budget is adequate for the work required. The current set-up is a fixed amount of money in the legal aid budget but growing demands upon it. I therefore have the following observations.
  First. criminal defence legal aid is demand led. The Government's welcome get-tough approach to reducing crime nevertheless creates a greater demand on the criminal defence legal aid budget. Secondly, on top of that growth in existing criminal defence legal aid, the Government continue to create new offences, adding to the demand. This Queen's Speech includes a new offence of asylum seekers destroying their documentation and a new offence of breaching a restraining order to prevent domestic violence. Have the Home Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs assessed the extra expense in relation to criminal defence legal aid

  423
  and made provision to meet the extra costs? Alternatively, will civil legal aid simply be squeezed again?
  Thirdly, civil legal aid has been withdrawn from claims for compensation for personal injury, except in clinical negligence cases. It has been replaced by the conditional fee arrangement. What is the assessment of this change other than those great demands for extra fees about which we heard at Question Time today in relation to miners' compensation claims? Civil legal aid remains for very important issues, however: challenging public bodies including Government through judicial review; resolving disputes and property rights when couples separate; protecting consumers from deceit and rip-off; and defending the poorest in society from social exclusion in areas such as housing and welfare rights.
  So, fourthly, year-by-year, money for civil legal aid is being constrained, limiting access to justice. That brings me, fifthly, to the fact that the Government continue to create new laws affecting civil rights and hence the civil legal aid budget. Again, there is no apparent assessment of the extra expense and compensating adjustment to the budget for that.
  The Queen's Speech contains a welcome clampdown on domestic violence, but that will create more civil legal aid cases, and a new registered civil partnership, which, sadly, will sometimes go wrong, creating the need for new dispute resolution procedures at the expense of legal aid. The Government know about the problem. It is not new; I am not saying something surprising. The previous and the present Lord Chancellor have both commented on it.
  On 2 April 2003, Lord Irvine, when he was Lord Chancellor, appeared before the Select Committee that then scrutinised the Lord Chancellor's Department. He was asked whether he was embarrassed by an overspend in his departmental budget, and he said that, yes, he was. Specifically on legal aid, he said:
  "It is absolutely critical when changes to the substantive law are being made, particularly in the criminal field, which have downstream consequences for the courts, that the thing should be looked at end to end and the downstream consequences should be funded."
  The present Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, speaking at the Legal Aid. Practitioners Group annual conference on 17 October this year, said:
  "It is important that we rigorously cost all policy change within Government so that we can estimate and fund consequential legal aid costs. This will not be a public process. But you can have my assurance that I will pursue this with vigour. The legal aid budget cannot indefinitely absorb the knock-on effects of changes in the law across government."
  So, please, Government, may we have more rigorous legislative impact analysis and proper provision for the effects on the legal aid budget?
  The Government can do more to help. They can fund more alternative dispute resolution procedures. They can consider no-fault compensation, and I volunteer clinical negligence as the first field for such consideration. They can separate the criminal defence legal aid budget, which is demand-led, from the rest of the civil legal aid budget.
  Legal service providers themselves must change too. They should work with the community legal aid service in matching the appropriate supply to the need for their services, giving the best value for money. They should
  424
  consider alternative ways to fund access to justice, including more use of salaried services and legal expenses insurance.
  The Law Society itself has been considering alternative ways to fund lawyers for legal aid work and has come up with ideas such as a GP-like contracting system and even competitive tendering. What we need from legal aid in the future is a diverse supply of legal services, so that we can offer comprehensive access to justice for all our citizens In that way, we will tackle social exclusion most effectively.
  3.37 pm
  David Burnside: Most of my colleagues on the Northern Ireland Unionist Benches will vote as conservatives should do when we consider the destructive reforms—they are not really reforms—of the Lord Chancellor's office and the replacement for the present House of Lords, and I hope that many right hon. and hon. Members will vote accordingly, especially if there are a large number of conservatives in the present Conservative party.
  I was unable to be present in the Palace of Westminster to hear the Gracious Speech because Her Majesty's Government decided that most of my colleagues and I should be in Northern Ireland on that day. I thought that that was quite an insult to Her Majesty. I was fighting an Assembly election last Wednesday and visiting polling stations. The Gracious Speech refers to the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. I can tell the House that the Good Friday agreement will not be implemented because I topped the poll in South Antrim and, last Wednesday, the vast majority of the Unionist electorate withdrew their consent for the Good Friday agreement and its implementation—a clear, unequivocal result—and I hope that the Government will listen very carefully, for two reasons.
  Last week, the Unionist people spoke very clearly. They replaced my party, the Ulster Unionist party, with the Democratic Unionist party, as the leading party. In the republican nationalist vote, Sinn Fein ended up as the leading party—a party still committed to violence and terrorism, still with a private army. I am very sad that my fellow countrymen vote for a party like that.
  We have stalemate and no progress has been made on achieving devolution in Northern Ireland, and devolution is the objective of Her Majesty's Government for all parts of the United Kingdom. We are not achieving devolution in Northern Ireland, because the republican side—Sinn Fein-IRA—has not become a democratic political party. The Ulster Unionist population have become totally disillusioned. Terrorists were forced into government and on to my party in the attempt to create an inclusive Executive with Sinn Fein. Promises, promises, promises were made, but there was deception, duplicity and double standards.
  Sinn Fein is still involved in Colombia, in Florida and in arms importation. It was involved in the special branch break-in at Castlereagh and Stormont-gate, and last weekend reports in the Republic of Ireland suggested that the Garda are saying:
  "IRA tax scam helped fund Sinn Fein".

  425
  I will be going to the appropriate authorities in the House and the Electoral Commission to see that such funding of a political party in the United Kingdom is properly investigated.
  I want to be constructive. On behalf of my constituents and all the people of Northern Ireland, I want to see whether there is a way forward from the stalemate that there is now in Stormont. The way ahead is to replace the d'Hondt system for an inclusive Executive. Those who understand proportional representation know that Northern Ireland uses a d'Hondt system whereby all parties are put into the Executive on a proportional basis. That is inclusive, but there is no opposition and no collective cabinet responsibility. It is therefore unstable and unworkable.
  The system is especially unworkable in Northern Ireland because one party—Sinn Fein—stops devolution taking place. It has not become a democratic political party, so it stops all the rest of us making devolution work. I and my colleagues who were at Parliament Buildings, Stormont, yesterday cannot create an operational Executive unless we have the okay from the political wing of the Provisional IRA. The d'Hondt system must go.
  We cannot have a Stormont Government or a devolved Assembly on the basis of simple majority rule. There must be cross—community links and consensus. I recommend that we move away from a d'Hondt all-inclusive Executive to a voluntary coalition between the two Unionist parties—the UUP and the DUP—the constitutional nationalists of the Social Democratic and Labour party and the small but still representative Alliance party. Such an Executive would have cross—community support and could give us the benefits of devolution tomorrow. The Assembly and the Executive could be up and operating within weeks, but we are being held back by the veto that the Government still give to Sinn Fein-IRA on devolution in Northern Ireland.
  If the SDLP will not break away from the veto that it is giving to militant republicanism, so be it. We cannot have consensus, devolution and an Executive. We cannot have the benefits of a middle tier of administration between our local government on the ground and the Westminster Parliament and Government. We would like that middle tier in Northern Ireland to have a cross-community basis. If the SDLP will not separate itself in the republican community from Sinn Fein-IRA, I say to the British Government, "Let us stop the farce; let us bring it to an end."
  We have an Assembly, but it was embarrassing for all my colleagues in all political parties to sign on at Parliament Buildings yesterday and to be told that we could not even table a question to a Minister. As a Member of the Legislative Assembly, I cannot table a question to a Minister in a way that I can today to Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office about issues that affect my constituents—education, health, transport and so on. That is a farce.
  Her Majesty's Government should give the Assembly a maximum of 12 weeks—three months—to see whether it can come together with a voluntary coalition and then
  426
  transfer powers to an operating administration in the Executive and the Committee system of the Assembly. If it cannot do that within 12 weeks, we would be better closing Stormont. I, as an Ulster Unionist, would be more than happy to promote the policy of the forefathers of Ulster Unionism and to say that I want to be governed in the same way as England and Wales with a reform of local government powers down to a local government structure in Northern Ireland, or a sensible Assembly.
  The Welsh Assembly is sensible. It has 60 seats and departmental Committees with Ministers being called to account. We do not have that in Stormont. We have independent Ministers taking decisions irrespective of cross-community support in the departmental Committees. The Assembly is too big, cumbersome and expensive. If we cannot make it work in three months, Her Majesty's Government should close it down. We, as Ulster Unionists, will try to get cross-community support for something better for the government of Northern Ireland.
  Let us be governed like England and Wales. Let us be Unionist and let us have an Administration that is accountable and democratic rather than a bloated, unreal and inclusive Executive with a veto on the government of Northern Ireland—the veto of SinnFein-IRA. Irrespective of the promises and commitments that they gave at the time of and since the Good Friday agreement, they are playing a double game and holding up democracy in Northern Ireland. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will separate from Sinn Fein-IRA and start to work with the democratic parties in Northern Ireland—the two Unionist parties, the SDLP and the Alliance party—to find a better way forward. I want Stormont to work, but if it does not work in 12 weeks, let us close it down, go for full integration with the United Kingdom, and allow Ulster to be governed in the same way as England and Wales.
  3.45 pm
  Jane Griffiths: I want to give a few words of welcome to the civil partnerships Bill that was announced in the Gracious Speech last week. Hon. Members might recall that I had the privilege of introducing a Bill on civil partnerships in October 2001 under the ten-minute rule, which included some provisions that were announced last week. It included provisions to give rights and responsibilities to gay and lesbian couples who chose to register their partnership, and I am pleased that the Government have decided to espouse such rights. I understand why they have not been persuaded to go down that route for all couples, irrespective of gender, although my Bill included such a provision.
  I am a little disappointed that almost no other hon. Member has mentioned the civil partnerships Bill.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Don't worry, I will.
  Jane Griffiths: I am glad to hear it.
  I mentioned Reading young offenders institution, which is in my constituency, during my intervention on the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). That fine institution is better known by the name with which it was immortalised by the beautiful genius Oscar Wilde in

  427
  "The Ballad of Reading Gaol". Reading has to make some amends for its treatment of Oscar Wilde under the regime of the time, so it is fitting that I speak as a Reading Member.
  Reading and the issue of homophobia have appeared in the news more recently. We have no bishop in Reading. A bishop was appointed, but he was hounded out by the unsavoury tactics of the group known as the militant tendency in the Church of England, which was shameful. We hope to have a new bishop to conduct his ministry for us.
  The civil partnerships Bill will be welcomed by my constituents, including a couple whom I shall call Ed and Tony—largely because those are their names.
  Mr. Evans: Not Gordon and Tony, then.
  Jane Griffiths: I counsel the hon. Gentleman to be calm.
  Among my many constituents who will support the Bill is Wyndham Clampett, the supremo of the Reading gay men's chorus. I wholeheartedly recommend the performances of the chorus to hon. Members and I am pleased to say that it will sing at my 50th birthday party, which will take place soon.
  I reiterate my welcome for the civil partnerships Bill and look forward to being involved in the debate on it. It represents a great step forward for social justice not only for gay and lesbian people, but for all of us.
  3.49 pm
  Derek Conway: The series of days when the House considers the Queen's Speech is always illuminating. The proceedings started with a superb response by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who did himself and his constituency great credit. His delivery was excellent, but I think that the story of the cardinal and the nun will come back to haunt him. No doubt the rest of us will regale it on the dinner-speaking circuit. The hon. Gentleman demonstrated by his competence that following his move, from a Minister to Chairman of the Treasury Committee, he remains an effective Member of the House.
  More politically illuminating was the opening response by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). In his devastatingly competent critique of the Government's performance, he showed that the governing party of this country has a real challenge on its hands. It is encouraging to those of us who believe that the Labour party has had its moment to see that there is an alternative Government—
  Keith Vaz: Thanks to you.
  Derek Conway: Well, I take no part in such matters.
  It is encouraging that an alternative Government are ready and waiting to take up the challenge. In fairness, the Queen's Speech programme is evidence of a tired Government. I know: I served in one. There is no doubt about it: political parties run out of steam after a while. Not only do they run out of ideas but they end up with too many former Ministers on the Back Benches and too many frustrated would-be Ministers sitting alongside
  428
  them, which is when the fun and games begin. There is ample evidence that that process has started. The Queen's Speech programme has enormous pitfalls with which the poor Whips on the Treasury Bench will have to cope.
  The Government were elected full of promise and full of promises. They have failed on the first and not delivered on the second. I have to he careful because if I comment on individual Bills as a member of the Chairmen's Panel I might not be able to play my part in their scrutiny subsequently—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Go on."]I reject the encouragement of my hon. Friends.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), in a typically robust and incisive contribution, made it clear that the Opposition will offer constructive support for many Home Office Bills. We will see a contrast between the way in which the Home Secretary behaves and the incisiveness of my right hon. Friend. The Home Secretary sometimes gives the impression of a man under considerable pressure. His is unquestionably the most awful brief. One can only feel sympathy for that challenge, which he willingly accepts, but the fact is that he is not doing the job.
  There have been 30 bits of Home Office legislation from this Labour Government, yet crime is still up by 800,000. Gun crime has doubled. I remember sitting on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill on firearms, which was loathed by just about everyone in the House of Commons. We were assured by those proposing it that it would solve the problem. Of course, it has not and gun crime has doubled from what it was under the last Conservative Government.
  More importantly, for many of our constituents violent crime is now at its highest level. It does not matter how much Back Benchers or Ministers massage the figures, the truth is that the public do not care about our version of them and they do not believe the Government's version of them. What they believe is what they see in their communities. Increasingly, certainly in Old Bexley and Sidcup, as part of an outer London borough, more and more of my constituents think that the police are no longer accountable. The Home Office, the Chamber and its Select Committee are involved in policing. In my constituency, the Mayor of London and the Greater London Assembly are also involved. Many tiers of democracy mean that the people are still not getting what they want, which is more police officers on the beat. Nothing can make up for that.
  We are lucky in the Bexley Metropolitan police division because we have a superb chief superintendent, Robin Merrit, who commands a dedicated force. My criticism of what is happening with policing is not directed at them. They do their very best in the most difficult circumstances, but there are simply not enough of them. Any measures that the Government introduce to increase the number of police officers will have my wholehearted support and. I am glad to say, that of my party.
  It is a great pity that there is no Bill on defence matters, in particular the reinstatement of abolished regiments. Sadly, both under my party when in government and under the current Government, there have been endless defence cuts at a time when we expect more of our armed forces. The reduction of infantry regiments is putting immense strain on the system.

  429
  Our troops have been deployed in war zones for five out of the six years that this Government have been in power. With that record, it is unacceptable that we see more and more being hacked off the defence budget, fewer and fewer soldiers being recruited and more and more traditional regiments being up for the axe. It simply will not wash.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who is sitting on the Front Bench and will respond to the debate, I am sure, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will put forward the Opposition policy and response to the constitution. I hope that whatever I say will not be too far adrift from what he has in mind. Regrettably, I have form on the matter of the House of Lords.
  Back in 1972, when I was a brisk, thin and hairy 19year-old—difficult to believe, perhaps—I had strong views on the House of Lords. I was national vice-chairman of the Young Conservatives, which then probably had more members than the modern Tory party has today and was a thriving youth political organisation. I could not believe how, in modern Britain, as it seemed then to be, we could possibly have an unelected Chamber of Parliament that worked on the hereditary principle. I made a speech on a quiet weekend at a Young Conservatives conference that gained some notoriety in the Sunday papers because they had little else to cover.
  It was arranged by the party chairman, Lord Carrington, that the Duke of Northumberland—the former one, not the present one-should put me right on these matters. I was summoned to his Northumberland castle for a glass of sherry and a civilised lunch, and the duke proceeded to say, "Peter Carrington said that I should sort you out on this House of Lords thing. Never go near the place. I am sorry if you got yourself into trouble, but I think that changes will come." He was right: changes were to come.
  Although I can understand the views of others, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who made a telling speech about hereditary peers, I suspect that hereditary peers will go. I will play my part in whatever line my party wants to take, but I suspect that the institution of Parliament will cope when they are gone. The more difficult problem for every Member of this Chamber is what replaces them. I do not think that we should be scared of democracy, and I hope that we in this Chamber will not be, but we should be scared about how many levels of democracy are coming into existence.
  An earlier contribution from the hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) was evidence of the difficulties being experienced both in Scotland and in Wales. However, there have also been difficulties in England. In Old Bexley and Sidcup, my electorate are represented by borough councillors, who in the main do a good job and are very effective, but there are a lot of them. We have a Greater London Assembly man, who is also elected and very competent and popular. I hope that he will be re-elected with a handsome majority in the summer.
  We also have a Mayor, and although I must not trespass on your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by talking about the future of the Mayor of London, I can
  430
  say that under the constitution, he is there, he costs us a lot of money and he is more interested in demonstrations and self-promotion than in looking after the outer London boroughs. However, I am sure that either the Labour party or the Tory voters will solve his problem for him in June. My electorate also have Members of the European Parliament and a Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Evans: He is hugely popular.
  Derek Conway: That is very kind of my hon. Friend. In addition, my electorate may or may not, in the fulness of time, have elected peers. [Interruption.] I had better be careful: my boss is coming back in now.
  Although no one will decry democracy in this Chamber, we have to be careful about the tiers of democracy and what they are doing for the competence of and confidence in the system. We will not resolve the issue of the House of Lords until we address the size of this Chamber and what it does. Many right hon. and hon. Members, certainly since I walked in here in 1983, have become glorified social workers and councillors. I probably handle more local authority cases than I do anything else.
  If the United Kingdom is to remain united in any description, we should find a way of involving representatives from Scotland, Wales and the regional assemblies—if indeed they come about, which undoubtedly, under this Government, they will. We could then have a system more akin to that in Germany which would ensure that the different parts of the United Kingdom have a place in our legislative Assemblies. None of this, I suspect, will be remotely the policy of my party or my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, when he makes his much more distinguished contribution.
  This piecemeal reform of our constitution, with the Government clearly having no idea where they are going—I will find out later whether my party does—means that the Chamber is completely divided about the solution. I do not think that the public care overmuch. What they would really rather have is effective public services and the lowest taxes possible, and how many politicians are messing around in the pond to make that happen is a matter of supreme indifference to most of our electorate. We face an interesting Session, particularly on the constitution—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord):Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his 10 minutes.
  4 pm
  Keith Vaz: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway). I am not surprised that he praised the speech of the Leader of the Opposition because the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not have been there without the hon. Gentleman's help. I missed him, with his trim frame, from the nine o'clock news. He worries about being a glorified caseworker or social worker, but in the history of the Conservative party he will be remembered as a glorified king maker for what he has done for his party. Having left a tired Government, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, he is back to join a tired Opposition.

  431
  I shall make a couple of points on a local matter before turning to the issue of the Home Office and constitutional affairs. I welcome the Queens' Speech and I shall vote for it enthusiastically in the Lobby tomorrow and the day after. I particularly welcome the Government's decision to press ahead with the new road traffic management Bill. Those of us who are avid readers of the Leicester Mercury—I see present the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier), and we obviously get the newspaper daily—will know of the long-standing campaign by that newspaper to try to do something about the number of roadworks in Leicester. Leicester is the second most congested city in Britain, and I think that the proposed Bill will help us enormously as we seek to try to make it less congested and try to ease the burdens that are placed on householders.
  Before my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary left the Chamber, he said in answer to my intervention that he was upset that those of us who were criticising the new proposals on asylum and immigration did not give him credit for what he has done so far. I am the first to congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he did last year in allowing British overseas citizens to have full citizenship. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), who was then a Back Bencher and a campaigner for that measure, was supportive of it. I supported what my right hon. Friend said in early October when he allowed an amnesty for 15,000 people who were already in this country. The problem is that they do not have the necessary letters and they do not know whether they will stay here.
  My criticism of the proposed immigration and asylum legislation—I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will listen to it and I hope also that the Government will react to it before we reach the end of the Session-is that it is designed to try to solve a problem that the Government have failed to solve over the past six years, and that is the complete failure of administration on the part of the immigration and nationality directorate. There is a huge backlog at the IND. Cases are processed far too slowly and there has been a lack of resources for dealing with cases efficiently.
  I suppose that the situation is summed up by a case that I dealt with last Friday. Someone, who had originally come from Somalia, had made an application for asylum three years ago. In those three years he had had, with his wife, three children. He had finally received his final determination from the immigration appeal tribunal. He came to me to ask for my assistance, to see whether I would help him stay longer in the country. Obviously as a Member I stand in the shoes of my constituents, and I wrote to the Home Office. What surprised me was his attitude. Basically, he felt that it was the Government's fault. If his case had been dealt with properly, swiftly and efficiently three years ago, he would not have been in a position where he had stayed for three years while waiting a decision. Uprooting him and his wife and family now caused him the greatest difficulty.
  That is the problem that we have, and that is the problem that has been handed from the Home Office to the Department for Constitutional Affairs. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is being
  432
  asked to do the dirty washing for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He is being asked to solve the problems caused by administrative failure, and as a result the proposals that will have to be taken forward by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will curtail people's rights of appeal. If we take away a tier of the immigration appeals system, we are curtailing people's rights. If, at the same time, as the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) said, we reduce the resources available for legal aid, people who could get proper and effective legal aid at the start of the process are tell trapped in a system that will end at the appeal tribunal, subject to judicial review. They will not even be able to make an application, because legal aid will not be available to them. People whom we ought to help will therefore be left in a vulnerable position. I hope that the Government will therefore reconsider the position of the immigration appeal tribunal, and introduce a much more effective package allowing us to support enthusiastically their immigration and asylum policies. We will not, however, accept the package of constitutional and court reform introduced by the Department for Constitutional Affairs unless the Home Office gets its act together.
  As for the legislation that will abolish the office of Lord Chancellor and lead to the creation of a commission for judicial appointments, that major constitutional reform was proposed in the middle of a reshuffle and has not been handled particularly well. I pay tribute to the work of the previous Lord Chancellor, under whom I served when I was a Minister in his Department. His departure should have been handled much better, and he should have been given the plaudits that he deserved for the way in which he modernised his Department over the previous six years. However, even though we did not handle that particularly well, I am glad that we now have a Lord Chancellor who is committed to ensuring the modernisation of his Department and the justice agenda. My right hon. Friend Lord Falconer has the skills and ability not only to discuss these matters in Parliament with Members of the Commons and the Lords but to go out to the country to work with the judiciary and the professions. That will enable him and the Government to listen to people's concerns and help them to develop a package that will result in a more modern and diverse judiciary.
  We surely all share that hope, but I am not convinced that we are going to meet the Government's timetable. I would be happy to keep the Lord Chancellor's role until the end of this Parliament, enabling us to think carefully about what will replace the present system. We are in favour of a commission for judicial appointments, but we want it to be truly reflective and representative of society as a whole. If that takes a little longer. we will have to delay the legislation and allow it to be carried over to the next Session, keeping the Lord Chancellor in post until the end of the Parliament. Let us get this right because the new arrangement will be with us for an extremely long time. However, I support the thrust of the reforms introduced by the Lord Chancellor.
  Finally, I am delighted that the draft euro referendum Bill has been published, but I am extremely disappointed that we will not have a referendum this year. Although the Chancellor said that he will look at the tests next March when the Budget is published, I do

  433
  not believe that we will have a referendum during this Parliament, and the Government and the Prime Minister have a duty to tell the people of Britain so. I think that it is grave mistake r of to have a referendum—the issue should be put to the British people and we ought to allow them the opportunity to endorse the work that the Government have done in Europe over the past six years, being at the heart of Europe and controlling the agenda.
  Mr. Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should have an early referendum on the euro, but, on the same day, ask a separate question and hold a referendum on the European constitution?
  Keith Vaz: I do not think that it will happen that quickly. We did not have a referendum on Maastricht and there is no need to have a referendum on the European constitution—[Interruption.] Well, Opposition Members did not hold a referendum on Maastricht when they were in government.
  In conclusion, we welcome the Queen's Speech, and I shall support it enthusiastically in the Division Lobby. However, I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will take to heart the points that I have made.
  4.9 pm
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), although it is a pity that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) could not persuade him to go just that little bit further and ask for another referendum.
  My hon. Friend and I have both noticed that the Prime Minister is offering us a conversation—a conversation with trumpets and fanfares. I think that the Prime Minister does not need those trumpets and fanfares. Indeed, if he held a real conversation with virtually anybody in this country today, he would be told that Labour's performance and delivery are considered inadequate on everything except raising taxes. I fear that the Gracious Speech does nothing to improve that performance or delivery. My own test for the Gracious Speech is whether it faces up to the problems that my constituents face, and whether it comes from the caring heart or the calibrating head.
  The Prime Minister weekends in my neighbourhood, but he reveals no understanding of what people in the Chiltern hills are up against. The people whom I represent in Buckinghamshire are neither poor nor fabulously wealthy; they are just a part of the public whom public services are supposed to serve. They pay their rising taxes and hope that their needs in health, education, security and transport will be met. Under this Government, however, the vigorously rising curve of taxation finds no parallel in useful public service. There is a great gap between taxes paid and what the citizen is getting in return. One does not need to be a Marxist to talk about alienation in my constituency.
  In Buckinghamshire, despite devoted health workers, we have a crisis in health care. The trusts are running out of money, hospitals and wards are threatened with closure, and services will face some intolerable choices. What the Government so amusingly call extra money
  434
  has been swallowed up by extra national insurance costs, high agency nursing staff costs, the increasing cost of drugs and eternal Blairite targets forced on the NHS. If we have a flu epidemic this year in Buckinghamshire, I truly do not know how we will cope.
  That is the rough-edged reality of which the Government seem to know nothing. Perhaps that is why we are receiving 18 per cent. less health care funding per head than the average spend in, say, the north of England. That is a type of political favouritism at the expense of my constituents. An excellent educational performance in Buckinghamshire brings in families who move to take advantage of schools staffed by incredibly talented teachers that equip youngsters to a very high standard, but they are being betrayed. Under the examination boards, school examinations are being marked incorrectly, blighting children's lives. Teachers have their skills called into question. and funds to repair buildings fail. Meanwhile, as I have seen with my own eyes, taking a class of children half a mile down the road to study at an environmental centre is, thanks to the paperwork, a challenge beyond bureaucracy.
  The council tax goes up locally, but money flows to the north and the Labour seats, while the Government slap down the shires. Requests and even pleas for a reduction in bureaucratic control, inspections and so-called initiatives are ignored, and costs, and therefore taxes, continue to rise. In my constituency, pension increases cannot absorb those rises, so older people with years of work behind them now dread the thud of the bills that edge them towards poverty at the latest and cruellest moment. There is no peace in retirement for them.
  Does the Queen's Speech help? No. What we have is some 30 Bills that will add to bureaucracy, increase the costs of administration, invigorate the means-testing industry and leave the citizen finely controlled, minutely managed and paying for it. There is an armed forces Bill that will leave pensioners worse off; a housing Bill giving the Government ever more control; a higher education Bill to mug our students; an immigration Bill that will snatch children; a European Union Bill that will hand over more decisions to remoter control; and a school transport Bill to get our children off the buses-just putting Tiny Tim on thinner gruel is not in it.
  If that is not sufficient, the Queen's Speech contains a new tranche of bossy intrusions and regulations to keep all the extra officials busy. There is a charity Bill to threaten independent schools; an Employment Relations Bill and a companies Bill to harass and suffocate business; a Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill that increases the powers of central Government; and, supremely., an identity cards Bill that will affect all our civil liberties. The litany of extra powers will make the Home Secretary into a true Minister for the interior.
  So, we are faced with a plethora of legislation, and we confidently await guillotined timetables denying it sufficient time for proper consideration. A parliamentary guillotine working at Robespierre's rate is a malevolent and crippling assault from a Government who despise this House: they defeat the working of the democratic process and have regularly dumped in their basket inadequate legislation that is in constant need of correction by the courts or Parliament.

  435
  I have a response. Very little of what really needs to be done requires any legislative action. I suggest that we take a leaf from the book of an American President whom we can all admire—Franklin Roosevelt. When he came to power in 1933, and faced a slump based partly on a bank crisis and panic, the first thing that he did was to declare a bank holiday—a pause from selling and running. To put it simply, why do not the Government pause and stop selling my constituents down the river? Why do not they revisit this Queen's Speech and extract only the absolutely essential Bills, which this House would then have time to scrutinise properly? Why not concentrate on making what we already have work properly—plain, practical things such as hospitals, schools, transport, police forces and courts? One does not need a big conversation to discover that that is what people want—just a cosy fireside chat. Nothing would serve Britain better or please its people more.
  4.16 pm
  Mr. Bill Tynan: I apologise for having been absent from the Chamber at 3 o'clock. Unfortunately, I will not be here for the winding—up speeches, either, as I have another appointment at 6 o'clock, but I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate.
  If we comparer reactions to the Queen's Speech, we find that the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) was very positive, while official Opposition Members constantly carped about everything that is wrong with the Government and what they have delivered. That seems incredible when one looks at the record of this Government and contrasts it with 18 years of previous Tory Administrations. There is just no comparison.
  I note that the Scottish National party tabled an amendment, yet not one SNP Member is here. Even though Mr. Speaker decided not to select it, that is rather sad.
  Last Wednesday, a Member asked whether anyone could name a single Act from last year that has made a difference. Given that the Fireworks Bill passed through this place, I must admit that I was terribly hurt by that, but I got over it.
  To be serious, we should consider what the Government have delivered on employment and the economy. We should consider European Union expansion and what that will mean for the future of Europe. We should consider the rail accident investigation branch, which was recommended by Lord Cullen. We should consider the new powers given to the police in respect of antisocial behaviour: that is a major problem, but we are dealing with it, and it is important that we continue to do so.
  I welcome the measures that the Government have put forward for this year. Unfortunately, much of the media focus has been on negative aspects, and some of my own colleagues have concentrated on the more contentious parts. Although that is understandable, it obscures the real strength of the proposals. The Government have done much in the past six years, and the Queen's Speech represents a continuing commitment to stability, fairness and a bright future for all, building on what has already been achieved. I want to refer especially to the employment relations Bill, which, I hope, will make a genuine difference to trade unionists in this country.
  436
  Under the heading of constitutional affairs, I should like to focus on the implications of what has been announced for Scotland. Given the sniping of the past few weeks from English nationalists and Scottish nationalists on the Opposition Benches about the role that my colleagues have played north of the border and in this place, I should like to comment on their perceptions. The Westminster leader of the Scottish National party —I keep mentioning that party—and his colleagues voted against the Government, yet criticised 43 Labour Members for voting with the Government. Their argument would have more credibility if the SNP had decided not to participate, then criticised Labour Members for voting.
  There are rumours—I do not know whether they are true—that one lone Tory whom I regard as a friend, despite his political persuasion, was put under tremendous pressure by the Tory Whips to participate in the vote. If there were 10 Conservative Members of Parliament and an opportunity to defeat the Government, I wonder what sort of pressure would be put on them.
  We must consider where we are and how we shall develop. I reject the notion of two-tier, in-and-out Members of Parliament. I was elected as a UK Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we already have two-tier Members of Parliament? Scottish Members of Parliament vote on English matters but cannot vote on the same issues as they affect Scotland. The West Lothian question must be answered. Is not it time that we ensured that English Members of Parliament determine English matters?
  Mr. Tynan: I shall deal with that point shortly.
  It is disturbing that the hon. Gentleman's argument ignores the fact that 6,000 Scots a year are admitted to national health service hospitals in England. I therefore believe that I have a right to participate. The Standing Committee that considered the Health (Wales) Act 2003 was populated by English Tory Members of Parliament, and they were also involved in the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003. They accept that, yet claim constitutional outrage when others are involved. I accept that the West Lothian question poses problems, but we will reduce the number of Scottish Members of Parliament from 72 to 59.
  Mr. Evans: That is not the answer.
  Mr. Tynan: The Scotland Act 1998 provides for that, and I accept its terms. I hope that, long after I am gone from the House, the majority of hon. Members will acknowledge that there is role for Members from all parts of the United Kingdom in determining the way in which we deliver for the people we should represent.
  The Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill was announced last week. The devolution settlement remains under discussion and is evolving. As such, I was not surprised but a little disappointed that we decided that we would change the Scotland Act 1998 and retain 129 MSPs in the Scottish Parliament. That will be discussed on the Floor of the House. Although I was not privileged to serve in the House at the time, I found the debate on amendments—62 and 63 to the Scotland

  437
  Bill on 12 May 1998 most illuminating. The Government argued strongly against the proposal that is now in the Queen's Speech. Those arguments will be developed over the coming weeks and months.
  I do not wish to marshal arguments on that basis here today, but there is an issue as regards the Scottish Parliament. I am worried that we will disconnect its work from the interests and aspirations of the electorate through a rather confusing electoral system and will also risk contributing to the campaign to undermine the Scottish presence in this place, which is being orchestrated vocally from the Opposition Benches. I am much more enthusiastic about the European elections pilots Bill, which I raised today at Question Time. We may have the opportunity for a fully postal vote in Scotland for the European elections, and I certainly would welcome that.
  Let me turn to another issue in Scotland. I want to talk briefly but more widely about the situation as regards manufacturing industry. Time is running out, so I will get to the point quickly. I was going to say that I worked in a Hoover plant, but I was employed there as a trade union official—a full—time convener. The plant is under threat, and we are going to lose about 300 jobs, some to China. I do not know the answer on how we compete with the wages that are being paid in places such as China, but I commend the intelligent campaign being led by the convener there, young Edward McAvoy. It has the support of Amicus and of the area's MP and MSP.
  One of the issues is that 70 jobs would move to Wales. I hope that the Minister will get involved in that discussion and that campaign and try to ensure that we are in a position where we do not lose those 70 jobs. This is a crucial manufacturing industry for Scotland, and we must ensure that we have as much support as possible.
  I will finish on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had a good-humoured debate, and I hope that my contribution has added to that good humour.
  4.26 pm
  Mr. Edward Gamier: One advantage of failing to catch your eye until this stage of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that I have been able to listen to every word that has been spoken from Front and Back Benches. Two particular speeches drew themselves to my attention. One was that of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), who made a critical and devastating analysis of the Government's proposals with regard to asylum. She is to be congratulated on that. I could see that she was very angry and she is justified in that. I trust that the Government will have the common sense and decency to listen to such speeches.
  The other speech to which I listened with rapt attention was that of the Home Secretary, because the poverty of his language—he used such expressions as that he could not give a toss about others' opinions—demonstrates to me the poverty of his thinking on home affairs and constitutional affairs. I contrast that with the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), the shadow Home Secretary, and, if I may say so, of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), who made a thoughtful contribution.
  438
  I am particularly attracted to the argument that the hon. Gentleman made in relation to the absence of legal aid in matters of asylum cases, If we fail to allow those involved to get the proper advice they need, we will simply bung up the system later on. The Government's attitude towards the whole issue of legal aid was touched on by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who reflected all that I said in the debates on the Access to Justice Act 1999. It demonstrates the futility of much of what the Government have done and the damaging effect that it has had on that area of public policy.
  In the few minutes that remain, I want to concentrate on one aspect of the constitutional affairs debate—namely, that regarding the Lord Chancellor's office and related subjects. On 12 June, the Government announced their intention to abolish that office and to establish a new supreme court to replace the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. They did not do that after consultation and open debate. Those policies were put forward in the context, as many have said this afternoon, of a Cabinet reshuffle that had been derailed by the resignation of the then Secretary of State for Health and the refusal, it appears. of the then Lord Chancellor to resign. There is no doubt that the announcement was scribbled on the back of an envelope, and in a hurry. It was opportunistic and ill thought out. The Government's cavalier attitude to such important constitutional reforms meant that the principles underlying them were overshadowed by criticism of the way in which they were presented. The haste and secrecy with which the programme was announced were as unnecessary as they were counterproductive. However, that fits the pattern of the Government in most matters of public policy, and especially in matters affecting our courts, judges and constitution.
  Thrashing around to catch a populist headline is not a good way to reorder the British constitution, any more than the Home Secretary's crashing about like a bull in a china shop on matters to do with the arrest and investigation of suspected terrorists is sensible. In fact, the Home Secretary's recent outburst illustrates a theme behind these reforms. The Government do not trust the judges to bring in judgments that reflect their political opinions and aspirations. They, and the lawyers who argue their clients' cases in court, are in the way and must be tamed. Any objections put forward by those who disagree will be written off as lawyers' whingeing and the wailings of vested interest groups.
  That demonstrates a total failure to understand the delicate balance that any democracy that survives through respect for the rule of law needs to maintain between Parliament, the judiciary and the Executive. For six years now, this Government and the Prime Minister have enjoyed more or less opposition-free supremacy, both here and in the country. So overconfident and arrogant with unchecked power have the Government become that they have begun to resemble, and to sound like, the strutting rooster on the farmyard midden. However, may I remind the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, that today's rooster is tomorrow's feather duster?
  The Attorney-General is right to be concerned about the Home Secretary. His is an office that does not fit the strict concept of the separation of powers. He is a member of the legislature, the head of the state

  439
  prosecution service, the Government's chief legal adviser, and the protector in the courts of the public interest. That is not very neat and tidy, and his office must be in danger now that the Government have arbitrarily decided that the office of Lord Chancellor must go.
  As recently as 4 December 2001, the Government offered a robust defence of the office of Lord Chancellor in this House, but how things have changed now that Lord Irvine has gone! It was not difficult to poke fun at Lord Irvine: even the Prime Minister resorted to some childish criticism of the office-holder's uniform, as though he had made not only a highly amusing point but also an unanswerable constitutional point. However, the attacks on Lord Irvine were based as much on ignorance of the man as on ignorance of his office. He acted as the lightning conductor for criticism of the Prime Minister that came from those who did not dare attack the latter directly.
  If Lord Irvine was the catalyst for discussion about his office, that discussion has been misguided, and has led to the wrong answer to the question of whether that office could be sustained, especially in the light of the European convention and its application to this country through the Human Rights Act 1998. There is, in my judgment, no provision in European Union law or under the European convention on human rights that requires any of the changes that the Government propose to the office of Lord Chancellor, the removal of the Law Lords from the House of Lords, or the creation of a judicial appointments commission.
  It is undeniably true that the Lord Chancellor's Department has taken on many new responsibilities since 1997. Until June of this year, it was headed by a man who was not known for his political skills and sensitivity. The new Department for Constitutional Affairs covers the courts and tribunals, freedom of information and data protection, human rights, Lords reform and other constitutional reform, judicial appointments, party funding, electoral law and policy, civil and criminal law, legal aid, and royal, Church and hereditary issues. Its budget is measured in billions of pounds and, like all spending Departments, it is now a resource-hungry leviathan. Increasingly, it is moving into the executive and political arena. That shift means that, more and more, the Department's executive responsibilities are being carried out by an unelected Minister, whose territorial boundaries are imprecise and subject to adjustment at his and the Prime Minister's diktat.
  One of the strengths of our constitution is that it is different from every other constitution and yet is completely capable of protecting the rights and interests of the citizen. We live by what is reasonable, not by what is necessarily rational. The common law has provided as much protection—if not more—for the individual against the over-mighty state as have the judgments of the supreme courts of other countries with written constitutions. No amount of fiddling with the role of the Lord Chancellor or the Law Lords will make a worthwhile difference to that.
  I accept that the Lord Chancellor untidily bestrides the constitution. We do not have a Minister of Justice. A judicial appointments commission does not appoint our judges—a politician does that. An unelected legislator exercises executive power. Are we the worse off for that?
  440
  Is our democracy the feebler for that? Are our judges Government stooges, who do no more than the bidding of the politician who appointed them? Are they appointed for their political or legal expertise? How many times since let alone before the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 have the courts decided cases against the Government? Does not the Home Secretary fulminate against the judiciary for applying against the Government the very laws that the Government passed? Do our courts never award damages against the police or Departments? Has not a private citizen been granted £1 million in compensation against the Ministry of Defence for nuisance this year—while our troops and the Royal Air Force were engaged in the Iraq war—because of noisy low-flying RAF fighter jets passing over his house near Stamford?
  Is not the right to strike and to demonstrate protected by the courts? Has the current Lord Chancellor, the previous Lord Chancellor or any other Lord Chancellor given judgment in the House of Lords on political as opposed to strictly legal grounds, or ever threatened the legislature that, unless it did his party's bidding, he would give judgment to redress the matter upstairs? On all those questions and many similar ones, the previous Lord Chancellor—a man with the political sensitivities and diplomatic skills of a rhinoceros—can justly claim to have behaved entirely properly. Like him or hate him, whether he made us laugh or cry, he was subject to the control of Parliament in all that he did as Lord Chancellor.
  Speaking at the Council of Europe in 1979, one of our former right hon. Friends, the late Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone, said:
  "We have an omnipotent, omnicompetent and sovereign parliament and, to some extent, it reflects the will of the executive, but we have an independent judiciary and the function of the Lord Chancellor is precisely to maintain the independence of the courts of law and the judges. We have no written constitution and in the absence of a document we must rely on the integrity of a man. It is the function of the Lord Chancellor to fight, to his last gasp if need be, for the independence of the judiciary. He can perform that function only if he has a foot in all three camps."
  I accept that politics a business susceptible to fashion; the names and remits of Departments change as frequently as their political masters. However, the vital and central role of the Lord Chancellor, which requires him to tread carefully along the three parallel but invisible lines of the British constitution, is justified and justifiable, even in the face of demand from the political fashionistas.
  4.36 pm
  Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Earlier, we had the treat of hearing a Member confess to changing his mind, and when the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, said that he used to be in favour of identity cards but is now against them, it struck a chord; I, too, have changed my mind on that issue. I used to be against them, and against CCTV cameras and intrusive searches, but we live in a changing and dangerous world. It is right that we should change, but most of us change in the right direction.
  I want to put on record my support for most but not all the measures in the Gracious Speech. If I were speaking at another time, I would put on record my opposition to tuition fees and my disappointment that

  441
  there was no mention of a ban on fox hunting, but that is for another day. Today, I shall limit my remarks to the new Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, Etc.) Bill, and the many measures in it designed to stem abuse. However, I also recognise the welcome development of managed legal immigration that the Home Secretary has been brave enough to introduce. That is a path on which we have just embarked, and we will watch with interest.
  When I was first elected to this place in 1997, almost immediately-within weeks or months— the issue of asylum reared its head in Dover and caused major problems and difficulties, mostly because large numbers of people from central and eastern Europe were coming across on the ferries to the port of Dover, and then being settled in small and not particularly wealthy areas of the town that did not have the capacity to receive them. That gave rise to all sorts of friction and concerns. People were genuinely alarmed; they felt threatened, and no matter what the real numbers were, perception is important in such matters.
  At the time, the local authorities did not have the resources or the housing to support those arriving, nor the power to disperse them or share them across other parts of the area, so problems began to arise. On the south-east coast, there were unwelcome visits from the far right. The British National party marched on the seafront, and the National Front came down and leafleted at the weekend. They inflamed the problem. Many people felt that the situation was out of control. At that time —1997 and 1998— and under those measures, they were largely right.
  In due course, the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 was introduced, which greatly relieved the situation. In those early days, I felt that, although this was a major problem that had to be tackled—not just in my constituency but elsewhere—it would abate and go away, like other political storms. But it has not gone away, and to be frank, in gateway constituencies such as mine it probably never will. However, the various legislative provisions are beginning to bear down on the problem, and to deal with it in a responsible and balanced way.
  The 1999 Act relieved the situation by allowing dispersal, and by introducing support for asylum seekers. The whole process became more structured and people began to have more confidence in it, but the numbers remained high.
  The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 continued the process of bearing down on abuse of the system. It is very difficult to talk to those in the front line about what are, in their terms, almost academic issues. They know that we need to support asylum seekers, and that we will always give support to those who are genuinely fleeing for their lives. But they reply by saying, "Yes, but what about the Dublin convention? What about other countries? What about our borders and security?" Over the years, most, if not all, of those issues have been addressed in some measure. The new Bill will continue to close the loopholes and to bear down on the abuse of asylum, while at the same time preserving the basic principle.
  442
  When I talk to immigration officers in my constituency—the people on the ground who meet asylum seekers, and who take the initial decisions—they express bemusement at the fact that, after all these years, they have no sanction to operate against those who deliberately tear up their documents and hide their identity cards and passports. No such sanction has ever existed, and such behaviour has almost become part of the process of claiming asylum, be it genuine asylum seekers, economic migrants or those moving to this country for less savoury reasons. I have received anonymous calls and letters from people who work at the Dover port, telling me that the practice of destroying passports is so common that the remains can be picked up on any day of the week. Just last week, someone sent me two partly destroyed passports, with a covering anonymous letter. That puts the issue into context. We are talking not about the theory of immigration and asylum, but about the practice that local immigration officers have to deal with. Being on the front line in places such as Dover is a very difficult job. We should at least offer some support, and introduce measures that will bear down on the abuses.
  We know that some who flee their country genuinely need to travel on false papers; indeed, they might not have papers at all. As long as they can prove a genuine purpose, that is a defence in itself. But it is not a defence to turn up at the immigration desk at Heathrow— having travelled on an international airline, and having de facto bypassed all the required documents and security measures—and say, "I've got no passport, and I'm not telling you where it is, how I came here or where I've come from." That is not acceptable. Such behaviour is designed only to deceive and frustrate the system. and it makes matters more difficult for genuine asylum seekers. The reality is that the great majority of people who try to destroy their documents do so partly to deceive, and partly under the instruction of their traffickers. They want to protect their traffickers and the criminal gangs behind these rip-offs.
  I welcome the Bill and the other new measures to crack down on criminal traffickers. We should remember that currently there are very few sanctions that can be used against people smugglers. The crime of trafficking people is difficult to define, and the Bill tries to do that, but this is not a victimless crime. We need only think back a few years, to the tragic and horrific story of the 58 young Chinese people who were found dead in the back of a container lorry in Dover, to remember the background to this shady business.
  I give qualified support to the acceleration of the asylum appeals process. The system is abused by stringing out appeals. That costs a lot of money and people use it as a means to stay here for longer, not to get a just result. When we look back at the claims, we find that they had hardly any chance of success from the outset. Again, I have had unhappy experiences in my constituency. In one case, an asylum seeker family were—outwith the norm—an especially objectionable group. Most asylum seekers are courteous, friendly and co-operative, and make good neighbours. However, this particular group were the ultimate neighbours from hell, to the extent that even the charitable institutions and asylum support groups wanted to see the back of them. They were undermining community relations by their

  443
  behaviour. It took more than three years to remove that large extended family because they took every recourse of law.
  The withdrawal of benefits from those asylum seekers who have run out of time is a vexed subject. I share some of the concerns that have been expressed. but I have talked to Ministers who have convinced me that the effect will be marginal and that the consequences of withdrawing benefits and then possibly taking children into care will be minimal. If that is the case, perhaps we should at least give those involved the option of choosing to go into safe detention, instead of being separated, which could appear draconian.
  4.46 pm
  Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I welcome in principle several of the Bills in the Gracious Speech. The first is the charities Bill, which will provide an important legal framework for regulating the charitable and voluntary sectors. The voluntary sector wants the Bill, and that is all-important. It will remind us of the importance of the voluntary sector, which plays a role in areas covered by many of the other proposed Bills. For example, where would we be on the issue of domestic violence without all the voluntary work that has been done over the years? It is the same with child protection, and there are other examples. I would like to see even greater input from the voluntary sector in the future. When we talk about public provision of services or private provision of services, or even a partnership between the two, we miss out on an important dimension. I hope that discussing the voluntary sector will enable it to progress further and provide even better services.
  I welcome the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill. It has been a long time coming and it is a great credit to the Government that they have finally introduced it. However, I share the reservations of those hon. Members who have mentioned the protection of children, especially in cases of access visits for parents. Many people say that it is up to the courts, but we all have examples of cases that have torn at our heartstrings and not only aroused great concern, but involved physical harm to children. Children must be at the heart of everything we do.
  I also welcome the children Bill, although it has taken so long for it to be introduced. I visited Sweden earlier this year and discovered that it had had a children's ombudsman for 20 years. We have finally reached that point, and I am delighted. Other countries put children first and listen to them, and we have taken a long time to get to that point.
  The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill contains not only measures on domestic violence, but provisions for witnesses and victims. I welcome those provisions also, because I recently visited Dorset Victim Support on its open day for Members of Parliament. I was very impressed by all the work that it did. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the staff pointed out problems with funding. I mention that because I am not sure exactly what role Victim Support will play after the introduction of the new provisions. I tabled a parliamentary question earlier this year, which showed clearly that while funding to Victim Support has increased, because it has been providing this incredibly
  444
  important witness protection service and helping witnesses, its core activities have been squeezed in terms of money. I do not think that its activities have been cut, but volunteers have been asked to do more and more, and barely get expenses for the work that they do.
  Many Members welcomed the fact that trafficking will be addressed in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, but I fear that the important aspect of trafficking for child labour may not be included. We have moved so far by including trafficking for sexual purposes in the Sexual Offences Bill, and many Members would also have liked trafficking in child labour and trafficking in children's organs to be dealt with at the same time, although, of course, that was not possible. I hope that in the near future it will be possible to address those important issues.
  As many Members have mentioned, there have been many Bills on crime, yet the public's perception is that crime is going up and they do not feel entirely safe. Whatever the statistics, we must take on board the fact that people have a fundamental need to feel safe in their communities. It comes down to not only legislation, but police personnel engaged in prevention and successful detention. I am afraid that I will touch on funding again, because, like most other Members, I have received representations from my police authority, Dorset, which tells me that although the percentage increase in funding is perhaps a little more than it had hoped for, it is not enough to cover unavoidable cost increases, and certainly not enough to address what the public want. Dorset police have carried out a thorough consultation, and, not surprisingly, the answer has come back that people want a more visible, uniformed presence on the streets.
  I want to mention a specific issue relating to my police authority. I was fortunate enough to have an Adjournment debate on funding for Dorset police not long ago. On their behalf, I raised their concerns that £1 million in fines from the safety camera scheme was being returned to the Treasury. The Minister said that that was not the case, and that the money was allowed to stay in Dorset for use in safety schemes. I was delighted to hear that. I have received a further representation from Dorset police, however, which tells me that that is really not the case. It states:
  "these criteria have subsequently changed and we are not able to seek the use of the fines revenue for anything other than safety camera enforcement. This has fundamentally undermined our approach to road safety.
  It is really worrying that so much money is being channelled back into the Treasury and is not going into safety schemes. The mission of every Member of the House is crime reduction, but surely preventive measures are best. We need openness and honesty about what is happening to the fines. Most of all, the people who pay the fines and have got caught out would like to know what happens to the money that they are paying.
  Ironically, the success of our police forces in reaching their targets means that we have the current crisis in prisons, to which Members have referred. We must remember that there is a crisis-some wonderful projects and wonderful work take place within the system, but the overall situation is appalling.

  445
  I visited Finland earlier this year to look at different criminal justice systems. I want to quote briefly one statistic-while we were there, just one woman under 21 was in prison. Even multiplying that to take account of the size of the respective populations, it tells us something very sad about our own society that we have so many women in unsuitable prison settings, often miles from their homes and families. Equally, although we have made progress in reducing the number of children in prison, we still have 2,000 children in adult prison settings, which is completely against the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. We must think about a whole package of measures in relation to children when we consider all the Bills in the Queen's Speech.
  Community sentences will become much more frequently used when the proposals in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 come on stream fully, but community sentences can play a greater role now and more should be done with them. The public do not seem to have confidence in community sentences. They see them as a soft option, but why should they be a soft option? Surely, if people can see something being put back into the community and offenders can be supported with education and drug treatment programmes and other forms of support, we will have a cheaper, more effective sentence that will, I hope, cut reoffending and certainly be far less disruptive to the social make-up of our society. It would be good to see Ministers visiting good community sentence programmes and showing people that such sentences work and that we can stop simply putting people into prison for more minor offences and genuinely address crime in this country.
  4.56 pm
  Gareth ThomasThe debate has provided a broad canvas, as with all Queen's Speech debates, for right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to address it on matters of general principle and detail, but I should like to confine my remarks to general principles, particularly in the context of today's debate on home and constitutional affairs.
  This challenging, perhaps over-ambitious, programme of reform certainly gives the lie to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) that this is a tired Government. Far from it—this is a progressive, forward-looking and bold programme. In my view, it is a good programme and I welcome it. It does not shy away from some very contentious issues that the Government have to address, such as the higher education funding gap, and, in the context of this debate, our constituents' very real concerns about asylum and immigration.
  It is essential that we have a tolerant and multiracial society. To underpin that, I must congratulate the Home Secretary on his approach of trying to establish a balance between setting up a transparent, open and managed immigration system, while bearing down, with tough and sometimes controversial measures, on what my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser), who spoke from experience. said was the outright abuse of the present system. That balance must be established, and I congratulate the Government on bravely going down that path.
  446
  The measures have to be tough, but I share the concerns expressed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House that some of the measures in the proposed asylum legislation may be a step too far. However, I am fairly confident that the Government will have carried out a human rights audit, as is required for all legislation under the Human Rights Act 1998. We know that, when introducing the Bill, the Secretary of State will have to declare that it is compatible with the Human Rights Act, but when the Minister sums up, he may be able to cast light on the Government's current thinking on whether there is a need to derogate from the European convention and the articles in it that deal with the privacy and sanctity of family life. That is a real concern. However, I agree with the thrust of the proposed measure and the Government would be shying away from people's real concerns if they did not act robustly to deal with what is perceived to be uncontrolled abuse of the asylum procedure.
  I congratulate the Government on introducing the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill. It is entirely right that we should rebalance the criminal justice system rather more in favour of victims by keeping them informed and by acknowledging the damage that crimes, particularly violent crimes, can do. We can do that without undermining the guarantees of human liberty that are enshrined in our criminal justice system.
  I was impressed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson). She referred to those heart-rending cases of death or injury that are occasioned to children by fathers who have been given unsupervised access. That is a real problem and I am sure that the proposed Bill will go some way to dealing with it. I have experience as a lawyer of dealing with cases of domestic violence and I place considerable trust and confidence in the ability of the courts—if they are properly advised and have before them sufficient material from social services departments—to arrive at right and just conclusions. It is right that contact should be given to fathers; it would be a draconian step to stop them seeing their children.
  I also welcome the proposed children Bill, which would bring to England the benefits that a children's commissioner has brought to Wales and Scotland. There is a need to address some of the issues that we face relating to the abuse of children, particularly those in care.
  I now turn to the general principles behind the draft Bill on identity cards. I do not object in principle to the idea of identity cards and I accept the Home Secretary's contention that such cards can be an effective tool in combating identity fraud, the growing threat of international terrorism and organised crime. However, the devil is in the detail and much more practical work needs to be done. The last thing we want is such a measure to fail because of practical difficulties in its implementation.
  I wish to mention a cause that is particularly close to my heart—the problems faced by people with disabilities. I represent an area with a large pensioner population in which disabilities are a matter of concern. We know that 8.6 million people in the United Kingdom have disabilities, but the Government have an excellent record in dealing with the issue. Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss

  447
  Begg), will come into force later this year. It will require shops and services providers to make adjustments to their properties to cater for disabled people. We welcome that, and I welcome the proposals in the draft Bill to extend the scope of disability protection to transport operators and to widen the definition of disability.
  I shall deal briefly with constitutional reform. I tend to agree that the whole business of reforming the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords and abolishing the post of Lord Chancellor could have been handled better, although it is necessary to address those anomalies. I welcome proposals to introduce a supreme court but firmly believe that any legislation on that should be informed by the underlying principle that the independence of the judiciary should not be undermined. We cannot exaggerate the value of an independent and high-quality judiciary, and that is crucial if we are to maintain the rule of law in a mature democracy such as ours.
  I accept that there will he contentious aspects of the Government's programme, but it is none the less courageous and forward looking.
  5.5 pm
  Kali MountfordI shall address my remarks exclusively to one aspect of the Queen's Speech: the announcement of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill. I shall also refer to the comments of hon. Members who spoke about the Bill. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) on her remarks about children, with which I concur. I disagree with some points made by hon. Members about contact with and access to children, because we must be careful when dealing with children. We should not adopt a one-size fits-all policy or trust a system as though it could never fail. I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) that the courts can make mistakes, such as giving schedule 1 offenders unfettered access to their children with no other people present. Children have suffered terrible harm as a result of that, and such mistakes will continue to happen unless we take the problem seriously.
  It is, perhaps, not well known in the House that I have had an interest in domestic violence for more than 30 years and that I work closely with the victims of that crime. However, my interest in the matter developed earlier than that. Many hon. Members will have seen an interesting television programme that recently featured in the top 10 of TV cop series—"Dixon of Dock Green". When we watched the programme, we heard the familiar strains of the theme followed by the words, "Evenin' all". There was a little homily at the end of each show, one of which was, "Well, of course it's been a quiet night, but if I had to go to every house where a chap thumps his wife of an evening, I'd have nothing else to do." That attitude was considered the normal state of affairs in the 1950s and 1960s, and I am glad to say that I think that few police officers have such an attitude these days.
  I would like to think that our attitude to domestic violence could change as swiftly as people's attitudes to issues of equality, such as homosexuality and the rights of people who undergo gender transition. When I was
  448
  growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, people never dreamed that such important changes of attitude were possible. The attitudes of people to ethnicity and race have altered completely and radically, in such a way that the majority no longer consider some people to be part of a sub-culture. However, domestic violence is still a huge problem, which shows that attitudes to that have not changed at the pace that I would like.
  We must think carefully about what the Bill signals. After my 30 years of working with women who are victims, it represents one of the most tremendous changes heralded during my short time in the House. In the past six years, I have, perhaps, been too quiet a campaigner—but a campaigner nevertheless—for the quiet victims of what is too quiet a crime. Too often it is hidden away. Neighbours turn their heads, ashamed. The victims and their families are ashamed. I have heard it said that people from a particular ethnic group are more ashamed than others. That is nonsense. All victims of domestic violence feel ashamed. It is a pernicious and horrible situation that too often is condoned by the victims' families, neighbours and communities. It is the only crime for which we think the right course of action is to move the victim, not to deal with the offender. That is why the Bill is so important.
  The victim needs to find sanctuary and to be supported by the law. The Bill will do much to achieve that, but it does not go the whole way. The Government might want to consider other measures as well. Although the Bill will protect people who come forward for help and treat them as victims, we should relieve them of the burden of going through the courts knowing that the offender will retaliate. Incidentally, domestic violence offenders are easy to identify. In other crimes, we have to look for the offender. In domestic violence cases, the offender is well known, although we still find it difficult to put him through the court process. A person is likely to have been offended against 35 times before a successful prosecution is brought. That is a terrible state of affairs. In addition, the victim has to make difficult choices in the period when those crimes are being committed.
  I accept that the Bill is gender neutral and that men sometimes suffer at the hands of their partners, but I shall concentrate on women, especially mothers. The effect on them and their families is so tremendous that it is right that we are at last taking a careful and considered approach to an important problem. At the moment, the message we give to such women is, "You have no choice." I have heard council officers tell them that unless they are prepared to move within 24 hours to a hostel, a refuge or a homeless centre, the crime that they report will not be taken seriously. Have those council officers visited a hostel, a refuge or a homeless centre? If so, would they choose to make that move for themselves? The accommodation is not desirable. The furniture is in such a state that we would not want our children to sit on it. Drug abusers might live opposite or prostitutes might be down the road. Is that a real choice for women?
  The answer is not simply to invest in better standards in refuges. We must also tell local authorities that they have a duty of care. Part of that duty of care is to protect a woman in her home so that the members of the community can support her. They know the woman and the offender. They will notice him if he enters the street

  449
  and be part of her protection package. The school that her children attend can also be part of that protection package. Her children will be comfortable in that school and protected because they are well known to the teachers. It is a safe place. why by move them away from it?
  We should be telling doctors that they, too, have a part to play in protecting women in the community. It is not difficult to do. In fact, it is relatively inexpensive to prepare accommodation so that it has safe doors, CCTV and panic buttons. It is important that women should be protected in their homes. It costs £600 a year less per family to make people safe in their homes than to move them on and on.
  It is time for this madness to stop. It is time for people to be safe and protected not just before the law but by society. Now is the time for the he public campaign to say that this is a crime that is recognised by us all, not only Members of the House, the judiciary or the police. We should all band together and say that this is something that we will no longer accept in our society.
  I want, in closing, to thank Kate Flannery and other members of the domestic violence unit, particularly Thelma Singleton, for all the hard work that they have done and the support that they have given me in our quiet campaigning over many years.
  5.15 pm
  Claire WardI welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on the Queen's Speech. I apologise now for the fact that I may not be able to stay until the end of the winding-up speeches, as I am due back in my constituency for an important meeting regarding potential school closures.
  I welcome many of the measures introduced by the Government in the Queen's Speech, in particular those relating to asylum and immigration. I regularly see constituency cases involving people claiming asylum. Some are in a position to obtain the right to remain in this country, while others, their first application having been refused, apply under the appeal procedures, and are refused again. They then continue to follow the appeal process, right through to the stage of judicial review, which may take many years.
  The difficulty in those circumstances is that we are not providing a system that is efficient and fair to all those who apply for asylum and who wish to remain in this country. Our system is not fair to those individuals who find that their lives are on hold for a number of years while their case is determined. Many will want to work and to build relationships, and some will have children while they are here, so as the years go by it becomes even more difficult to enforce the refusal notice that was originally applied to them. I therefore welcome the Government's attempt to make sure that we have a fast, efficient system for dealing with asylum applications.
  Britain has a long history of being a safe haven for people who are fleeing from persecution in their country, and rightly so. I certainly wish that to continue, but if our system is to have integrity and to be fair to all those who apply, and if we are to be able to secure our borders as necessary, people need to feel confident that when they apply for asylum, their case will be considered
  450
  and they will be given opportunities to appeal, if necessary. However, those appeals should not go on for years, as they do in many cases. I therefore agree with the Government's proposals to restrict some appeals and speed up the process.
  It has been very interesting over the past few days to watch the media coverage of the Government's policy on the children of asylum seekers. I think, with great disappointment, of the coverage that has completely misinterpreted the Government's view on the issue£deliberate misinterpretation, in some cases, by those who want to make political mischief. I say to those who oppose the Government's policy, particularly those on the Opposition Benches, that they should take their opposition to its logical conclusion.
  If we have asylum seekers whose applications have been assessed and refused, what do we then do? Do we continue to pay them benefits and completely undermine the whole of the asylum system, or do we remove the benefits? In my view, we should remove state support if the whole application and appeal process has been completed and the applicant has not been permitted to remain. Having removed benefits, should the Government then leave the children of asylum seekers to become destitute when their parents have refused the opportunity of a flight home and money for resettlement? That would not be in the interests of the families and their children.
  Mr. Evans: I am following the argument that the hon. Lady is advancing. Surely if all the benefits are stopped and the parents are not allowed to work, that means that they get no money and they are destitute. How does she think that they will survive?
  Claire Ward: Adults make a choice. Parents make a choice and they accept the consequences. If they have had their application refused and they refuse the opportunity to be returned to their country of origin, and a resettlement grant, they must take the consequences of the laws of this land, as we would expect them to be implemented. Their children do not have the same opportunities to express themselves. While parents can make such decisions and accept the consequences, children cannot. If parents are not in a position to look after their children, it is right that the Government, in these circumstances, should take the children into care. I regret that the Conservative party, in particular, has sought to make mischief on this issue and to call it an unacceptable policy given the history of its own policies on asylum.
  We need first to improve the quality of initial decisions. It is clear from the many appeals that are won by applicants that initial decisions are not yet of an acceptable quality.
  It is to be welcomed that the Government will look to impose a criminal offence upon those who destroy their documents on entering the country. Like many other colleagues who deal with asylum cases, we come across those who apply for asylum, only to find it difficult to be certain from which country they come. That makes it difficult to ascertain whether they are entitled to asylum. In those circumstances, where they have arrived in the United Kingdom on international flights, I think that it is right that the Government should consider imposing a penalty on those who have deliberately destroyed their documents.

  451
  We should do that in dealing with asylum applications in those circumstances, and to protect those who are exploited by traffickers of asylum seekers because in many instances we see the consequences for those who are the result of illegal trade in humans.
  I welcome also the proposals that relate to domestic violence and the need to address the problems that we face when one in four women over their lifetimes will be subject to domestic violence, with two women dying every week as a result of it. The proposals will be greatly welcomed by women in my constituency and throughout the country, and also by men who are subject to domestic violence. We must ensure that such men are included in our considerations.
  I am pleased that we are seeking to protect victims of crime and ensuring that their rights and views are part of that process. I recently met the victim support organisation that is based in Watford. I listened carefully to those who expressed the concern that often they believe that victims do not get consideration during court cases. I am pleased that we shall have an opportunity to address that in legislation.
  Many Members have referred to children's rights in terms of adults who may have been convicted or where there is evidence of domestic violence within a relationship and the question of access arises. I agree with that approach, but this is an opportunity for the Government carefully to examine the issue when a parent wishes to have access to their child and the other parent, who has custody, is continually taken hack to court to try to enforce rights of access. It is a scandal where unfortunately, in many instances, mothers who have custody of children do not allow fathers who have rights of access to see their children. Those fathers have continually to take mothers back to court, at great expense, but the court orders are not enforced by the court. I hope that the Government will look at that carefully and, as a result, perhaps fewer people will have to climb cranes to make the issue a priority.
  The Government have introduced a number of very good measures in the Queen's Speech, some of which are controversial, such as the measure on tuition fees. I support the principle that students should pay for their education once they have graduated, but I accept the concerns of people who are worried about the impact of variable fees. However, I hope that the Government will not only address the need for more young people to go into higher education, and provide funding for that, but will provide opportunities for people who want to develop vocational skills to do so. Such people should not find themselves in a position in which they not only have to pay for their course but, by paying taxes when working, have to pay for students pursuing academic studies.
  Overall, this is an excellent legislative programme for the year ahead, introducing lots of good and interesting measures that will significantly help my constituents in Watford.
  5.26 pm
  Mr. Tom Harris: Out of courtesy, may I tell you that I will be present for the winding-up speeches, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and very much look forward to them?
  452
  I disagree with the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) that the public arc not in the mood for another debate on asylum. I represent a Glasgow seat, and Glasgow city council is the only local authority in Scotland to participate in the Home Office asylum seekers' dispersal scheme. About 75 per cent. of my constituency case load concerns asylum seekers, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that people in Glasgow and, I believe, all other constituencies want a serious debate on asylum. The Government have helped to achieve that by introducing the Bill, which I welcome.
  Asylum as such is not a controversial issue. I do not believe that there is a single hon. Member who would argue against the principle that anyone who genuinely faces persecution on the grounds of race, religion or politics in their own country should be given sanctuary in the UK. However, asylum has become a controversial issue or a political hot potato because the Government, like their predecessors, have recognised the fact that there is a large number of economic migrants among those who come to this country claiming political asylum, and have decided that they have to do something about that. They have decided to interview people and separate genuine asylum seekers from economic migrants. We must accept that has consequences, but that is the source of the controversy, not the fact of asylum itself.
  I welcome strongly a number of aspects of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill. They have already been mentioned, but I hope that you will forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I briefly go over them again. It is unacceptable for people arriving in this country, largely by air, to tell immigration officials at the airport that they have misplaced or destroyed their identity papers. I very much welcomed the Home Office announcement that proposals to tackle that would be included in legislation introduced this Session. I do not understand why we have not previously introduced a measure to clamp down on such behaviour, but the Bill is nevertheless extremely welcome.
  Mr. Heath: Is there not an alternative way of dealing with the problem of papers destroyed in transit? Carriers could be required to make facsimiles of papers presented on boarding, retaining them until passengers have completed immigration procedures at the other end. In that way, we would always have a record that would also be useful for counter-terrorism purposes.
  Mr. Harris: My understanding is that the legislation will introduce obligations for carriers, or at least some carriers from some countries, to duplicate identity and travel papers where necessary, so that they can be shown to immigration officials in Britain. That should be welcomed. None of my constituents would show any tolerance of the brazen practice of accidentally losing identification and travel papers.
  I welcome the Government's plans to clamp down on the number of appeals. I hope that they will take notice of the fact that the judicial review process is slightly different in Scotland. If we are to streamline the appeals process in England and Wales, it must be done effectively in Scotland as well. The current arrangements have meant that, in Scotland, almost every application for judicial review is agreed, which is not the case in England. I have been pressing for change for some time.

  453
  On the controversy that has erupted about the Government's alleged plans to abduct the children of asylum seekers whose applications have been refused, would it be possible for debate in the House, including on Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill, to concentrate on what Ministers and the Bill say, rather than on what The Observer says? I do not think that it helps the debate in this country to focus on an unattributed source reported in The Observer and copied by other media outlets. The Home Secretary has explained the situation, and I hope that Opposition Members will accept what he says.
  The Government have made some improvements in the asylum process. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, who probably has the most difficult job in the Government. She has never failed to treat me with the utmost courtesy and helpfulness whenever I have consulted her. Because of the type of constituency that I represent, she has had to provide such information to me on many occasions. I am extremely grateful to her for that help.
  I wish briefly to mention the proposed amendments to the Scotland Act 1998. I was one of the MPs who contributed to the consultation led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) when she was Secretary of State for Scotland. My contribution was to say that the Scottish Parliament should retain 129 Members, even after we have reduced the number of Scottish MPs in this place. There are many good reasons why I take that view, but I urge hon. Members to visit my website at www.tomharrismp.com if they want further explanation.
  When the measure comes before the House, hon. Members in all parts of the House will no doubt table a huge number of amendments. The Scottish National party, which obviously has something better to do today, will undoubtedly produce a plethora of amendments, probably focusing on full fiscal freedom or any other alliterative—if I can say the word— [Interruption.] Thank goodness for alliteration, I was going to say. No doubt, the Conservative party will try to incorporate its own amendments. I understand from reading The Scotsman last week that the Conservative party will table an amendment that would restrict the rights of Scottish Members in this place to vote on English legislation.
  May I make a genuine appeal to Conservative Members? I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is in his place at this point. I ask them please not to go down the road that the Scottish nationalists want them to go down. The Conservative party used to call itself the Conservative and Unionist party, and I want it to reinstate that full title rather than call itself the English national party. For 50 years, Northern Ireland MPs came to this place and took a full part in the life of this House, voting on everything that came before it. For 50 years from 1922 until 1972, as far as I know, not a single Conservative or Labour MP ever objected to that, as Members of this House serve their constituents on any equal basis. It says something very profound about the attitude of those on the Conservative Benches that, at Prorogation a couple of weeks ago, they were fulminating against democratically elected Members of this House voting on
  454
  English legislation, while welcoming the fact that hereditary peers along the Corridor were blocking democratically established law made in this place. What does that say about the democratic principles of the Conservative party?
  Mr. Evans: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that most of the blockages in the other place have been caused by Labour peers objecting to the Government's proposals. Nevertheless, is he seriously suggesting that we have to wait 50 years for an answer to the West Lothian question?
  Mr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman will know that an answer was not sought to the Ulster question during those 50 years; and why should it have been? Members of this House should be elected on an equal basis. For example, I am not gay, but I am happy to vote on civil partnerships. Why should I not vote on issues that do not directly affect my constituency? Will the next Conservative manifesto say that London MPs will not be allowed to vote on transport issues that are devolved to the Greater London Assembly? I suspect not.
  I am rapidly running out of time—how time flies— when one is having fun—but I want, at the risk of being accused of pedantry, to make one more point about the Lords reform Bill. The 2001 Labour party manifesto committed the Government to making the House of Lords more democratic and representative, and it is more representative today than it has been in its entire history. We should be wary of saying that because a House is democratically elected its Members are automatically more democratic or more representative— one has only to look at the Scottish Parliament, which, although democratically elected, has not a single black or brown face among its 129 Members. The Bill might not make the House of Lords more democratic, but it will certainly make it less undemocratic by removing the hereditary peers, and we should welcome that.
  5.36 pm
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) (Lab): It is a privilege to be called to speak in the debate on the Queen's Speech and to talk about some of the proposals that affect the Home Office-some good, some bad, and some indifferent.
  This Government's fight against crime will ensure that crime is reduced, and we want that to continue. What worries me, however, is crime detection-specifically, the role of the Forensic Science Service, which does an excellent job in solving crime. At Washington hall in Chorley, 240 people are dedicated to solving crime in the north-west. It is important that we listen to the voices of those who work in the Forensic Science Service: it is far too easy for us to dismiss their opinions. Sir Robert MacFarland and the National Audit Office reported that the FSS is a huge success and that it is good value. It is wonderful to have that endorsement, which Members on both sides should listen to. Because the FSS is a world leader-it is considered by many, including me, to be the best in the world-many overseas cases are brought to this country to be solved, including that of the tragic death of a Swedish Minister.

  455
  It is important to recognise what the FSS can do through its trading fund, which made profits of £10 million. If privatisation goes ahead, there is no guarantee that its work will not suffer. The FSS is a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week operation: that on-call service is totally unprofitable. So will there be cuts? That is the big question to which we never get the answer.
  How is privatisation to take place? Is it the case, as I suggested in an Adjournment debate, that each forensic lab will compete against the others for work? In fairness to the Minister, he said that that would not happen. Are we therefore to assume that a private monopoly will be created out of public ownership? That is absurd, because how would we achieve value for money? It is certainly wrong for labs to compete with each other, because, given that it is beneficial for them to share their knowledge, competing private companies would not be keen on doing so. If we are not careful, life will become even more difficult. We should put quality of service first, but a private company will want to make a profit out of crime. That would be intolerable, and I am sure that hon. Members agree that it is no way forward.
  Many unanswered questions remain about the staff's pension rights, and we wonder when we can give the answers to those who work in the FSS. Of course, the FSS needs extra capital investment, and we are told that that is the reason for beginning part privatisation. The Government are normally the first to say that we use private finance initiatives. Why do we not consider such a vehicle to ensure the upgrade of FSS laboratories? That is a much better way forward than privatisation. Surely the Home Secretary, who led against privatisation throughout the 1980s, would not want his name attached to such a proposal now.
  It is important, and in the public's interest, to ensure that the FSS remains entirely in the public sector. I note that Front-Bench Members, as they chat away merrily, are taking a great interest in hon. Members' comments. They should take note that even Mr. Bush has not privatised the forensic science service in America. No country in the world has privatised its forensic science service. Why should we do it? Why should we want to change it, and ensure a criminal's charter through privatisation?
  Such a proposal is not a new idea or new thinking. It is a 25-year-old idea from a Thatcherite Government. In fairness to a former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), I note that he threw out such a proposal and said that it was a step too far.
  Many other issues in the Queen's Speech are important. One is the Government's support for neighbourhood watch. We have done well in extending it; it brings communities together and makes them safer. Keith Warren and Tom Watson in my constituency are at the forefront of leading neighbourhood watch in Lancashire, to the extent that it now covers railway stations in Chorley and operates on the trains. That is a new and good idea that will be replicated.
  We also consider other places, such as cemeteries, where crime takes place. That causes much distress and the neighbourhood watch tries to ensure that people can feel safe when they go to the cemetery. We have prevented children from playing there and stopped the distress that is caused. That is important.
  456
  The Government are committed to closed circuit television. They have shown their hand by putting so much money into its extension.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman represents a constituency neighbouring mine. Like mine, his has many rural areas. Does he believe that CCTV should be rolled out in some rural areas and not confined to urban areas, and that special constables should be put into rural areas? Crime is as hard for those living in rural areas as it is for those in urban areas.
  Mr. Hoyle: I could not agree more. Ribble Valley suffers the same problems as my constituency, although it is important to stress that the Government have played a major part in increasing the use of CCTV. However, the Home Office has a chance to go into villages by allowing town councils, parish councils and borough councils to bid for money that the Government have made directly available rather than getting messed up in different routes and ticking different boxes. Let us make the money available and ensure that the benefits in urban areas are introduced in rural areas.
  We need CCTV in my village of Adlington. A robbery took place at the petrol station and the local bank, 200 yd away, was held up with a gun. We are near the city of Manchester, and criminals unfortunately come and take what they perceive to be easy pickings because there are not the same deterrents. I should welcome CCTV in Adlington and in the rural areas of the constituencies of other hon. Members. It should happen sooner rather than later.
  Police cells are also important. We should ensure that they are available where crime occurs. Chorley has a population of more than 100,000. It is one of the fastest-growing constituencies in the country, yet we find that no police cell is available. That is absurd, and it must be looked at.
  We need to show teeth and ensure that police authorities listen to the Home Office and that we are able to ask questions below chief constable level to find out what is going on in divisional areas. It is important that we are allowed to do that, and the sooner it happens, the better. It is also important that the courts and the police authorities are accountable to the House and that we can get down to the micro level, which is well below that of chief constable.
  In fairness to the police, I say that they do a very good job, but they must get away from paperwork, which they spend such a lot of time on I do not know whether Members have been out with the police to see what happens when they arrest somebody, all the paperwork that they go through and the time that is lost because they have to go to a station that is far away in case the arrest involves a lock-up. We must look at that, save time and let the police get on with the job that they are good at—getting on the streets and being seen. We must have a visible police force once again. That is so important.
  We are up against the time limit, but I want quickly to mention that Victim Support does a superb job in Chorley. Also, the armed forces play a major role, so I am very concerned about the Queen's Lancashire Regiment. I do not want to see it merged. We do not have a retention problem, and we certainly do not have a recruitment problem. That proud regiment is one of the oldest, and I want it to remain.

  457
  I do not want top-up fees—that is where I disagree with the Queen's Speech.
  The other problem is council tax. Rate support grant was not enough and Chorley council managed to get only 2.3 per cent. I would have liked it to get more. The county got 5.5 per cent. If we could have put its figure down by just 0.5 per cent., we could have made so much difference to the borough council—it could have extended its warden scheme, which has proved successful.
  The other big issue is pensions. I would like all pensioners to benefit from free off-peak travel, and let us extend free TV licences as well. Those are omissions from the Queen's Speech. We must not forget older people: we have done a lot for them, but there is much more that we can do.
  I have mentioned the Forensic Science Service, and The Observer on Sunday had a wonderful sub-heading saying, "The Forensic Science Service is a rare public service success story. So New Labour wants to privatise it". We ought to be ashamed of such headlines and articles—we ought to get away from that. We do not need to privatise the service, no matter what people might say. The bottom line is that we can keep it in the public sector. We can ensure that there is money through a true private finance initiative scheme. That is the road forward, and that the vehicle we ought to use. We ought to ensure that that benefit comes through and that we do not see people losing their jobs and pensions.
  5.47 pm
  John Robertson: I apologise for missing part of the debate as I was on Scottish Affairs Committee business. I will definitely try to make it to the summing up, but I will need to miss part of it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) made an excellent speech. I am not going to repeat it, because he must have covered about the whole Queen's Speech. He made a slight attack on the two nationalist parties sitting opposite: the Scottish nationalists and the English nationalists, who are known where I come from as the Tories. They seem to be cuddly people these days. That brings to mind a film I once saw called "Gremlins". The gremlins start off cuddly, but then they get water on them, and they become monsters. I would love to throw water on the Tories to let the people see their true colours, because they have been monsters before—back in the 1980s and early 1990s, when they were real monsters who destroyed industry in this country and put unemployment up to an unbelievable figure that I hope will never be rivalled. Even if that lot got back into government, they could not manage to get the figure up to the 4 million mark, but I am sure that it will not prevent them from trying.
  I want to talk about asylum. I have a problem with taking children from any parent—asylum seeker or not. Taking a child from a parent, whether that means a single parent or parents in a family, is abhorrent. I ask the Minister to reiterate what I think I heard the Home Secretary say, which is that children will be treated just as children, that their treatment will have nothing to do
  458
  with their being asylum seekers or anything else, and that they will be taken into care only—I repeat, only—if they meet the criteria by which social services would normally take a child into care. I do not want to hear that children are being taken into care only because we have stopped giving a family money. That family might have means in another country, and children should not be taken into care simply because they happen to be asylum seekers.
  Hon. Members of all parties have referred to the matter in various ways, but I want to attack another part of the problem. I asked myself what I would like the Queen's Speech to contain. One possibility would be the reintroduction of hanging —but only for lawyers: they are the ones I want to string up. I am sorry if that offends anyone, especially among Labour Members. However, the £81.3 million spent on asylum matters in 2000–01 rose to £174.2 million in 2002–03.
  A lawyer who takes on an asylum seeker is able to claim £800 immediately. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris), I have many asylum seekers in my constituency. Half my work load is based on asylum matters, but the asylum seekers I speak to have more than one lawyer as, when I ask who their lawyer is, they produce a variety of cards. If all those lawyers are getting £800—and then £1,200 later for judicial review—it does not take a genius to work out why they all seem very happy to take on such cases. One lawyer in my area closed his business because he refused to take on asylum seekers, but another lawyer opened up the very next day. He made it blatantly clear that he was doing so because he could make a lot of money out of asylum seekers. That is an absolute disgrace, and we must do something about it. Asylum seekers are used by the people who get them into this country, and then they are used again by lawyers, who we might say are not so nice. Therefore, I ask that hanging he available as punishment for lawyers who profit from asylum seekers.
  I turn now to the Scotland Act 1998. It may not mean much to members of the English national party, and it clearly does not mean a lot to members of the Scottish National party, who cannot be bothered to attend the debate. This is not the first time that they have slept through Bills; they did the same with the one that introduced the minimum income guarantee some years ago. They are up to their old tricks again, but that does not stop them having a go at Labour Members in this House, who are doing what they are employed to do—representing the people of the UK.
  I have real problems with an electoral system based on a list, as it is open to much misuse. In Glasgow, 77,040 people voted on their ballot papers for the Labour party, while another party received 34,894 votes. The Labour party secured no seats, but the other party secured three. I do not know how the arithmetic adds up, but there is no point in having two ballot papers in Scotland—one for constituency members and the other for list members if none of the Labour votes cast in Glasgow is allowed to count. If that is democracy, I am sorry, and I want nothing to do with it. It is time that we changed the system. However, the single transferable vote system being touted by the Scottish Executive does not meet my requirements either. In fact, in the case of the Scottish Parliament and, in particular, the Scottish Executive, it would appear that the tail is wagging the dog these days.

  459
  The Liberal party in Scotland would argue that in order to receive the guarantee of STV, it has capitulated on many Bills that it would normally have voted against, but I have to say that the Liberals have caused nothing but trouble by being part of the Executive in Scotland. If I were the First Minister, I would kick them out, and would work in a minority Government. They are absolutely no good.
  Mr. Beith: Does the hon. Gentleman regard free personal care and no tuition fees as the kind of trouble that Liberal Democrats ought not to be making for the partnership Administration who have pursued those policies?
  John Robertson: The Liberals will take credit for anything. We have to consider who is paying for the care—and not only that, but who is not being paid for. When we talked about that kind of care, I had my reservations, but—as with most things—I am willing to wait and see. I waited to see how the list system worked, and it does not. As for the right hon. Gentleman's other point, I just disagree with him; I am sorry, but I cannot agree with him in any shape or form.
  Time is of the essence, and I call on my friends in government to look at the electoral system, because what happens in Scotland today could happen in the United Kingdom tomorrow. The STV system for local government in Scotland is not a way of democracy, and it is not wanted. Only four councils in the whole of Scotland suggested that they would like it, and 28 said that they did not want it; the system would be an imposition on local government in Scotland. I do not particularly want to impose another system on the Scottish Parliament, but if I were given the chance to get involved in opening up the Scotland Act 1998, I would reintroduce first past the post tomorrow, with two elected Members—one man and one woman—for each constituency. I ask my hon. Friends to support me when I table an amendment that says as much.
  5.57 pm
  Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I shall follow my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) in commenting on the proposals in the Queen's Speech to retain the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament, but. as my hon. Friend will not be surprised to find out, I shall take a different direction. I, too, must apologise to the House for having been away at a Select Committee for part of the afternoon, although I have tried to ascertain what comments have been made on the issue while I was away.
  I support the proposals to retain the current number of Members of the Scottish Parliament, and if I have the opportunity to speak on the issue on Second Reading, I will expand on the reasons why. Today, however, I want to concentrate on the fact that the proposal to retain the same number of MSPs will undoubtedly have knock-on effects for the political system elsewhere in Scotland. When the Government take forward the Bill on Scottish parliamentary constituencies in the next few months, they will need to give the House some suggestion of how they will deal with those knock-on issues.
  The first of those issues is the fact that there will be different boundaries for the Westminster constituencies and the Scottish Parliament constituencies. That would
  460
  not be a major problem in itself but, as has been mentioned, there will of course be a multiplicity of electoral systems operating in Scotland, sometimes on the same day. If things develop as expected, there will be elections to the Scottish Parliament by a combination of a constituency first-past-the-post ballot paper and a list ballot paper on the same day. Also on the same day, there will be elections by single transferable vote to local government. At other times, there will be elections on the first-past-the-post principle for the Westminster Parliament and elections on a list system for the European Parliament. Also—in theory, in any event—if there are ever elections for community councils, they could be held on a multi-member, single-majority electoral system.
  So this issue needs to be addressed. I have more confidence than do some of my colleagues in the voter's ability to understand different systems, but there comes a point at which one has to say that a system is getting too complex. If the electorate do not know who they are voting for and when they are voting for them, and if they do not fully appreciate the differences between the different systems, that in itself threatens their ability to hold elected politicians to account.
  The system needs to be examined and now is the right time to do so. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland that the current system of electing MSPs is not achieving the intended results. By that I do not mean—as some of my colleagues occasionally do—the election of a Labour majority under any circumstances. The system was designed to be truly proportional, whereby votes cast by the electorate are roughly reflected in the number of seats won by the different political parties. Instead, we are getting an "Alice through the looking-glass" system of proportional representation, with an increased use of tactical voting. The thing that was meant to be good about proportionality in elections—that people vote for the party of their choice, rather than engaging in tactical voting—is no longer applying.
  Primarily, that is happening not because of the list system, but because two ballot papers are involved. The electorate—along with the political parties, the media and the political system—are increasingly regarding the list ballot paper, which in theory should balance out any disproportionality in the constituency element, as the second preference ballot paper. As a result, voters' second preference is being given almost as much weight as their first preference—entirely the opposite of what any form of PR should mean. Unlike some Members, perhaps, I do not want the smaller parties to be driven out of the Scottish Parliament, but I do want them, along with the larger parties, to get the representation in seats that they ought to get, thereby reflecting voters' preferences. The current system is moving away from true proportionality and leading to a bizarre, inverse distortion of true PR.
  John Robertson: Does my hon. Friend not accept that it is not right for 77,000 people voting on a ballot paper to receive zero representation? I could understand our having a single ballot paper and working out a system accordingly, but we have two ballot papers, including a specific paper for the party vote, and 77,000 people in Glasgow get absolutely no representation for that vote.
  Mr. Lazarowicz: The weakness in my hon. Friend's argument, if I may say so, is that in that instance, one

  461
  party—my own, as it happens—won every single seat in the constituency element of the election on the basis of securing less than 50 per cent. of the votes cast. That is equally problematic.
  My hon. Friend suggests that one solution might be to retain the system of constituency Members and the list, but to have just one ballot paper. Presumably, the seats allocated on the list would then be awarded on the basis of the total votes cast on a single ballot paper in every constituency. As it happens, that was the system that I preferred when these matters were discussed some years ago. Unfortunately, my wise counsel was ignored on that occasion, as was often the case, regrettably. The other solution—it is supported by the Liberal Democrats and, I think, by the Scottish National party and an increasing number of Labour Members—is some form of single transferable vote for Scottish Parliament elections. There are arguments in favour of introducing that system as well.
  The issue must be addressed quickly. We may have an opportunity to do so when the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill comes before the House, although it is very closely drafted. As I said at the outset, the Government need to address the issue and give an indication of how they will take the matter forward. Increasingly, people in Scotland want the matter to be addressed. There must of course be consultation among the political parties in Scotland and we should try to reach as much of a consensus as we can, in order to find a way forward. However, if we do not address the issue and change how the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament currently operates, we will discredit it. As somebody who wants the Scottish Parliament to do well and be successful, I do not want to see it discredited because of the inadvertent consequences of the operation of the electoral system. I hope that the Government will say tonight—or if not tonight, when the Bill is introduced—how they will move forward on such issues.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Over the past five hours, we have had a good-natured and enjoyable exchange of opinions on the Queen's Speech.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): So far.
  Mr. Duncan: I certainly hope to keep it that way. The Minister has had a busy day, which is about to get busier. I must warn him that I have been informed that he used to serve on the Public Accounts Committee with my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). If the Minister continues to do as well as he did this morning, he risks being labelled a protégé of the shadow Home Secretary.
  The agenda that we have been discussing this afternoon involves a long list of Bills and the legislative programme will keep us busy. The issues that we are bound to discuss over the next parliamentary year will profoundly affect the lives of many people. As such, we all have a heavy duty to ensure that we make the best possible law. On the Opposition side of the House—and, I sense, on the Government side—that is what we all want to do.
  462
  In his opening remarks, my right hon. Friend dwelt on areas that I do not want to dwell on again.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): Neither do I.
  Mr. Duncan: I can think of some very good reasons why not. In discussing crime and asylum, we have made our concerns absolutely clear. In simple terms, we want more police and better detection. On asylum, we want a system that meets our responsibilities to approach the issue in a dutiful and considerate way and which recognises that there is a problem with numbers and with process. However, we want to ensure that our discussions on the law that we are going to make are not infected by what has, over the decades, been a rather tarnished debate. We want to ensure that we consider the issues without any antiphony of nasty accusations and exchanges of abuse. We pledge ourselves to do that, as hon. Members have asked of us.
  We will find common ground with the Government on some issues. In mentioning domestic violence, I acknowledge the quality and genuine nature of the speech made today by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford). She has experience on the matter, which affects the lives of many people. There is no party disagreement about how we want to approach the issue.
  I merely observe, however, that some vexed issues are bound to arise. One that has been mentioned is the question of whether provocation might be used as a plea of mitigation for someone who has murdered their partner. In reading the paper, I discovered that the Solicitor-General would like to abolish that plea. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) said that she wanted to abolish it because it was unfair to women. She explained that many women are victimised by their husbands. It therefore strikes me—this is only an initial observation—that the plea of provocation is more likely to be used in defence of a woman who has killed a man than vice versa. That illustrates the quality of the debate that we will need if we are to make good law. In principle, however, the Bill on domestic violence is one that we definitely welcome, and we should all look forward to applying our minds to make sure that we convert it into good, practical law.
  Similarly, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in his reaction to the Loyal Address, we welcome the Bill on civil partnerships. May I ask the Minister to confirm that it will come under the responsibilities of the Home Office, and that it will not in any way be the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry, as the original consultation paper was? There has been some comment this afternoon that it may revert to the DTI. None the less, I hope that I can steer this measure through the House—perhaps, on my side of the House, I am uniquely qualified to do so, at least visibly–and again some important areas exist in which we can make a difference to people's lives.
  For a long time, same-sex partners have felt that they have been discriminated against, as partners of different gender are able to marry and thereby guarantee their protection of assets and rights. Here again, there will be some important issues. We should all examine our

  463
  thinking as to whether the religious significance of marriage should be respected and recognised and not rendered useless or less distinctive. Now that our welcome for this Bill is clear—and, as all Members will know, the Opposition will have a free vote on the matter—I hope that we can have a debate free of homophobia, and given that the Opposition have been accused in the past of a rather severe approach to this matter, a debate free of what I might call Toryphobia, so that we approach the matter in a constructive and sensible way.
  Mr. Leigh: Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the point that I made about co-dependency? For instance, sisters will be discriminated against if they have been living together for a long time, as will a daughter living with an infirm mother.
  Mr. Duncan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has beaten me by a whisker, as that was going to be my next comment.
  As we look at same-sex relationships and the interdependency that we recognise exists, we can see that a similar interdependency exists in non-sexual relationships. In many cases, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) pointed out in his original article in The Times last year, two sisters who have been living together for many years, in terms of their assets, tenancies and pensions, may he very interdependent and are at the moment discriminated against. We will certainly examine the Bill when it is published to see whether the provision can be extended more widely to recognise the kind of interdependence that we are told at the moment will not be contained in the Bill. I can cite the example of a neighbour who cared for an old lady for 17 or 18 years who was disabled, but as soon as that old lady died she was evicted from the council house because she was not able to continue the tenancy. That is a grave and unfair injustice, which perhaps this Bill should be extended to address. I therefore hope that the House will be able to consider the Bill in an equally constructive way.
  The hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) and my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) pointed to a growing problem: too many layers of government, too many systems of voting, and too many structures of representation that are becoming increasingly incomprehensible to the voting public. Were we to look at a list of the issues that will appear on the radar in this field, we would see that it is long and complicated: local government restructuring, pilot schemes for 2004, the election regulations for 2004, regional referendums, all-postal elections, the frequency of local election cycles, the state funding of parties, voting age and the age of a candidate, political advertising, the role of television—I could go on. To any student of politics and anyone who is simply a participant, the system is becoming very difficult to fathom.
  I put it to the House that that increasingly complicated picture may be an important reason in explaining the detachment from the political process felt by a growing number of people. All hon. Members would like participation, turnout and, indeed,
  464
  membership of our own political parties to increase, but when things are so complicated, diverse and in many respects almost utterly inexplicable and inconstant, we ought to re-examine whether we are doing the right thing in many different ways.
  The Home Secretary hopes that his proposed legislation is all about anticipating events, not reacting to them, but I am afraid many Opposition Members think that it most certainly is not. In some respects, the proposed asylum legislation is a sort of rehash of previous measures. The constitutional proposals that he advocates are very muddled and stem from no particular logical origin. Indeed, they may well lead to the supremacy of the Home Office over the judiciary, so it was an extraordinary admission by the Home Secretary to suggest that the constitutional change that we see arising from a botched reshuffle was indeed a shambles.
  Today's most telling intervention came in the middle of the Home Secretary's speech, and it was made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who referred to antisocial behaviour. All hon. Members have to appreciate that teenage disorder is becoming—indeed, perhaps it has become—the biggest issue of the time, and we all find it very difficult to address and find solutions.
  The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) illustrated the difficulty of finding a clear solution to constitutional reform. He said that there was no chance of imposing a solution, no chance of having a fully elected second Chamber and no justification for having a fully appointed one either. He is at least trying to chart a course out of the stalemate, but we can all see that the mess we are in will be very difficult to step out of.
  It vexes me ever so slightly—it is ever so slightly annoying—that I have to admit that the speech made by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) was one of quality. What he said today constituted an important contribution to our discussions. Of course neither any of my right hon. and hon. Friends nor I would agree with the way in which he wants to abolish the lord chancellorship and establish a supreme court. We agree with some aspects of what he said about asylum and identity cards, but we certainly agree with what he said about the need for more visible policing and, particularly, for education and training in prisons, given that illiteracy and innumeracy are the greatest problems faced by released prisoners. The Conservative party would want to consider schemes that could allow prisoners to earn their way out of prison early through educational achievement.
  Corporate manslaughter was mentioned, but may I tell the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) that we must beware of legislating in respect of gestures and anger? Not all accidents have someone to blame for them, and in considering such legislation we have to beware of creating a new injustice while trying to solve one that people feel deeply exists at the moment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and I have exchanged views on civil partnerships, but he said that there was perhaps an argument for having an elected upper House with no Ministers in it. Again, that illustrates the danger of stepping down the route of constitutional change. Let me predict that, as soon as the upper House is legitimised in total and perhaps

  465
  becomes one in which no Minister sits, we would next face the argument that we should therefore directly elect the Prime Minister. Out of such shifting change, we would then find that we would have stepped almost all the way towards a presidency on the American model. If hon. Members want that, they should say so, but I would argue against drifting into it unknowingly, which is to some extent what those gradual steps are pushing towards. My hon. Friend also spoke about overcrowded prisons and under-educated prisoners.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) admitted—this was telling—that reform of the House of Lords was not about actual failings in how it and the judiciary have performed. He was saying that, once again, we have to legislate based on perception and, as he put it, on principles. However, when it comes to the detailed work of the constitution, we have to legislate based on fact, practicality and what happens and not according to perceived qualities that do not suit a modern age.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) painted the less-than-attractive image of the Lord Chancellor doing the Home Secretary's dirty washing. This seems to be an early advert for Vaz over Daz.
  I shall now concentrate for a while on the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier). If people read it, they will see that he gave the House a forensic and devastating dissection of the Government's failure to think through constitutional reform. He outlined the serious consequences that will ensue, not as some charge, out of private pleading, but out of a genuine and informed concern for the effect that the proposed reforms will have on justice and judicial structures. We also benefited from his image of a rhinoceros as our Lord Chancellor.
  It would be invidious for me to continue to pick out all the speeches or some of them, because I do not have the time. However, perhaps I can set the framework for the debate that will follow over the legislative year ahead. The Opposition regret the absence of any overarching principle in the way that the Labour Government have embarked on constitutional reform. They have stumbled into it through accident and out of anger and vindictiveness. However, on constitutional reform, we must remember that we are setting rules for all—for both sides and for a day on which the boot may well be on the other foot. It behoves us all to find a consensual approach to the setting of rules and to do that from a foundation of principle rather than party advantage.
  The Opposition perhaps take a different philosophical approach. When it comes to constitutional reform, we look for evolution rather than revolution. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough put it, we look for reason rather than rationalism, with rationalism being the thought that one can go to a blank piece of paper and construct proposals from nothing. A system of government that has existed in democratic form for 350 years forms part of a continuum from which experience, knowledge and gradual change need to emerge without turning everything on its head in the meantime.
  466
  We can also see that there are severe differences even within the Cabinet. The Leader of the House bewailed the fact that the upper House was not legitimate when it tried to block the proposals for foundation hospitals. However, he voted against an appointed House in February and will now have to defend such a House as a plank—and an important plank at that—of Government policy. The members of the Cabinet who rail against us and the structure of the upper House will find that they are railing against each other if they examine the record of what they have supported in the past.
  The performance of the upper House as an effective revising Chamber has shown up this Chamber for the deficiencies that, I think, all of us know exist. We are not as good at scrutinising legislation as we pretend. When we say to the sixth formers whom we address that Bills go upstairs to be examined line by line, let us not pretend that, sufficiently often out of that sausage machine comes the better law that we should all seek. Instead, we tend to see the rubber stamp of the dominant political party in tile House at the time. It is thanks to the upper House that, more often than not, some of the idiocies that party pressure and the dominance of the Whips have enshrined in law are revised. It is only if we are to look to the interests of our constituents that we will appreciate the importance of that.
  There is a looming threat of the invocation of the Parliament Act. Some of the language used by Government Front Bench has become too loose. The invocation of the Parliament Act is the nuclear button in terms of democratic conduct. It was designed to be used for key pieces of legislation that were critical to the Government's programme—it was used for a Budget, in the first instance, because a Government can do nothing without that. It has only latterly become a power that people think that they can invoke on smaller measures. I urge the Government to be careful about the way in which they think that they may invoke that Act.
  When we consider judicial appointments, we shall apply with the same rigour the principles and purpose that we wish to display during the passage of all legislation because there are deeply important issues to consider. We do not want to be pushed into the creation of a supreme court, and the great expense of a massive building, if that has no advantage over the way in which our judicial system has operated in the past.
  There is a busy legislative Session ahead and we shall approach it as honestly and punctiliously as possible. We shall set the highest standards of scrutiny and argument, and I hope that we shall thus show the House and all voters the deficiencies that we already see in much of the proposed legislation.
  6.26 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): I welcomed the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) to his post earlier today during Question Time. I do not wish to disparage him too much but he made a tired, thin and somewhat disappointing contribution in his first outing as shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. His policies were

  467
  completely conspicuous by their absence. We heard no information about the way in which the Conservative party would implement the Bills that we set out in the Queen's Speech. Do Conservative Members want a Parliament free from hereditary peers? Do they agree that the office of Lord Chancellor should be reformed? Do they support the need for a full-time Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs? Do they agree that we need a clear separation of powers? Do they want a more pluralistic judicial appointments process? Do they want an end to the Prime Minister appointing the Lords Speaker? We heard no answers to any of those questions because they would probably answer no on all counts. They have no direction or vision and always want to return to the past.
  Mr. Garnier rose—
  Mr. Leslie: Speaking of which, I give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman is always charming and I hope that he has forgiven me for asking him during the past Session whether his mother knew that he was out so late. When he addresses the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), I hope that he will raise his argument to a higher level than that of the Home Secretary, who simply reduced his level of argument by saying that he could not give a toss.
  Mr. Leslie: I told the Home Secretary that the hon. and learned Gentleman was still smarting from the way in which my right hon. Friend put him down. My right hon. Friend summed up his views rather well in that respect.
  Let us return to the truth about the coming legislative Session. The package of legislation in the Queen's Speech is planned to deliver safer and more secure communities, social justice, lifelong opportunities and better quality of life together with better economic stability, a modern democracy and a strong civic society. Those principles will underpin the year ahead in Parliament and nowhere can that be seen more clearly than in the field of home and constitutional affairs.
  Detailed contributions were made by many hon. Members ranging from the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who talked about tuition fees, to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) who talked about the Forensic Science Service, pensions, council tax, television licenses and several other matters. My hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) and for East Lothian (Anne Picking) were worried about different electoral systems in Scotland. We must be aware of the importance of clarity for the electorate. I am aware that consultation on the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill found that the majority of people wanted to maintain the Scottish Parliament at its current size. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) made a thoughtful and useful contribution on the role of UK Members of Parliament and devolution issues, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris).
  468
  On the wider constitutional reform Bill, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) opposed any change: nothing new there, then. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who chairs the Constitutional Affairs Committee, gave a cautious and sceptical analysis, but I think he appreciated and welcomed the move towards an independent judicial appointments commission, and I am glad of that. The hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) commented on Northern Ireland constitutional issues.
  On the House of Lords reform Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) gave his proposals for a hybrid solution. The hon. Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and for Ribble Valley want to retain the hereditary peers for some obscure reason. The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) gave us an interesting anecdote about having a sherry with the former Duke of Northumberland. He also made some interesting points on House of Commons reform.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: In relation to the point raised by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), when will consultation with the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform begin? Indeed, when will the Joint Committee be set up again? The Minister told the House:
  "We do not close the door to future decisions on how the Second Chamber should be composed. Indeed, we will discuss with the Joint Committee whether we can find a consensus and perhaps move forward. "—[Official Report, 18 September 2003; Vol. 410. c. 1098.]
  Since then, his Secretary of State has written to the Chairman of the Joint Committee saying that there will be discussions. When will they start? Will they take place before a Bill is tabled?
  Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman should allow the debate on the Loyal Address to finish. It is for both Houses to decide which Joint Committees they establish. I believe that the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform has an ongoing role to consider the future shape of House of Lords composition and other matters. We do not close the door on those issues, but we are left with the same problem: do we stick with the status quo or do we get serious about reform and get rid of the hereditary principle that allows people to serve in the second Chamber by reason of their birthright? I know which side I am on.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I have asked my hon. Friend's boss in the other place this question. Will the Bill on House of Lords reform give us an opportunity to vote on an elected element in the House of Lords?
  Mr. Leslie: We published the proposals for the Bill. A range of clauses will cover hereditary matters. We want to resolve the impasse that arose in February when the House could not conclude a view on composition. I am sure we all want to find a way through that. Indeed, a number of hon. Members aired their suggested solutions.

  469
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen. South (Miss Begg) gave her views on the importance of rights for disabled people and on a single equality commission. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) welcomed the proposed disability legislation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) welcomed the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed are worried about streamlining the appeals system. The system will continue to exist, but it needs a better balance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland said. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward) gave a cogent and well argued case for us to face up to the difficult issues, unlike the fantasy island approach of the Conservative party. It has still not named the island that it would use, although we know that it has to be poor. That is some help.
  The hon. Members for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) greatly supported our domestic violence measures. Further suggestions were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson). My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) also made some important points on that issue.
  At the outset, the Home Secretary set out our plans for protecting victims, for standing up to criminality and antisocial behaviour, for protecting our borders and for updating our civil contingencies and emergency plans. The three criminal justice Departments—the Home Office, the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Attorney-General's office—are committed to working jointly, with ever increasing integration, to ensure that offenders are arrested, charged, convicted and sentenced efficiently and effectively. The new Department for Constitutional Affairs is now established and working well.
  Turning to democracy our laws need deciding democratically, and the House of Commons will be held accountable for the legislation that we pass. It is the new Department's job to protect and enhance democratic accountability, while ensuring that our laws are interpreted and upheld by a strong, impartial and independent judiciary, manifestly free from political interference.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I was struck by the hon. Gentleman's remark about the three Departments dealing with criminal justice, because I well remember the Home Secretary saying to the House, in angry tones, back in the summer that there was no question of the Department for Constitutional Affairs having any role in the development of criminal justice policy. May we please have the full details of this remarkable transformation?
  Mr. Leslie: If the hon. Gentleman, who, I think, claims to be the shadow Attorney-General, is under the impression that the Attorney-General does not have a role in the criminal justice system, he ought to swot up a little more. The Attorney-General has a role in the criminal justice system, and the Department for
  470
  Constitutional Affairs has a role in the criminal justice system through the administration of the courts—the hon. Gentleman may well have spotted that the courts are important in criminal justice. The Home Office, of course, leads on criminal justice policy overall. That is an important trilateral system.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Will the Minister confirm that the civil partnerships Bill will definitely come under the Home Office and will not be bounced to the Department of Trade and Industry?
  Mr. Leslie: I am afraid that, in my understanding, the DTI, leading on some of the equality reforms, will take a lead on that Bill, although other Departments will of course have a strong input on those issues, including measures on civil partnerships.
  As I said, our laws need to be decided democratically and upheld by an independent judiciary. Legislation to clarify and enshrine the differing roles of the judiciary, the Executive and the legislature is necessary and overdue, and it is the purpose of our constitutional reform Bill.
  Mr. Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Leslie: Not at this moment.
  That Bill, which will separate the highest court of appeal from the legislature, is needed to avoid a conflict between those who write the law and those who interpret and enforce it. Acting to remove any doubts about political or partisan motives in the appointment of judges will strengthen the respect for and the stature of our judiciary. Abolishing the office of Lord Chancellor will take the politician out of the judiciary, allowing judicial decisions to be made judicially, allowing the second Chamber to be chaired by its own nominee, and allowing the criminal justice system to be administered by a full-time Secretary of State.
  Mr. Garnier: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Leslie: The hon. and learned Gentleman is taxing my patience, but I will give way once more.
  Mr. Garnier: I am not only grateful to the hon. Gentleman but flattered by his graciousness. Will he tell the House whether the Government will respond to the three consultation papers issued by his Department earlier in the year prior to the publication of the three Bills that they imply?
  Mr. Leslie: Many of the consultations closed on 7 November, and we are still analysing the responses. It would be wrong of us to publish legislation before we had done so, as the purpose of the consultation is to seek responses, and that is the order in which we intend to proceed.
  Just as the role of Lord Chancellor is no longer appropriate for the 21st century, so too it is no longer acceptable that a small number of families have an automatic grip on Parliament based on their hereditary birthright. The House of Lords reform Bill will end that anomalous anachronism and fulfil our manifesto commitment.

  471
  While the search for a consensus on the future shape of the second Chamber will continue, we need to establish a contemporary second House whose members are more clearly appointed on merit, with the numbers and timing of appointments decided no longer by the Prime Minister, but independently of Government through a new statutory appointments commission, selecting the non-party members and vetting the party nominees.
  The debate on the composition of the House of Lords will need to continue without the door being closed to further change, but the guiding principle and overriding requirement remains: that the democratically elected Government and the House of Commons should be able to deliver the will of the people, to whom we are accountable and on whose behalf we act.
  Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Leslie: No.
  I turn now to the rights agenda. This country has a deep and proud sense of our liberties, rooted in a strong tradition of democracy and freedom of expression. The Government have already strengthened those rights by legislating for the Human Rights Act 1998 and for freedom of information. The legislative programme for this Session includes giving new rights for people where currently none exists. Society needs to be as inclusive as possible. Allowing equal rights for same sex couples, for example, through the civil partnerships Bill, which I know is welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths), and giving recognition to those with gender dysphoria, or transsexual people, through the gender recognition Bill, which I know is a measure that my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley has campaigned for, are all important for an inclusive society, as are protecting the rights of vulnerable people—for example, standing up for the rights of children through the creation of a new children's commissioner, and protecting the rights of the mentally incapacitated in a new structure for decision making that is designed to safeguard health and welfare in a mental incapacity Bill.
  On justice, democracy and rights must work side by side within a framework for social responsibility. The rights of others need respecting and protecting, and the justice system needs to stand up for the victims of crime by acting more swiftly and effectively.
  As we have heard from many Members during the debate, there are nearly 1,000 reports every day of domestic violence throughout the country. Domestic violence accounts for a quarter of all violent crimes reported. Legislation and new investment will aim to protect and support victims of domestic violence more comprehensively.
  We need to target the finite resources that are available for legal aid. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) spoke about this in detail. We need to target resources on those who need the help most of all, to ensure that those who are least able to represent themselves have access to justice while protecting the rights of the taxpayer, who expects value for money. That is the purpose behind the criminal defence service Bill. Legislation is already shifting the balance in the fight against antisocial behaviour, which
  472
  can blight the quality of life for up to a third of the population. We will continue to prosecute rigorously and punish effectively those who are guilty, especially persistent offenders.
  The programme for the Session is ambitious, and the contrast between the extensive programme of reform and modernisation pursued on the Government side of the Chamber and the position that is now taken, as far as we can discern it, by the Opposition is great. Our agenda for the long-term future contrasts starkly with the backward-looking, opportunist agenda that is pursued by the Opposition. Labour will continue to take practical steps forward, with our direction clear. The Conservative party says one thing now, but its position was completely the opposite when it had the chance over 18 years to act. It is deliberately trying to face both ways, but it cannot resist its gut instinct to hark back to the past, complaining about reform and obstructing change every step of the way.
  We want to modernise Parliament so that it is more representative of all society, without the hereditary peers, with our highest court of appeal not being in a Chamber of Parliament and with the second House choosing its own presiding; officer. The Conservatives want to preserve an outdated Parliament. They oppose change and shrink from bringing in reality from the outside world, even to the extent of putting the minimum number of women possible on to their Front Bench.
  David Taylor: My hon. Friend's role in the modernisation of Parliament is to be applauded. Does he agree with many Labour Members that the alteration of sitting hours on Tuesday and Wednesday was a modernisation too far that has been counterproductive?
  Mr. Leslie: No doubt the House will continue to debate at length the issues that it regards as modernising steps forward. However, when it comes to the contrast between the Government side of the Chamber and the Opposition, there is no doubt that we stand on the side of modernisation.
  As for House of Lords reform, in government the Conservatives have reformed precisely nothing. In opposition, they have been happy to have a House of Lords dominated by their own hereditary peers. Let us see the true extent of their new-found radicalism. Any party that is serious about modernisation of the House of Lords would support the abolition of the hereditary peers. Of course, the Conservatives do not. They will not do so because beneath their paper promises hides a stubborn attachment to the halcyon days of the old established order. There are the old faces who do not want any reform and who betray their true intentions in the House of Lords.
  We want a truly independent judiciary, a separate supreme court, no more ministerial judges and judges who are selected independently, in turn better reflecting society as a whole. The Opposition want to have an insular judiciary that is self-appointed with no lay influence, with no appointments commission and with no transparency, headed by a diminished Lord Chancellor in name only. That is a confused and tangled policy. Their complacent attitude of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" shows that they look at the country from an

  473
  established Westminster perspective. If insiders are satisfied, they are happy. Never mind the public—that is their litmus test. We want a full-time Secretary of State who pays full-time attention to the needs of the public and the sound administration of the courts and the criminal justice system. The Opposition want to keep a part-time Lord Chancellor—and the shadow Lord Chancellor is not even a member of the shadow Cabinet—with uncertain powers and competing demands, so the interests of the public cannot possibly be best represented.
  Labour has delivered government closer to the people, devolving power to Scotland, Wales and London, opposed every step of the way by the Opposition. We allowed devolution in Northern Ireland, and are now giving people the choice of regional government in the English regions too. The Conservatives centralised power in Whitehall—that is their instinct. They hate devolution, they still oppose it, and would prevent people from deciding for themselves the next steps for devolved government. Those are the dividing lines between the two parties. The debate on the Address shows that the Government are taking Britain forward, modernising our constitution and changing our institutions to meet the needs of the public today. The only direction in which the Conservatives would take Britain is back to the past. The contrast is stark and the choice is clear. I commend the reforms that we are proposing to the House.
  Madam Deputy Speaker(Sylvia Heal): The Question is, That the debate be now adjourned.
  6.46 pm
  Peter Bottomley: I do not think that the motion, which is debatable, should go through on the nod. The Minister was given plenty of time to give a speech, and would not take interventions. When he mentioned removing the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords from Parliament, I was going to ask him how many members of the Judicial Committee in the Lords believe in what he agreed to. If he withdraws from the Chamber before the debate is finished, I am perfectly happy that he should leave with the Home Secretary. However, it would have been good if he had mentioned two things in his speech. He should have told us, first, what the opinion of the Law Lords was, and he should then have talked about the referendum, which the British people have been denied, on the European constitution.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Clearly, the Minister decided not to give way, and that is entirely at his discretion.
  Peter Bottomley: I withdraw my criticism of the Minister for not giving way, but had he done so, we might not be debating the Adjournment motion now.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the fact that the Minister has sat down and has concluded the debate.
  Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was making a speech on the motion before the House. If I can move from my point of order to my speech, that would be appropriate.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot debate the original motion.
  Peter Bottomley: One reason why I probably shall not be a success in the House is that I thought that I was debating the motion that the House should adjourn—[Interruption.] I think that I am contributing to the debate, but if I need to turn it into a point of order, I shall do so. I should like to emphasise what the Whip was saying. He rose and moved the Adjournment motion.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I proposed the Question that the debate be now adjourned.
  Peter Bottomley: I was opposing that motion, Madam Deputy Speaker, and explaining why it was inappropriate for the Whip to move it and for the House to agree it without debate. Today, Back Benchers' speeches were limited to 10 minutes. The Minister had 35 minutes available to him. A number of Members—[Interruption.] It is all very well for the Minister to start pointing, but he could have allowed the debate to continue. There are many more things that he could have said if he did not repeat himself. We could have used the time more effectively, and we still could if the Whip withdrew the motion so as to allow other Members to take part in the debate.
  Keith Vaz: Some hon. Members were in the Chamber from the start of this debate, listening to the speeches. The hon. Gentleman was not. He has come in at 6.45 and is trying to get in on the debate, but he should have been here at the start, like everyone else.
  Peter Bottomley: As a matter of record, the hon. Gentleman entered the Chamber half an hour after I did this evening. I saw him walk in.
  Mr. Garnier: The normal expectation these days is that debates on the Loyal Address go as far as 7 o'clock. What information the Chair will have had at decision time in accepting the 10-minute rule on speeches is neither here nor there, but there is plenty of time for my hon. Friend, in a debate both on the Loyal Address and the motion put by the Whip just now, to which he is speaking, to make the points that he is properly making. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) has made a poor point in criticising him for entering the current debate late. He was present at the beginning, as he initiated it.
  Peter Bottomley: It is certainly within the rules, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the Whip to propose the motion that you have put to the Chamber, but I think that it is unprecedented in a Queen's Speech debate for a Government Whip, presumably on instructions from more senior Ministers, to put such a motion during the ordinary debate. I do not think that I have seen in "Erskine May" a reference to that having happened. I suggest to the Minister that, when people have been trying to speak or intervene, the Government should announce that they will not do such a thing again. When the Leader of the House answers business questions later this week, I hope that he will say that he is sorry that this happened today and that he will try to

  475
  ensure that it does not happen again. [Interruption.] Another Government Front Bencher is trying to intervene. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) if she wishes to intervene. If not, it is better that we continue the debate on whether the Question should be put. An undesirable precedent has been set, and in terms of the Minister's speech, he would have done rather better to be less flattened by the intervention of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier).
  Mr. Harry BarnesI wonder where the hon. Gentleman was yesterday, when the debate ended an hour early. Why was he not here to speak on that closure and oppose that measure, as far more time was available on that occasion than tonight?
  Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The point that I am making is not that I wanted to speak yesterday, but that the Minister ended his speech early, before time—he is expected to continue to 7 o'clock—and the Whip then moved that the motion be put to the House that we adjourn, so that the debate would end. It would have been better if the Minister had accepted interventions—he did not turn down only my attempts to intervene—and if he had been more forthcoming, especially on the question of where the Law Lords and the court of final appeal should be. I would give way to him now if he could tell us how many Law Lords—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The motion now under discussion is that the debate should be adjourned and not the substance of the earlier debate.
  Peter Bottomley: The reason why the debate should not be adjourned is that the Minister has not answered the questions that should have been answered.
  Anne Picking: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I just wondered whether he would follow the Minister's example and cut his contribution short.
  Peter Bottomley: That is a tempting request, and I shall probably give it good consideration.
  We could have had better value, and we could still gain it from this short debate, which I do not think is likely to extend beyond 7 o'clock, unless I have misread the procedures. In fact, it might be helpful if I could have an indication whether I could speak beyond 7 o'clock, or whether the stumps will be drawn on this debate.
  The crucial points in this debate on the adjournment is whether we will get straight answers from this Minister and others about the important issues of constitutional affairs that have been part of today's debate. I argue that this would be a good time to question whether we should be having a referendum, for example. That is the sort of discussion that could take place if the debate were not ending. If it did not finish during the next three or four minutes, we could say what evidence was given to the Government by the Law Lords on the point that the Minister made about separation. If the Law Lords had given their views in public, the Minister would be able to tell us about them.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: Did not the Joint Committee on Human Rights find that there is a need for a referendum and that that should be followed?
  Peter Bottomley: That point could have been put to the Minister if the debate had continued, which is a good reason for the House not to accept the motion. It might be helpful if the Government indicated whether they want to force a vote on the issue or are too keen to get shot of difficult debates on a referendum on the European constitution and other constitutional matters. I hope that they now regret trying to terminate the debate in such a cavalier way. They should be prepared to listen to argument in this House, where one of the courtesies is that Ministers listen to debate and allow Members to continue for as long as they remain within the procedures of the House.
  For those reasons, and for others that I have not enumerated, it is undesirable for the Government to try to draw stumps when it is clearly the wish of a significant part of the House that the debate should continue until the expected time, which is about three minutes away.
  Debate adjourned.—[Paul Clark.]
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  ESTIMATES
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 145(Liaison Committee),
  That this House agrees with the Report [26th November] of the Liaison Committee.—[Paul Clark.]
  Question agreed to.

  STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGIONAL AFFAIRS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 117(Standing Committee on Regional Affairs),
  That—
  (a)the Matter of the English regions and referendums on elected regional assemblies, being a Mater relating to regional affairs in England, be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs;
  (b)the Committee do meet at a quarter-past Two o'clock on Thursday 11th December at Westminster to consider the Matter referred to it under paragraph (a) above; and the proceedings at the meeting he brought to a conclusion at a quarter-past Five o'clock.—[Paul Clark.]
  Question agreed to.

  WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That—
  (a)the Matter of the Government's Legislative Programme as outlined in the Queen's Speech as it relates to Wales and Public Expenditure in Wales be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration;
  (b)the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Tuesday 16th December at five minutes to Nine o'clock and between Two o'clock and Four o'clock to consider the Matter of the Government's Legislative Programme as outlined in the Queen's Speech as it relates to Wales and Public Expenditure in Wales, under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)).—[Paul Clark.]

  Foreign Language Teaching
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn —[Paul Clark.]
  6.57 pm
  Ms Gisela Stuart: There are many ways in which one can put people into categories. I want to divide the population at large into two categories: polyglots and monoglots. For the information of the House, a monoglot is someone who uses or speaks only one language. I wish to see a severe reduction in the number of monoglots. That is something of a problem for native English speakers, in particular, because they confidently expect that the rest of the world will eventually also speak English, and that it is merely a question of waiting long enough. Of course, there is lots of evidence to support them in their view.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: Das stimmt.
  Ms Stuart: I would lose to respond to the hon. Gentleman's heckling, but as I understand that one is not permitted to speak any language other than English in this Chamber, I shall refrain.
  The question for many native English speakers is why they should bother to learn another language. I should like to suggest several reasons that go beyond the obvious advantage of being able to speak more confidently when abroad on holiday. In the long term, it is safe to assume that eventually English will expand further and further as a lingua franca, but it would be a mistake for native English speakers to assume that it will be the kind of English that we speak now. I found it fascinating, when working on the Convention on the Future of Europe over the past 18 months, to learn that many people from eastern European countries speak extraordinarily confident English without having been near any English-speaking country. However, there is a development of using English words differently from a native English speaker. The classic example of that is the German word for mobile phone—"handy". Germans refer to their "handies" and think it odd when native English speakers ask, "What is a handy?"
  The second reason for learning foreign languages in schools is that pupils will understand their own language much better.
  It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Paul Clark.]
  Ms Stuart: Studying a foreign language can help to deepen the understanding of one's own language. Different languages express different ways of thinking. I shall always remember a meeting that I attended in the Treasury when an official said to me, "It would be helpful if you would not be so terribly German on this occasion."
  Mr. Richard Bacon: The hon. Lady said that different languages express different ways of thinking. I spent two years living in Germany, trying to understand and master German. Can she explain why the Germans have 16 different ways of saying "the"?
  Ms Stuart: Tempted as I am, I do not wish to bore the House into submission by going through the various
  478
  cases, genders and the way in which adjectives are declined. However, there are reasons for that. It comes back to the Treasury officials asking me not to be so German about a matter. I said that I would try but that they would have to explain what they meant. They said that German thinking was like thinking in Lego bricks—putting together an argument by sequential reasoning. Once A is agreed, B logically falls and C cannot be reopened. They said that the British way was to put the whole case on the table and perhaps say, "Well, maybe we shouldn't do this at all", to which the very German response would be, "But we've agreed about 1, 2, 3 and 4, and we cannot therefore go back to the beginning."
  At the same time, some things that can be expressed in English cannot be expressed in almost any other language. I defy anyone to translate T. S. Eliot's "Four Quartets" into another language and preserve its beauty and emotions. It is a case of horses for courses. Some languages lend themselves better to some ways of expressing specific matters. We need to teach our children such appreciation of different ways of reasoning and also—another problem for the English—to teach them grammar. English is not based on rigid rules, and many children grow up with no understanding of grammar and therefore find it difficult to acquire other languages.
  The debate about apostrophe "s" occurs frequently in the media. Whenever we produce newsletters, as I am sure the Minister knows from his office, we check the word "its" and ensure that the use of the apostrophe is appropriate. Few people understand that. In my office, people tend to turn to the assorted foreigners and say, "You'd better proof-read this because you understand the rule." I was fascinated by an exchange about the apostrophe on Radio 4. Someone asked, "What's the point of it?" Another listener wrote in to say, "I'd like people to consider one sentence: 'We ran out of food, so we ate the dogs.''' The presence or absence of an apostrophe in the word "dogs" severely changes the meaning. The apostrophe serves a purpose, and it is essential that we understand it.
  We have a problem with foreign language teaching. I recall meeting a young man who had recently passed his GCSE German with a grade A and subsequently moved to a second school. He said. "It's fascinating how much easier it is once you've worked out the rules." I asked what he meant by rules and discovered that he became familiar with the concept of an irregular verb only in the first year of his A-level studies. It made me curious to know how that child could have got a GCSE grade A without knowing that there were irregular verbs. I hope that the school was so skilful that it simply managed not to reveal what irregular verbs were. However, the child was not aware of the rules.
  That is the second point—the importance of culture—but there is a third, which is very pragmatic, so it should appeal to the British, if nothing else does: if we do not use foreign languages in our business dealings, we lose business. Advantage West Midlands, which is an extremely fine organisation, did a language skills capacity audit in 2001. The west midlands exports about 8 per cent. of the UK's exports, while 60 per cent. of the region's exports go to the European Union. The survey of companies showed that 70 per cent. of those that responded used at least one foreign language in business, while nearly 50 per cent. used two.

  479
  The most used languages, according to the sample, were French, German, Spanish and Italian. The survey also found rising demand for Spanish, but when it asked companies to look back at the past three years to see whether they had encountered any language barriers to their business dealings, 50 per cent. said yes while some 16 per cent. said that they had encountered cultural barriers in their international trading.
  What I found most depressing about the survey was the fact that while 8 per cent. of companies said in 1996 that they had lost business owing to lack of language or cultural skills, that figure had grown to more than 20 per cent. five years later. One in five acknowledged that their lack of language skills lost them business. I understand that the British Chambers of Commerce has spent the past three months conducting a similar survey among its members. Although it is not able to publish the precise findings until next week, one finding—one of the central conclusions—will be clear, which is the importance of language teaching for business. Companies will need to deal with language strategy themselves. I want to return to the Government's responsibilities in terms of providing that pool of skilled people.
  The Government's document "14—19: Opportunity and Excellence" states an extremely laudable aim, which is to have more flexibility and choice in students' programmes. I know that compulsion, by and large, is not the measure that most induces young people to take up a subject, but, with foreign languages having been removed from the core curriculum, I wonder whether it is the right way forward.
  I talked to Lordswood school for girls in my constituency, which still enters every pupil for at least one modern language at GCSE. The language department is extremely successful, and the recent Ofsted report stated that it had very good teachers with many outstanding features. The school is also taking part in the British Airways awards, which show the importance of languages in business, and it will enter some 33 pupils. I congratulate Lordswood, its teachers and its pupils, but I wonder whether we are helping such schools by removing the compulsory element from the curriculum.
  Mr. Wayne David: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is much to be learned from the example in Wales, which shows that young people who are educated from an early age in the English and Welsh languages have a greater aptitude later for learning a third language—a foreign language?
  Ms Stuart: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. All research seems to show that the time to start teaching foreign languages is before children start school—when they are three, four or five. That is when those skills develop, which is why I can see a reason for removing the compulsory element from 14 to 19-year-olds, provided that we do something at an earlier stage. What matters is not at what stage children start learning languages, but that they acquire that skill, which they can build on.
  I want to refer briefly to the National Centre for Languages publication "Language Trends 2003". It says that half of schools remain convinced that languages should remain compulsory. It also says—again, this is worrying—that
  480
  "the policy is having an unintended effect on non GCSE qualifications in languages. Whilst languages were compulsory, some schools were providing alternative vocational or short course options in languages for groups of pupils not likely to attain good GCSE grades. Now the pupils who formerly took those options are allowed to drop the subject altogether there has been a significant decline in these alternative courses."
  It goes on to conclude that
  "at a time when Government policy is to encourage more work related learning, this is a matter of concern."
  The real problem is that we may be in danger of destroying an infrastructure on which we can build. If language learning is compulsory, and the structure exists, we can attach other courses to it.
  Hywel Williams: Does the hon. Lady agree that the answer is not to retreat from the compulsory teaching of languages, but to teach languages in a better way? The Welsh model gives one hope that the same approach might be adopted in England, and that bilingualism and multilingualism might be regarded as more normal, as it were. Such a move would be welcomed by hon. Members of all parties.
  Ms Stuart: I come back to my earlier point, which is that compulsion is not conducive to learning. That is why the drop-out rates are so high in the age group under discussion. I understand that that was part of the Government's motive in removing foreign languages from the core curriculum.
  The challenge is to make sure that students enjoy learning languages, and that depends on how they are taught. However. I have three main concerns. First, removing languages from the core curriculum may result, albeit unintentionally, in fewer young people studying foreign languages. If we do not make young people study foreign languages, we may deprive them of other, more cross-cutting skills.
  Secondly, we will deprive business of the skilled work force that it needs. Finally, I am worried that such a policy will not provide the national capabilities in the higher education sector that the Government say are needed, at a time when the national languages strategy calls for more modern language graduates.
  Will my hon. Friend the Minister say whether the effects of the policy of removing languages from the core curriculum are being monitored? What is the evaluation process? In the light of what he has seen so far, does he still think that the policy was right?
  7.11 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): First, welcome this important debate instigated by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). We had a brief opportunity for a conversation earlier when my hon. Friend asked whether I was a monoglot or a polyglot. I claimed to be the latter, but with the qualification that my French was pretty rusty, and my Spanish even worse.
  I was asked earlier this year to take responsibility for taking forward the modern foreign languages strategy. I recalled my regret at ending my studies in French at 16, and in Spanish at 14. I absolutely concur with what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston

  481
  said about the scale of the challenge that we face to improve our country's record in foreign language teaching.
  I want to describe two visits that I have made in my ministerial capacity this year. In February, I went to the US, where I visited a language immersion school in the southern city of Charlotte. It was a state school, free at the point of use, for primary-age children. Classes were taught entirely in foreign languages—French, German and Japanese. That underlines the point made in the debate that the earlier we address the question of language teaching, and the earlier we give children opportunities to learn another language, the more likely we are to encourage children—and adults—to maintain language learning.
  In May, I had the opportunity to go to Spain. I visited a primary school in Madrid, where part of the teaching was conducted in English. I observed a science class, in which the science curriculum was delivered to Spanish children in English. That school was linked, via the internet, with a school in Liverpool, where large parts of the curriculum are delivered in Spanish.
  Hywel Williams: I invite the Minister to visit my constituency of Caernarfon. He need not go as far as the US or Spain, or even Catalonia or the Basque country. I am now speaking in my second language. When I was six or seven years old—and voluntarily or otherwise—I learned English by a version of the language immersion process. My constituency lies 60 miles to the west of Chester, and it contains plenty of people with a similar experience. I cordially invite the Minister to visit.
  Mr. Twigg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his invitation and, subject to the demands of my diary, I would be delighted to come along and see that for myself. He raises a serious issue: we can learn a great deal from communities in our own country where children often grow up bilingual, or even multilingual. Learning that lesson from Wales is an important part of taking forward the strategy for modern foreign languages in our schools.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston referred to the report on the west midlands languages strategy published by Advantage West Midlands; that was an important contribution to the discussion. The strategy was one of a series of regional approaches that have sought to address the language needs of business and outline a range of initiatives to deal with the situation. That work in the west midlands was conducted in conjunction with CILT—the National Centre for Languages—which has been working closely with networks in the regions to ensure that we align the challenges that we face in education with some of those that we face in the wider world, including the world of business and industry.
  Interestingly, the rising demand for Spanish, to which my hon. Friend referred, fits with the emphasis on Spanish in the national languages strategy. I am pleased to say that, although the numbers taking some other languages at GCSE—including French and German—are declining, for Spanish the trend is in the opposite direction, so it is not all doom and gloom.
  482
  I would like to say a little about our national languages strategy, which was published last December. It sets out an approach to improve our capability in languages. As part of that, we have appointed a national director for languages, and we have a particular focus on primary education, and key stage 2. We estimate that only around one in five children of primary age get the opportunity to learn a foreign language in England, which shows the scale of the challenge that we face.
  The strategy outlines a commitment that by 2010 all pupils in junior schools at key stage 2 will have the opportunity to study a modern foreign language and develop their interest in the culture of other nations. From September of this year, 19 local education authorities across England have been conducting key stage 2 language pathfinders to look at the best ways of improving language learning and consider what kind of support local education authorities, schools and teachers need to do that.
  Absolutely critical to that is delivering and building the primary work force capacity. We simply do not have the capacity at the moment to achieve the objective that all of us involved in the debate want to achieve. As a Department, and together with the local education authorities in the pathfinders, we are working with the Teacher Training Agency, as well as with teachers and other professionals, to build a new cadre of primary language specialists. We want schools to be able to decide how and when they plan for the introduction of language programmes, and how that language learning is best delivered in the classroom. We expect that to be done in a range of ways, suitable to the different circumstances of particular schools in their own community.
  A programme of initial teacher training in primary modern foreign languages is in its third year, and there has been a gradual expansion in the number of places. For example, for French, Spanish and German, there are 460 places this year. We expect to continue to increase the number of places year on year. We have also invested in 50 modern foreign languages places on the graduate teacher programme, and we are funding 119 primary modern foreign language advanced skills teacher posts. We are beginning to build up the capacity for that target date of 2010.
  We recognise in the strategy that simply training more teachers will not be sufficient, so we are also funding opportunities for language undergraduates to support language learning in schools. We are developing training for higher-level teaching assistants, so that those in the community who have language skills can gain additional experience and skills in teaching to support language learning. We are also extending recruitment for the foreign language assistant programme to our primary schools.
  We see our role as that of extending capacity, and creating a framework for the teaching and learning of languages at key stage 2. That framework will need to be flexible and applicable to any language, so that it fits in with our broader primary strategy. We want schools to have much more control over their own curriculums, and a lot more autonomy in terms of the particular choice of language.
  I want to say a little about secondary education, as my hon. Friend understandably focused on the changes that we have made to key stage 4—the 14 to 16 phase of

  483
  education. I am very conscious that those changes are contentious and that concerns exist; indeed, those concerns are raised with me in my frequent visits to secondary schools. I am confident that, in the longer term, the measures that we are putting place in our primary schools—I have outlined them—will make a difference, but I accept that it will take some time for the effect to feed through to our secondary schools. We cannot simply rely on that long-term impact from the primary strategy; we need to continue to focus on secondary education, and I shall briefly address that issue now.
  In key stage 3—the early years of secondary education, from 11 to 14—we want a much stronger emphasis on language teaching. One tool that we possess is the growing network of specialist language colleges: specialist schools that choose to specialise in languages. They have a crucial role to play in supporting primary entitlement, about which I have already spoken. At the moment, 188 specialist language colleges are operational across England, and they are making a difference, but I am aware that some local education authorities do not yet have any such colleges. We have set a target to increase their number to at least 200 within two years. I hope and expect that we can exceed that target, in order to maximise the impact of our work in the primary and secondary sectors. The latest round of applications has just finished, and we will announce further specialist language college designations next January.
  A modern foreign languages programme forms part of the key stage 3 national strategy because, of course, there is still compulsion between 11 and 14. It is critically important that modern foreign language teaching be delivered to 11 to 14-year-olds in an exciting and vibrant way that captures their imagination, making it more likely that, when modern foreign languages become optional at 14, they will choose to carry on studying them. We want to ensure that we have a set of objectives that enable pupils to develop an understanding of the skills and conventions of language learning, and the confidence to use their new language independently. The associated framework and training provide a valuable opportunity for teachers to engage in a professional debate about the issues associated with learning and teaching modern foreign languages. Teachers' evaluations of the core training show that there is a lot of enthusiasm and high motivation in terms of improving practice, and that collaborative planning is becoming more commonplace, and is regarded as very valuable by teachers themselves.
  That brings me to key stage 4—the area of contention about which concerns have been raised. As my hon. Friend rightly said at the beginning of her speech, we are very keen to provide greater choice and flexibility for young people from the age of 14. We are all aware of the issues of disaffection and disruption associated particularly, although not exclusively, with that age group. When I visit secondary schools, and speak to young people in that age group about the curriculum and the subjects that they are studying and ask what their least favourite subject is, I am struck by how often the answer is "French" or "German"—the foreign language that they are learning. Many head teachers tell me that that can have a very demotivating effect—not only on the child who is being made to study a subject that they do not want to study, but on those in the
  484
  classroom who do want to study French or German. The class is perhaps being disrupted by those who do not want to study.
  I believe that we have made the right decision in allowing such choice as part of a broader loosening of the curriculum, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that simply leaving the matter at that would be a fundamental error. That is why we have addressed the primary entitlement, about which I have spoken. That is also why the languages strand of the key stage 3 strategy is so important. It is also why we have addressed the situation for those aged 14-plus, in terms of encouraging language learning, even though it is optional.
  Many schools have opted and will opt to retain compulsory language teaching. At least half of all schools are likely to do so. Clearly, the specialist language colleges that I have mentioned will, by their nature, maintain compulsion, but many other schools will also opt to do so. The danger is that schools in more challenging circumstances, which serve more deprived communities, will be less likely to maintain compulsion. We must ensure that young people and children in those schools get the opportunities that we expect to be available to all young people and children to carry on learning languages through their educational careers.
  My hon. Friend asked me specifically about monitoring. We monitor the situation carefully, although the new arrangements are not yet in place. Schools are making their preparations for changing to the optional arrangements for next year, and we will monitor that very closely. My hon. Friend mentioned post-16 education, and we want to ensure that we have the best possible quality and choice at that stage, because many young people give up studying languages at 16.
  Languages are part of national campaigns to promote adult learning, such as the adult learners week that is run for the Department by the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education. We are promoting a range of ways to achieve language qualifications—for example, at level 2—and we are working closely with local learning and skills councils to ensure that particular needs are met. We encourage further education institutions to work with local schools in support of the strategy, and we need FE institutions to promote the advantages and social, cultural and economic value of taking a further education course in languages.
  My hon. Friend reminded the House that the strategy commits us to increasing the number of higher education students taking modern foreign languages as all or part of their degree. That is an important element of the strategy and we will work with HE institutions on that. We will also encourage HE institutions to work more closely with both primary and secondary schools to support the broader languages strategy.
  As my hon. Friend pointed out, there are sound economic as well as cultural reasons for learning a foreign language. Language graduates and those studying languages alongside their main degree have better job prospects than average. Modern foreign language graduates have lower unemployment rates than those in other subjects, such as engineering and technology, media studies find computing. Businesses tell us that they are losing vital business because their staff lack the language and cultural competence that is so crucial to our economic future.

  485
  The national recognition scheme is at the heart of the language strategy launched last year. We are developing a national voluntary scheme that will complement existing qualification frameworks and give people credit for their language skills. That scheme will form part of the answer to my hon. Friend's challenge about 14 to 16year-olds who do not want to study for a language GCSE but who want to continue with language learning. The scheme will have a number of grades with "can do" statements for each of the four skills of reading, writing, speaking and listening. For example, speaking grade 5 would be achieved if a person
  "can give a short prepared talk, on a topic of my choice, including expressing simple opinions."
  We have identified a preferred contractor to take forward that development and the scheme will be launched nationally in September 2005 in eight
  486
  languages. A year later we will add other languages, including important community languages such as Punjabi, Urdu, Gujarati, Greek and Turkish. That scheme demonstrates that we are serious about our languages strategy and that we recognise some of the dangers that my hon. Friend mentioned.
  With the changes at key stage 4, I am confident that the primary strategy and the new focus on secondary education and beyond will start to reverse the gloomy picture that my hon. Friend painted. In the future, we will ensure that we have the language needs of our young people at heart and we will make progress, both culturally and economically.
  The motion having been made at Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Pre-legislative Scrutiny
  34. Mr. Allen:
  To ask the Leader of the House if he will make it his policy to encourage Select Committees to subject all proposals for Bills to pre-legislative scrutiny on-line. [140764]

  Mr. Woolas:
  It is for individual committees to decide, when conducting pre-legislative scrutiny, whether to make arrangements for on-line scrutiny or e-consultation. I hope that committees will, as a matter of course, consider the opportunities provided by information technology, including on-line fora of the kind used successfully by the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Bill in 2002.

  Visitors' Facilities
  35. Peter Bradley:
  To ask the Leader of the House what representations he has received on new facilities for visitors in the House. [140765]

  Mr. Hain:
  I am strongly in favour of making the Commons more welcoming for voters. I can report that the House of Commons Commission has asked the Administration and Accommodation and Works Committees to examine what improvements can be made and to report by Easter.

  Sitting Hours
  36. Chris Bryant:
  To ask the Leader of the House what assessment he has made of the impact of the new sitting hours of the House. [140766]

  Mr. Woolas:
  In October last year, a majority of Members voted to alter the sitting hours so that the House now sits from 11.30 am on Tuesday and Wednesday. The Standing Orders were changed for the rest of this Parliament, which will allow us a sufficient period to make a considered judgment on the effect of the changes.

  My right hon. Friend is aware that some Members have difficulty with the new hours, but that there is strong opinion on both sides.

  Clergy Terms of Service Review
  Mr. Ben Chapman:
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners if he will press the Commissioners to take steps to accelerate the timetable for the McClean review of clergy terms of service to deliver its final report. [140553]
  16W
  Mr. Bell:
  The Church Commissioners support the view of the McClean review group that this important and complex work cannot, and should not, be rushed.

  Good progress has been made. The review has completed the first phase of its work (considering clergy without security of tenure) according to the timetable in its terms of reference. It will report to the Archbishops' Council on 9 December and it is hoped that there will be a debate by the General Synod in February, followed by a period of consultation with dioceses and clergy.

  It is hoped that the second phase of the group's work (addressing the position of clergy with the freehold and any follow-up from the first phase) will be completed by the end of 2004.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Cory Report
  Mr. Hancock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish the Cory report.[140906]

  Mr. Paul Murphy:
  The Government are committed to publishing Justice Cory's reports as soon as possible, in line with the judge's terms of reference. These made it clear that any issues involving national security, the criminal process or the safety of individuals, would need to be considered carefully first.

  NHS Budget
  Lady Hermon:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of the NHS budget for Northern Ireland in each year since 1997 was spent on private treatment; what plans he has to facilitate retrospective payment for treatment carried out privately; and if he will make a statement.[140810]

  Angela Smith:
  Information about the proportion of the health budget in Northern Ireland relating to private treatment is not available.

  As regards retrospective payment for treatment carried out privately, an agreement with the relevant area Health and Social Services Board for the cost to be met must be made prior to treatment commencing. To be eligible, the patient must meet certain criteria, namely that the treatment required is not available in Northern Ireland and that the patient's consultant recommends treatment elsewhere.

  Mr. Demetrious Panton
  Mr. Grieve:
  To ask the Solicitor-General what costs were incurred by the Government Legal Service in advising the Minister for Children in respect of the allegations of libel brought against her by Mr. Demetrious Panton; and who will pay the costs. [140961]

  The Solicitor-General:
  No such costs were incurred.
  17W

  Voluntary Service Overseas
  Mr. Bercow:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many people from the United Kingdom have taken part in Voluntary Service Overseas in each of the last 10 years. [140874]

  Canada

  Netherlands

  Portugal

  Kenya and Philippines

  UK

  Total departures

  1993–94

  711

  711

  1994–95

  746

  746

  1995–96

  31

  51

  1

  697

  780

  1996–97

  56

  64

  2

  717

  839

  1997–98

  67

  56

  2

  587

  712

  1998–99

  68

  77

  2

  714

  861

  1999–2000

  58

  74

  3

  745

  880

  2000–01

  94

  85

  0

  32

  715

  926

  2001–02

  94

  85

  0

  32

  715

  926

  2001–02

  82

  78

  0

  67

  629

  856

  2002–03

  69

  81

  78

  376

  604

  Total

  525

  566

  10

  177

  6,637

  7,915

  2003–04 Est.

  77

  95

  0

  130

  473

  775

  Zimbabwe
  Ms Keeble:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the outbreak of cholera in Binga, Zimbabwe. [140467]

  Hilary Benn:
  A cholera outbreak has been reported in the two northern districts of Kariba (in Mashonaland West province) and Binga (in Matabeleland North province). A total of 173 cases and 26 deaths have so far been reported. WHO have commented that this fatality rate of approximately 15 per cent. is alarmingly high, probably due to the declining capacity of the Zimbabwean Ministry of Health to respond, and the growing food shortages. Latest reports indicate that the situation is under control in Binga, where no new infections are being recorded, but appears to be spreading in Kariba district.

  Save the Children (UK) are using emergency response resources provided by DFID to address the situation in collaboration with the Ministry of Health and Child Welfare, UNICEF, WHO, Médicine Sans Frontières (Spain) and several other NGOs. The aim is to ensure that the disease does not spread further and that those communities at risk are assisted with soap and other hygiene items, as well as water purification tablets and ORS supplies to treat diarrhoea.

  Cholera outbreaks are becoming more frequent in the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe. Save the Children (UK) are planning to use the lessons learnt during their response to this outbreak in order to conduct rapid response training for other relevant organisations involved in humanitarian operations in Zimbabwe.

  Electoral Systems
  7. Miss Begg:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the different electoral systems in Scotland. [140749]
  18W
  Mr. Gareth Thomas:
  During the past decade, Voluntary Service Overseas has filled 7,915 volunteer placements; 6,637 of these were recruited in the UK. The following table gives a breakdown for each year and the place of recruitment of the other 1,278 volunteers. The figures for 2003–04 are estimates because there are still placements to be filled.

  Mr. Darling:
  There are currently three voting systems used in Scotland. Elections to the UK Parliament and local councils use the first past the post system. Elections to the European Parliament use the list system of Proportional Representation while the elections to the Scottish Parliament use the additional member system of Proportional Representation.

  Highlands and Islands
  8. Mr. Alan Reid:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has held with (a) ministerial colleagues and (b) the European Commission on figures published by the Office of National Statistics for the gross domestic product of the Highlands and Islands. [140750]

  Mrs. McGuire:
  No such discussions have taken place. But it is worth clarifying once and for all the situation regarding the Office for National Statistics figures and European Structural Funds. There has been no error made by the Office for National Statistics. Eligibility was based on the best information available at the time and the European Commission confirmed in November 2002 that retrospective eligibility for Objective 1 support was not possible.

  Glasgow Financial District
  9. Ann McKechin:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions his Department has had on the launch of the Glasgow Financial District. [140751]

  Mr. Darling:
  I am aware that the Glasgow International Financial Services District had its UK launch at the London Stock Exchange recently.

  The Scotland Office will continue to work with the Scottish Executive to support this far-sighted initiative.

  Scotland Act
  10. Pete Wishart:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what plans the Government has to amend the Scotland Act 1998. [140752]
  19W
  Mr. Darling:
  The Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill will amend the Scotland Act by breaking the link between the number of MSPs and the number of MPs from Scottish constituencies. The proposal to transfer to the Supreme Court the function of hearing devolution disputes currently held by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council would also require an amendment to the Scotland Act.

  There are no other plans for substantive amendments to the Scotland Act in primary legislation.

  Scottish Economy
  11. Mr. Salmond:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he last met the chairman of Scottish Enterprise to discuss trends in the Scottish economy. [140753]

  Mr. Darling:
  Scottish Enterprise is formally responsible to Scottish Executive ministers, though I and my predecessors have had continuing contact in a variety of different contexts with the Chairman and past chairmen of Scottish Enterprise since devolution.

  Scottish Regiments
  13. Annabelle Ewing:
  To ask the Scretary of State for Scotland, what recent representations he has received from the First Minister about the future of the Scottish regiments. [140755]

  Mrs. McGuire:
  My right hon. Friend and the First Minister discuss a wide range of matters. They met most recently on 1 December.

  Ravenscraig
  13. Mr. Roy:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he next intends to discuss the regeneration plans for the Ravenscraig site with the First Minister. [140756]

  Mrs. McGuire:
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with the First Minister on a wide range of issues, including economic regeneration.

  I am delighted that the Scottish Executive have approved plans for the redevelopment of the Ravenscraig site and I am sure that the project will bring long term benefits across Lanarkshire and the West of Scotland.

  Pension Credit
  13. Mr. Ross:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he will make a statement on the take-up of (a) pension credit and (b) minimum income guarantee in Scotland. [140757]

  Mrs. McGuire:
  Minimum income guarantee was replaced by pension credit on 6 October 2003. The Pension Service are writing to all pensioner households to give them information and to invite them to apply. Those who apply within the first 12 months will have their awards backdated to the first date of entitlement.

  Two hundred and two thousand pensioner households in Scotland are already receiving pension credit.
  20W
  John Barrett:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, how many pensioners in Scotland are in receipt of the pension credit. [140754]

  Mrs. McGuire:
  As at the end of October, 202,000 pensioner households in Scotland were already receiving pension credit.

  Scottish Parliament (Elections)
  Sir Robert Smith:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the proposed bill to retain the current number of Members in the Scottish Parliament will be drafted to allow consideration of the method of election used for the Scottish Parliament. [140737]

  Mrs. McGuire:
  The scope of the bill, which was introduced on 27 November, is a matter for the House Authorities. However, as the bill deals only with the determination of the number of constituencies and regions of the Scottish Parliament, the number of regional members per region and the arrangements for reviewing the boundaries of constituencies and regions, my understanding is that consideration of the method of election to the Scottish Parliament will be outside its scope.

  Voting Systems
  John Barrett:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans the Government has to change the voting system for elections to the Scottish Parliament. [140729]

  Mrs. McGuire:
  There are no plans to change the voting system for elections to the Scottish Parliament.

  Burma
  Vera Baird:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the value of imports into the United Kingdom from Burma was in each of the past five years. [141635]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien:
  The value of UK imports of goods from Burma was as follows:

  £million

  1998

  17.3

  1999

  23.8

  2000

  49.3

  2001

  66.6

  2002

  64.3

  January-September 2003

  44.2

  Source:

  Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom, HM Customs and Excise.

  Vera Baird:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the current value is of the United Kingdom investment in Burma. [141637]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien:
  According to statistics compiled by the Office for National Statistics, at the end of 2001 foreign direct investment by UK companies in Burma was worth less than £0.5 million.
  21W

  Business Start-ups
  Simon Hughes:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the start-up rate was for small businesses in (a) each London borough, (b) London and (c) England in each year since 1997. [140854]

  Nigel Griffiths:
  Value added tax (VAT) registrations and de-registrations are the best official guide to the pattern of start-ups and closures. These cover businesses of all sizes.

  The rates of businesses registering for VAT in each calendar year from 1997 to 2002 in each London borough, London, and England, are as follows:

  Number of VAT Registrations per 10,000 Resident Adults1

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  England

  43

  43

  41

  42

  39

  39

  London

  68

  71

  68

  67

  59

  57

  Barking and Dagenham

  25

  25

  30

  31

  29

  26

  Barnet

  94

  91

  76

  76

  60

  59

  Bexley

  39

  35

  34

  35

  36

  31

  Brent

  61

  61

  59

  59

  52

  47

  Bromley

  45

  48

  39

  41

  41

  40

  Camden

  159

  158

  150

  142

  112

  110

  City of London

  2,212

  2,228

  2,200

  2,345

  1,653

  1,428

  Croydon

  41

  42

  39

  39

  37

  38

  Ealing

  56

  56

  52

  53

  49

  48

  Enfield

  40

  42

  40

  42

  37

  39

  Greenwich

  35

  35

  33

  33

  30

  29

  Hackney

  72

  83

  78

  81

  65

  63

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  77

  96

  84

  94

  85

  75

  Haringey

  57

  59

  59

  58

  51

  46

  Harrow

  58

  64

  55

  57

  54

  55

  Havering

  40

  41

  36

  36

  36

  34

  Hillingdon

  48

  49

  44

  46

  39

  43

  Hounslow

  50

  52

  50

  49

  51

  47

  Islington

  118

  126

  109

  97

  84

  82

  Kensington and Chelsea

  98

  102

  106

  105

  74

  78

  Kingston upon Thames

  60

  63

  55

  53

  48

  46

  Lambeth

  43

  45

  44

  43

  40

  42

  Lewisham

  34

  36

  34

  33

  32

  28

  Merton

  52

  56

  50

  52

  44

  39

  Newham

  33

  37

  35

  34

  31

  29

  Redbridge

  45

  50

  46

  46

  40

  38

  Richmond upon Thames

  72

  75

  70

  72

  65

  71

  Southwark

  57

  59

  55

  59

  55

  48

  Sutton

  43

  44

  39

  36

  36

  Tower Hamlets

  73

  79

  78

  75

  65

  62

  Waltham Forest

  39

  42

  41

  39

  36

  37

  Wandsworth

  57

  60

  61

  56

  53

  52

  Westminster

  329

  364

  390

  360

  304

  288

  1Mid-year resident adult (16 and over) population estimates

  Source:

  Business Start-ups and Closures: VAT Registrations and De-registrations 1994–2002 from the Small Business Service; population data from The Office for National Statistics

  For further information on the VAT statistics please see: www.sbs.gov.uk/statistics/vatstats.php

  Competitiveness Council
  Mr. Jim Marshall:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the outcome was of the Competitiveness Council on 27 November; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [141490]

  Jacqui Smith:
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I represented the UK at the Competitiveness Council on 26–27 November 2003.
  22W
  Member States agreed to support France as the EU's candidate for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). It was also agreed that the legal entity for the project would be incorporated in Spain with an office in a city near the French border, and Spain would have one of the two EU directors.

  Commissioner Busquin introduced the White Paper on Space emphasising the three main axes: citizens needs, exemplified by satellite projects such as Galileo and Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES); consolidating Europe's space Science and Technology expertise important for growth; and a framework for better use of existing resources.

  The Presidency emphasised the importance of the latest approach on the Growth Initiative. R&D projects were included for the first time, and innovative financing instruments would be used, combining FP6, PPPs and EIB funding.

  The Commission introduced its new Communication on an Integrated Competitiveness Strategy. Amongst other things it outlines ways to facilitate the work of the Competitiveness Council, and emphasises the three elements of rigorous analysis of challenges; better regulation; and innovation and entrepreneurship.

  We welcomed this strategy and the other Reports and Scoreboards presented at the Council. These help us understand the scale of the task we face in delivering economic reform in the EU. The Council adopted wide-ranging conclusions on competitiveness based on these.

  Unanimous agreement was reached on the adoption of the proposed review of the Mergers Regulation. The new Regulation introduces some flexibility into the investigation timeframes although their predictability is unaffected, reinforces the "one-stop shop" concept so that it benefits firms, and clarifies that the substantive test contained in the regulation covers all types of harmful scenarios, whether dominance by a single firm or effects stemming from a situation of oligopoly that might harm the interests of European consumers.

  Ministers at the Council also reached an agreement on the Takeovers Directive. The agreement makes key articles optional for Member States. It allows them to decide either to impose the defensive measures allowed for in articles 9 and/or 11 on all their listed companies or, if they did not do so, allow companies to voluntarily "opt-in" to the provisions of those articles). Companies will be required to disclose their status as opted-in or out.

  Discussion on the final outstanding points on the Regulation to establish a Community Patent continued on and off throughout the Council. Discussion hinged on the issues of languages, in particular, the legal effect of translations on a patent claim and the length of time allowed to file such translations. On the issue of legal effect, the Council managed to find compromise wording. Agreement, however, was not reached on the deadline for filing translations.

  A UK compromise text was adopted on the Fifth Motor Insurance Directive, which improves insurance cover for pedestrians and cyclists throughout the EU, while respecting national liability and compensation law.
  23W
  Agreement was also reached on a revision to the Community Trademark.

  Growth Capital
  Brian Cotter:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the results of the joint HM Treasury and Small Business Service Consultation aimed at improving access to growth capital for small businesses will be published. [141601]

  Nigel Griffiths:
  Over 150 written responses were received on 'Bridging the finance gap: a consultation on improving access to growth capital for small businesses' from a wide range of interested parties. The Government are considering these responses, and the outcome of the consultation will be published before the Christmas recess.

  Jewellery Sector
  Mr. Bellingham:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when and on what basis her Department commissioned research from consultants Gorham and Partners Ltd. underlying her Department's 2001 report into the competitiveness of the UK jewellery sector; and if she will break down the cost of the research between her Department and each of the contributors. [140527]

  Jacqui Smith:
  The Competitiveness Analysis of the UK Jewellery Sector was commissioned in Feburary 2000 following consultation with industry representatives to provide an in-depth analysis of the sector's competitive position.

  Following publication of the Competitiveness Analysis the Industry formed the National Jewellery Steering Group, which continues to meet to take forward the issues identified in the CA.

  The Analysis cost £93,000 of which the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths contributed £30,000 and the DTI £63,000.

  Online for Business Website
  Brian Cotter:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many individuals are registered to use the UK Online for Business website. [141603]

  Nigel Griffiths:
  As of October 2003 UK Online for Business website has 28,533 registered users.

  Telecommunications Council
  Mr. Hood:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the outcome was of the Telecommunications Council held on 20 November 2003; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [141075]

  Mr. Timms:
  The Deputy UK Permanent Representative to the European Union, Anne Lambert, attended the Council on 20 November 2003 on my behalf.

  There was a round-table debate on the state of the Telecoms sector, in particular, member states' implementation of the Telecoms Regulatory Package, and on 3rd generation mobile and broadband
  24W
  penetration and availability. France (Fontaine) reported on a joint Franco-British ministerial round table with industry leaders, which had proved fruitful in identifying the key success factors for broadband: viable business models throughout the value chain; regulatory stability and predictability; interoperability between platforms; user confidence through a more secure internet; and proper returns for intellectual property. Emphasising that she was also speaking on my behalf, Fontaine proposed that a similar event involving business leaders from across the value chain should be held at EU level in order to help promote the most effective conditions for broadband. Other member states, including the forthcoming Irish Presidency, expressed strong interest in carrying the initiative forward. Presidency concluded that a report of the debate would be submitted to the 12 December European Council. There was also a brief discussion of preparations for the World Summit on the Information Society to be held in Geneva in December.

  The Presidency noted that agreement had been reached between the Council and the European Parliament at its first reading on a General Agreement on the structure and tasks of a Regulation establishing a new European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA). The Government supported this proposal but noted that they would have to abstain when it is formally adopted on the grounds that the legal base proposed—Article 95—is inappropriate for this body.

  Council Conclusions on: the transition of analogue to digital broadcasting; digital TV and 3rd generation mobile endorsing the Commission's plans for consultation and follow-up action; and calling on member states and the Commission to work towards removing remaining barriers to E-Government services were adopted without substantial debate.

  Trade Deficit (EU)
  Mr. Bellingham:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on (a) the latest goods trade deficit with the European Union and (b) how this figure compares with previous figures. [140523]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien:
  According to figures published by the Office for National Statistics, the UK goods trade deficit with the European Union was worth £2.2 billion in September 2003. The deficit in the latest three-month period was £5.7 billion compared to £5.4 billion in the previous quarter, and £5.5 billion in the three-month period ended September 2002. The latest three-month deficit represents 10.0 per cent. of the total trade with the European Union. This compares with 9.4 per cent. in the previous quarter and 9.1 per cent. in the same quarter a year earlier.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will reply to the letter to him dated 20 October 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mr. Barry Johnson. [140779]
  25W
  Mr. Darling:
  My Department has no record of receiving a letter dated 20 October 2003 from the right hon. Member. However, to enable me to respond, my private secretary has requested a copy of the correspondence.

  Low-cost Airlines
  Mr. Bellingham:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the European Commission regarding airport and business subsidies to low cost airlines; and if he will make a statement. [140522]

  Mr. McNulty:
  The Government have had no discussions with the European Commission on this issue.

  Rail Safety
  Harry Cohen:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the implications for safety of the procedure of turning a rail track; whether the turning of a curved rail track has been assessed as having a safety implication; and if he will make a statement. [141179]

  Mr. McNulty:
  This is an operational matter for Network Rail and as with all safety issues, the Health and Safety Executive. I am however assured by Network Rail that turning or 'transposing' of rail is carefully controlled to ensure that only rail with sufficient head width is transposed. In such cases rail standards with clearly defined limits for permissible side wear exist.

  Harry Cohen:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what inspection methods are in place to discover (a) corrosion pitting and (b) possible problems at the foot and web of a rail track; what plans he has to improve inspection methods relevant to these conditions; and if he will make a statement. [141180]

  Mr. McNulty:
  This is an operational matter for Network Rail who inform me that a number of new techniques are currently under trial or development to improve the detection of rail depth, corrosion pitting and gall over sleepers.

  Ultrasonic Testing vehicles are now routinely monitoring rail depth for most major routes and guided ultrasonic equipment is currently being trailed which carries out inspection of the whole cross section of the rail from a fixed point using low frequency longitudinal ultrasonic waves. This should enable significant changes in section in the head, web or foot of the rail to be detected whether due to cracking or loss of section due to corrosion.

  Coated rail products are also being used successfully in the network where local environments are harsh. This provides a barrier coating to the head and foot of the rail preventing corrosion or damage.

  Tuition Fees
  Andy King:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which university vice-chancellors
  26W
  or other heads of higher education institutions have expressed to him (a) support for and (b) opposition to differential tuition fees. [140453]

  Alan Johnson:
  Both my right hon. Friend and I have received numerous representations from universities on a number of matters related to the funding of higher education, both by means of formal correspondence and in meetings with Vice Chancellors and others from the higher education sector. The majority have expressed support for variable fees. UUK which is the representative body for Universities also supports variable fees.

  Legal Aid
  24. Mr. Chaytor:
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of legal aid. [140733]

  Mr. Leslie:
  The Government remains firmly committed to the principles of legal aid—both criminal and civil—as a means of protecting fundamental rights and tackling social exclusion.

  We must make sure that our services are tightly focused on the needs of the public.

  We also have to live within our financial allocation—now almost £2 billion—with demand increasing more quickly than inflation. If we do not bear down on this problem it will limit the money available for tackling social exclusion.

  Miners' Compensation
  26. Mr. Illsley:
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will discuss with the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors complaints about success fees taken by solicitors in mining disease cases in Barnsley; and if he will make a statement; [140735]

  27. Mr. Allen:
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if the Secretary of State will establish an inquiry into the operation of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors in monitoring complaints about the level of fees levied by solicitors acting for people making claims for mining-related diseases; and if he will make a statement.[140736]

  Mr. Leslie:
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer), Official Report, column 366.

  29. Jon Trickett:
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs when he next plans to visit the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors to discuss complaints about the level of fees levied on widows by solicitors acting for them in mining disease claims. [140739]

  Mr. Leslie:
  Arrangements are being made for my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) to visit the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors in the new year.
  27W

  Courthouses
  30. Bob Russell:
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many courthouses have been constructed by means of a private finance initiative since 1997. [140741]

  Mr. Leslie:
  There have been six magistrates courts constructed by means of public-private partnerships since 1997.

  Hull

  Beverly

  Bridlington

  Hereford

  Worcester

  Kidderminster.

  A further three magistrates courthouses are currently being constructed by means of the PPP. These are:

  City of Manchester

  Derby

  Chesterfield.

  Judicial Appointments
  31. Keith Vaz:
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many representations he has received in response to his consultation paper on judicial appointments. [140742]

  Mr. Leslie:
  Consultation formally closed on 7 November. At 27 November, 270 responses had been received. We now are in the process of analysing responses.

  Bovine TB
  Sir Michael Spicer:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what effect her decision to remove the reactive culling of badgers from the research programme on the interaction between TB in badgers and TB in cattle will have on the report date. [140459]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 1 December 2003]: None. The proactive element the trial will continue to its conclusion in 2006, after which the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB will report the full results.

  Fisheries
  Andrew George:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Strategy Unit will publish its report into the future of the UK fishing industry. [140844]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  I understand that the Strategy Unit is now expecting to publish its report early next year.

  GM Crops
  Andrew George:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice her Department will offer to the forthcoming EU Regulatory Committee on the application for the sale of Bt 11 GM corn. [140716]
  28W
  Mr. Morley:
  Bt 11 GM maize is already available for sale in the EU, including the UK, under a consent granted by the UK in 1998. The scope of this consent was limited to import of grain and processing for animal feed and other non-food uses.

  The company that owns Bt 11 GM maize has made a further application for consent for commercial cultivation in the EU and this is currently being considered under EU Directive 2001/18. No date has yet been set for collective EU discussion and decision making on this application in the relevant EU regulatory committee. If such a date is set in the future, my Department will lead in developing a UK line, taking due account of scientific evidence.

  An application for use of Bt 11 GM maize in food is also being considered under EC Novel Foods Regulation 258/97. The Food Standards Agency is the UK competent authority and will represent the UK Government at the EC Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health meeting on 8 December 2003 when the application is due to be discussed.

  Andrew George:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she expects to make a decision with her European counterparts, on whether the EU will grant a licence for the commercial planting of GM crops; [140847]

  (2) what time scale she has set for the determination of applications for licences to grow GM crops in the United Kingdom. [140851]

  Mr. Morley:
  Decisions on applications to release particular GM crops for commercial cultivation in the EU—including the UK—are subject to collective EU agreement under the procedures and timetable set down in EC Directive 2001/18. Decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, whereby each proposed GM product is judged on its own merits according to scientific evidence.

  EU-wide licenses for three types of GM maize were granted in 1997–98. None can yet be grown commercially in the UK because no varieties of these three types of GM maize have been added to either the UK national list of seeds or the EU Common Catalogue. One variety, ChardonLL, of the GM maize T25, is awaiting a decision in the UK but this is not expected before the new year.

  There are currently 12 pending applications for approval under the directive for commercial cultivation of particular GM crops. Ten are still at the first stage of assessment by the lead member state. The other two have been forwarded by the lead member state with a favourable opinion and are currently being considered by all member states. It is not possible to say precisely when decisions will be taken, but we do not expect any final decisions on current applications before mid-2004.

  Alan Simpson:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the countries where Liberty Link GM maize is commercially grown. [140771]

  Mr. Morley:
  This Department does not keep records of countries where Liberty Link GM maize is commercially grown.
  29W

  "Financial Support and Young People"
  Charles Hendry:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to publish the findings of his survey, "Financial Support and Young People"; and in what format. [140661]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  The Chancellor announced a review of financial support for 16 to 19-year-olds in this year's Budget. The Government are committed to consult young people and parents as part of the review. As one strand of this consultation, HM Treasury commissioned the National Children's Bureau to survey young people with a questionnaire "Financial Support and Young People". The results of the survey will inform the review which will report in spring 2004 and feed into the 2004 Spending Review.

  Alternative Investment Market
  Dr. Cable:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations his Department has received from the European Commission on the Alternative Investment Market becoming an unregulated market; and if he will make a statement; [141715]

  (2) what his policy is on an Alternative Investment Market which is unregulated; and if he will make a statement; [141716]

  (3) what research his Department has undertaken on how an unregulated Alternative Investment Market would affect (a) companies and (b) investors; and if he will make a statement; [141717]

  (4) what discussions his Department has had with the (a) London Stock Exchange and (b) Financial Services Authority on the Alternative Investment Market becoming an unregulated market; and if he will make a statement. [141718]

  Ruth Kelly:
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on 4 November 2003, Official Report, columns 618–19W.

  Children's Clothes (VAT)
  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) above what size children's clothes are subject to VAT; [141096]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the proportion of children's school uniforms liable for VAT (a) now and (b) in 1997; [141097]

  (3) how much revenue was raised from VAT on children's clothes in the last year for which figures are available. [141165]

  John Healey:
  A zero rate of VAT applies to young children's clothing and footwear provided they conform with the size limits detailed in the Customs and Excise Public Notice 714 and are marketed exclusively for children under the age of 14.
  30W
  In Budget 2001, the scope of the zero rate was simplified and modernized to reflect more accurately the change in size of the average 13-year-old. The cost of these changes to the Exchequer was estimated at £20 million per annum.

  No estimate has been made of revenue raised from clothing bought for children which does not meet the zero rate criteria, or of the proportion of school uniforms that bear VAT.

  Contractors
  Mr. Cousins:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what pension arrangements he requires for employees of contractors offering outsourcing services to (a) his Department and (b) its agencies; whether he distinguishes between transferred employees and those directly recruited by the contractor; and whether any of these employees can join the Civil Service Pension scheme. [141157]

  Ruth Kelly:
  The Treasury does not seek to establish the pension arrangements their contractors have with their staff. However, where it is deemed that the Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment (TUPE) regulations apply, there is a need for the contractor to provide an analogous pension scheme for staff transferred to them as a result of winning the contract.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Frank Field:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letter of 17 July from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in respect of a constituent, Mr. Peter Clark of Cleveland Street, Birkenhead. [141308]

  Ruth Kelly:
  I am sorry for the delay in sending a substantive reply to my right hon. Friend's letter of 17 July to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I can confirm that a reply has now been sent as follows:

  Letter from Ruth Kelly to Mr. Frank Field dated 2 December 2003:

  Further to my letter of 4 September, I am sorry not to have replied more quickly to your letter to Paul Boateng of 17 July on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Peter Clark of Mclvers, Cleveland Street, Birkenhead.

  You note that Mclvers are liable to pay asbestosis claims as a result of the insolvency of Chester Street Insurance Holding Ltd., and that they will not receive support from the FSCS.

  The government has worked hard with the insurance industry to end the uncertainty for victims of asbestosis, and their families, whose former employers had insured with Chester Street. Those arrangements were set out in Andrew Smith's statement on 10 May 2001.

  For employers, under their rules the Financial Services Compensation Scheme may be able to offer compensation for employers' liability insurance claims incurred after 31 December 1971, when insurance became compulsory. But there is no eligibility for compensation to employers before that date. If a firm is still trading and has sufficient financial resources to satisfy a claim, the firm will be expected to meet the claim itself. I understand, from the FSCS, that there is no flexibility on this point. The FSCS rules are governed by the Policyholders Protection Act 1975.

  I hope Mr. Clark will find this helpful.
  31W
  Mr. Webb:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Northavon to the Paymaster General of 3 October, regarding child tax credit compensation payments. [141543]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  I have already done so.

  Mr. Kaufman:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 27 October from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Ms N. Oakes. [141585]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  I have done so.

  Debt (Late Payments)
  Brian Cotter:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claims for statutory interest payments have been submitted to private companies under the terms of the Late Payment of Debt Act 1998; how many claims were met; and what the total value was of such payments in each year since the Act has been in operation. [141594]

  Ruth Kelly:
  The Treasury has not made any claims to private companies for statutory interest payments under the 1998 Act.

  Dependent Children
  Mr. Webb:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of families with (a) one, (b) two, (c) three and (d) four or more dependent children in (i) 1973, (ii) 1983, (iii) 1993 and (iv) the latest year for which figures are available. [141497]

  Ruth Kelly:
  This matter falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 2 December 2003:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking for estimates of the number of families with (a) one, (b) two, (c) three and (d) four or more dependent children in (i) 1973, (ii) 1983, (hi) 1993 and (iv) the latest year for which figures are available. I am replying in his absence. (141497)

  Published volumes from the Censuses of 1971, 1981, 1991 and 2001 contain information on dependent children, and are the closest years to the periods you requested for which information is available. The information is derived from a 100 per cent count for 2001. For the 1971,1981 and 1991 Censuses, responses to some questions which needed detailed coding and were, therefore, expensive to process were processed for only a 10% sample of forms. The samples were drawn randomly. Guidance given to users for 1971 and 1981 was to gross up the figures to 100% by multiplying the sample figures by 10. In 1991 guidance was different in that users were advised to estimate 100% figures by multiplying the sample count by a sampling factor, slightly over 10 to take account of the numbers of households imputed in the 100% figures but which were not included in the 10% sample. This grossing factor varied from area to area. For households in England and Wales it was 10.2.

  It should also be noted that the definition of a dependent child has varied over censuses.
  32W

  2001 Census

  England and Wales

  Number

  Families with one dependent child

  2,715,241

  Families with two dependent children

  2,530,569

  Families with three or more dependent children

  1,130,891

  Source:

  Table S007 Census 2001 National Report for England and Wales

  1991 Census

  England and Wales

  Number

  Families with one dependent child

  2,542,554

  Families with two dependent children

  2,437,045

  Families with three or more dependent children

  1,034,158

  Source:

  1991 Table 13 Census Household and Family Composition

  1981 Census

  England and Wales

  Number

  Families with one dependent child

  2,560,060

  Families with two dependent children

  2,677,460

  Families with three dependent children

  852,720

  Families with four or more dependent children

  283,830

  Source:

  Table 23 Census 1981 Household and Family Composition

  1971 Census

  England and Wales

  Number

  Families with one dependent child

  2,513,080

  Families with two dependent children

  2,328,370

  Families with three dependent children

  983,210

  Families with four dependent children

  356,500

  Families with five or more dependent children

  184,270

  Source:

  Table 35 Census 1971 Household Composition Tables Part III

  Domestic Wine Production
  Dr. Murrison:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of fiscal measures to (a) stimulate and (b) support the domestic production of wine. [141065]

  John Healey:
  The Government are mindful of the concerns and interests of UK wine producers. The UK wine industry has benefited from duty freezes in three out of the last six Budgets and increases only in line with inflation in the remainder of these.

  We have not looked at fiscal measures for all UK wine producers but we have looked at the possibility of fiscal measures that would help small UK wineries to survive and grow. However, the European Directive on the structure of alcohol duties does provides for reduced rates targeted at small breweries which we have implemented in the UK, it does not provide for reduced rates targeted at small wineries.

  Even if the UK were to press for the introduction of such a scheme, it is important to appreciate that less than 1 per cent, of the wine consumed in the UK is domestically produced. Under our European and world trade agreements we could not apply such a scheme to UK wine producers only and it is therefore likely that much of the wine that would qualify would come from overseas producers, with our own small wineries receiving comparatively very little of the benefit.
  33W

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Cousins:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the reasons were for voting against the first reading common position of the ECOFIN Council or the Investment Services Directive; and what his key objectives are for a compromise agreement. [141200]

  Ruth Kelly:
  On 7 October, ECOFIN Council reached political agreement on a Common Position on the proposed Investment Services Directive, by qualified majority. The UK, Ireland, Luxembourg, Sweden and Finland voted against the text put forward by the Presidency.

  The Government voted against the text proposed at ECOFIN because it contained unsatisfactory elements that the Government believed meant that it would fall short of its objective of promoting an efficient, effective and dynamic single market in investment services.

  The Government was particularly disappointed by the outcome on the pre-trade transparency regime for investment firms that systematically internalise client orders. It believes that the regime proposed would be a step backward for some share-trading markets in the EU, including the UK, and would be a missed opportunity to increase competition and efficiency in many markets in the EU.

  The Government will continue to press for changes to the Directive, especially through the second reading process in the European Parliament. In doing so, it will focus on achieving changes to the pre-trade transparency regime for investment firms that would be consistent with the European Parliament's first reading amendments.

  At ECOFIN Council on 25 November, the Government secured agreement to a Declaration, to be adopted alongside the Council Common Position, which reiterates the Council's support for adoption of the Investment Services Directive by April 2004 and, more importantly, indicates a willingness on the part of the Council to consider amendments put forward by the European Parliament.

  EDS
  Mr. Cousins:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contracts (a) his Department and (b) agencies for whom his Department is responsible have with EDS; what the (i) scope and (ii) duration is of each contract; and how many staff were transferred to EDS in each case when those contracts were set up. [141158]

  Ruth Kelly:
  The information is as follows:

  Inland Revenue

  The EAGLE contract for EDS to supply IT services to the Inland Revenue commenced in 1994 and runs for 10 years, expiring on 30 June 2004. The contract provided for a full range of IT services; from IS/IT strategy, through design, implementation, maintenance and enhancement of systems to desktop and network support and full data support. A total of 1,900 staff were TUPE transferred from the Inland Revenue to EDS.

  HM Customs and Excise

  HMCE have one framework agreement with EDS for consultancy services to assist in delivering a new Human Resource Management System to HMCE. This
  34W
  framework is valid from July 2002 for the period up to the end of March 2005. No staff have been transferred to EDS from HMCE.

  HM Treasury

  HM Treasury has no commercial relationship with EDS.

  Equitable Life
  Lynne Jones:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has been given by Lord Penrose on the likely timing of the publication of his report on Equitable Life. [140509]

  Ruth Kelly:
  The publication of Lord Penrose's report is a matter for the Government rather than Lord Penrose. The Treasury will publish Lord Penrose's report, in full if this is at all possible, as soon as is practicable following receipt of the report.

  European Structural Funds
  Adam Price:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on Treasury plans to repatriate European structural funds. [140537]

  Ruth Kelly:
  The Government's policy for European structural funds are as set out by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in her statement to this House on 17 September. The Government believes that the EU Framework for Devolved Regional Policy provides the basis for an outcome that is best for the new member states, for Europe, and for the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.

  The Government will also respond to this House in more detail on some of the questions raised in the domestic consultation in the near future.

  Gold Sales
  Charles Hendry:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the current value is of the investments made in euro, dollar and yen interest bearing assets from the proceeds of gold sales between July 1999 and March 2002; and what their current value would be if still held as gold. [140651]

  Ruth Kelly:
  My answer to the hon. Gentleman on 27 October 2003, Official Report, column 39, explained that the gold sales between July 1999 and March 2002 reflected a prudent decision to reduce over-exposure to a single asset in the net reserves portfolio. The gold sales reduced risk by around 30 per cent. (as measured by value-at-risk) and are not expected to deliver a loss in return when measured over the medium to long-term, the appropriate time horizon for such a decision.

  Inland Revenue (IT System)
  Mr. Gray:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a market-making exercise was conducted by the Inland Revenue in support of the original contract for the IT system for the Inland Revenue; and who the prospective suppliers engaged with the Inland Revenue in the conduct of that market-making exercise were. [140480]
  35W
  Dawn Primarolo:
  The initial Market-making exercise for the EAGLE contract prompted six responses to the OJEC notice. The suppliers involved were:

  CSC Europe/IBM UK

  EDS Ltd.

  Hoskyns Group plc

  ICL/Anderson Consulting

  Digital Alliance (Digital Equipment Co., Logica and Barclays)

  Sema Group UK

  Of these suppliers, two were invited to tender—EDS Ltd. and CSC Europe/IBM UK. The preferred supplier was announced in December 1993, and the contract awarded in May 1994.

  Investment
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what change there has been in (a) business investment, (b) manufacturing investment and (c) service sector investment in each of the last six years. [140950]

  Ruth Kelly:
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Stephen O'Brien, dated 2 December 2003:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the change there has been in (a) business investment, (b) manufacturing investment and (c) service sector investment in each of the last six years. I am replying in his absence. (140950)

  The information requested is shown in the table below. The appropriate chained volume measure series have been used i.e. the effects of price changes through the period have been excluded.

  Precentage change compared with previous year (Chained volume measures)

  Period

  (a) Business Investment

  (b) Total Manufacturing Investment

  (c) Total Sector Investment Service

  1997

  10.1

  11.2

  11.6

  1998

  18.1

  4.2

  29.2

  1999

  2.8

  -8.8

  8.0

  2000

  4.6

  -3.0

  10.1

  2001

  3.6

  -9.7

  5.8

  2002

  -3.5

  -10.3

  -1.2

  Procurement Card Scheme
  Brian Cotter:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Government departments operate the Government Procurement Card scheme; and how many cases of fraud have been identified since the scheme was introduced. [141602]

  Mr. Boateng:
  122 organisations currently operate the Government Procurement Card Scheme. A list of them has been placed in the Library of the House.

  There have, since the inception of the GPC scheme in 1999, been a small number of incidences of fraud on the Government Procurement Card. All of these incidences have been reported in the HM Treasury Fraud Report, which can be found through the following link:
  http://www. hm-treasury_gov_uk/Documents/Public_spending_and_Services/Audit_and_Accounting/pss_aud_fraud. Cfm
  36W

  Projects (St. Helens)
  Mr. Woodward:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which projects have been (a) wholly and (b) partly funded by his Department in St. Helens since 1997; when each project was announced; when it started or was expected to start; what funding was provided by (i) Government and (ii) a third party; what third party provided funding; what the target group of the project was; what the projected outcome of the project was; and what the name of the project was. [141269]

  Ruth Kelly:
  Two projects have been partly funded by the Invest to Save Budget (ISB) in St. Helens since 1997. These were announced in February 2000 and March 2001 respectively.

  The projects were: 'Early Intervention Equals Timely Prevention' funding by Government for this project was £241,000. Third party funding was by a partnership consisting of St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council and St. Helens area Merseyside Police. The target groups were victims and potential victims of crime. The projected outcome was to reduce the incidences of victimisation and repeat victimisation and to make an impact on crime and disorder in the St. Helens area.

  'The Advice Connections' funding provided by Government to this project was £180,000. Third party funding was by a partnership consisting of The Legal Services Commission for Merseyside, St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council, St. Helens and Knowsley Health Authority, Council for Voluntary Services, Coalition of Disabled People, Age Concern, Citizens Advice Bureau, The Liverpool Law Society, The Benefits Agency and St. Helens County Court. The target group is citizens likely to suffer from social exclusion. The projected outcome was increased and improved access to legal information and advice services.

  Of course HMT allocates spending to departments who will spend this in every authority including St. Helens.

  Public Corporations
  Mr. Chope:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all public corporations and in respect of each, the (a) rate of return on capital employed required by the Treasury and (b) sums paid in by each corporation to the Treasury in 2002–03. [141544]

  Mr. Boateng:
  A list of public corporations has been deposited in the Library of the House.

  The rate of return on capital employed that is required for an individual public corporation is set by the department that sponsors the body. Departments set this rate in accordance with guidance issued by the Treasury taking into account the type of activity engaged in and the market the body operates in.

  For 2002–03 departmental resource accounts list the amount of dividends and interest payments from public corporations that were paid into the Consolidated Fund by departments.

  Under the new budgeting regime announced as part of Spending Review 2002 (that came into effect from 1 April 2003) dividend and interest payments from

  37W
  public corporations are no longer returned to the Consolidated Fund. They are retained by the sponsor department.

  Suicides
  Mr. Burstow:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many suicides per 100,000 of the relevant population there were in each year since 1990 (a) in total, (b)for women, (c) for men and (d) for men under the age of 30; and if he will make a statement. [141111]

  Ruth Kelly:
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 2 December 2003:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning how many suicides there were per 100,000 people in each year since 1990 (a) in total, (b) for women, (b) for men and (d) for men under the age of 30. (141111)

  The most recent available mortality data are for the calendar year 2002 and cover England and Wales. The attached table contains suicide rates for each year from 1990 to 2002.

  Age-standardised1 rate per 100,000 for deaths from suicide and injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted2, England and Wales, 1990 to 20023

  (a) Total4

  (b) Women5

  (c) Men5

  (d) Men aged under 306

  1990

  10.5

  6.8

  20.4

  18.7

  1991

  10.4

  6.5

  20.5

  18.0

  1992

  10.4

  6.4

  20.4

  17.9

  1993

  9.9

  6.1

  19.4

  17.5

  1994

  9.6

  5.6

  19.3

  18.8

  1995

  9.7

  5.9

  19.1

  17.8

  1996

  9.1

  5.6

  18.0

  17.1

  1997

  9.3

  5.7

  18.4

  18.6

  1998

  9.6

  5.5

  19.4

  18.9

  1999

  9.6

  5.7

  19.2

  17.4

  2000

  9.1

  5.7

  17.8

  16.1

  2001

  8.6

  5.1

  17.1

  14.1

  2002

  8.6

  5.3

  16.8

  13.7

  1Age-standardised to the European standard population.

  2The cause of death was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (1CD-9) codes E950-E959 and E980-E989 excluding E988.8 for the years 1990 to 2000, and, for the year 2001 and 2002, the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-20) codes X60-X84 and Y10-Y34 excluding Y33.9 where the Coroner's verdict was pending.

  3Figures are the deaths registered per calendar year from 1990 to 1992 and for deaths occurring per calendar year from 1993 onwards.

  4Persons of all ages.

  5Aged 15 and over.

  6Aged between 15 and 29.

  Tax Credits
  Steve Webb:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information existing child tax credit and working tax credit recipients will be required to submit in order to support a 2004–05 award; when that information will be requested; how recipients will be informed of the requirement.[141523]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) on 19 November 2003, Official Report, columns 1099–1100W.
  38W

  Income Tax
  Mr. Chope:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much additional revenue would be raised from the residents of (a) each of the district councils in Dorset and (b) the Bournemouth and Poole unitary authorities for every penny increase in the basic rate of income tax. [141513]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  The requested information is given in the table.

  Additional full-year yield of increasing the basic rate of tax by 1p in 2000–01 (in £ millions)

  (a) District councils in Dorset

  Christchurch

  1.9

  East Dorset

  4.2

  North Dorset

  2.3

  Purbeck

  1.7

  West Dorset

  4.2

  Weymouth and Portland

  4.2

  (b) Bournemouth and Poole unitary authorities

  14.5

  Estimates are based upon the 2000–01 Survey of Personal Incomes. The effects of the illustrative changes can be scaled up or down over a reasonably wide range. The results exclude any behavioral response to the tax change.

  Mr. Cousins:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the revenue from (a) income tax and (b)corporation tax was in each tax year since 1996–97 in (i) current and (ii) real terms using 1996–97 as the base. [141201]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  Income tax and corporation tax receipts in current terms are published on the Inland Revenue website www.inlandrevenue.qov.uk/stats/tax receipts/031 R 1 2.pdf.

  Receipts in real terms can be calculated using GDP deflators. The Treasury publishes GDP deflators on the HM Treasury website at
  www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/economic data and tools/gdp, deflators/data gdp index.cfm.

  Mr. Cousins:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increase in the basic rate of tax would be needed to raise (a) £80 million and (b) £120 million in the current year from the income tax payers of Newcastle upon Tyne. [141202]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  The yield from increasing the basic rate of income tax in 2000–01 by 1p in Newcastle upon Tyne is £10 million. This result can be scaled up to see the effects of higher increases but would exclude any behavioural response to the tax change. This estimate is based upon the 2000–01 Survey of Personal Incomes.

  Timber
  Mr. Gardiner:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what means the policy for purchasing timber and timber products of (a) the Treasury, (b) the Debt Management Office, (c) the Office for National Statistics, (d) the Royal Mint and (e) the Valuation Office ensure that they are obtained from legal and sustainable sources. [141331]
  39W
  Ruth Kelly:
  All suppliers are provided with a clear statement of the Government's commitment to purchase timber and timber products from legally binding and sustainable sources. Suppliers are required, as a condition of contract, to produce evidence of these sustainable and legal timber sources.

  Travel Passes
  Mr. Hammond:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether employees of Transport for London are liable to pay (a) income tax and (b) national insurance contributions on the market value of free travel passes issued to their nominees under the scheme operated by TfL. [141253]

  Dawn Primarolo:
  Employees who receive free or cheap travel vouchers from their employer, for themselves or members of their families, will generally be taxable on the benefit by reference to the cost to the employer. There will also be a liability to class 1 (employer and employee) national insurance contributions.

  Dockyard Radiation Workers
  Mr. Hancock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy (a) to ensure that the general practitioners of families of dockyard radiation workers are informed about the occupation and encouraged to enter it on the records of the children of these workers and (b) to ensure that (i) retired and (ii) former radiation workers have the opportunity of a radiation medical once a year through the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [140908]

  Mr. Caplin:
  It is a matter for dockyard radiation workers to consider what information they offer to their GP about their employment. Decisions concerning what to record within medical records is a matter for professional judgment and for guidelines that may be provided by the Department of Health or the appropriate professional bodies or associations. Similarly decisions about whether to offer annual medical examinations to retired or ex-radiation workers through the NHS is a matter for the Department of Health.

  The Ministry of Defence provides an independent counselling service for radiation workers, former radiation workers and their families who have concerns about their health consequent of their work with radiation. Individuals may request counselling by telephoning the Counselling Telephone line (02392 768098) and leaving their names and addresses or by writing to the MOD Counselling Registry at DSTL Radiological Protection Services, Crescent Road, Alverstoke, Gosport, Hants PO 12 2DL. Further details are available on the world wide web at http://www.mod.uk/dsef/hp/rwc.htm

  Armed Forces Pensions
  Gregory Barker:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many (a) retired personnel and (b) widows in each of the three armed services have been identified as incorrectly paying tax on retired pay
  40W
  and pensions awarded since 1952 on the grounds of disability attributable to or aggravated by service; and how many of these are (i) pre-1973 pensioners and (ii) post-1973 pensioners; [141090]

  (2) how many (a) retired personnel and (b) widows in each of the three armed services identified as incorrectly paying tax on retired pay and pensions awarded since 1952 on the grounds of disability attributable to or aggravated by service have received additional compensation; [141091]

  (3) what criteria are used in determining additional compensation payments for retired personnel and widows of the three armed services identified as incorrectly paying tax on retired pay and pensions; [141092]

  (4) if he will commission an independent inquiry into arrangements for paying compensation to retired personnel and widows of the three armed services identified as incorrectly paying tax on retired pay and pensions. [141093]

  Mr. Caplin:
  The following table shows the total number of individuals identified as incorrectly paying tax on their armed forces invaliding pensions since 1952. Attributable pensions paid to widows are not tax free under Inland Revenue rules, though in some cases widows may have been the beneficiaries of refunds where the pensioner is deceased. These figures are broken down by service and by pre-73 and post 1973 pensioners.

  As at August 2003

  Royal Navy

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  Total

  Pre-1973

  57

  300

  13

  370

  Post-1973

  204

  828

  110

  1,142

  Total

  261

  1,128

  123

  1,512

  Inland Revenue repayment supplement has already been paid on all tax refunds. The level of compensation to be paid to individuals affected by the tax error is a matter for the Department. I do not intend to commission an independent inquiry. Individuals who are unhappy with the Department's decision on additional compensation will be able to take their cases to the Pensions Ombudsman or to the courts. I intend to announce our decision with respect to additional compensation by 18 December.

  Licensing Act
  Mr. Mark Field:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) when she will next meet representatives of local government to discuss the fee arrangements for the licensing system; [141629]

  (2) whether full cost recovery through the Government's designated licence fee structure will include the cost of enforcement and administration of the new licensing regime; [141630]

  (3) how her commitment to ensure the costs of the new licensing system are fully covered by fees will be achieved; [141631]
  41W
  (4) if she will make a statement on the underlying analysis and financial models which provided the basis for the fee structure for the new licensing arrangements; [141632]

  (5) what discussions she has had with other Government Departments about the costs of the Licensing Act 2003; [141633]

  (6) if she will make a statement on the effect of the full cost of recovery on local authorities under the new licensing arrangements. [141634]

  Mr. Caborn:
  A regulatory impact assessment setting out our estimates of the fee levels and the underlying analysis was published with the Licensing Bill in November 2002 and placed in the Library of the House. No final decisions have been made about the fees to be prescribed under the Licensing Act 2003, and we are presently considering carefully information and material provided by representatives of local authorities before making those decisions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met representatives of local authorities to discuss fees, among other things, and my predecessor with responsibility for licensing reform, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), also met representatives on several occasions to discuss these matters. My officials have been discussing fees, among other things, with representatives of local authorities since November 1999. These discussions have now been completed and we hope to announce shortly the fees that the Secretary of State intends to prescribe under the 2003 Act, though we will continue to meet representatives of local authorities to discuss other matters relating to the implementation of the new legislation. We have repeatedly given assurances both in the House and to representatives of local authorities that the fees will be set at a level which permits recovery of the full costs of administration, inspection and enforcement to local authorities associated with the licensing functions under the 2003 Act. The Secretary of State has also agreed with representatives of the local authorities to allow an independent review of the costs of the new licensing regime and the fee levels after the end of the transitional period, and if any changes are necessary, they will be made. All interested Government Departments were involved in discussions with my Department about the preparation of the regulatory impact assessment and my officials have more recently had discussions about fees with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Before making final decisions on the fee levels, we intend to have further discussions with all interested Government Departments.

  National Lottery
  Miss McIntosh:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money was spent per capita on playing the National Lottery (a) in each of the regions of England and Wales and (b) in the Vale of York in each of the past three years. [140570]

  Estelle Morris:
  This information is not available. However, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) on 22 October 2002, Official Report, columns 182–83, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism placed in the Library a table listing sales by postcode
  42W
  area since the Lottery's launch. I will provide an update of the table to the hon. Member as soon as it is available, and place a copy in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Rugby
  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much her Department has invested in promotion of rugby in the UK since 1997. [141067]

  Mr. Caborn:
  Since 1997, the Department has invested a total of £48.7 million in the promotion of rugby. Rugby Union will also receive £9.4 million over 2003–04 to 2005–06 as part of the Community Club Development Programme.

  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much Lottery money has been awarded (a) to rugby clubs and (b) to promote rugby in each of the last six years; and if she will list the projects which have benefited. [141069]

  Mr. Caborn:
  Since 1997, the Department has invested a total of £48.7 in rugby. Over £30 million of this went to supporting amateur clubs. Rugby Union will also receive £9.4 million over 2003–04 to 2005–06 as part of Sport England's Community Club Development Programme for capital facilities work at amateur clubs.

  I will arrange for a list of projects for the last six years to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Sea Angling
  Mr. Blizzard:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will provide support for the sport of sea angling. [140462]

  Mr. Caborn:
  DCMS recognises angling as a sport, supports the interests of anglers, and provides funding for the sport via Sport England. Since 1995 angling has received in excess of £2.1 million in Lottery Awards, in addition to over £280,000 in Awards for All grants.

  The three governing bodies for angling—including the National Federation of Sea Anglers—receive Exchequer funding in the form of annual development grants.

  I attended the World Junior/Youth Shore Angling Championships held in Bridlington earlier this year.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason he has not yet replied to the letter sent to him dated 25th September by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mrs. Safdar. [140782]

  Mr. Blunkett:
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend in my letter of 1 December 2003.

  Metropolitan Police
  Simon Hughes:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Metropolitan Police officers were licensed to carry firearms in each year since 1997. [140855]
  43W
  Beverley Hughes:
  The number of Metropolitan Police officers authorised to carry firearms in each year since 1997 is shown in the following table:

  Number of authorized firearms officers (AFOs)

  1996–97

  6,738

  1997–98

  6,585

  1998–99

  6,308

  1999–2000

  6,262

  2000–01

  6,064

  2001–02

  5,776

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Chope:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the written answers given by his Department on 19 November in response to questions from hon. Members included a promise to write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library; how many such letters have so far been sent; and by what date the remainder will be sent. [141547]

  Mr. Blunkett:
  The number of Parliamentary questions replied to on 19 and 20 November, which gave the answer of promising to write to the hon. Member and placing a copy of that letter in the Library was 340. Of these, 184 were tabled in the last four days available for tabling. Replies have so far been sent to 50 and the remainder are in the process of being answered.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Chope:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the European standards for speed cameras. [141515]

  Caroline Flint:
  I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  Recycling
  Sue Doughty:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance the Government are giving local authorities regarding the purchase of recycled paper. [140594]

  Phil Hope:
  Local authorities are independent and autonomous bodies responsible for making their own decision about procurement matters.

  The National Procurement Strategy for Local Government, prepared jointly by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Local Government Association (LGA), emphasises the importance of environmental objectives as part of the procurement process in local government. The strategy specifically advises that every council should build sustainability into its procurement strategy, processes and contracts.

  The Improvement and Development Agency (IdeA) have recently published their guide "Sustainability and Local Government Procurement" which sets out how local authorities can develop and implement a sustainable procurement policy and a risk-based strategy designed to tackle the categories of spending that have the greatest environmental and social impacts. The
  44W
  guidance contains the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) buying solutions "Quick Wins" on certain product specifications, which include targets on recycled paper. The guidance notes that the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) have recommended the wider adoption of these "Quick Wins" across the public sector, including local government.

  Allotments
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to make changes to legislation relating to allotments. [141106]

  Keith Hill:
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no current plans to make any changes to legislation regarding allotments.

  Beacon Towns
  Dr. Starkey:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister in assessing applications to the Special Grants Programme, what consultation there was with those responsible for DEFRA's Beacon Towns scheme. [140722]

  Yvette Cooper:
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister did not consult any other Department about applications to Stage 1 of the Special Grants Programme.

  Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act
  Mr. Stunell:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he plans to make an Order to bring into force the remaining provisions of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, with particular reference to section 164; and if he will make a statement. [141409]

  Keith Hill:
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister anticipates making an Order by May 2004 to bring into force the remaining provisions of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. These provisions include those relating to property insurance (section 164), to the new Right to Enfranchise companies, and to accounting and forfeiture. Commencement dates will vary depending on the lead-in period needed by landlords to prepare for the changes, but section 164 should be effective by September 2004.

  Legislation
  Mr. Redwood:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many pages of (a) primary and (b) secondary legislation his Department put through Parliament in 2002–03. [141122]

  Yvette Cooper:
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister sponsored three Bills during the 2002–03 session which made a total of 162 pages once enacted.

  In the case of secondary legislation the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was responsible for the making of 71 General Statutory Instruments which would have been considered by either the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments or the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. These instruments made a total of 438 pages.
  45W

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the standard spending assessment per capita is for each of the English regions in 2003–04. [140896]

  Mr. Raynsford:
  Standard Spending Assessments ceased in 2002–03, and were replaced in 2003–04 by Formula Spending Shares (FSS). The following table gives the 2003–04 FSS per head for each of the English regions.

  Government Office Region

  2003–04 FSS (£ million)

  Mid-2001 population estimate

  2003–04 FSS per head (£ per head)

  South West

  5,160.341

  4,934,162

  1,045.84

  South East

  8,455.974

  8,006,896

  1,056.09

  London

  10,552.423

  7,188,006

  1,468.06

  Eastern

  5,824.133

  5,394,860

  1,079.57

  East Midlands

  4,523.400

  4,175,081

  1,083.43

  West Midlands

  6,221.599

  5,267,098

  1,181.22

  Yorkshire and Humber

  5,831.658

  4,967,165

  1,174.04

  North East

  3,087.869

  2,516,531

  1,277.03

  North West

  8,250.982

  6,731,540

  1,255.72

  Please note that the mid-2001 population estimate used was that published by the Office for National Statistics on 10 October 2002, since these were the population estimates used in the calculation of the 2003–04 Formula Spending Shares. Following the approval by Parliament of the 2003–04 Local Government Finance Settlement, the mid-2001 population estimates were revised. An Amending Report for 2003–04 to reflect the revised mid-year estimates will be submitted to the House for approval in due course.

  Mr. Hayes:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many equity release loans local authorities have granted (a) in each of the last 10 years and (b) since 18 July 2002. [141013]

  Keith Hill:
  The Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002 gave local authorities wide discretionary powers to provide assistance to homeowners and tenants to repair, improve and adapt their homes—including, for example, equity release loans—from 18 July 2002. This is subject to the authority having a policy in place setting out how it intends to use the powers. Prior to that date, local authorities had no powers to make such loans.

  Figures on the number of equity release loans and other forms of assistance given by local authorities for renewal of private sector homes in the financial year 2002—03 will be available early in 2004.

  Starter Homes Initiative
  Tim Loughton:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what grade of teachers will be eligible for equity loans under the recently announced scheme for housing; what terms will apply to the equity loans scheme for teachers; what estimate he has made of the number of teachers who will benefit from the equity loans scheme; and what implications this has for teacher participation in the Starter Homes Initiative. [141054]

  Keith Hill:
  Full details of the operation of the housing scheme for key workers will be announced by the beginning of March. These will include; the criteria used to determine eligibility for teachers; and the terms and
  46W
  conditions to be applied to equity loans. The number of teachers and other key worker groups helped and the level of assistance will depend, in part, on the level of employer contributions and the personal circumstances of individuals. Funding continues to be available for teachers through the Starter Home Initiative, which will fund purchases, which can be exchanged up to 31 March 2004, the planned end date.

  Sustainable Buildings Task Group
  Mr. Kidney:
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will establish the Sustainable Buildings Task group; what its terms of reference will be; what its membership will be; and if he will make a statement. [140650]

  Keith Hill:
  The Sustainable Buildings Task Group has been agreed. The Group will be co-chaired by Sir John Harman, Chairman of the Environment Agency and Victor Benjamin, Deputy Chairman of English Partnerships. The first meeting is planned for mid-December.

  The Group has been tasked with identifying specific, cost-effective, improvements in the quality and environmental performance of buildings which industry can deliver in both the short and long term, together with further actions that Government could take to facilitate faster progress. The Group will consider scope for delivering higher standards of environmental performance of new and refurbished buildings in respect of water, energy, timber and other construction materials, and waste reduction.

  The full membership of the Group comprises:

  Michael Ankers, Chief Executive, The Construction Products Association

  Julian Barwick, Joint Managing Director, Development Securities

  Sheila Button, Board Member, The Housing Corporation

  John Calcutt, Chief Executive, Crest Nicholson

  Ian Coull, Chairman Designate, The Sustainable Construction Task Force

  Robert Napier, Chief Executive, WWF-UK

  Paul Noon, co-chairman, Trade Union Sustainable Development Advisory Committee

  Jennie Price, Chief Executive, The Waste and Resources Action Programme

  Philip Sellwood, Chief Executive, The Energy Saving Trust

  Peter Studdert, Director of Environment and Planning, Cambridge city council

  Lynne Sullivan, Sustainability Director, Broadway Malyan

  Pamela Taylor, Chief Executive, Water UK

  Bryan Woodley, UK Timber Frame Association

  Terry Wyatt, President, Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers

  And senior officials from Defra, DTI, ODPM and OGC.

  Child Maintenance
  Steve Webb:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to how many lone parents his Department has issued letters in the last 12 months informing them of their potential entitlement to child maintenance

  47W
  bonus in the event of them taking work; and what the average amount of those potential entitlements would be. [141542]

  Mr. Browne:
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive, David Anderson. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Anderson to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 2 December 2003:

  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply direct to your question about letters issued in the last 12 months to lone parents advising them about their potential entitlement to Child Maintenance Bonus. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  Unfortunately, the information on how many lone parents were issued letters in the last 12 months informing them of their potential entitlement to Child Maintenance Bonus is not available. It is not routinely collected. Figures are not readily available to determine what the average payment would be for those customers who, over the past 12 months, had been advised of a potential entitlement. This information could only be determined at disproportionate cost.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will reply to the letter of
  48W
  15 September from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan's constituency colleague Mr. Stewart Stevenson MSP, regarding his constituent, Mr. J. Watson of Macduff. [141744]

  Maria Eagle:
  I regret we have no record of having received Mr Stevenson's letter. If he would like to forward a copy I will arrange for it to be dealt with urgently.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  David Davis:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many winter fuel payment claim forms have been issued in 2003 in the Haltemprice and Howden constituency; and how many claim forms have been submitted. [140555]

  Malcolm Wicks:
  The number of Winter Fuel Payment claim forms issued so far this year for the Haltemprice and Howden constituency is 1,751 and of those 1,388 have been returned to date.

  We are publicising the availability of Winter Fuel Payments and how to obtain a claim form. Those who need to claim for this winter have until 30 March 2004 to do so.

  Note:

  Information to identify those likely to be entitled was extracted from the Departmental Central Index based on post codes.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Autumn Performance Report
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  The Home Office Autumn Performance Report 2003 has been published today by Command of Her Majesty. Copies of the Report are available in the Vote Office and in the Library. The Report is also available on the Home Office website.

  The Report sets out the progress the Home Office has achieved towards the key targets set out in the 2002 Spending Review. This includes those targets that the Home Office is solely responsible for delivering and those targets that it owns jointly with other departments such as the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Crown Prosecution Service.

  The Department's PSA targets were published in the SR2002 White Paper (column 5571) which was presented to Parliament by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 July 2002. How progress will be measured, and the success criteria for each target, are set out in the SR2002 Public Service Agreement Technical Notes, published by the Home Office in March 2003 and updated in July 2003.

  The Report sets out the latest outturn data against each of the contributory measures from the Technical Note.

  The results show: crime is falling; the justice gap is narrowing; asylum is increasingly under control; we have a coherent drug strategy and our correctional services are operating effectively.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Boundary Commission for England
  The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  I have today appointed, for a third term, Mr Michael Lewer QC as a member of the Boundary Commission for England. His appointment is effective until 31 December 2006.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Forestry Commission's DEL will be increased by £1,681,000 54WS
  from £82,939,000 to £84,620.000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:

  New DEL

  Change

  Voted

  Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  1,311

  79,547

  2,653

  82,200

  Capital

  370

  833

  2,657

  3,490

  Depreciation*

  -1,070

  -

  -1,070

  Total

  1,681

  79,310

  5,310

  84,620

  *Depreciation, which forms part of resource DEL, is excluded from the total DEL since capital DEL includes capital spending and to include depreciation of those assets would lead to double counting.

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from the take up of end of year flexibility for the Forestry Commission including £385,000 under the Invest to Save Budget. The change also includes a transfer of £148,000 to the office of the Deputy Prime Minister towards funding of the Pan Government Agreement for the supply of mapping data.

  The increase in the capital element of the DEL arises from the take up of end of year flexibility on both the Capital Modernisation Fund and the Invest to Save Budget of £357,000 and £13,000 respectively.

  The increases will be charged to the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

DEFENCE

  Service Children's Education Agency
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  I am today placing a copy of the Service Children's Education (SCE) agency Quinquennial Review Report in the Library of the House. The Review has examined the Agency in detail and concluded that SCE is delivering a good service to parents and children and that, as a core component of military life overseas, the balance of advantage lies with it remaining part of the MOD. Agency status was judged to have delivered benefits and have the scope to continue doing so through the ongoing target-setting regime. The Review identified a number of issues for further study and these will be taken forward by Chief Executive SCE who has the responsibility for overseeing the implementation of the Review's recommendations, most of which are specialist education issues.

  Mental Health Services
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  As part of the Ministry of Defence strategy to modernise and improve Defence mental health services, I can announce today that we have awarded a contract to the Priory Group for the provision of in-patient psychiatric services. This is the first time that we have awarded a mental healthcare contract to an independent service provider, although individual service patients have been referred to the Priory on a case by case basis when their condition was outside the treatment offered at the Duchess of Kent's
  55WS
  Psychiatric Hospital (DKPH). Service patients can be admitted to selected Priory Group facilities from 8 December. The full transfer of in-patient care from the DKPH to the Priory Group will occur from 1 April 2004. This is in line with my previous statement to the House of 16 October, Official Report, column 324W that the DKPH is expected to close by 31 March 2004 when alternative facilities are in place.

  The Priory Group can provide in-patient care locally. The awarding of this contract should be seen as part of our wider strategy to improve healthcare for Service patients by re-configuring mental health services to be community focused with the emphasis on local provision, as recommended in the Medical Quinquennial Review. It also permits Defence Medical Service mental health staff to work within their local Service community, which is more closely aligned with their operational role.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Winter Supplementary Estimate
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of any necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Privy Council Office DEL will be increased by £501,000 from £3,523,000 to £4,024,000 and the gross administration costs limit will be increased by £501,000 from £3,461,000 to £3,962,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources is as set out in the following talble:

  New DEL

  Change

  Voted

  Non-voted

  Total

  Resource

  501,000

  3,962,000

  0

  3,962,000

  Capital

  0

  62

  0

  62

  Total

  501,000

  4,024,000

  0

  4,024,000

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from Machinery of Government change which transferred the post of the Leader of the House of Lords from the Cabinet Office to the Privy Council Office.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  FCO Strategy White Paper: UK International Priorities
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  I am today laying before Parliament Government White Paper Command 6052, "UK International Priorities: A Strategy for the FCO".

  This Strategy Paper sets priorities for UK international policy over the next five to 10 years. These have been discussed and agreed between Departments and endorsed by the Prime Minister. The paper also describes in greater detail how the FCO intends to work, with others and through its network of over 200 diplomatic posts abroad, to help the Government meet these aims, This is the first time that the FCO has published a document of this sort.
  56WS
  This is a time of significant change in international relations. Domestic and international policy are becoming ever more intertwined as a result of globalisation, travel and technological advance. As a consequence, what happens abroad is of more immediate concern to all of us. The FCO will need to work systematically with other Government Departments and with people outside Government including Parliamentarians, businesses, Trade Unions, NGOs and the media.

  The issues are also changing. We have made great progress since the end of the cold war in achieving stability and democracy in Europe. But 11 September 2001 underlined in the starkest way that we needed to pay close attention to new problems and threats elsewhere in the world, which affect the security and prosperity of the UK and other countries. That message was most recently reinforced by the tragic events in Istanbul on 15 and 20 November 2003.

  The FCO Strategy analyses the ways in which we expect the world to change in the years ahead. I shall welcome public debate of this analysis. It concludes. among other things, that our foreign policy should focus on a broad agenda of issues with global impact: they include countering terrorism and weapons proliferation, acting to prevent state failure and climate change, and dealing effectively with poverty, corruption and conflict.

  We shall need to build a wider, shared international understanding of how best to deal with these problems. They affect us all. We cannot afford to stand back from them. The UK must remain diplomatically active and engaged, and be able to exert global influence through diplomacy, advice, persuasion, aid and other economic assistance—and if necessary military force.

  The eight international strategic policy priorities we have identified for the UK are:
  a world safer from global terrorism and weapons of mass destruction;
  protection of the UK from illegal immigration, drug trafficking and other international crime;
  an international system based on the rule of law, which is better able to resolve disputes and prevent conflicts;
  an effective EU in a secure neighbourhood;
  promotion of UK economic interests in an open and expanding global economy;
  sustainable development, underpinned by democracy, good governance and human rights;
  security of UK and global energy supplies;
  security and good governance of the UK's Overseas Territories.

  No country can address these issues alone. We shall need strong international institutions, and a wide network of partnerships, to achieve effective, collective action.

  We will work through the UN, the EU, the G8, NATO, the Commonwealth and other groups. We shall also aim to build stronger strategic partnerships with Russia, China, Japan and India, bilaterally and through the EU. One of our top priorities will be to engage constructively with Islamic countries.
  57WS
  Our most significant partnerships will be within the EU and with the United States. We will work to build UK influence in the EU, which will progressively become more important for the delivery of a wide range of UK domestic and international policy priorities. We will also work to make the EU a stronger and more capable international actor.

  As the world's only superpower the US will continue to set much of the international agenda. Our close alliance will remain indispensable for our security. We will use this vital relationship to serve and protect UK interests.

  Above all, a strong partnership between Europe and the United States remains essential for the UK's and the world's security and prosperity. This partnership has come under strain as a result of different approaches to some areas of domestic and international policy and the erosion of a clearly understood sense of common purpose. The strategy sets the objective of working to build commitment to partnership on both sides of the Atlantic.

  The public services, which the FCO provides to UK citizens abroad are an increasingly important part of our work. Through our consular services we help UK citizens abroad, issue passports and offer travel advice. Our visa services, shared with the Home Office, issue visas to people visiting the UK. Through UK Trade and Investment, shared with DTI, the FCO helps UK companies to do business abroad and attracts
  58WS
  investment to the UK. I am determined to see consistent, high standards of public service across in all these areas.

  To achieve all this, we need to maintain a highly effective diplomatic service, I pay tribute to the professionalism, dedication and expertise of FCO staff, and the contribution they make all around the world—sometimes, as we have seen, in dangerous circumstances.

  The strategy is a basis for future decisions on FCO organisation and management. The FCO's network of diplomatic posts is a key asset for the nation, through which we help the Government pursue a wide range of policy priorities and build UK influence around the world. Maintaining a well targeted, adequately resourced and secure diplomatic network is the FCO's highest management priority for the years ahead.

  We have also established a departmental change programme, derived from the strategy, which sets out the actions we intend to take to focus our resources on high priorities, become more flexible and responsive, improve the diversity of our people, skills and experience, and target all our activity to meet the needs of our customers—across Government and UK public.

  The purpose of this strategy therefore is to clarify our priorities so we can concentrate our efforts where they are most needed and respond flexibly to unexpected events. I shall welcome parliamentary and public debate on the document. We will review it every two years inviting external contributions.

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

Zimbabwe
Lord Blakerasked Her Majesty's Government:
What further proposals they have for helping to resolve the current serious situation in Zimbabwe.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, we have stood firm in our support of targeted EU sanctions on Zimbabwe. We will work with EU partners to ensure a rollover of robust measures next February. We continue to work with the international community to promote inter-party dialogue in Zimbabwe, with a view to bringing about a process that will lead to a return to legitimate government there. We will argue for Zimbabwe's continued suspension from the councils of the Commonwealth when heads of government meet in Nigeria later this week. We continue to respond to Zimbabwe's humanitarian crisis and have provided £62 million since 2001, making us the largest aid donor after the United States.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply, so far as it goes. Would the Minister agree that the view of the opposition in Zimbabwe, the MDC, has until recently been, broadly speaking, that it would be wise for the United Kingdom Government not to be too much in the lead in criticising the Mugabe regime? However, is she also aware that, very recently, the view of the MDC has radically changed, and that it now urges two courses on Her Majesty's Government? One is to make sure that other governments, including governments in Africa, understand the full horror of the situation for the people of Zimbabwe, whether black or white, and the serious consequences for the whole of southern Africa. Even more importantly, the MDC urges Her Majesty's Government to take the lead in calling for reform and democracy in Zimbabwe. How will Her Majesty's Government respond?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have taken a lead in both those areas. We have spoken in some very robust terms to other governments about the situation in Zimbabwe, and drawn the human rights abuses and the harassment of the opposition to their attention. We have also worked very hard to promote reform and democracy in Zimbabwe and will continue to do that. The noble Lord will be aware that this year and last year, as part of the European Union delegation, we tried to get a resolution through the UN Commission on Human Rights. In both instances, we failed, but we
174
will continue to fight through international forums, the European Commission and the Commonwealth to see the restoration of democracy in Zimbabwe.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, despite the appalling situation in Zimbabwe and rather surprisingly, President Mugabe is still regarded with a considerable degree of respect elsewhere in Africa and in the third world for his role in having brought Zimbabwe to independence? May I suggest to her that in those circumstances the Nigerian Government are to be congratulated on the firmness with which they have conveyed the message to President Mugabe that he is not welcome at the Commonwealth conference?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I entirely agree. Zimbabwe has not been invited to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, and President Obasanjo and the Nigerian Government are to be congratulated on that. I also agree about Mugabe's history and the fight for independence in Zimbabwe. However, because what he did in the land reform process—we have not agreed with it, and the way in which it was undertaken has led to much of the humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe—was seen as dealing with historical injustice, it has been welcomed in some parts of Africa.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, when Mr Welshman Ncube was here recently, he made it plain to a meeting of your Lordships, and no doubt to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as well, that there was no basis on which a dialogue could be held between the ZANU-PF and the MDC? Will the MDC have an opportunity to make that clear to the CHOGM, which begins on Friday, so that it does not continue to insist that that is the only way forward? It must think of other means of solving the problem of Zimbabwe.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. It is very important that we have a degree of clarity from the MDC, but also from South Africa, which has sought to promote that inter-party dialogue. There is a view that discussion and dialogue are going on behind the scenes, yet at the same time we are told that there is no basis for a dialogue. We need the situation to be clarified. We have certainly urged the MDC to ensure that its position is known by other governments in Africa and other Commonwealth governments.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the position of the bulk of the Anglican Church in Zimbabwe has recently changed? In recent months, it has been heavily involved in bridge building, but the position has changed to one of near despair. Is the noble Baroness also aware that the Bishop of Manicaland, who was in London last weekend, said that things could hardly get worse and that all pressure should be put on the Zimbabwean Government from whatever quarter?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware that the situation has changed and it is important that we pay

175
tribute to the work of the Anglican Church in trying to build bridges in Zimbabwe. The humanitarian situation continues to be dire. As we approach what may be the worst food shortages, we and other donors are concerned to ensure that food is in place so that millions of people do not starve. But it is a very difficult situation indeed.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, now that the international mood is changing, as confirmed by the question from the right reverend Prelate, why do we not have another attempt at a resolution in the UN Security Council? Why do we not follow the American example of targeting the people who are Mugabe's bankrollers? Why do we not go one further and work with our South African friends to build a serious road map to begin to address this appalling situation and give more of an impression that we are wholehearted about dealing with it?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that we have been engaged in constant dialogue with the South Africans on this matter. When I was Minister with responsibility for Africa, I frequently engaged on the matter with my South African colleagues. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister had discussions with President Mbeki on these issues and we will continue to be in close touch with the Zimbabweans on them.
As regards a UN Security Council resolution, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made the position clear in another place. At this point in time, we would not get a majority in the UN Security Council in favour of a resolution. We have talked to our Security Council colleagues and it is absolutely clear that we would not do so; we would merely hand a gratuitous victory to Mugabe. Therefore, there is no point in our taking action which would give him a paper victory; we want to see real movement on these issues.

Nuclear Energy
2.45 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovilasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any further explanation of what they mean by "keeping the nuclear energy option open".
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government's policy on nuclear power is set out in the energy White Paper, Our Energy Future—creating a low carbon economy.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, no one could possibly be thankful for that! On the other hand, it would be unfair to blame the noble Lord, who has no real presence in or influence on the DTI.
176
Would he be good enough to convey to Ministers in the DTI that the nuclear option, which they say they are keeping open, will not survive without substantial encouragement and investment? Will he add that their present lofty unconcern may well, before long, be seen as becoming a serious hazard to the security of our electricity supplies?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, far from it being lofty unconcern, the Government are maintaining that the White Paper covered all aspects of the security of energy supplies over the next decades. We are in the course of considerable energy change, which the White Paper recognised. Furthermore, the White Paper indicated that the nuclear energy option should be kept open, which meant some commitment to resources. As I have indicated to the House on previous occasions, certain resources are being devoted to ensuring that the skills and research functions with regard to the nuclear industry are maintained.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, the Minister knows exactly what the problem is: everyone in the energy industry is extremely worried about the possibility of a fundamental breakdown as a result of the Government not yet making up their mind.
Of course nuclear power is an option—and many of us believe that it is the option. Wood-fired power stations are an option, but does the Minister agree that people want to know what the serious options are and how they are ranked against each other? It is not an unreasonable thing to ask at this stage.
Lord Davies of Oldham: No, my Lords, it is not an unreasonable thing to ask. The White Paper addressed those issues. It indicated the areas from which we would seek to derive our energy supplies in a changing environment; one which requires us to hit certain carbon emission targets and one in which, as North Sea oil resources decline, we would become more dependent on imports of gas, for example. All those are live issues, including the nuclear option, and all are considered in the White Paper. Of course the Government have a review group looking at energy provision in order that Ministers are continually kept fully informed about the evolving situation.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, describing the nuclear energy issue as an "option" suggests that there may well be alternatives that could be used to meet the increasing demands of this population. Are the Government serious in finding alternatives in order to disband nuclear energy and meet out demands?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the House will recognise that all energy issues, including nuclear, involve long-term perspectives. My noble friend will recognise that under present scheduling the last nuclear power station will conclude its active life in 2035. For that reason, we are able to say that provided we ensure that certain investment is made, we can keep the nuclear option open while at the same time recognising that there

177
are other forms of energy into which we can tap. We are predicting that renewables will provide 10 per cent of our energy needs by 2010. If that target is not reached, we will need flexibility with regard to alternatives. But that is the target on renewables and it increases substantially in subsequent decades.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, mentioned nuclear waste which plays an important part in the possible future of the nuclear industry. When is an agreed solution likely to be found to the long-term management of nuclear waste? Is the Minister aware that the issue has been under discussion for many years and that the proposed setting up of a nuclear decommissioning authority makes it all the more urgent that a decision should be reached?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is certainly so. The noble Lord is right to say that the gestation period for the development of the complex and difficult policy has lasted a number of years. We expect that we shall reach conclusions with regard to nuclear waste in the not too distant future.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to supplies of gas having to be imported when North Sea supplies run out in the not too distant future. What steps are the Government taking to secure adequate supplies of gas for electricity generation, perhaps by converting coal into gas, the technologies for which require much development?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. We shall certainly need to consider that possibility. He will recognise that the gap in our energy needs that will open up with the decline in North Sea production will involve us in engaging in contracts and in the development of supplies across Europe, in common with other European countries, to guarantee that we have sufficient gas to provide for our needs. That development will put us firmly into the ranking of all other G7 countries with the sole exception of Canada. They are all dependent on energy supplies and we play our part in ensuring that Europe receives the supplies that it needs.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, following the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, what remotely viable alternative is there to a deep geological depository for nuclear waste?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is a frontrunner as the noble Earl has indicated. Since 1995 we have been involved in a serious exercise. The reason why it will take as much as a decade before we are able to reach a conclusion is that the technology issues are exceedingly complex, and they are set against a
178
background of proper national concerns about how we handle radioactive waste which has a life cycle running into thousands of years.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, being totally ignorant of the subject, can my noble friend advise the House whether nuclear waste can safely be put into space?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as has already been hinted this afternoon, I am not high in the food chain in the Department of Trade and Industry. I am certainly not high enough to go into space exploration.

Unadopted Roads
2.54 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to legislate to abolish unadopted roads.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we have no plans to legislate to abolish unadopted roads. Whether a street should be adopted is for individual local authorities, which have the power to adopt or to contribute to the cost of making the street up to an adoptable standard.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that there are about 40,000 unadopted roads in England, although no one knows the exact number? I am sure it is about time they did. A great many such roads are sources of disease and pests and are dangerous to passers-by and people who live on them. There are not many votes per council, nor much leadership from the people living on unadopted roads so to expect councils to do much without carrots or sticks being provided by central government is quite ridiculous.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the House will recognise that this is a local matter and the responsibility of local authorities. I have figures for the United Kingdom—not just for England—of 40,000 unadopted byways and roads. That is a very large number indeed. I can quote an astonishing figure to the House: if the Government made available the necessary resources for all such roads to be made up, the cost would be £3 billion. Inevitably that is why local authorities must judge their priorities.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, will the Minister explain how one can abolish something that is unadopted?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the question put by the noble Baroness has thrown me. Local authorities can adopt three strategies with regard to unadopted roads: they can adopt such roads and take on the full costs; they can offer to help with deferment of interest payments when the frontages pay for the roads; or in the long term

179
they can pay for the capital costs and charge just the interest payments. Local authorities have a range of options but the issue falls disproportionately on local authorities across the country and that is why they struggle to meet the demands made on them.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, on the subject of pushing costs on to local authorities, what arrangements are there for enforcing the law on unadopted roads, byways and other rights of way? I have in mind the recent traffic regulation order, the first of its kind imposed on the Ridgeway, on Smeathe's Ridge, to which the motoring organisations have objected. We have a wretched situation in which people pass the matter around from pillar to post but nothing is done.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am in danger of engaging in just such an activity. As the noble Lord will recognise, matters of planning and land utilisation are not for the Department of Transport, but for Defra. In the House in the not too distant past we have dealt with mechanical vehicles using byways which in the past have been reserved for non-motorised activity. There is a great deal of public anxiety about the issue.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the Minister has stated the three options that are open to local authorities in relation to unadopted roads in their areas. Does he agree that negotiating with the frontage holders on whether the roads are bad enough to require treatment and on who will pay (how much the frontage holders will pay and how much the local authorities will pay) are matters for local authorities? Surely that is what local government is for.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is, as the noble Baroness has described. However, we should have some respect for the difficulties that face our colleagues in local government. Not all frontage holders on a road that may merit adoption in the eyes of some speak with one voice. There is the problem of defining a majority and imposing on a minority a cost to which they objected in the first instance.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, will my noble friend advise the House of the extent of the problem by telling noble Lords how small the proportion of unadopted roads is as compared with all roads?
Lord Davies of Oldham: No, my Lords. I cannot do that as a percentage of the highways of Britain. What I can do—and as I sought to do when the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked his Question—is to confirm the latest figure that we have for the United Kingdom of 40,000 unadopted roads. Of course in some local authorities there are few and in others, for all kinds of historical reasons, there are many. Any colleague from another place from a northern constituency will attest to the fact that many roads remain to be adopted where in the past small coalmines had very limited access and miners had their cottages built close to the
180
mines. For the local authority concerned, which often is not well endowed, this causes a great number of real problems.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, does the Minister recall those lines of Betjeman's poem:
"By roads 'not adopted', by woodlanded ways,
She drove … [into Camberley] in the soft summer haze,…
We sat in the car park till twenty to one
And now I'm engaged to Miss Joan Hunter Dunn"?
Those lines suggest that some good can come of the subject matter of the Question.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the only response is "Follow that". I reassure the noble Lord that poetic inspiration will not be lacking for the absence of unadopted roads in the foreseeable future.

Debt
3.1 p.m.
Lord Sheldonasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to deal with the current level of household and personal debt.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government aim to provide a framework of macro-economic stability and awareness of financial issues within which people can make informed and responsible decisions about how much debt it is prudent to incur. The Government will publish a consumer credit White Paper in the near future.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply and his assurance that something will be forthcoming in this area. Is he aware that the ratio of house prices to income is now greater than it has been since 1989, after which there were very serious falls in the prices of houses? Will he acknowledge that the present low level of interest rates makes it easier to maintain levels of debt which would not otherwise be possible? When interest rates rise eventually this burden can be made unmanageable, as was suggested by the OECD in its report last week. Has my noble friend considered encouraging greater responsibility to the lending institutions which seem over-ready to lend under present circumstances? Is he having discussions with them?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, greater responsibility in certain areas with regard to lending will indeed be the subject of our consumer credit White Paper. On the more general issue, although my noble friend indicates the extent of household debt, the House will recognise that the issue is whether people are able to manage such debt. Interest rates and mortgage rates are much lower than they were in 1989, which is the date that the noble Lord quoted. With interest rates at only just over one-third of the rates at

181
that time, the problems which occurred with the massive crash in house prices will not be replicated in the present circumstances.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, are the Government aware that this is about far more than house prices? Are they aware of the extent to which debt is of concern to all sections of society? I speak of my own patch, which is not just leafy Portsmouth but the housing estates of Portsmouth and Ryde, where people are induced to buy goods from the backs of white vans on the never-never at rates of interest that will keep them poor for ever, or certainly for a long time to come. If the noble Lord would like to visit that part of the country, I should be delighted to show it to him.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has identified an area of increasing concern; that is, the exorbitant rates enforced on people who borrow unwisely or who are forced to borrow at the extremes of the market because of their circumstances. We will certainly tackle that area in the forthcoming White Paper.
On the more general issue with regard to debt, the House will recognise that the increase in debt is a reflection of households feeling increasingly wealthy. In fact, households have become considerably wealthier over the past 10 years. Borrowing against real wealth and resources in those terms of course can still be entirely prudent borrowing.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the noble Lord recognise that many of these organisations which seek to lend money do so in a way which exploits people who do not understand the implications? Would he recommend people who get unsolicited offers to return them with the simple message, saying, "You may not have a problem lending to me, but I would certainly have a problem borrowing from you"?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, if the noble Lord. Lord Marlesford, is joining me in seeking to rein in some of the wilder excesses of unacceptable capitalism, I welcome his support in those terms. He is right that the Government need to address those areas and to look very seriously at the issue of loan sharks and the pursuit of victims—I put it that strongly—for outrageous interest rates.
Lord Newby: My Lords, in the debate on the Queen's Speech last week the Minister said that the White Paper to which the noble Lord has referred would deal with the Government's policy in respect of updating legislation on consumer credit. He also said that there would not be a consumer credit Bill. Will the noble Lord explain how legislation in this area might be updated without a consumer credit Bill?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, let us walk before we can run. It is quite customary for a White Paper to be produced first. The White Paper will address those issues which need to be tackled and it
182
will provide areas of potential action by the Government. Should those involve amendments to existing Acts, that will take place. If the noble Lord is saying, "Well, of course the only way to deal with this matter is to have a completely new Bill", that is his view. At this point in time, it is not the Government's view.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in the debate on the gracious Speech last week said that household debt in macro-economic terms is not the problem that some suggest it is? With a debt to disposable income ratio of 125 percent and rising, will he say at what point the Government might think a problem may arise?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I cannot give that specific answer to the noble Baroness. She would not have anticipated that I would give such a figure. We are concerned to ensure that so far as possible the rise in debt is against the background of manageability of costs which fall upon individual households. If a repeat occurred of the disasters of 1989—when she will recall another administration was in power—households may get into these difficulties. The point is that in circumstances of low interest rates which are moving up very marginally indeed—compared with the 1989 figure of 15 per cent, we are just edging up beyond 5 per cent— we should recognise that households will be able to manage this debt. That is not to say that the household market is not flattening out; it clearly is. But we are not facing the kind of precipitous decline that throws people into negative equity and appalling debt.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, will my noble friend join me in recognising the value of credit unions in the question of personal household debt, in particular in the avoidance of the position mentioned earlier by the right reverend Prelate about loan sharks? Credit unions establish a pattern of saving before people are encouraged to borrow. Will my noble friend further agree that it is time for the Government to encourage local authorities to assist in the establishment of credit unions, in particular, by waiving or allowing a reduction of council tax during the establishment of such credit unions?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing this aspect. There is no doubt that the crucial role played by credit unions is for those people with limited resources, who are the very people most vulnerable to the high interest rates extorted by loan sharks when given the opportunity. We are keen to give what assistance we can to the development of credit unions, which, as my noble friend will see, the White Paper will encourage.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, does the noble Lord believe that the present high levels of household and government debt are necessary to sustain current economic growth?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord should be a little more charitable. He should be

183
congratulating the Government on sustaining economic growth when the rest of the advanced world has been suffering from negative growth rates. There is a decided advantage and we glory in the fact that we still sustain economic growth during these difficult times. This Government do not intend to let people down in their management of the economy. Therefore, it is necessary to look carefully at the extent to which people are able to manage household debt. Perhaps I may say straightforwardly that the most crucial factor is interest rates, which are historically low and way below the average during the years—I choose the years randomly—1979–97.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I agree with the right reverend Prelate about the terrible position into which the very poor manage to get themselves. But the overwhelming majority of "excess borrowing" is by people who are relatively well off. Rather like the obese who always blame everyone but themselves for eating too much, these people blame the financial institutions because they borrow too much. If they do not suffer the consequences of their idiotic actions, when will they ever learn not to do it?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend expresses himself in the kind of robust language which is unlikely to be quoted against him in his local newspaper when people get into difficulties. Of course, people must act with responsibility. However, we probably have some responsibility for increasing and improving the financial literacy of the nation against a background where people have greater disposable assets but often do not have the insight and knowledge to make best use of such assets. We all know that a fool and his money are soon separated. The essential job of a good community is to ensure that the fools are in the smallest number possible.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, have the Government considered what will be the state of the first-time buyers' market in, say, 10 years' time when the students have acquired an average overdraft of about £30,000?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has combined two difficult concepts in a most interesting way. Perhaps I may make the obvious point that changes in societal behaviour are issues that the Government must constantly address. He will recognise that one effect on the housing market is the extraordinary change in marital patterns where young people are marrying much later and there are more single households. That affects the housing market in an obvious and direct way.
The noble and learned Lord has succeeded in bringing into the equation another dimension; namely, how wealthy individuals will be a decade from now. The obvious point is known throughout the House: we have an average growth rate of just over 2 per cent and, as a whole, the country doubles its wealth in 25 years.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, is not part of the problem that credit rating agencies are not subject to effective
184
competition, tend to be inefficient and do not reply to complaints? They also frequently lead people who are a bad credit risk to obtain credit and stop people who are a good credit risk from obtaining credit. Can the Minister assure the House that this issue will be covered in the White Paper?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is an important consideration. As the noble Lord indicated, two abuses are being perpetrated by an ineffective and unfair credit market. There is a limit to which legislation can introduce help in every respect, but we are looking at this issue because it certainly has grown during recent years.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, what is the current total of household debt? What proportion of it is unsecured against assets? The reason I ask is because some forecasters are predicting that household debt will top £1 trillion by next year.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I cannot give that figure to the noble Earl, but I can reassure him that the ratio of debts to assets in the economy is still very healthy among households. The reason why people feel that they can push the boat out with regard to credit cards is because they feel wealthier, although we all recognise that it can get out of hand in individual cases. People feel wealthier because, objectively, they are wealthier. Given the number of people who own property, there cannot be a 50 per cent average increase in house prices in the past decade without that being reflected in the wider population. There is an increased degree of security in terms of management of debt, particularly if people are managing debt not against raging inflation and very high interest rates, but under controlled inflation and very low interest rates. That is where confidence comes from for our fellow citizens.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
3.17 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the five Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper en bloc.

185
Economic Affairs
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider economic affairs;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

L. Barnett

L. Elder

L. Goodhart

L. Marsh

L. Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay

B. O'Cathain

L. Peston (Chairman)

L. Roll of Ipsden

L. Sheldon

L. Sheppard of Didgemere

L. Skidelsky

L. Vinson

L. Wakeham;

That the committee have power to appoint a subcommittee and to refer to such sub-committee any of the matters within the terms of reference of the committee; that the committee have power to appoint the chairman of such sub-committee;
That the committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on such sub-committee;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the Economic Affairs Committee or any sub-committee in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the committee;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee from time to time shall, if the committee think fit, be printed.
House Committee
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to supervise the general administration of the House and guide the work of the Management Board; to agree the annual Estimates, Supplementary Estimates and the three-year spending forecasts; to approve the House of Lords Annual Report; and to approve changes in employment policy;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee;

B. Amos (Lord President)

L. Barnett

L. Burlison

L. Craig of Radley

L. Hunt of Wirral

L. Lloyd of Berwick

L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn

L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank

L. Strathclyde

B.Williams of Crosby;

186
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the Select Committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Human Rights
Moved, That a Select Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with a committee appointed by the Commons as the Joint Committee on Human Rights:
To consider:

(a) matters relating to human rights in the United
Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual
cases);

(b) proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial
orders and remedial orders made under Section 10 of
and laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act
1998; and

(c) in respect of draft remedial orders and remedial
orders, whether the special attention of the House should
be drawn to them on any of the grounds specified in
Standing Order 74 (Joint Committee on Statutory
Instruments);

To report to the House:

(a) in relation to any document containing
proposals laid before the House under paragraph 3 of
the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether a
draft order in the same terms as the proposals should
be laid before the House; or

(b) in relation to any draft order laid under paragraph
2 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether the
draft order should be approved;

and to have power to report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said proposals or draft orders; and
To report to the House in respect of any original order laid under paragraph 4 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether:

(a) the order should be approved in the form in
which it was originally laid before Parliament; or

(b) that the order should be replaced by a new order
modifying the provisions of the original order; or

(c) that the order should not be approved,

and to have power to report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said order or any replacement order;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the committee:

L. Bowness

L. Campbell of Alloway

L. Judd

L. Lester of Herne Hill

L. Plant of Highfield

B. Prashar;

That the committee have power to agree with any committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;

187
That the quorum of the committee shall be two;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the Human Rights Committee in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the committee;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee from time to time shall, if the committee think fit, be printed.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
Procedure of the House
Moved, That the Select Committee on Procedure of the House be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

L. Alderdice

B. Amos (Lord President)

B. Blatch

V. Brookeborough

E. Caithness

L. Chalfont

L. Cope of Berkeley

L. Craig of Radley

L. Denham

L. Donaldson of Lymington

L. Falconer of Thoroton (Lord Chancellor)

L. Geddes

L. Goodhart

B. Goudie

L. Grenfell

L. Grocott

L. Haskel

L. Hoyle

L. Jopling

L. Judd

L. Kimball

B. Rendell of Babergh

L. Roper

L. Strathclyde

B. Symons of Vernham Dean

L. Wakeham

B. Warnock

B. Williams of Crosby.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be appointed as the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session:

V. Allenby of Megiddo L.

L. Ampthill

L. Boston of Faversham L.

L. Brougham and Vaux

188

L. Carter

L. Cope of Berkeley

B. Cox

L. Elton

B. Fookes

L. Geddes

B. Gould of Potternewton

L. Grocott

L. Haskel

L. Hogg of Cumbernauld

B. Hooper

B. Lockwood

L. Lyell

C. Mar

B. Pitkeathley

B. Ramsay of Cartvale

V. Simon

B. Thomas of Walliswood

L. Tordoff

B. Turner of Camden.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, before we begin today's debate, perhaps I may say a word about timing. I do so against a background of having been frequently criticised during the previous Session for the House sitting beyond 10 o'clock. That is a criticism I readily accept because it is an objective that I desperately should like to meet myself.
The arithmetic for today's debate is that if Back-Bench speeches could be confined to eight minutes—I repeat, eight minutes—we would complete our discussion by the normal rising time of 10 p.m. It obviously is not within my control to guarantee that we shall finish at 10 p.m. Therefore, I further remind the House of the words in the Companion, which states:
"Members who become aware in advance that they are unlikely to be able to stay until the end of a debate should remove their names from the list of speakers".

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
3.18 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Wednesday last by the Lord Ashley of Stoke—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am pleased to have this opportunity to set out this year's proposed legislative programme on constitutional affairs. Justice, rights

189
and democracy are at the centre of what this Government are about. Nowhere can that be seen more clearly than in the field of constitutional affairs. The range of Bills set out in the Queen's Speech indicates the high priority that the Government attach to this agenda. Our constitutional structure must fully meet society's needs and reflect its expectations. Only then will it be able to maintain the trust of the very people it is there to serve.
In bringing forward this programme, we have had to face up to some hard questions. We have to ask ourselves whether our structures and institutions are fit for purpose and whether they deliver what the public want of them. The answer to both questions is no. The evidence is all around us in falling numbers of people voting in elections, something about which no politician, elected or appointed, of any persuasion should be comfortable; in lower levels of trust in our public institutions; and in a widespread lack of faith in the justice system to deliver and enforce penalties.
Maintaining the status quo is simply not an option, but there will be no change for change's sake. All changes to the justice system and the constitution will be based on and measured by how they serve the public.
If we are to have a justice system that meets the needs of a modern society, we must have a strong, independent judiciary. The judiciary must also reflect the diversity of our society. Our judicial system is one of the strongest and most revered in the world, but transparency and lines of accountability are blurred.
That is why we are introducing the constitutional reform Bill. The Bill's provisions will enhance transparency and accountability in our constitutional arrangements by clarifying the independence of the judiciary from the executive and the legislature and ensuring that the respective responsibilities of the Secretary of State and the senior judiciary are clear.
The constitutional reform Bill will create a new independent judicial appointments commission responsible for the appointment of judges in England and Wales and a free-standing Supreme Court, separating the highest appeal court from the House of Lords; and abolish the office of the Lord Chancellor in its current form.
The concepts behind those reforms are not new and have been debated for many years. They will put the relationship between the judiciary, the executive and the legislature on a more modern footing and make the constitution more relevant and effective for the needs of today. I can assure the House that detailed consultation on them has taken place and that we will continue to work closely with the judiciary on those major and important changes.
Just as we intend to clarify and separate the roles of the executive and the judiciary, in line with the principles of a modern democracy, so we intend to complete our long-standing aim to remove the hereditary principle from our legislature; and will bring forward a House of Lords Bill to do that.
We said in 1997 that the,
"right of hereditary peers would be removed by statute",
190
and in 2001 that we were:
"committed to the removal of the remaining hereditary peers".
We will honour our promise to the people.
As the House is well aware, we have tried for some years to find a way forward.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, can the Minister explain why she and the Government have given priority to only part of the promise in her remarks, for the undertaking given to the electors in the Labour Party manifesto of 1997 was clearly not only to make this House more representative but to make it democratic? Neither she nor any other member of the Government seem to have recalled that fact in the legislation that they have announced.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, if the noble Lord could wait until I finish the next paragraph of my speech, that may become clear. I will then give way if he is not happy with what I have to say.
Let me repeat, as the House is well aware, we have tried for some years to find a way forward. The Royal Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, produced a considered report. The Government published a White Paper that largely gave effect to that report. Neither found favour.
We then invited Parliament itself to consider the options. The Joint Committee of both Houses, of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, was the deputy chairman, produced for our consideration a discussion of the roles and functions we want to see in our second Chamber and a series of options on composition. We voted for a wholly appointed House by a majority of 3:1.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I should like to finish.
The other place failed to record a majority for any option, although I must remind your Lordships that it liked a wholly appointed House even less than it liked anything else apart from abolition.
In those circumstances, the Government have decided to move where we can. We are also committed to removing the overwhelming powers of patronage invested in the Prime Minister. It is nonsense to claim that those reforms are intended to make it easier to create a House of cronies. For the first time ever, the Prime Minister will be unable to determine how many Peers he may himself create and how many the other parties may create. That decision will be made by the appointments commission. We will also bring the rules for disqualification for membership of this House more into line with those for the other place.
We will continue to search for a consensus on the future shape and role of the House; the Joint Committee will continue, and, we hope, bring forward recommendations at a later stage. But we have already held up those fundamental reforms long enough while searching for agreement. I am sure that I will hear arguments today that the lack of consensus is reason enough to halt all reform; I do not agree. We have all

191
been in politics long enough to know that the perfect can be the enemy of the achievable. The Government have promises to keep, and they intend to keep them.
We will continue our work to increase participation in the democratic process. The European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill carried over from the previous Session will allow pilots of innovative voting methods to be held at next year's European and local elections.
The Bill will allow a continuation of the Government's successful programme of piloting electoral innovations, including all-postal voting and electronic voting, at next year's European and combined elections. Its aim is to engage the maximum number of voters in the elections and make their participation easier and more convenient. It will allow many more people next year to have the opportunity to take part in trials of ways of voting more in tune with modern lifestyles. The Government recognise that improving trust in our democratic institutions and increasing participation at elections is not just about how people vote, but offering updated ways of voting has an important part to play.
We will consult stakeholders on a draft Bill that will set out the Government's thinking on the terms on which a referendum on membership of the euro would be held. The draft Bill is another major step forward in paving the way for the British people to be consulted on the adoption of the single currency, subject to the five economic tests being met.
In this country, we have a deep and proud sense of our rights based on a strong historical tradition of mass political participation and freedom of expression. The Government strengthened those rights by legislating on human rights, freedom of information and data protection. But we must not be complacent. It is fundamental to an inclusive society that individuals and groups be given the rights to which they are legitimately entitled and wherever possible be allowed to live their lives as they determine and free of discrimination.
The Gender Recognition Bill will give transsexual people legal recognition in their acquired gender, including, from the date of recognition, the right to marry and be given birth certificates in the acquired gender and to leave behind the vulnerable position, the limbo between two genders, which they have presently to endure. The Bill brings to fruition the work that the Inter-Departmental Working Group on Transsexual People started in 1999, and honours the Government's commitment to implement the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and to ensure that transsexual people are given the rights that respect their identity.
With democracy and rights come responsibilities. We expect people to respect the rights of others and are prepared to take swift, effective action where they fail to do so. In the last Session, the Government passed important new laws to tackle anti-social behaviour, place tougher sentences on repeat offenders and streamline the courts system. Tackling crime remains
192
a key priority for this Government, together with providing better support and services for victims and witnesses.
Access to justice for all is essential to achieving a fair and safe society for all our citizens. Legal aid is essential to achieving that, in order to make sure the most excluded have access to the justice system. However, the cost of legal aid continues to rise, and, too often, it is not sufficiently targeted at those who need it most. That is why we will consult on a draft criminal defence service Bill to help to continue the reform of legal aid, bringing down the cost while ensuring high-quality advice and representation for those who need it.
The Government made a commitment in the Joint Declaration of 1st May 2003 that there would be a second justice Bill for Northern Ireland, which would more fully implement the recommendations in the criminal justice review. The Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill is the continuance of the process of change and improvement in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. The main provision of the Bill will be the creation of a Northern Ireland judicial appointments commission.
Our agenda is ambitious and our programme extensive. As a Government, we are prepared to enter into positive and constructive debate on our proposals as they proceed through Parliament. Our continued willingness to listen is further demonstrated by the number of Bills that we are publishing in draft on the constitution and across the whole of Government. But nobody should doubt our determination to deliver—a determination to deliver change that will enhance our democracy and people's rights, and restore trust in the justice system.
That is what underpins our programme. I commend it to the House.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, the Minister has kindly said that she would give way to me again. In the light of her remark that there was no consensus about the reform of this House, and that the Government had therefore thought it necessary to bring forward proposals, why did those proposals not conform with the Government's own promise for democratic reform? They could not have made that promise in the expectation of finding either consensus or universal agreement in this, or the other, House.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there are two reasons. First, as I said, we will continue to search for a consensus on the future shape and role of the House. But noble Lords must remember that, in our manifestos of 1997 and 2001, we made clear that our first commitment was the removal of the hereditary principle. Noble Lords will recall that, in our discussions on the 1999 reform Bill, part of the agreement for retaining the 92 hereditary Peers was to give an impetus for reform. That impetus has failed to deliver. We need to move forward; we will seek greater consensus; but our commitment with respect to the hereditary principle is one we wish to take forward. That is what the House of Lords Bill will deliver.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Strathclyderose to move, as an amendment to the Motion for an humble Address, at the end of the Address to insert "but regrets the decision of Your Majesty's Government to abandon the search for cross-party consensus on constitutional reform and to launch unilateral proposals for changes to this House that could gravely weaken the House; and calls on Your Majesty's Government to respecit the formal undertakings given to this House, to withdraw their current proposals and to undertake meaningful consultation with Parliament and the senior judiciary before proceeding with legislation."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I admit that it is unusual for us on this side to move such an amendment to the Motion for an humble Address. It is equally unusual for the Liberal Democrats so to do. The fact that both parties have done so this year says something striking, of which all noble Lords are all too well aware: the exceptional degree of unease—to be blunt, even anger—about the cavalier way in which the Government have treated this House and the senior judiciary. If the Government plunge on with their ill-conceived Bills, that anger can only deepen.
Why are we where we are? In June, the Prime Minister had a row with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, the then Lord Chancellor and a scrupulous respecter of his office of judicial independence in your Lordships' House. The Prime Minister was having problems in his now famously botched reshuffle. Then some bright spark popped up and said that he could look more modern by scrapping the office of Lord Chancellor, or, as the Prime Minister so intellectually put it, getting rid of the wigs and women's tights.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, was summoned. No doubt he told the Prime Minister what the Judges' Council, the Lord Chief Justice, the majority of Law Lords and the Society of Black Lawyers have since told him—that his plan was unnecessary, potentially harmful and patently ill thought-out. His reward was dismissal. As the noble and learned Lord was led away, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, glided in smoothly from the anterooms of power.
What an astonishing way to take a decision to kick out the Law Lords, scrap the Lord Chancellor and spend who knows what on building a new Supreme Court, who knows where—all to solve a problem that no one really thinks exists at all. When the Prime Minister met the Liaison Committee in another place, Mr Alan Beith said that it seemed that neither the Cabinet, Law Lords, senior judges, Parliament nor the Scottish Administration had been consulted. He asked:
"Prime Minister, was it just two or three people in Number 10 … and they discussed it with you and you just made the announcement?"'
Did the Prime Minister hit back with an angry denial? No, he shrugged his shoulders and said:
"It is in the very nature of changes to do with the reshuffle that obviously there is a more restricted discussion".
194
So it is official: a reshuffle dictated this massive constitutional change. The policy was cooked up in the kitchen cabinet and served in a hurry half-baked; it is now to be force-fed through this House. There was not a shred of consultation with anyone here. The House still has no date for a debate on any of these sweeping proposals, except the speakership, where the noble and learned Lord seems in a hurry to be on his way.
Many noble Lords opposite have told me that they share my view on this sorry episode. It is surely inconceivable in any other free country, where big constitutional changes must follow wide debate, often a referendum and a two-thirds majority in Parliament, that such far-reaching changes could be bounced through in this way. Other countries require consensus. That, if nothing else, would justify support for the amendment that I submit today.
We will hear from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. No doubt he will tell us, "Sure, on the one hand, we could have consulted before. But then, on the other hand, we are now consulting after". "Let us be absolutely clear", he might say, "there can be a big conversation". Cannot we be part of this big conversation before our House is changed? Does not the senior judiciary qualify to be in on the big conversation?
The noble and learned Lord may promise a spanking new Supreme Court building to try to win over the noble and learned Lords, who want a bigger home than we can give them, however much many of us want them to stay here in this House. Now he is even dropping hints on safeguarding judicial independence. But does it not strike him how utterly ludicrous it is that the safeguards that he talks about are safeguards against his own proposals? It is a funny old world, but it shows how right the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and others are to be deeply wary. If safeguards are given on a judicial appointments commission, will the same be given on an Appointments Commission at your Lordships House?
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is a loyal man—there is none more so—and he is not a foolish man, but he must know that his policy is falling apart. It looks like a recipe for chaos and confusion. It risks far too much, far too fast, for far too little gain. The Lord Chancellor should consider a constitutional commission on this great subject. He should think again and consult more widely, more openly and more deeply. If he did that, he could save the Prime Minister from what was bad government and a bad error and he might even help to preserve a judicial system of unique authority and unquestioned independence which is also an adornment to this House. The House should invite him to do so tonight.
I now turn to the other element of the amendment, which relates to the composition of this House. I say with all respect to the Government that this issue does not belong to them. It belongs to Parliament and it matters to everyone in Parliament and in the country. There is no point in harping on old myths and ancient wrongs. We should deal with the situation as it is now. In 1999, the Government achieved a long-held objective to end the right to sit here by virtue of an

195
hereditary peerage. That right no longer exists. The backwoodsmen have gone. Those who remain are elected. Now the Lord Chancellor says that he must act decisively against them.
A wise man decides where he is going before he acts— something the Government have never managed to do when it comes to constitutional change. The Lord Chancellor is surely at his most spurious when he says that purging elected Peers will deliver stability. If he thinks that this Bill will deliver stability, I fear that he is sadly wrong. To judge from Mr Robin Cook's reaction last week to what he denounced as a Bill to create an appointed House, opening this box again could do precisely the opposite. The Government may think that they can confine debate to old war cries about hereditary toffs, but that will not wash any more.
The Bill is also sadly short of the real question before us. The real question that we should be addressing is not a narrow, partisan Bill, but how to make Parliament work better in controlling the executive. Purging 20 per cent of non-government Peers—those of whom the noble and learned Lord said:
"Many of them are among its most active and effective members".—[Official Report, 18/9/03; col. 1058.]—
does not seem to be the obvious place to begin, but then I do not think that this Government ever wanted a stronger Parliament. If they did, they would not have given house room to the idea in paragraph 41 of the consultation paper which suggested that appointments to this House might reflect the number of seats won in the Commons. Doubtless, such a House—with 62 per cent of its political Members hand-picked by the Prime Minister—would have loyally waved through restriction of jury trial.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, would the noble Lord confirm his previously declared public position that he is in favour of the abolition of all hereditaries in this House and an 80 per cent elected element to this House?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I stick to the policy that I have put forward in the past—namely, that no political party should dictate this matter on its own. It should be part of a wider consultation. We propose an elected Senate—80 per cent elected and 20 per cent appointed. My view has not changed. However, the debate that we face today and will face over the course of the next Session is not over a long-term reform Bill. It goes back to stage one. It is the Bill that the Lord Chancellor will no doubt propose in a few weeks' time.
In his consultation paper and in the past when we dealt with the 1999 Act, the Lord Chancellor spoke of "broad parity" between the parties or some reflection of votes cast. No doubt he will now say that those circumstances no longer apply. Perhaps Mr Blair was just stringing the Liberal Democrats along in 1997. I am sure that they have a view about that. After all, the Prime Minister is now paying back their trust with the most stinging contempt, and we have seen more of that today.
196
We all know, however, that there is a deeper act of dishonour—even the Government admit that, and few in this House do not feel something tacky in the air. Many of us were here on that day. The House was packed to the gills on 30th March, 1999. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, stood at the Dispatch Box and said that the 1999 Bill,
"reflects a compromise negotiated between Privy Counsellors on Privy Council terms and binding in honour on all those who have come to give it their assent".
The Prime Minister was one of the negotiators. He gave his assent. Does he have no sense of honour to bind him, or is it simply that we cannot believe a word that he says any more?
The noble and learned Lord continued in the most carefully worded statement. He said that,
"the 10 per cent—"
that is the 92—
"will go only when stage two has taken place. So it is a guarantee that it will take place".—[Official Report, 30/3/99; col. 207.]
The words could not have been more unequivocal and 650 men and women believed him. They left this House quietly and without a fight, satisfied with the service that they had given, and trusting the word of a Privy Counsellor that those who remained would go,
"only when stage 2 has taken place".
That promise and their trust in it as parliamentarians are utterly dishonoured by the Bill proposed. Sadly, I must tell the Lord Chancellor and the Leader of the House—although I am sure that they both know this—that all their tortuous efforts to justify the Bill are embarrassing and demeaning.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I was one of the three Privy Counsellors who took part in those discussions. There were no negotiations as such, because there was no way that the three Privy Counsellors, who were all Cross-Benchers, could negotiate because they could not deliver anybody apart from the three of them. Who actually reached the agreement? It was not the three Privy Counsellors. I do not know how it could have been the Leader of the Opposition, because he was fired the same day, immediately after the press release. So who on the Conservative Benches was party to the agreement?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord has just reminded me of a rich irony. Today is precisely the fifth anniversary of my sacking as Chief Whip and installation as Leader of the Opposition. The agreement is quite clear in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. It is an agreement between the Government and Parliament. It was on that basis that the House of Lords Bill of 1999 became an Act. This proposed Bill does not take us anywhere near stage two. It does not pretend to be stage two. It could not pretend to lead to stage two. All that it does is to take us back to 1998–99, to stage one.
Do the Government have any intention of moving to stage two? The Minister mentioned it, but did not shed much light on what it meant. Can we ever know? If we are to have stage two and the stability to which the Lord Chancellor has referred in the past, even in the context

197
of an appointed House, questions flagged by the Royal Commission would have to be addressed, such as: the total size of the House; safeguards on political abuse; term limits or otherwise of appointed peers; a rebalancing of the House after elections; the right to reappointment or to stand for the Commons; the place of the right reverend Prelates; retirement rules; powers over secondary legislation; who appoints the appointers; and the powers of the Prime Minister to appoint Peers outside the appointments commission.
Those and many other issues will all need to be resolved in an appointed House such as proposed by the Government, without even considering the issue of election—direct or indirect. Ahead of us is fire and storm shell and a very uncertain outcome. It is all so avoidable.
I believe that I speak for many Peers on all Benches with whom I have had the privilege of working over the course of the past two decades. On this Bill, as on the Supreme Court Bill, there is a far better way forward. We should return to where the Government once wisely pointed—the Joint Committee. Even in the context of this Bill, the Joint Committee could do a service. The noble Baroness admitted as much. The committee could study and advise on the matters left undecided by the Royal Commission and say how, for example, an appointments commission might work.
We hear much of pre-legislative scrutiny, though not, sadly, of either of the Bills that we are discussing today. I find that astonishing. Prime ministerial amour-propre should not rank above responsible constitutional reform. Wise governments know when and how to retreat; wise oppositions respect a government ready to think again. That is clear to all of us. In the face of all the authoritative objections raised, it would be so much wiser and would win so much more respect if the Bills were put to the Joint Committee or another parliamentary forum before any attempt to ram through unilateral change. Then, while the work of building consensus continued, Parliament could deal with what the public might think to be more pressing matters, such as mental health or the reform of charity law, Bills that will be held up while this legislation is pushed ahead.
Later tonight I will invite the House to record its distaste for the breach of the undertakings given in 1999. We must send a clear message, asking the Government politely but—to make no mistake—earnestly to think again. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, has tabled a separate amendment, but the Government should draw no comfort from that. All those who support either amendment are asking the Government to think again. Supporting the noble Baroness's amendment does not mean that someone cannot support mine. I hope that many will join me when I divide the House tonight.
As I listened to the gracious Speech, I felt, as other noble Lords may have done, a real sense of threat to this House. That is why I will ask the House to join me in a common resolve to urge the Government back to consultation and consensus. In the search for that, I promise, all other parties are ready to play their part.
198
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion for an humble Address, at the end of the Address to insert "but regrets the decision of Your Majesty's Government to abandon the search for cross-party consensus on constitutional reform and to launch unilateral proposals for changes to this House that could gravely weaken the House; and calls on Your Majesty's Government to respect the formal undertakings given to this House, to withdraw their current proposals and to undertake meaningful consultation with Parliament and the senior judiciary before proceeding with legislation.".—(Lord Strathdyde.)
3.52 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in following the speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, I shall make my starting point closer to the speech given by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House than to that given by the Leader of the Opposition. But I shall come back to what the noble Lord said because he identified as fundamental the deeply troubling sense that there has been a breach of trust. The Liberal Democrats, perhaps, have a different aspect on that, but I would like to put it before the House.
Before I do so, I must underline one of the most important things said by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House: our concern is, rightly, not only with the House of Lords but with the growing distrust of representative democracy in our society. We would be unwise to fail to recognise that the challenge to the Government on constitutional reform is, at this time and for this nation, very serious. As the noble Baroness said, the proportion of people who vote is falling. That is most notable among the young. The number of people joining a political party or associating themselves with one is falling. There is a wide consciousness that local government has been hollowed out and that it has little discretion and little power. There is growing awareness that, under this Government and their predecessors, the Prime Minister's office has increasingly taken over from the Cabinet direction of the policies put before Parliament and that such policies are often passed under great pressure and against what would be the conscience of Parliament.
We must be aware that we are at a profoundly critical stage in the development of this country's long-standing and powerful democracy. In 1997, we and our predecessors on these Benches believed strongly that the government that had been elected had a new vision—a vision of radical constitutional reform that would strengthen Parliament and give the country a Parliament truly capable of holding the executive to account. We were, as my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart said, inspired by the concept of devolution of power to the countries and regions of the United Kingdom. We were inspired by the prospect of a serious consideration of the voting system. We were inspired by the prospect of a Parliament that, at both ends of the building, would be reformed and modernised.

199
Some of that has happened. Like many of my colleagues, I welcome the devolution of power to Scotland and Wales. It has led to new ideas, new vigour and, often, to extraordinary reforms that have not yet been extended to England. We welcome those things and congratulate the people of Scotland and Wales on what has been done and on what will be done. However, the great reform has come off as—I agree with the Leader of the Opposition on this—a half-baked reform. It has been stopped half way through its growth and its life.
Today, there are reforms to the judicial system—my noble friend Lord Goodhart will mention our welcome for the joint appointments committee—but we have stopped half way. There is no ministry of justice, as there is in Scotland; there is no concept that the creation and initiation of law should be in hands different from those involved in its implementation; and there is no awareness that our criminal justice system is, in many ways, anachronistic. A ministry of justice would have been a proper, substantial reform. We got a certain amount of tinkering, instead of what could have been an inspiring rebirth of the judicial system in the United Kingdom.
I turn to reform of the House of Lords. I subscribe to the serious charge made by the Leader of the Opposition. We believed what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said when he was Lord Chancellor. We believed in the proposals for what was described as a more representative and more democratic House. We believed in those things; we worked on them; and we thought that, together with the representatives of Her Majesty's Government, we could deliver those things. In that context, I quote one of the Government's earlier leaders on the matter, the right honourable Robin Cook MP. As Leader of the House of Commons, he said, as late as January 2002:
"If the second Chamber is to discharge is to discharge those functions in the public interest, it is essential that it should contain some members elected by the public".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/02; col. 706.]
That view was echoed in this House by the late and deeply lamented Leader of the House, Lord Williams of Mostyn. Most of us know that Lord Williams of Mostyn was a strong supporter of the idea of having a substantial democratic element in the House. Why is it that a key constitutional question appears to be determined more by a change in the cast of players than by the significance of the play itself? Why has much of the impetus for reform somehow been lost?
The noble Baroness the Leader of the House spoke eloquently and persuasively about the difficulties of moving ahead. We all know that, in this House, a substantial majority was, as she said, in favour of a wholly appointed House. However, we must be precise: there were two reasons why the vote in another place for an elected or substantially elected House was lost. The first reason was tactical. The votes in the House of Commons did not put the principle of having an elected House up against the principle of having an appointed one, and the majority in the Commons in favour of an
200
elected House was fragmented by a set of separate Motions proposing different elected proportions. Taken together, the votes showed that the will of the other place was clear.
There was a prospect that the 80 per cent option would, despite the fragmentation of support by the 60, 20 and 40 per cent options, be passed by another place. I think we all know why that option was lost by precisely four votes. It followed the direct intervention of the Prime Minister, who indicated his complete opposition to a substantially elected House. Frankly, it is no good for Her Majesty's Government to pretend that there was no such intervention, one that brought about the loss of that particular option by only four votes. So Members on these Benches do not believe that there is no way forward. We believe that there is a way and that, given the will, it would be possible to find a further route for this House.
Although it is difficult for governments to understand this, I want to say a few words about the absolute importance of having a Parliament which is respected, taken seriously and able to hold the executive to account. I say over and over again that Members on these Benches in this House have no perverse desire to toss out legislation introduced by Her Majesty's Government. We will not take part in a policy of "going slow" to frustrate the will of the Government. But we are profoundly concerned about the Government's suggestion that, somehow, it is illegitimate for an unelected House to draw the attention both of the Government and of the other place back to what we regard as serious incursions on traditional liberties and on the standing of our unwritten constitution. That I believe to be the ultimate obligation of this House and one that the public widely accept.
In the poll conducted prior to the votes taken in the other place, 83 per cent of those who took part indicated their strong support for a largely elected House. It is impossible to argue that there is public support for a wholly appointed House because there is no evidence whatever to suggest that that is true. If we are to respond to the concerns of our fellow citizens, we need to go back and consider the position before us.
Let me say finally—I do not want to detain the House for long—in a little more detail that Members on these Benches deeply regret the Government's lack of courage in breaking the link between the Peerage and the House. I cannot think why the Government have reverted to the profoundly "little c" conservative view that this House must be linked somehow with the Peerage. That is almost to say that we are not moving in a modernising direction.
I turn to the position of the hereditary Peers. In doing so I pay due respect to the fact that they are among the best attenders in the Chamber and the most hardworking of Peers. Nevertheless, since the very beginning of the Liberal Democrat Party, Members on these Benches have never accepted that heredity by itself is a proper basis for representation in either House of Parliament. We have never held to that principle and we do not hold to it now. However, we feel very strongly—we will stand by this—that to make a half-botched reform by getting rid the remaining

201
hereditary Peers without making any response to the other half of what we understood was the decent, honourable, upright deal and understanding between us—the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, pointed this out—is wrong. The abolition of the remaining hereditary Peers was to be linked to a true reform that would bring in a new influx of democratically elected Peers. What is proposed is not what we understood would happen. Members on these Benches are disappointed, some would say that we feel betrayed, because we have acted and negotiated in good faith. We have to hold to the position that, sooner or later, that good faith must be upheld.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, in the 1999 White Paper, Modernising Parliament, the Government stated that they would,
"maintain the cross-bench representation at around its present proportion of life peers".
However, in the Consultation Paper, CP 14/03, the Government proposed only that the,
"appointment of non-political members of the House should average 20% of new appointments over the course of each Parliament".
I invite the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to confirm today that the independent, non-party figure of 20 per cent is to be the accepted benchmark for membership in an all-appointed House of the future.
From 1958 to 1999, it was customary for some life peerages to be announced in the Queen's Birthday and New Year's Honours lists. In total about 250 individuals out of well over 1,000 were honoured in this way before the present appointments commission was set up in 2000. That is equivalent to an annual average of fewer than six awards per year; a small and special category of recognition. Virtually all other life peerages have been awarded in dissolution or resignation honours lists, or to replace or strengthen political party membership— quaintly referred to as "working Peers". In 2001, the newly created appointments commission recommended 15 outstanding applicants to become independent Peers. Until then, a peerage had been regarded and treated as an honour.
Regrettably, by establishing the appointments commission, this Government have severed the link between membership of the House and the honour previously bestowed in the New Year and Birthday Honours lists. In the case of the late Lord Lewin and myself, we were named in the lists of honours awarded respectively for the Falklands conflict and Gulf War 1. We did not figure in a half-yearly honours list and we much prized this uniqueness. Speakers from the other place are also honoured with a peerage on their retirement, at the behest of the Commons. They, too, prize this. Will the Government confirm their intention specifically to allow for peerages in these two categories to continue?
However, of greater concern to me is the proposal to establish an appointments commission on a statutory basis and to give that new body significant
202
responsibilities, in addition to selecting individuals as new non-party Peers. I wonder if I am alone in feeling uneasy about this plan? It is seen as a means of replacing and building on the experience and responsibilities of the present commission, but the case for the present commission is based on less solid ground than when it was originally proposed and set up. At the time there was a strong presumption that, before too long, the House would have an elected element. It was argued in the 1999 White Paper that an appointments commission would relieve the Prime Minister of the function of nominating Cross Bench Peers because they would become more important,
"with the removal of the Conservative in-built majority".
But Cross Benchers are never whipped.
The Royal Commission recommended a statutory commission with wide-ranging powers for a partly elected House when it would be inappropriate for a Prime Minister to have a role as an appointer. It was argued that it was not in keeping with modern sensitivities for a Prime Minister to exercise patronage in appointments. Much was made at the time, and has been repeated today, of the self-denying ordinance of this Prime Minister.
But, in reality, how great is this Prime Minister's surrender of Lords' patronage? What has he given up? He has given up honouring around six new individuals per year from a field of eminent and successful people whose efforts merit the award of a peerage. But he will still be responsible for the ennoblement of every new Peer on his party's Back Benches; the Ministers that he wishes to sit in the Lords; the past holders of high office such as Archbishops, Cabinet Secretaries and Chiefs of the Defence Staff, whose appointments he was probably responsible for recommending to the Queen in the first place; and every new Peer named in his dissolution or resignation honours—I tread lightly on those two adjectives. Is that patronage surrender? No, it is just spin.
This Prime Minister retains a major role in filling vacancies in your Lordships' House for as long as it is to remain a fully appointed House, which is his firm preference. But that role for a Prime Minister is neither reprehensible nor alien to our customs. All of Mr Blair's predecessors since the Life Peerages Act 1958 managed to select on average around six individuals a year to be honoured in the New Year and Birthday lists, to select their party's working Peers and Ministers, and all those named in their dissolution or resignation honours.
Why then should the relatively small task of selecting five or six individuals a year to be honoured be so inappropriate for the nation's Prime Minister? Instead, his appointments commission was tasked to seek applicants, not those who should be honoured with no pre-scripted obligation to participate in the work of the House as had happened previously. We are invited to legislate to remove just one small element of patronage from Mr Blair and all future Prime Ministers. Is it right to so curtail a responsibility that should go with the job?

203
We now have a commission the role of which, after the flush of 15 Peers to catch up with the period when there had been no new year or birthday honours, may be limited to naming five or six Peers per year in a couple of tranches once filled by the honours system. Even that number could be doubtful. Three non-party peerages have been awarded in the past year directly on the Prime Minister's authority, without recourse to the appointments commission.
Current Cross-Bench representation, excluding the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and minor parties, is around 24 per cent. That leaves scant headroom for additions to a 20 per cent on average non-party membership.
A new statutory commission, as envisaged in the Government's consultation paper, will,
"wield very significant powers".
Without dwelling on the make-up of this body or how its membership is to be found, can any such group, however eminent, fulfil the functions that this Government expect of it? Apart from their doubts revealed in the consultation paper about the commission's composition or the best way of finding its membership, the Government significantly only place as third in their list of criteria for the commission's guidance that it is,
"to have in mind the non-party peers' share of the House".
The commission's significant powers are to be exercised in conformity with certain principles or guidelines—I am not sure which, and it may not be that material—but, whichever they are, they are expressed in the vaguest terms:
"The Government of the day should not have an overall majority in the House".
How long is a piece of string? The commission,
"should be guided, in its decision on the appropriate balance of new nominations between the parties, by the distribution of votes between the major parties at the previous general election".
What about the minor parties?
Because of the inflexibility of life membership the Government do not propose to set out any of these "rules" in legislation,
"beyond having regard to the general election result".
It seems to me that there could be precious little help for the commission from legislation crafted in such vague terms.
Yet the more that it is left to its own devices, the greater will be the prospect of serious disagreement on one side or another about its decisions and methods of work. With a much more limited role the present commission has not been without its critics.
The new commission is also to pay attention to representativeness and regionalism and is to have,
"very much in mind the need to keep the House to a manageable size".
Manageable by whom? Further vague phrases; difficult, impossible to define. My home is in Norfolk. Do I represent in some way regional East Anglian interests? I think not. I spend more of my days here in London. I was born in Dublin. My interests and experiences are not
204
geographic but professional in defence and science. I suppose I may now be embarking on a constitutional foundation course. Vagueness could be a recipe for instability—something to avoid in a vital constitutional matter.
Should legislation to set up a new commission seek to be precise; to give some mathematical approach to calculating relative party strengths after a general election and eligibility criteria for becoming a Member of the House? If so, you do not need a new statutory commission. The Electoral Commission could be charged to work out the new party strengths to the agreed formulae following an election.
In sum, for a fully appointed House I have doubts about the need for a statutory commission with wide and ill-defined powers yet great authority. It may be difficult even to get its membership mix agreed. Once it is set up it will be either a continuing focus for dissent, and thus instability, or it will be so circumscribed by statute as to be an unnecessary complication in our constitution.
Let the Prime Minister of the day, still with very wide powers of patronage, continue to be responsible for honouring half-a-dozen or so individuals as independent Peers each year. If he needs help in identifying them, he can look to an informal arrangement. Future Prime Ministers should be free to undertake this task in whatever way—including, perhaps, the old way—that suits them. They should not be tied by an entrenched statute.
The nation has been well served by the appointed Members of the House who have entered it by the old routes. The goal posts of reform have moved back from election to appointment. The Royal Commission's views in favour of a statutory commission are no longer so relevant. Must we turn to an expensive, controversial statutory commission with ill-defined, extensive political powers and required to find a very few new independent Members a year for your Lordships' House? However eminent, will it serve us well? I have my doubts.
I have not yet addressed the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. He knows that I have a good deal of sympathy with what he says. I reflected similar sentiments when I said that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor's statement on 18th September contained a,
"serious breach of faith".—[Official Report, 18/9/03; col. 1065.]
But I have some reluctance about amending the response to the gracious Speech and so I shall listen with great interest to what is said.
4.16 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, there is a story about a preacher who fell asleep during his own sermon. I have never suffered from that particular fate myself, but it springs to mind as I try to make some observations about the implications of the gracious Speech in relation to today's debate.
I have been in your Lordships' House for only four years, but there seems to have been more than ample opportunity to try to get at least some of these matters

205
settled in some kind of orderly way—Wakeham, Green Paper, parliamentary Joint Committee, to say nothing of the public debate that has been going on at the same time. I hope that what follows, offered in the spirit of a friendly critic, may in some small way help to push the debate along. If I adopt: the popular preacher's practice of concentrating on three areas that begin with the same letter—process., principle and perspective—perhaps your Lordships may be allowed to conclude that the ruse is to try to keep me awake while I speak to you.
First, the process has gone badly wrong in relation to the Lord Chancellorship and the reform of the House. I accept the argument offered by many that the tramlines of constitutional development might be leading us towards a separation of powers, but to do so on the hoof in a Cabinet reshuffle is not exactly the best way to go about things. It is certainly not something that I would get away with as a Bishop in a diocese along the south coast. There should have been a debate beforehand on the principles involved and these Benches look forward to contributing to the debate on the report that has recently been published.
As far as reform is concerned, I should like to register a little frustration from these Benches. We have consistently encouraged the reform process, even though, in relation to recent deliberations, we have had no representation on the Joint Committee. Over and above a desire to make the Lords Spiritual more comprehensive in composition, some of us, on a much wider front—and I am not here to speak about Bishops in the House of Lords; it is about reform that I want to speak—have repeatedly drawn attention to the need for far more work on different methods of appointment and different methods of election.
Instead of being presented with a series of mathematical options, as we were in January by the Joint Committee, we should have had the opportunity to look in far more detail at that issue first to try to widen the range of language we are accustomed to using; to get away from the at times polarised style of debate we have had in this area—where it is either "elected" or "appointed" when all the ranges of options merge in and out of each other in the middle. It is a much more complex issue than many realise.
In that connection, I have a great deal of sympathy with those who believe that, before we abolish the hereditary principle, we should have a much clearer idea about where this House is going. That has been signalled by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. At the risk of rushing in where angels might fear to tread—but we do that in this profession quite frequently—we could do a lot worse than to set up our own Select Committee to do that work for us, and to explore the many different possibilities for election and appointment.
That brings me to my second point, about principle. What should a second Chamber look like? Among its many ingredients, which must reflect its work as a revising Chamber, with at times a challenging and—to use theological language—prophetic role—must be the principle of what might be called "ordered
206
participation". Until now, we have lived with the non-separation of powers, so that the legislature, the judiciary and the executive live in some kind of creative tension, as they are in part spread over both Houses. With the removal of the judiciary, however, we shall be left with the legislature and executive in what can only be described as an ever-increasing creative tension.
I am frankly not persuaded by the buffalo charge for an immediately reformed Chamber that is fully elected. More work needs to be done to ensure, by whatever methods of election, appointment, or a mix—and we have been hybrid for centuries—that sharp expertise is represented on a range of areas and interests. Although there should appropriately be a political element, I am not alone in lamenting the possibility of an over-politicised upper House.
Whatever the means whereby we arrive at that result, let me draw attention to the kind of animal who sits on these Benches. We are, in practice, elected by a Crown Appointments Commission, whose membership is elected from other bodies. The four from the dioceses who are elected by the Vacancy-in-See Committee have, in practice, a veto over every other member of that commission—but perhaps that should not be repeated outside this Chamber. We are Members of the House of Lords, not Peers. We bring with us a geographical area— I am the only person in your Lordships' House from south-east Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. We rotate and we retire, thus ensuring active experience, as well as bringing here a whole range of conversations with many people in our communities. Leaving aside the question of the Lords Spiritual, such a model has something to commend it among the range of options that might be under consideration.
That brings me to my third point, which relates to perspective. In debates about all our institutions, another convenient and facile polarisation emerges, between so-called traditionalists and so-called modernisers, which seldom does much justice to the complexity of the issue or to the personalities involved. As an historian, my profoundest frustration about reform is that more often than not it comes across as if we at this end of the corridor are a problem that somehow has to be solved. It is as if we were a little like a slightly out-of-hand border terrier that needs to be neutered. As the owner of two seven year-old neutered border terriers, I speak with some experience.
Parliamentary reform should be about the whole of Parliament. As experiments are made with devolution and, more modestly in this place, with appointments commissions and different forms of election that may be tried from time to time—carrying on the hybrid nature that this House has had for many centuries— the national finger will begin to point more and more at the rest of the parliamentary scene. The sooner that that is realised, the better.
As the noble Baroness the Leader of the House warned earlier, participation in modern democracy is a precious flower that cannot be taken for granted, when it is as low as it is now in terms of voting, particularly among the young.

207
I wish to quote from the most reverend and right honourable Prelate—I am glad that I got that mouthful out—at the time that he was a most reverend Prelate because he was still Archbishop of Wales, but not quite right honourable because he was not yet elected formally as Archbishop of Canterbury. In last year's Dimbleby lecture, Dr Williams spoke about the increasing erosion of the voluntary base. He said:
"It isn't surprising, then, if the unspoken model of political expectation now is increasingly the consumerist one: the individual confronts the state, asking for what is promised— maximal choice, purchasing power to determine a lifestyle. It isn't surprising if the attitude of many to national and local elections is apathy, with a disturbingly high percentage of younger people failing to vote".
That means looking at the structures that we have— and at all the structures, not just this House. I know that we have to start somewhere. However, unlike the problems in higher education, which will be debated on Thursday and which go back over 20 years, the particular matters under consideration today are, largely, the responsibility of the present Government. I urge them, in the spirit of critical friendship, to think more widely and deeply than they have so far.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, the gracious Speech proposes legislation, as we have heard again today, for the abolition of the current office of the Lord Chancellor, for the setting up of a new supreme court and for a new way in which to appoint judges in England and Wales. That the Prime Minister had decided on those matters was intimated by a press release from No. 10 Downing Street as part of the announcement of a ministerial reshuffle, as a result of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, left the Government.
I have the impression that there was no prior consultation with the Scottish Executive, nor with the judiciary here in England and Wales, in Scotland or in Northern Ireland, although the Lord Chancellor is the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, and the supreme court is proposed as the supreme court for the United Kingdom. As one who felt highly honoured to hold the office of Lord Chancellor from 1987 to 1997, I feel sad that the abolition of that post was announced in such a fashion.
Is the office still important? Those presently serving as Lords of Appeal in Ordinary do not always agree on everything. However, they have agreed in stating:
"We are, however, very greatly concerned that the important constitutional values which the office of Lord Chancellor protected should continue to be effectively protected. In the past the Lord Chancellor's role was to uphold constitutional propriety and champion judicial independence. The constitution would be gravely weakened if that safeguard were removed and not replaced".
That is a quotation from the submissions of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, in answer to the consultation paper on the supreme court—which, of course, did not directly deal with the question of the abolition of the Lord Chancellor's office.
208
My understanding is that the proposed replacement in respect of that matter is to be a statutory obligation on the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs to safeguard the independence of the judiciary. What is this statutory obligation to require? What could the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs do to subvert the independence of the judiciary if he did not have this statutory obligation? On the other hand, what can he do to safeguard the independence of the judiciary? What specific powers will he have to carry out this particular obligation? I refrain from giving examples of difficulties that he might face, but I am sure that they will come to mind very readily for many of your Lordships.
The doctrine of the independence of the judiciary is not for the benefit of the judiciary. It is the fundamental protection for every citizen that when a citizen goes before a judge, that citizen will receive a judgment that is to the best of the judge's ability,
"according to the laws and usages of this realm without fear or favour, affection or ill will".
What of the supreme court? We are told that it is to have the same judicial powers as this House presently has, with the added power to hear appeals in devolved issues that by deliberate decision in the Scotland Act were conferred on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The reason for that, as I understand it, was that hitherto there had been no power or jurisdiction in the House of Lords to hear criminal appeals from Scotland. In the nature of things, some of these devolved issues were likely to involve, as indeed it has turned out, matters of criminal law. Therefore, it was appropriate that these appeals should go, as other appeals from Scotland would do, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
The statement as to the jurisdiction of the House of Lords in relation to Scotland means that criminal appeals to the new supreme court generally will still not be available from Scotland. In what sense is it the supreme court of the United Kingdom if it has no jurisdiction whatever in criminal matters from Scotland, which is still, notwithstanding the devolution settlement, part of the United Kingdom?
Of course, there is already a supreme court in England and Wales—the Court of Appeal, the High Court and the Crown Courts are together the supreme court—and there are supreme courts in Scotland with a distinguished body of solicitors with a long history, based in Edinburgh, known as Solicitors to the Supreme Court. The father of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor practised alongside those although he was a member of what was thought to be the somewhat more elite body of Writers to Her Majesty's Signet.
At present, the Lord Chancellor is by statute President of the Supreme Court of England and Wales and President of the Chancery Division. In my view that makes it suitable for the Lord Chancellor to provide the administration of the supreme court. Who is now to be the President of the Supreme Court of England and Wales? We are told in one of the consultation papers that the Lord Chancellor is in consultation with the senior judiciary about that. But

209
surely this is a matter for us all. It is not a private matter between the Lord Chancellor and the senior judiciary; it is a matter in which all of us have an interest. So far as I have been able to see, and I am very subject to correction, there is absolutely nothing about that in any of the consultation papers that the Lord Chancellor has put out, except to say that he is in consultation with the senior judiciary about it.
I doubt whether it is appropriate for the administration of the courts, including as it does matters such as listing and other judicial functions, to be under the control of a Secretary of State who is neither a judge nor constrained by a judicial oath.
Another important question which I should like to mention in the minute left to me is that of rights of audience. When I was responsible for these matters the senior judiciary were fully involved in decisions on rights of audience by express provision of the statute. That has since been modified to give the responsibility to the Lord Chancellor only, I think with the consent of the senior judiciary. Is it appropriate that that function should be discharged by a Secretary of State who is neither a judge nor constrained by a judicial oath, important as the rights of audience are to the conduct of the courts?
There are many matters in these proposals that are of great consequence. If the new system proposed by the Government is to work as well as the Government admit the system that they are trying to replace is working, then a great deal needs to be done about the detail. I humbly submit that they are more likely to be successful if that is done with deliberation and caution.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who closes his distinguished speech on precisely the note on which I had planned to open mine. It is a happy coincidence but it is true. The fact is that in the years when this topic has been before Parliament we have seen a recurrent contrast between impulsive, reckless proposals, almost vandalistic in their quality, and periods of collective, calm reflection when the matters are referred either to Parliament, to committees or to Royal Commissions.
If one is looking for an example of impulsive vandalism, nothing could be clearer than the way in which the office of Lord Chancellor has been handled by this Government. The handling of it almost defies belief because it fails to take account of a most fundamental feature of our constitution which in a way is represented by the physical presence here of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. The looming presence at the end of the Cabinet table of the Lord Chancellor—a manifestly different creature; judicial background, judicial oath, legal training—is formidable and is the most effective guarantee of the independence of the judiciary that I can think of. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has quite a looming presence and discharged that duty effectively. He will forgive me if I say that he did not loom anything like as much as Lord Hailsham used to do. That is intended as a compliment to both of them.
210
That is brought out very clearly in the supplementary memorandum on the future of the appeal committee from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough. He says that the Government's thinking confuses the need for the independence of the judiciary with what he calls,
"a doctrine based on a mistaken analysis of the British constitution developed by French thinkers in the 18th century";
that is, the separation of powers. He says quite clearly:
"The cornerstone of that protection"—
the protection of judicial independence—
"is (paradoxically) the role of the Lord Chancellor as head of the judiciary",
sitting at the Cabinet table. I ask, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has done already, how on earth that effect is to be produced in whatever is written into any statute that may now try to adorn a mere Secretary of State with comparable authority.
This may well be an anomaly. However, as Professor Ash Wheatcroft—professor of tax law, rather remarkably—once said, a tax system breathes through its loopholes. In my judgment, a delicate unwritten constitution such as our own breathes through its anomalies. We at our peril allow reckless modernisers to sweep aside conventions of which they are ignorant or which they do not understand. That is what is so destructive about that approach to the office of Lord Chancellor.
We have seen a similar variation—evolution is too dignified a word—in the Government's approach to the broader question of the future of this House. At the outset, ebullient with their enormous majority, their commitment was to sweep away all our hereditary colleagues at a very early stage—"out with the lot", and no matter what comes thereafter. Gradually that simple proposition has been eroded and diminished by a succession of concerted activity—including the Wakeham commission, the 1999 legislation and above all the embodiment in that Act of the Weatherill agreement, and by the House of Commons Public Administration Committee and the Joint Committee. Much of the controversy has been gradually diminished. Moreover, a great deal of common ground has emerged on almost all of what one might call the second-order questions, and that is rehearsed in the latest documents. So far, so good. Yet now, at the beginning of this Parliament, the Government return to the charge with their impulsive decision once again to break their promise, as has been so clearly pointed out by both the Front Bench speakers, and to proceed with the elimination of the surviving hereditary Peers.
If one examines the consultative document, one sees clearly that at the outset the Government intended to bind themselves to their honourable commitment. They said that the removal of hereditary Peers "remains the Government's policy", but that,
"For the time being, the Government will concentrate on making the House of Lords work as effectively as possible in fulfilment of its important role".
That was the impression that they sought to give from 15th July when they produced their response to the second report of the Joint Committee until a couple of

211
weeks ago. Stability for the House over the medium term was the declared objective. That has now given way to a determination to sweep aside the remaining surviving elected hereditaries despite the fact, as has been pointed out, that they are among the most useful and effective Members of the House. I find that quite indefensible and I entirely agree with both the Front Bench speakers in deploring it completely.
What about the rest of the agenda and the Appointments Commission? That is something which the Joint Committee has tended to look at with some sympathy. However, having listened to the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, I can see why there is much more thinking to be done on that, particularly when one looks at the criteria for the size of the House, which has shifted rapidly before our eyes.
However, there is one matter that still needs to be addressed, and that is the question of the composition of this House. That, too, needs to be addressed with less absolutism than is sometimes the case on the part of speakers on all sides of the House. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, spoke movingly and effectively, as always, about the decline in respect for Parliament. She also spoke about the need for substantial democratic change in this House. I wish that one could be as enthusiastic about that as one would like to be in principle when one hears the same speakers, including the noble Baroness, talk about the decline in turnout at elections and the diminishing respect for elections as a process for choosing people. Elections are no longer the hallmark of legitimacy that they used to be in this or any other society. That is why I hope that the whole approach to the elected or nominated membership of this House will be considered much more carefully.
One cannot brush aside the fact that a very large majority of the Members of this House does not welcome the idea of an elected membership. However much Members of the Commons may have been bullied by the Prime Minister, they failed to agree on any one of the options laid before them. One cannot distil from that an overwhelming enthusiasm for filling this place with elected Members. That matter deserves to be re-examined by all of us and by all parties. I hope that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde will be prepared to recognise that the same goes for the proposals for this House, to which he still adheres, of a senate of 300 people with 60 nominated Members. In all the documents that have so far been prepared it is common ground that the future size of this House should be in the region of 600 to 650. However, my noble friend and one or two other enthusiasts still propose that the House should suddenly be reduced to half its present size with only 60 nominated Members. If he protests at the cull of the surviving 100 hereditary Peers in the present House, how much more should he be inclined to protest at the proposed cull of some 600 Peers and the formation of a senate half the size of the present House with 10 per cent of us left? I cherish the belief that my noble friend's attachment to that idea will diminish as the days, weeks and months go by.
212
I make a final point by way of concession to my noble friend. I understand the argument that election is perceived to confer legitimacy even in these days, but why do we have to accept this proposition in such large doses? If the proposition is to become effective at all, why cannot there be a rebirth of the modesty with which Macmillan first introduced the idea of life Peers? At first they constituted a mere drip, a handful. Now, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, pointed out, there have been, over the years, 1,000 of them, and we are very lucky to have them. Similarly, is there not a case for a much more modest and less vandalistic approach to the democratisation of this House, however worthy it may seem on the face of it? Let not the reshaping of this House follow the pattern of the destructive reshaping of the office of Lord Chancellor.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, as A J P Taylor used to say, it is "a curious twist" that the most controversial aspect of the Address should be a debate on constitutional matters. In the past they were regarded as an elite subject that caused people to leave the House in large numbers. However, they constitute perhaps the most radical change that the Government have introduced. In his presence I pay very great tribute to my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine who was an extraordinary reformer— the greatest reforming Lord Chancellor ever; he was not perhaps so much Thomas Wolsey as Thomas Cromwell in terms of the agent of a revolution in government.
We now have a further move after a lull—the Department for Constitutional Affairs, the Supreme Court, the ending of hereditary Peers. As the first Back-Bench Labour spear carrier to speak, I should like to say that I strongly support them all. I do not take some of the opposition too seriously. It comes from people who have opposed all reforms. With regard to Scotland and Wales, they have ended up, like Gemini in the "Eurovision Song Contest", with nul points.
It is sometimes said that the Government do not have a master plan, and there is much to be said for the criticism that some of it is incoherent. However, I believe that they have master principles, particularly regarding local accountability, the emphasis on rights, a move towards a written constitution and a more positive view of citizenship which I hope will be extended elsewhere, including to the monarchy, which we never discuss on these occasions.
I should like to allude briefly to three areas. No one has mentioned devolution. That constitutes an enormous radical change for which my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine was very much responsible. The Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales are now largely redundant. They have—particularly in Scotland—a somewhat shadowy role. Welsh devolution needs a substantial overhaul. In the summer the Richard Commission heard powerful theoretical and empirical argument in favour of change. The Welsh devolution settlement is unstable and does not lead to a proper process of legislation. The only answer is primary powers in due course for Wales as for Scotland.

213
I mention regionalism briefly. It would be highly desirable if such moves as there are towards regional government were attached to the Department for Constitutional Affairs and not to Mr Prescott's department. The matter should be viewed laterally and not vertically.
The Government have introduced perhaps their most radical changes in the area of human rights. They have transformed the relationships between the legislature and the judiciary. It is absolutely right that the total independence of the judiciary should be emphasised in those changes. We are moving rightly towards a more formal separation of powers. We have an entrenched independent judiciary not depending simply on convention or on culture, which I welcome. It seems to me that the creation of an independent Supreme Court is the logical extension of that. Incidentally, we are told that the Law Lords add greatly to our enlightenment and wisdom but there has also been reference to Hitler and to judges being executed in the 17th century. We were not told by whom those references were made but they slightly argue against the proposition.
The culture of human rights is very important and should be observed by the Government. It concerns me that alongside these valuable constitutional changes there are proposals in the asylum Bill that would clearly challenge or undermine the human rights of detainees. The proposed civil contingencies Bill would in key respects challenge or suspend human rights and erode parliamentary and/or legal protection. It is sometimes said that we need something beyond the Emergency Powers Act 1920. I am afraid that I have destroyed a few rain forests writing about that Act. I say to comrades and Peers on these Benches that that was a strike-breaking measure to attack the trade unions and send troops with fixed bayonets to the mining valleys of south Wales. Let us not assume that it was, as it were, a woolly-minded Guardian-reader reform that now has to be extended.
The Department for Constitutional Affairs is a quite admirable innovation. It seems to me that it creates joined-up government. I welcome particularly the creation of the Constitution Directorate. Since the Constitution Unit was wound up in 2001, we have needed something to bring the various agencies together. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, addressed the Constitution Committee, I made the point that it should be a proactive department, not simply a technical, nuts-and-bolts department. It should cast its eye boldly over the whole range of constitutional change, and energise and take the whole process forward.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and others have said, the main problem with the constitution is clearly Parliament. Both Houses of Parliament are the black hole in the Government's programme of constitutional change. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, who is present in a sense, has wisely and correctly written in Parliamentary Affairs about the demise, as he calls it, of parliaments and the parliamentary model. One could argue whether it is demise or decline, but we need to reform the Lords extensively. Of course we should get rid of the hereditary Peers. It is absurd to
214
have hereditary legislators, any more than hereditary vice-chancellors or hereditary plumbers. There is no logic or reason in it, and I welcome that change.
Lords reform should also welcome other principles. What should it reflect? I voted for only one of the eight options; namely, an all-elected House. The Liberal Democrats, admirable in many areas, are timid in wanting a 60 per cent elected House. The Conservatives go for 80 per cent. The only possible policy for a social democrat is an all-elected and democratically elected House, reflecting the people, not patronage and enclosed systems. However, I shall vote with the Government for the reason that Orator Hunt voted for the Reform Act 1832—it is a start. Orator Hunt voted for the rotten Reform Act 1832 because, if it disfranchised only one rotten borough, it would be desirable. If the measure gets rid of the hereditary Peers as a constitutional anomaly, I shall vote for it.
The problem is not only the institutions of Parliament, but the operation of Parliament. Next month, we shall look at the Hutton inquiry. Now is not the time to examine the disgraceful and illegal aspects of our foreign policy that the Hutton inquiry will reveal, but it will most certainly show the evidence and everyone with a computer will be able to read it. We shall see the damage that has been done through the intrusion of the organs of central government into the Civil Service, sectioning off parts of the Civil Service, if not bypassing entire departments.
I hope that the Government will attend to those matters, and I expect confidently that they will, because they have been innovative, dynamic and radical elsewhere. I am very proud to support them on those matters. They need to reform both Houses of Parliament and address the anomaly that, at a time of great decentralisation and devolution, we actually have greater centralisation of the governmental machine. New Labour will not give us socialism in our time, but it may give us democracy in our time, and I hope that it will take that process forward.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, who speaks with his usual measure of intellect and verve.
When they came to power in 1997, the Government energetically set about major structural reform that included devolution in Scotland and Wales, the Human Rights Act, an elected Mayor for London and the first stage of Lords reform, all of which were long overdue and welcome. After that first wave of bold changes, the Government's resolution seemed to flag. Then, last summer, the Government suddenly regained their reforming zeal and announced their intention to create a Supreme Court, a Department for Constitutional Affairs, and the abolition of the residual hereditary Peers.
Between the first and second waves of major reforms, little real consideration was given to constitutional matters at least as pressing as those addressed at the outset of this Government. As a number of noble Lords have touched on, there is the

215
whole question of reform of the legislature and, in particular, reform of the House of Commons. It needs to be reformed in a major way. Hopes were raised while Mr Robin Cook was Leader of the Commons, but seemingly little can be expected now to improve substantially the power of the Commons to hold the Government accountable.
Increasing Back-Bench revolts in the Parliamentary Labour Party may well force change in government policies, but that is no substitute for fundamental reform of the role of the House of Commons. That remains a priority if our democracy is to be adequately modernised. Creating alternative parliamentary careers by offering the prospect of higher salaries to those who chair Select Committees is a minor reform. Similarly, twice-yearly meetings between the Commons' Liaison Committee and the Prime Minister have proved not to be a significant investigatory device.
It is unfortunate that Commons reform, which would help to restore public interest in politics, was not mentioned in the gracious Speech. The neglect of that fundamental reform in the legislative branch of government has been paralleled by a mushrooming development in the executive branch. I refer to the remorseless growth of what I have previously termed the political demi-monde. That comprises the various policy tsars, task forces, regulators, executive agencies, and the outsourcing of services, including the ever-burgeoning number of PFI/PPP schemes. Those central government manifestations of the demi-monde are greatly multiplied at the levels of local and regional government. It is difficult to obtain reliable statistics but, as I have cited in your Lordships' House before, the metropolitan district of Calderdale last April recorded 107 partnerships and programmes stemming from central government.
Two major questions arise out of the development of the demi-monde. Although there is doubtless some rationale behind the creation of every one of those innovations, it is the aggregate of them that is the cause of concern and that, it appears, has never been addressed. The operations of the demimonde in all its aspects could be wholly conducive to the good ordering of the body politic. The point is that no one can know, either inside or outside government. Its rapid and haphazard development precludes critical scrutiny. It remains outside any constitutional or effective management control. There is no management chart, let alone any formal codification. The situation defies human invigilation, particularly in the localities. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs whether the demi-monde has impinged on the collective consciousness of his newly-created department.
There are signs that the Government are at last starting to appreciate the down side of what they have spawned. Only last week, The Times reported that a review of 31 central health bodies and watchdogs, which have more than doubled since 1997, is to be undertaken with a view to them being "axed, merged
216
or privatised". They represent but a microcosm of the bureaucratic quagmire that has been replicated throughout the executive arm of UK government.
Evidence—still slight, but welcome nevertheless— that a change of mind may be in the offing is to be seen in the growing interest in decentralisation. Whitehall departments have been asked to examine which of their activities could be physically moved away from London, although so far that has not met with a hugely positive response. The Home Secretary is playing with the idea of elected sheriffs to head up constabularies, while foundation hospitals were advanced as giving a larger degree of autonomy to locally elected health trusts.
My own party has further contributed to the theme of greater localism by proposing local income taxes, to replace the highly regressive council tax. I suspect that other parties are closely looking at the feasibility of that proposal, in the light of growing unrest with the council tax. Such an innovation would be of considerable constitutional advantage by helping to revive local democracy.
On the vexed question of Lords reform, on which many noble Lords are focusing today, the situation has deteriorated into a stand-off between the parties and there is no consensus on how to proceed. Opinion has also divided within the Labour Party. That the problem has developed as it has is due mainly to the Government.
The resulting impasse has been served up as an excuse for abolishing the hereditary residue without making any provision for an elected element. I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, that we on these Benches would want a 100 per cent elected House.
As other noble Lords have noted, the Government have reneged twice on their manifesto commitments and on their word solemnly given during the so-called "Weatherill amendment" negotiations. Reneging on those undertakings is quite unacceptable and the explanation proffered by the noble Baroness the Lord President was most unconvincing. Reform of the second Chamber has ceased to be treated by the Government as an issue of constitutional importance and relegated to one of political convenience. We shall end up being the biggest quango of them all.
This thinking on the part of the Government is all of a piece with their approach to constitutional reform, which is quite exasperating. Successive Lord Chancellors have openly admitted that they disdain having any overall view on constitutional matters. They seek, most unconvincingly, to say that the Government initiate reform as and when it is perceived to be necessary. The lack of a coherent constitutional road map—to use the current jargon—creates many problems not least for the Government themselves. This is well illustrated by the sudden announcement about creating a Supreme Court and a Department for Constitutional Affairs. Both are commendable reforms. The problem is that they are seen as yet another act of "ad hockery" as they were not presented as part of an overall plan in which various reforms are seen to be related to one another in a coherent and meaningful way.

217
This gives some advantage to the "forces of conservatism", as the Prime Minister puts it, who oppose the proposals, which include a majority of the Law Lords. Next week, the Secretary of State is due to give a lecture to the Constitution Unit on the Government's philosophy of constitutional reform. It would be good if he were to give us a rehearsal today.
It is to be hoped that by the next Queen's Speech the Department for Constitutional Affairs will be up and running, taking on the need for a more comprehensive view of our constitutional arrangements; and living up to its name. Joined-up government pre-supposes a joined-up constitution.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, just before becoming Prime Minister in 1997, Tony Blair said:
"Labour's goal of improving access to justice is an essential part of our commitment to social justice".
I shall be submitting to your Lordships that under this Government that commitment has been and is being seriously eroded. I shall address your Lordships under four headings: first, asylum and immigration; secondly, crime; thirdly, civil claims; and, fourthly, the rapidly diminishing facilities for advice.
The Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill provides at least four serious examples of restriction on access to justice. First, there is a restriction on the higher courts to exercise by judicial review their normal supervisory jurisdiction over tribunals. What is proposed would be that if a tribunal, in determining an application, made an error of law or failed to give proper consideration to relevant facts, the only redress would be to ask the tribunal to review its own decision. This would be only through written submissions. No matter how erroneous the decision, the applicant would have no means of challenging the tribunal's ruling.
Secondly, changes in the appeal structure by providing for a single tier of appeal will conflict with the interests of justice. The poor quality of the initial decisions means that the hearing carried out before a special adjudicator is often the first proper factual assessment of the case.
Thirdly, undocumented passengers are to be subject to sanctions. This will lead to a breach of Article 31 of the Refugee Convention 1951, acknowledged in domestic law by Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The article provides:
"The contracting states shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who come directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorisation, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry".
Fourthly, there is to be limitation on legal aid advice. It is proposed to limit initial advice to three hours for immigration and five hours for asylum work. This has led to widespread criticism. Indeed, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has written to the Lord Chancellor warning him that the proposal will lead to vulnerable refugees being deported unnecessarily.
218
It is apparent that the Home Secretary dislikes not only judges but also the judicial process. It is becoming more and more obvious that he does not meet the job specification! Thank heavens the judiciary is in no way involved in the highly controversial proposal for identity cards.
On crime, it is proposed in a publication from the Lord Chancellor's department, entitled Delivering Value for Money in the Criminal Defence Service, to downgrade the fees in the "very high-cost cases". That totally overlooks that law firms use the few remaining complex and better-paid cases to cross-subsidise lower-scale work. Driving down fees on complex work would drive out a business of criminal firms already struggling to keep afloat and affect access to criminal justice.
But an accused person is also entitled to a just sentencing system. Your Lordships have been addressed at some length by me and others on the ministerial decree which resulted from the Home Secretary producing Schedule 19 to go into the Criminal Justice Act which added at least 50 per cent to the agreed sentencing guidelines provided the previous year. Those guidelines were the result of consultation between the Court of Appeal, or the Lord Chief Justice, and the sentencing panel. The guidelines subsequently received the concurrence of the Home Secretary and the noble and learned Lords the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General. The Government have totally overlooked that, by adding more than 50 per cent to the guidelines relative to murder cases, all other serious offences also have to go up proportionately. The distortion that will result, together with the increase in the prison population, is beyond dispute.
I come next to the question of civil claims. When the Labour Government came into power, there was already in existence speculative litigation, which previous generations had condemned as being contrary to public policy. There existed agreements known as "conditional fee agreements", or CFAs. Those operated on the principle of no win, no pay. Thus, the lawyers' remuneration, which was to be 100 per cent on the ordinary fee, was contingent on the action succeeding. Therefore, the lawyers had a stake in the litigation, with the result that there were bound to be occasions when their interest conflicted with that of their clients—in particular, when a settlement was being negotiated.
The previous government had stated firmly that the new freedom to litigate on that basis was not intended to replace the grant of legal aid. I believe that a provision in the initial legislation provided that check. It was the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with his acuity and perception, who sought from the then government such an assurance.
However, when the new Labour Government, by legislation in 2000, decreed that there should no longer be legal aid for personal injury claims, apart from clinical negligence, then problems arose. The personal injury claims were to be funded entirely on the contingent-fee basis. That was, in fact, unnecessary. The high frequency of success, either by litigation or

219
compromise in this field of work, resulted in the legal aid fund recovering its costs. In addition, the Government were reimbursed with social security payments to the injured plaintiff. That meant that civil legal aid in this field involved the Government in little, if any, payment out. However, since it is an accepted principle of English law that "costs follow the event", it soon became essential for the plaintiff to insure himself against the liability to pay the defendant's costs in the event of his claim failing. That insurance is known as "after the event" insurance.
The CFAs brought into play a number of undesirable participants—usually not lawyers—such as Claims Direct. Such participants met well the description of "ambulance chasers". They brought the system into discredit and fuelled the perception of a compensation culture. Such undesirable organisations are not regulated and they cream off profits at the expense of claimants. A number of claims with little merit were initiated in the hope of obtaining from the defendants' insurers at least their nuisance value. However, having failed in their purpose, they left the "after event" insurers holding a sizeable baby. As a result, a number of insurers, including the major player MIG Skandia, have withdrawn from this market and it is becoming very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain after-event insurance or insurance where the premium is not excessive. In the result, there is, in practice, no access to justice in personal injury cases.
I come lastly to the rapidly diminishing ability to obtain advice. One organisation which is likely to feel the immediate impact of the public's inability to obtain basic legal advice, formerly provided under the legal aid system by solicitors, is the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. When it offers criticism, that cannot be met by the rejoinder that it is arguing from a standpoint of self-interest, as is often said of the Bar or the Law Society.
In a press release in September headed:
"Community Legal Service is unfair, unjust and inexcusable in the way it is operated",
Mr David Harker, chief executive of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, stated that government policy in this area was delivering injustice and unfairness in a way that was inexcusable.
I shall not develop this theme further as I could do because of the time restrictions which impliedly impose themselves on me. I end merely in this way. In the glossy Command Paper of July 2002 entitled Justice for All, the foreword bears the signatures of the then noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, the Home Secretary and the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. It states:
"we are determined to ensure that justice is done and is seen to be done".
So far, there is no hint of any determination to tackle the matters to which I have referred, all of which are vital to achieving meaningful access to justice.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I shall confine my remarks to the single issue of an appeal to both Front Benches and the usual channels to make further efforts to reach consensus on the matter of House of Lords reform. If, after all, we could, and did, achieve consensus on the far more difficult issue of the first stage of reform, it should not be beyond the wit of the Members of this House to find a solution that is fair and equitable to the problems of the 92 existing hereditary Peers as part of the second stage of reform.
For that reason, with the greatest respect, I deplore the apparent intention of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to divide the House tonight, somewhat unusually, half way through a debate. After all, as I understand it, this is only the third day of our debate on the gracious Speech. I believe that it would be unnecessarily confrontational and could well be counter-productive.
I believe that a pragmatic solution needs to be found. This is not a matter of principle. There is consensus that the hereditary principle is no longer valid as the basis for membership of the legislature. That is common ground. No political party wishes to introduce it, so let us not pretend that it will survive for very long.
We also agree—in this House, at least—that we want an all-appointed House. I fully respect the opinions of the Liberal Democrats and, in particular, those expressed in the opening speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. However, it is also a fundamental principle of democracy that one accepts the will of the majority. The overwhelming majority in this House, by more than three to one, are in favour of an appointed House. That may be a matter of regret to some people. I know that it is a matter of regret to some on these Benches and certainly to the Liberal Democrats, but let us recognise that that is the will of this House.
This House, at least, should be rejoicing in what the Government have put forward because they have favoured our option. They will have far more difficulty at the other end of the building because the House of Commons took a different view. I freely concede that the House of Commons rejected the idea of an all-appointed House. But the Government should be commended rather than ridiculed in this House for their bravery in putting forward that proposal. It may be quite difficult for the proposal to be approved by the House of Commons, but it should not be difficult for it to be approved by this House.
We should also recognise that we have an appointments commission. People are beginning to take that in their stride, forgetting that it is the biggest single act of abdication of patronage by any Prime Minister in history. The Prime Minister is willingly forgoing his right to appoint Peers and to decide the number of Peers. That has been handed over to the appointments commission. He deserves at least some credit for that, but so far in the debate I do not believe that that has been adequately recognised.

221
I shall now make some points that are mildly critical of the Government. I believe that the Government have been over-apologetic in their approach. They have stressed the obvious difficulties of finding an agreed way forward. I regard this as a genuine second-stage reform, as do the majority of Peers in this House. We voted overwhelmingly, by three to one, for an appointed House and the Government are giving us that, saying that that is the second stage of reform, and yet we are saying, "Oh, no, we don't like it".
Let us be quite clear. I am very nervous that somehow the status quo will survive; a combination of Back-Bench disquiet in the Labour Party and doing something dramatic with the House of Lords as a lightning conductor. There are the principled, but I believe misguided, objections of the Liberal Democrats in both Houses to any form of appointed House and the unprincipled, opportunistic moves by the Conservative Party, which is in favour of elections but only as a means of retaining hereditary Peers—that is somewhat illogical.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, speaking for myself, and I am pretty certain for the rest of my party, the moment that elections come there will be no further place for hereditary Peers in the House. That has been made crystal clear. We are here only as a pustule on the rump of the body politic to remind the Government of their honour pledge to do something proper with this House. It is certainly not an opportunity for objection on the part of noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and certainly not on mine either.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I shall reply quite simply to the noble Earl. I regard an appointed House as a legitimate second-stage reform. This House voted for that. I have not checked Hansard—I perhaps should have anticipated the possible intervention and checked this point—but I shall gamble that the noble Earl voted for an all-appointed House.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I voted with Lord Williams of Mostyn, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. As democrats we all trooped through the Lobby for any form of democratic election. I know that Lord Williams was proud of that as I believe was the noble Baroness, Lady Jay; we all know that the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, is dour and does not show his emotions.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, my homework has not paid dividends. I shall check who were the 335 Peers who voted for an all-appointed House, but I strongly suspect that the number will contain many members of the Conservative Party.
If that is an option, it is an option that we want. It is counter-productive to say that somehow this is not a second-stage reform. It is a second-stage reform. I believe that the idea that reform must involve election is contrary to good sense and contrary to the will of the House. More Peers should speak out against that. It is a matter of some concern; unless we speak out we may find that the House of Commons adopts elections and forces us into a much more unpalatable solution.
222
Noble Lords may remember the tag "Ecclesia semper reformanda est"—the Church is always in need of reform. The House of Lords is always in need of reform too. I believe that the Government made a mistake in calling one of the White Papers Completing the Reform. The idea of a reform ever being completed is highly arrogant and foolish. Of course, there will be further stages of reform. I do not know why and I do not know what will be the driving principles, but at some time in the future there must be more reform because circumstances will change. For the moment the Government have adopted the path to reform that this House wanted.
I believe that there is consensus on the issue of the 92 hereditary Peers. Let me be quite clear, that was a matter of pragmatism and not principle and I believe that the issue should be dealt with as a matter of pragmatism and not principle. The minimum going-in position is that the by-election system should end. The idea that there is a permanent hereditary constituency commands very little support in this House and I believe that it should go. Beyond that I freely concede that we are in difficult territory, but again it should not be beyond the wit of the usual channels to find a solution.
Clearly at one extreme one could baptise everyone by awarding life Peerages all round. That may be a neat solution, but would it be acceptable to the House of Commons and would it be acceptable to the public at large? A solution that commends itself to me, but I suspect not to the majority in the House, would be to abolish the by-elections and to allow the great appointments commission in the sky to decide the ultimate composition of the House.
Other matters are dealt with in the consultation document which, in the interests of time, I shall keep for my submission to the Government rather than weary the House with them now. That avoids breaking my recommendation about being too confrontational early on. I disagree with many points made in the document and I shall make my feelings known to the Government in the hope that I can change their views. In the mean time, the important point is that the usual channels appear to be blocked. I think we need Dyno-Rod. I am happy to join with Back-Benchers, who share the view that we want an appointed House, to try to achieve that.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, has made an interesting speech. I can agree with him on one point, that an appointed House of Lords is better than an elected one. I once heard the great Sir Winston Churchill say, "Democracy works badly but we cannot have any other system". The main purpose of your Lordships' House is to make democracy work better than it would without it.
Over the years—I have spent 58 years in Parliament— the composition of the House of Commons has changed greatly. During my 34 years in the Commons, which ended in 1979, on both sides of the House there was always a great variety of Members with experience and

223
expertise: businessmen, farmers, distinguished officers of the three Armed Forces, trade union leaders, professional people, including doctors, accountants, dentists and lawyers. There were never fewer than 20 Queen's Counsel during my time there and in 1959 there were 30 Queen's Counsel in the Commons. Although for centuries the Law Officers were Members of Parliament, for the past five years the Government have had to appoint a Member of your Lordships' House as Attorney-General because they could not find one in another place.
The cause of that fundamental change is mainly due to the fact that being a Member of Parliament in the other place is more of a full-time job. Therefore, it is vital that membership of this House should contain an array of men and women with a variety of experience and expertise. We have a good deal already. In my opinion that is why the Government Front Bench in this House is better than the one in the other place.
The 92 hereditary Peers in this House provide much valuable experience and many of them have great expertise. When eventually they have to go, I hope that a large proportion of them will be made into life Peers, bearing in mind the valuable part that they have played, on both sides of the House, in getting our work done. Although I am open-minded about the appointments commission, it should be required to maintain the quality of our membership.
I now want to deal with the Government's controversial proposals for dealing with the higher ranges of the judiciary and of the legal profession. They put forward as their reason for doing so the separation of powers between the Government, the legislature and the judiciary. We all know that that is an ancient constitutional theory but in practice it needs to be varied. For example, there is a great advantage in having in the Cabinet a distinguished lawyer as Lord Chancellor in order to keep it right on constitutional matters and to deal with legal issues which occasionally rise in the course of Cabinet discussions. To be without a Lord Chancellor in the Cabinet will weaken the Government and therefore weaken democracy.
Secondly, a great advantage to our legislative process is to have speeches from Law Lords, retired Law Lords, the Lord Chief Justice, who occasionally is able to be in the House, and other experienced top judges. They often play a vital part in our debates, especially on legislation on legal matters. So the total separation of powers is, I suggest, neither necessary nor advantageous. I make a small concession: during my many years as a Member of Parliament I served as a recorder, having to try judicial cases, sometimes of some length and some importance. I hope that being a Member of the House of Commons did not mean that I was not fit to preside over these cases judicially. It would have been nonsense to suggest that it would.
I turn to another government proposal which is controversial: doing away with Queen's Counsel. I hope that the Government will not do so. Perhaps I should confess that I have been one for nearly 50 years. I became one because I had a very busy junior practice
224
when I was MP for a very large constituency and had a growing family. If I had not become a Queen's Counsel, I would have had to give up being a Member of Parliament.
There are several advantages to having Queen's Counsel in the House of Commons and to having Queen's Counsel in general. The major advantage is in helping to find the right people to be appointed as judges; it must make it less difficult to decide. If we did away with Queen's Counsel there would be a real problem. So I hope that the Government will realise that they will create chaos in our profession, if they do away with them.
In conclusion, perhaps I may say that I strongly support the amendment moved so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and hope that many Cross-Bench Peers will support it.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Renton. I cannot congratulate him on his contribution, lest those who know the customs of this place imagine that it may have been his maiden speech, but I am entitled to say what one says after a maiden speaker: "I hope we shall hear from him on many future occasions".
So far as I am concerned, the gloomiest aspect of the Government's programme is the continuation of the rake's progress of so-called constitutional reform. The removal of the last of the hereditary Peers from the House without second stage reform will mean a House of Lords less able to check the Executive and more likely to be neutered by the Government in the same way as the Government have tried, not entirely successfully, to neuter the House of Commons.
There is the European Constitution. No one has yet mentioned that today. But signing up to it will mean the sacrifice of another giant slice of national sovereignty to unelected and unaccountable institutions of the EU. I know that Europe is not strictly the subject for debate today—it is the subject for debate tomorrow—but I cannot see how one can make a speech about our constitution and threats to it without mentioning the biggest threat of all.
I return to the House of Lords. The issue today is not how this House should eventually be composed— whether it should be nominated or elected or part elected and part nominated—it is about the Government ratting on an undertaking. I shall remind the House once more of the history of the matter. Back in 1999 the Government announced that they were to embark on the first stage of a two-stage reform, stage one being the abolition of the right of hereditary Peers to sit. Many of us were deeply unhappy at the idea of stage one going ahead without any guarantees that there ever would be stage two reform. But when the Bill was amended to allow 92 of the hereditary Peers to continue to sit, and the Government said that they would remain until second-stage reform had taken place, with their presence being a firm guarantee that stage two would come about, we on these Benches were greatly reassured.

225
We accepted the Government's word and, being accustomed to honest dealing in this place, never thought that they would go back on it. Now the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has pronounced a doctrine hitherto unknown to students of the law. In answer to a parliamentary Question not so very long ago, the Lord Chancellor said that the Government did make a promise but are perfectly entitled to break it. "Breach of contract on grounds of changed circumstances is no breach", says the Lord Chancellor. It will appear in the law books no doubt as the rule in Falconer's case. But it will haunt the Government. It will sour dealings between the Front Benches in this place because this Chamber will not work very well if the Government's word cannot readily be believed.
The Government have the votes and it is highly likely that before long the Weatherill Peers will be gone along with the Law Lords who have made such a distinctive contribution to this place, and we shall be left with a House composed entirely of people who owe their presence here to present-day patronage; a House less independent of government and less effective as a check on the Executive; and a House where the numbers can most easily be manipulated in favour of the Government as they will be—mark my word— following this Bill becoming law. If I am wrong about that perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will assure me that new Peers will be created to replace the Weatherill Peers so as to reflect the present party strengths among those Peers. Some chance.
On top of all that, we have every reason to fear that there is a plan to weaken the House as a check on the Executive by changing its working practices. That is not fanciful. This Administration has devoted much effort to turning the House of Commons into a part-time Chamber, and a part-time Chamber which gives wholly inadequate attention to Bills because of a draconian use of the guillotine. Time and again Bills have arrived here, great chunks of which have never been considered in Committee. This summer, in a written reply, a Minister admitted that in the Standing Committee on the Communications Bill, 101 clauses and five schedules were moved forthwith by the chair because time had not been allotted to discuss them. Now, having drastically curtailed debate in the Commons and having prevented proper consideration of Bills there, the Government are bent on preventing proper consideration in this House as well. No other conclusion can be drawn from Mr Hain's references on Radio 4 to the House of Lords',
"time-consuming procedures which did not allow government business to be carried through",
and which,
"allow effective continual filibustering by the Opposition and Back-Benchers".
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps I may take the noble Lord back to the 1980s when he played a prominent part in managing his party, was a member of the Cabinet and was able to influence the Queen's Speech. In 1984, there were 535 Peers who
226
took the Tory whip and 136 who took the Labour whip. I wonder how much unease the noble Lord felt then at the democratic deficit.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I do not see what on earth that has to do with what I am saying. I am talking about an intention on the part of the Government to neuter this place in the way in which they have neutered the Commons. To find evidence of that, I refer to what Mr Hain said on Radio 4. Nor can any other conclusion be drawn from the words of the Home Secretary in the House of Commons on 12th November. He said:
"There is no procedure in the House of Lords for any sort of timetable or closure mechanism … Until we have such a system in the Lords we cannot take anyone's word that that House will be in favour of anything that we propose".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/03; col. 652.]
If that was not a threat to introduce in the Lords the guillotining of debate—now standard in the Commons—the language of Government Ministers has lost all meaning.
Finally, and briefly, I turn to Europe. The Government should be ashamed of themselves for steadfastly refusing to allow a referendum on the European constitution when they are prepared to give the people a vote on trivial matters such as local mayors and regional government. I hope that the Government will have second thoughts. It is not a matter of just deciding whether the majority of voting should continue in this area or that; it is about a constitution. Goodness me, we ought to know what a constitution is. States have constitutions with flags, anthems, currencies and citizenship, which are all signs and symbols of nationhood. Yet we are brazenly told that this particular constitution, like the Hag, the anthem and the citizenship, signifies little. It is just a mere tidying-up exercise.
I remind noble Lords what Clare Short said in The Times on 26th November. She said that,
"the reality is that pro-Europeans are driving a project that leads inevitably to a super state which most of us do not want".
Signor Prodi made it plain enough when he said, on about the same day, that we have to give ourselves a constitution that marks the birth of Europe as a political entity. If Europe is to be born as a political entity, I reckon that the people of Britain are entitled to have a say in the matter.
5.43 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Waddington, my main concern about the gracious Speech—I am bound to say that I have stacks of other less main concerns—is the determination, yet again, of the Government to play ducks and drakes with the constitution. One might think that they have had their fill of doing that considering all the parliamentary time taken, time wasted and the instability created. But no, the Government want to continue.
Again, the Government are going what one might call "hereditary Peer bashing", which the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, enjoyed doing today. In some ways, what is happening to hereditary Peers is

227
rather like kicking spaniels: one can keep on doing it and they are a bit miserable, but it is quite good fun because there are so few of them. I should declare an interest that is common knowledge to your Lordships' House: I am a hereditary Peer. I am not ashamed of being a hereditary Peer, principally because it is not my fault. As regards life Peers, it is their fault; it is what they have done, who they have chatted up, who they have sucked up to or what they have achieved in life. It is their fault that they are here, and great credit to them.
However, I am bound to remind your Lordships—the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, loves this— that hereditary Peers are the only elected Peers in your Lordships' House. But, curiously, the Government want to get rid of those who are elected. We seem to have been classified as the lowest and certainly the most vilified form of political life. The Government are setting about hereditary Peers as though they are some form of parliamentary terrorists doing immense harm, undermining the constitution and doing tremendous damage, who must be expunged or vapourised and removed from political life.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that four years ago, the Government said, "All hereditary Peers are to go. It's in the manifesto. All six lines of it". So everyone had to go. Then they said, "Steady on. That won't work. And the House of Lords won't work either, so we had better get 92 of them back". So back we all came. Now the Government say, "We have had enough of all that. We want to get rid of them. So out they all go again".
The Government are acting with all the intellectual consistency of a child with a yo-yo. We told them that it would not work because they had not thought beyond the first stage. The Government took no notice of that. They should have thought about the whole of the reform of your Lordships' House and not just about getting rid of what they consider an unacceptable part of the political spectrum.
The really damaging—I would say wicked—part of all this is that, whether we like it or not, your Lordships' House is part of our constitution. It is part of Parliament. Parliament and the constitution belong to the people, not to a single party. Of course, periodically, there must be changes. Everyone knows that. But that must be done by consensus—with the consent of Parliament—and not by a single political party.
So what happened? Having failed to get their original Bill through Parliament as they wished, the Government set up a Royal Commission to ask what would be the best way out. The Royal Commission said that it did not know the answer, but gave three options, none of which found favour with Parliament. The Government then set up a huge committee with Members from both Houses of Parliament to determine the best way out. It said that it did not know either, but gave seven options. Another place did not agree with any of them.
228
That was a right mess. The Government did not know the way out. Parliament did not know the way out. The Royal Commission did not know the way out. Both Houses collectively did not know the way out. What conceivable right have the Government to say, "Tut Tut. We will now bring in our own version"? It would be a party political scheme to alter for ever the constitution of the country, without agreement, without consensus, without even consultation with the other parties, which would remove one-fifth of all Members of your Lordships' House who do not support the Government. In common political parlance, that could be called political gerrymandering on a vast scale.
What price for integrity? As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said, an undertaking was given by the previous Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, from the Dispatch Box. Ninety-two hereditary Peers were to stay until stage two of the reform had been approved. My noble friend has already quoted from Hansard of 30th March 1999, but it needs repeating. The noble and learned Lord said that the amendment to have 92 peers,
"reflects a compromise negotiated between Privy Counsellors on Privy Council terms"—
and—mark these words—is,
"binding in honour on all those who have come to give it their assent".
The noble and learned Lord then said:
"But the 10 per cent will go only when stage two has taken place".—[Official Report, 30/3/99: col. 207.]
That is a clear, unequivocal promise and undertaking.
In no way is this stage two. No one has been consulted; the Government have simply produced a scheme of their own. That will not do. It is a government diktat. If one cannot trust an undertaking given by a government—a Lord Chancellor, no less— in private and in public about such a fundamental thing as the constitution, does not political honour go? Where lie parliamentary trust and integrity? It is not the fault of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, whom I am glad to see in his place, as he did his honourable best—he is an honourable man—but it is others who have overturned the apple cart.
If that is not condemnation enough, what does the present noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor have to say? I am glad to see that he is in his place on the Woolsack. He said:
"So the context for reform has clearly and significantly changed. The circumstances which gave rise to the original arrangement over the remaining hereditary Peers no longer apply ... So the Government must act, and act decisively, to bring about stability and sustainability".—[Official Report, 18/9/03; col. 1058.]
What on earth does that mean? How can the noble and learned Lord say that the context has been changed?
The original undertaking was not given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in a pub to a few friends; it was given at the Dispatch Box to Parliament by the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain with all the authority of that office. It was the Lord Chancellor binding the Government to Parliament. How does the

229
present noble and learned Lord dare to say that he has changed his mind, and that he has decided to revoke and expunge his predecessor's promise?
The noble and learned Lord reminds me of Toad— not in expression or countenance, but in fact. Noble Lords may recall that Toad was locked in a room in Toad Hall by Badger for profligate spending. He promised to spend less and was therefore let out. When he went out, he reverted to his normal extravagant behaviour. He was then castigated for breaking a promise to Badger that he would not do that. Toad replied that that promise had been given in a different room.
I know that the Government hate the idea of anything hereditary in the House of Lords. That is a perfectly understandable point of view, if one happens to take that view, but it is their hypocrisy that is so galling. Noble Lords opposite do not half enjoy the pomp, the pageantry, the ermine, "my Lords" here, "my Lady" there, and even the sons of Ministers sitting in the eldest sons' box—
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl is aware of another incident in The Wind in the Willows, when Badger said to Toad:
"first of all, take those ridiculous things off!".
The reply came:
"'Shan't!' replied Toad, with great spirit".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is a pity that he did not say it to the right reverend Prelate in that delightful garment.
It is curious that eldest sons of Members of the government Front Bench occupy the eldest sons' box, as they are entitled to, and prefix their name with "The Honourable", to which they are entitled. That is fine for the endangered species, but it is; odd when government Front-Bench Members castigate the hereditary system and then enjoy it themselves when the situation suits them. Life is full of oddities. If hereditary Peers are driven out and ostracised by Parliament, an essential and vital ingredient of history will be lost, and we will end up with an appointed House. Heaven knows, many disagree with that, even though I am not among them.
I do not wish to be beastly to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I like him a lot, as we all do; however, I do not wish to see him ruin his reputation, the Parliament and the country all at the same time. We thought better of him. But we all approved of, and enjoyed, his move to rejoin the bastions of reaction when he walked backwards down the Steps of the Throne. He was quite right, and we all nearly cheered. That apart, I can assure him that he will be in for a bumpy ride.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, the noble Earl made much play about the number of groups and organisations that were established and could not find a way out. Am I correct in believing that your Lordships' House did find a way out, and consistently
230
voted seven times to prove it, and that that did not include elected hereditary Peers but only an appointed House?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, your Lordships' House and the House of Commons voted on what was put before them.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, I have long looked for an opportunity to express my respect for the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, whom I have come to appreciate, over the 10 years in which I have been a Member of this House, as one of the guardians of our rules, including the good humour that we are sometimes in danger of losing these days, and which I will hope we will keep with him for many years to come.
It is too early to tell what this Government and the Prime Minister will be remembered for by future historians. But it must be likely that two issues that were not particularly dominant in Mr Blair's thinking when he came to office will figure prominently: Iraq and constitutional changes. I have supported the Prime Minister over Iraq because I firmly believe not only that democracy and the rule of law are values that must be defended at home, but that, at times, intervention in countries that threaten those values is justified.
On constitutional changes, I have strongly supported the Human Rights Act 1998, although I am well aware that such texts provide only limited protection when the going gets really rough. I can also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, that we should start from where we are now. That is easy for me to say, unlike many of my noble friends, because I am in favour of a wholly appointed House. But many other constitutional changes introduced by this Government raise serious questions, including the two that are prominent in the gracious Speech: the abolition of the current office of the Lord Chancellor and the reform of the House of Lords.
My main argument is about the justly cherished values of independence, and, more precisely, what happens if the presumption of independence is replaced by organised independence. Many of the constitutional changes that we have debated in recent years, and those that we are debating this year, threaten to have the possibly unintended, but nevertheless serious, side-effect of politicisation. That is particularly strange at a time when people's trust in political parties is low and there is widespread desire for more, rather than less, independence. What 1 call the presumption of independence is an unlikely but important virtue. It is a belief that people in certain positions will act in an independent manner despite the fact that they have strong preferences and aversions like the rest of us, and that they are members of political parties and other opinionated associations, and could easily abuse their position.
One of the great strengths of this country was that the belief in an attitude of independence was widely held and that many office holders not only held that view but practised it. The Lord Chancellor, for

231
example, was not only another Government Minister clutching his party manifesto or even prospectus. We are fortunate to have two outstanding examples of past Lord Chancellors here who practise what I call independence. The Civil Service was assumed to be independent and behaved accordingly. We have on the Cross Benches some outstanding examples of that tradition. Talking of Cross-Benchers, it is right that the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Committees— and in future, perhaps, the Lord Speaker—should have to demonstrate their independence by escaping from their party Whips.
The governors of the BBC were once thought to be independent, as was the process of appointments for important public positions, including judges. The presumption of independence is unlikely—but then British democracy always rested on unlikely yet effective assumptions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, said that Britain's unwritten constitution breathes through its anomalies. I would include in that the apparent—but, so far as I can see, never real—contradiction between the principle of the separation of powers and the position of the Lord Chancellor. It is unlikely, but it worked.
That leads to a question too rarely asked these days— why are we spending so much time debating constitutional changes? Not, I suggest, because of overwhelming popular demand. Even in the case of devolution, the demand was modest and was strong only among activists who could hope to benefit from new institutional provisions. More importantly, very few of the changes, including the ones in the gracious Speech, were introduced because existing arrangements no longer worked. "If it ain't broke don't try to fix it" is a sound principle, because if we try to fix something that is not broken we are more likely to break it in the process than to improve anything.
If neither popular demand nor a breakdown of existing institutions provides the reasons for change, change becomes what one can only call an ideological demand. Words such as "reform" or "modernisation" are empty if they are not backed up by arguments of popular demand or the malfunctioning of existing institutions. The empty labels merely camouflage the vested interests of small groups, often of political activists. I do not suggest that this is all a deliberate act of policy, but that politicisation has been and will continue to be one of the main effects of ideological tinkering with the constitution.
To return to the point that I want to make above all, once we abandon the presumption of independence we have to think of ways of creating arrangements that have the same effect. So-called independent commissions—as foreseen for the selection of non-party members of your Lordships' House and for the appointment of judges—are one such arrangement. However, how is the independence of those commissions guaranteed? It may be nice to take away certain rights from government, but how in particular do we make sure that the influence of government is not replaced by the influence of party?
232
Perhaps I am overly influenced by continental experience, but there must at least be a suspicion that, in the end, it is not an attitude of mind that is required of the commissioners but a composition of the commission that reflects the political spectrum of the country at a given time. In the end, some type of proportionality prevails, both in the composition of the so-called independent commissions and in the choices that those commissions make. I suggest that such contrived independence would be distinctly second best. Therefore, as debate turns into action— or, at any rate, into Acts of Parliament—it will be the task of your Lordships' House to make sure that we guard true independence when that is the most effective guarantee of liberty. In my more detailed contributions to the debate, I will be influenced and informed by that maxim.
6.05 p.m.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow an hereditary and an appointed Peer of such distinction as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. Like other noble Lords, I deplore the implications in the gracious Speech that the undertakings given by the Lord Chancellor in this House on 30th March 1999 are to be broken—undertakings that we have heard were,
"negotiated between Privy Counsellors on Privy Council terms and binding in honour".—[Official Report, 30/3/99; Col. 207.]
I therefore welcome and fully support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. There is a clear need to continue the search for cross-party consensus on these issues. There is also still time for detailed comment on the Government's consultation paper, Constitutional Reform: Next Steps for the House of Lords, published on 3rd September last. Detailed responses to the report are required by 12th December next week. I hope that all noble Lords are taking the opportunity to express their views and I trust that the Government will take note of them.
The arguments on Lords reform have been well rehearsed. I am one of those who believe that the House should be either fully elected or fully appointed. A fully elected Chamber is clearly a workable option. However, it would radically change the relationship between the two Houses and would inevitably undermine the supremacy of the House of Commons. Also, as other noble Lords have noted, the prospect of yet another election is unlikely to inspire electoral fervour in an electorate already faced with district, national, European and perhaps regional elections. Most important of all however, an elected Chamber would destroy the unique reservoir of experience and expertise which is the great strength of your Lordships' House.
The accolade of a life peerage is valued and still retains an unspoken duty element of public service. The House therefore benefits from the participation of top achievers from all walks of life, many of whom retain active outside interests and are able to contribute that experience to the workings of the House. That has to be of benefit to the scrutiny of new

233
legislation. The Government need to think very carefully before throwing away that unique national asset.
As one of the 92 remaining hereditary peers, I feel extremely fortunate still to be a Member of this House. Like most hereditary peers, I recognise that the inheritance of a peerage should no longer carry an automatic right to a seat in the upper House. That is now a fact of life. The hereditary right has already been abolished. Those of us who remain have been elected. However, I have a strong sense of history and I believe that the role played by the hereditary peerage over the centuries in the House of Lords—in its workings, its traditions, customs and ceremonies, and in the relationship with the monarchy—is of value and should be acknowledged by a continued modest representation, given that the present appointed Chamber is to continue.
The figure of 92 is not sacred. It could be a smaller figure—50, or even less. Were that proposal to be accepted, the agreed number should be chosen by the 92 by election among themselves. Those elected should all sit as independents and not be subject to a party Whip. Were one of the group to be given a Government or Opposition job, he or she should cease to form part of the group and be granted a life peerage—as if coming directly from outside the House. Vacancies in the group could be filled by election by the remaining members of the group.
To broaden the age range of Members of the House and provide some younger Members—they may be in short supply in the future—we could have a rota. The first vacancy could be open only to applicants aged, say, between 20 and 30; the next to those aged 30 to 40; the next to those aged 40 to 50; then to those aged 50 to 60; and finally to those aged over 60. Then, we could repeat the cycle. That would help to create a spread of age that, with the abolition of the hereditary peerage, will be lacking in the House.
Such a representation would preserve historic links but would not involve automatic membership by right of birth, only the right to stand for election to that small group. The system would create a small proportion of elected Members in the House.
I agree with the views expressed by my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley on the appointments commission. There are many other points that could be raised; perhaps, we will have an opportunity to do so on future occasions. The important thing tonight is to express the hope that the Government will think again and that cross-party consensus can still be achieved.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I intervene this evening to do three things. The first is to express my support for the proposals for further reform of your Lordships' House set out in the gracious Speech. The second is to say a word about the relationship between this House and the other place. The third is to express my disappointment at the tone and tactics adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and I shall start with that.
234
In a sense, the noble Lord is arguing that the Government should not proceed with what I and my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane regard as the second stage of reform because they have failed to achieve consensus on constitutional reform. The noble Lord is a genial and popular Member of your Lordships' House, but I must say that that is a bit rich coming from him. On many occasions, it has been apparent that he has been a significant obstacle to the achievement of consensus, certainly as far as many noble Lords on his side and on this side are concerned.
For example, there was not a flicker of support on the Benches behind the noble Lord for his notion of an 80 per cent elected Senate.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I will not take up any time. I support it.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, say that, but, sitting here watching the Opposition Benches, I saw not a flicker of support for it.
There is a consensus for reform in this House. It was demonstrated by huge majorities in each of the seven votes that we had on 4th February on the options for reform. The House declared itself in favour of an appointed Chamber, not a wholly elected one or even a partially elected one. For the record, the option of an 80 per cent elected Chamber, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was defeated by 338 votes to 93.
It is a pity that the noble Lord has not got his act together with his noble friends and his honourable friends in the other place on the Joint Committee. My understanding is that his two principal supporters, Mr Hague and Mr Clarke, failed to show up for the final meeting on 28th October. It was the Conservative members of the committee who asked the Government if they could continue with their work.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that last remark was the most ridiculous one, if I may say so. A Joint Committee of both Houses is a Joint Committee of both Houses. I have never had any conversations with any of the members about what happens. They do not need to report to me. Their responsibility is to Parliament, not to party. In a way, that is the problem with the whole proposal. It is the Labour Party's proposal in the interest of the Labour Party. Why cannot the noble Lord put Parliament and people first, rather than party?
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention. In the Bill, the Government hope to implement the will of this House and proceed with the establishment of an appointed House.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the noble Lord believe that the Government are implementing the will of the House of Commons?
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, the House of Commons was unable to come to a conclusion. The

235
proposals from the Liberal Democrats for an elected House did not find favour in the House of Commons. What the Government propose matches precisely the conclusion that this House came to.
One of the reasons why we came to our decision was the constitutional doctrine described with great clarity by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Speaking from the Opposition Front Bench on the proposals for foundation hospitals in the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, the noble Earl said:
"of necessity, we must return to what I suggest is the issue today; that is, the constitutional position. Late last night or early this morning, the other place reinstated Clause 1 and Schedule 1 with a considerably increased majority. I believe that this House was right to send an emphatic message to the Government yesterday in rejecting those parts of the Bill".
The noble Earl continued:
"However, like it or not—I do not—this House has a duty to recognise the validity and strength of the decision of the other place. On a matter of this kind, which is essentially an issue of policy rather than constitutional principle, it is not for your Lordships to continue to resist the will of the elected House any further. I therefore do not propose to move my amendment".— [Official Report, 20/11/03; col. 2087.]
That brought to an end, in a dignified and proper way, a disagreement between this House and the House of Commons. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, speaking for the Liberal Democrats, did not like foundation hospitals any more that Thursday than they had in previous debates. They accepted the constitutional position that the elected House must have the last word, and I believe that your Lordships must accept that.
In reading up for this debate, I was interested to see the Liberal government's policy on the House of Lords in 1910. They were quoted in The Times of 28th November, 1910, as saying that they would bring,
"to a final issue the question of the House of Lords — declaring the unshakeable determination of the Liberal Party not to halt in the struggle until in all legislation the will of the people as expressed by the House of Commons was supreme".
The Commons may insist on Bills to which a majority of your Lordships object. There may even be one or two Bills before the House of Commons in the next Session that may be electorally damaging for the Members of Parliament who support them. However, that is a matter for them, not for us. They must account to their voters sometime in the next two to three years; we will not. I do not want to re-open all the issues about elections to this House, which we debated at length on 21st January and voted on a couple of weeks later, but I must say that, if there had been Members of this House elected by popular mandate who felt as strongly about foundation hospitals as did the noble Earl, Lord Howe, or the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would they have been able to concede with as much grace and common sense as those two noble Lords demonstrated? Of course not. I suspect that one of the reasons why the House of Commons is so confused on the issue is that it is dawning on MPs that a wholly or partially elected House of Lords would create a different constitutional settlement between the
236
two Houses that would lead inevitably to an increase in the power and authority of one House at the direct expense of the other.
This evening, we have heard arguments for maintaining the presence of the 92 hereditary Peers. We have not heard—I had hoped that we might hear it from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—a defence of the continuation of the extraordinary by-election arrangements for the replacement of deceased Members. It is nice to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, who is, I think, the beneficiary of a by-election. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Grantchester is back on these Benches, but no rational person could defend the route that he had to take to get back here. To his great credit, neither would he.
In the previous Session, there was an opportunity to preserve the position of the 92. Parliament could have passed the Private Member's Bill abolishing by-elections, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to forget that that method of electing was agreed by the House of Commons. It was part of the Labour Government's policy, it was agreed by the Commons and the Lords, and it became an Act of Parliament. That is the justification for it.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that remark, but of course it was a temporary arrangement and conditional on the achievement of stage two of reform. Many noble Lords on this side of the House believe that what is being proposed during this Session is stage two.
I bear absolutely no animus towards any of the hereditary Peers. It has been pointed out in the debate that many of them make outstanding contributions to the work of your Lordships' House, and I would refer in particular to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, whose contribution to this Chamber is quite outstanding. I certainly hope that, for those who wish to remain, it will be possible to offer life peerages, and I have no difficulty with that possibility.
However, what is not negotiable is the ending of heredity as a criterion for membership and it is in that respect that the Government's proposals are both right and reasonable.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I apologise for intervening, but I am sure that the noble Lord realises that paragraphs 29 to 60 of Consultation Paper 14/03 make it quite plain that the one thing that cannot be done, even if the whole House wanted it, is to offer the remaining hereditary Peers life peerages. That would be totally contrary to the whole concept of the Government. Does not the noble Lord realise that it would be impossible?
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I do not see at all why it would be wholly impossible and I am sure that an arrangement of that kind could be arrived at during the course of this Session. However, the point I

237
sought to make was that, had we approved the Weatherill Bill, it would not have been necessary for this to take place anyway, because it would have achieved the de facto status of the hereditary Peers as life Peers and therefore it would not be necessary to remove them from your Lordships' House.
What I cannot understand—and here I address in particular Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches— is why, if they think it wrong for heredity to be a criterion for membership of this House, it is wrong to establish an independent appointments commission on a statutory basis that would remove the power of the Prime Minister, through patronage, to determine the constitution of this House, and why it is wrong to give Members such as their own colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, the opportunity to resign. I am assuming that all those measures will be in the Bill and I should have thought that that would be wholly in accord with the view expressed by this House when we debated this earlier in the year.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, I do not intend to follow the noble Lord; I shall leave him to the tender mercies of those on my Front Bench who, presumably, will reply to him. As I so rarely trouble your Lordships by speaking or intervening, I should declare an interest. Prior to my retirement in 1984, at the age of 65—I found that I was saying to the judges: "Will you please speak up"—for nearly 40 years I practised at the Bar. Noble Lords will see that my partiality and prejudice arises from that.
It is now 41 years since I first became a law officer. At the time Harold Macmillan memorably remarked to me, "Remember that your duties are, first, to the Sovereign, secondly to Parliament, and only thirdly to my administration". In 1970 I was appointed as Attorney-General and then, 28 years ago—to my great honour since I was elected by my peers—I became chairman of the Bar. I confess, therefore, to a certain partiality and prejudice for a profession at whose head, when I practised, stood a Lord Chancellor.
During that time the quality and ability of judges being appointed by Lord Chancellors were remarkable. They were intellectual, experienced and possessed of great integrity. They were not diverse or representative. There was no question of them being "representative" in the sense that that word is now used. One did not add up how many Methodists, Jews and Catholics were on the Bench. We accepted the standard of the people who were appointed because they were men—at that time they were nearly all men—of great integrity. A few women were outstanding when I was practising, such as Rosie Heilbron. Today there are many more women judges, and inevitably in the future there will be even more, as there ought to be.
I turn to consider the head of my profession while I was practising it: the Lord Chancellor. It was a unique position, not least because the Lord Chancellor was impervious to what happened in any Cabinet, in particular to the pecking order. The Lord Chancellor was unique because he was beyond and above it. In
238
Cabinets of any colour, ambitious politicians will battle to secure a department that is a little better than that which they have. For example, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is above the Secretary of State for Transport in the pecking order and one seeks to leapfrog over one's colleagues. However, the Lord Chancellor was above all that.
I served as a colleague with two Lord Chancellors, Lord Dilhorne and later Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone. However, I was closest to two Labour Lord Chancellors. The first was Lord Gardiner who, after I took silk in 1959, invited me to join his chambers as the junior silk—I had the crumbs from the great man's table. No one could ever challenge him as to his competence or his appointments. He was a man of great integrity, if somewhat rigid opinions.
1 then shadowed Lord Elwyn-Jones, who was Lord Chancellor when I first came to this House in 1978, and he then shadowed me. Similarly, no one could challenge his appointments and he performed the role of Lord Chancellor with such grace and competence. So much for what someone has said about "people poncing about in women's tights and a wig". Those men were great Lord Chancellors and we should all be proud of them.
Now he is to go because he is only a "pale shadow"; that is, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is "alone and palely loitering" on the Woolsack. He is there only for a time because with a casual wave of a Cabinet hand—one wonders how many in the Cabinet did so—it has been decided that we would have no more of a real Lord Chancellor. To his great credit, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, stood against this. No one could say that he did not bring gravitas and strength to the office. He is what the French would call un homme sérieux. Whatever one thought of his manner, there was no question about his competence and his authority.
There has always been a case for stripping the Lord Chancellor of his role to sit as a judge. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern may recall that years ago I moved an amendment to a courts Bill going through the House that no longer should the Lord Chancellor have the power to sit as a judge. The amendment was resisted and I withdrew it at the urging of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who was leading for the Opposition Front Bench. But who would have thought that the whole office is to be obliterated and replaced by a form of cardboard Lord Chancellor? There is good reason for the judges to fear for their independence in the sour and hostile atmosphere emanating from the Home Office under an authoritarian Home Secretary.
I believe that a Conservative Member of the other place considered that when my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition was Home Secretary, there was "something of the night" about him. I have heard others say of the present Home Secretary that there is "something of the nightmare" about him, given his petulance when judges decide against him. Now a committee is to be appointed by the Government, a body

239
responsible to the Government that is to do what was done by the great men I have talked about with great confidence and without any objection whatever.
A superior court is proposed, but superior to what? It will certainly not be superior to the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary who have sat in this place and joined in the throng of politics and legislation. By their absence, the influence of this House will be lessened and the influence of Parliament lowered. Instead we have a Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, doubling up. I admire the loyalty of the noble and learned Lord, but perhaps I may say that it is humiliating to have to carry out a dying role.
The new rank of Queen's Counsel has also been referred to. Queen's Counsel was an appointment of the Crown. Stripping it away reveals the ignorance of the distinctive role in the administration of English law played by counsel and judge. That is not like America, where one has 40 minutes or so to speak. In the administration of English justice, in the higher and appellate courts, counsel and judge debate together; there is a dialogue. I do not think there is any difference in the European courts from the time when I practised there. I have always thought that in European courts the advocates play an almost academic role, reading a lecture from a script and sometimes lifting their noses from the script.
All in all, the English Bar and the English Bench work together. It is a great tradition that has created much of English law. This is a sad day. This is a great blow to the fabric of the state, effected by a sudden whim which apparently caused the then Lord Chancellor to resign and the Leader of the House to be visibly mortified.
We must accept that this change will happen and that the noble and learned Lord the present Lord Chancellor will take responsibility for the new system. Heaven help his conscience and the consciences of his colleagues if the new system fails the state. I believe that this House must reject any attempt to abolish the post of Lord Chancellor as we know it.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not intend to detain your Lordships long but it is my duty to add my voice to others with regard to the proposal in the Queen's Speech relating to the future of your Lordships' House. I share the dismay expressed by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and many others that the Government have chosen to disregard the undertaking freely given to the effect that the elected hereditary Peers would remain until the full phase two reforms were agreed and in place. So I say frankly to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that I shall do whatever I can to resist the passage of that Bill when it comes.
I am not opposed to reform of your Lordships' House. I am one of the comparatively few Members of the House on this side who agrees with the idea of an elected House. That is not a majority view on this side of the House but it is one that I happily support. But
240
I will also support whatever it is that Parliament in due course decides collectively is to be the future of this House.
Of course I recognise that the Government have a huge majority in another place and, in theory at least, can force through the necessary legislation. I agree that there will be differing views on this matter among noble Lords. But this not about whether we should have an elected or appointed House; it is about whether or not undertakings freely given can be relied upon.
Perhaps I may turn to one other matter—that is, the proposal to create a Supreme Court and for the noble and learned Lords who sit on the Judicial Committee to become part of that Supreme Court. There are, I gather, sharply differing views among noble and learned Lords on this matter. I must be honest and say that I have no great difficulty with the proposal in principle. But I shudder a little at the practicalities. As we discovered with the Parliament building in Edinburgh, the cost of these projects can truly run wild. I hope that the Government will be willing to ensure that such problems do not arise in this case when and if that course is decided upon. But that is all for the future. The principle has first to be agreed and I look forward to entering into those discussions in due course.
Finally, I refer to the future of the office of Lord Chancellor, which is, of course, tied up with the Speakership of your Lordships' House. I have the honour to be a Member of the Select Committee which considered that latter point recently but I am afraid that I found myself at variance with its conclusions, along with my noble friends Lord Freeman and Lord Alexander of Weedon. All that is for another day. For now I shall concentrate my energies on the expected House of Lords reform Bill. I apologise in advance to your Lordships if, when the time comes, I detain your Lordships for rather longer than I have today.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, in adopting a somewhat different tack from most of the previous speakers, I hope that I will at least provide a kind of sorbet between the heavy guns of the constitutional advocates. I want to take up one of the themes that has been current throughout the debate. It was particularly referred to in opening by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, by my noble friend Lady Williams, by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and indirectly, and rather deftly, in his reference to the political demi-monde, by my noble friend Lord Smith. I refer to the importance of the vigour of our democracy and the justification, as I understand it, for the Government's proposed reforms of shoring up what all of us would accept is a state of democracy today that leaves a great deal to be concerned about.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf. Before I say why, I should refer to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—who never fails to rouse the House—and assure him that if one of the reforms involves the abandonment of ermine, I, for one, shall

241
be delighted. It will save me £116 every time I doff it. Unless, of course, he is willing to let me have his as he goes out of the door. I have let myself in for it now.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I would be delighted to accommodate the noble Lord but he is, of course, only a poor Baron and he cannot have an Earl's ermine.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, as I said, I let myself in for that one. I am poor but not "barren".
One concession I will make to the noble Earl is that I shall be very happy to see introduced as part of the reforms the abandonment of titles. Frankly, for life Peers, they seem to be an embarrassment. I believe that many others in my position will be very happy to see them go. It would be a small step towards closing the gulf between the public and this House. That would of course leave untouched hereditary titles.
My noble friend Lord Dahrendorf said that there was no popular clamour for these reforms. I agree. But there is a clamour against the excess of law-making coming from this House and another place. This includes laws that are felt to be intrusive; regulations that are felt to be choking; laws so complex, confused and hydra-headed that they leave all but specialist lawyers in a state of bemusement. These are viewed, I am afraid, as so much parliamentary effluent.
I obtained from the Library today the statistics for 2000, the latest year for which we have figures. In that year we passed no fewer than 12,552 pages of new law—that is raw law, without notes or indexes—and I estimate that only about 2,000 pages of old law went out. So we were left with a net increase of more than 10,000 pages of statute law to add to the 10,000 net pages of statute law of the year before.
This aggregation of statutory and legal complexity is choking democracy and disaffecting citizens. It is making life out there impossible to lead without a wholly unwanted and expensive resort to so-called experts. To that must be added case law and tidal waves of EU directives and regulations.
The Queen's Speech for this Session referred to 27 new Bills, two carry-overs and seven Bills announced and to be worked upon. This proposed legislation includes five further criminal law Bills, which brings the total since Labour came to power to approximately 40 criminal justice Bills. If Archimedes were alive he would point us to the inescapable truth; that you cannot go on filling water into a bath without it flowing over. We cannot go on filling the heads of our citizenry with this mass of legislation without them revolting against it and, in the process, thinking a great deal less of us. I find frankly that they wonder just what the heck we get up to here. What an earth are we doing, passing all that stuff? When I say to them that, actually, we do not understand it either, and that the vast majority of statutory instruments pass through both Houses without any serious oversight or intervention, they get as worried as I believe that they ought to be.
The truism is that too much law makes for unlawfulness. If the public become confused and feel put upon and resentful, ultimately they will not think
242
of the law as their law. They will not care about it or observe it, which undermines the very law that is the source of the resentment.
Over-complicated law is an instrument of elitism. How often do we pass laws designed for the less well-off among our fellow citizens, only to find that they cannot understand what we are doing or pay for the lawyers to help them to understand what we intend? The more complex the law, the less often and the less fairly it will be implemented. Once the process of ignoring and evading law starts, the downward spiral leads to yet further laws to shore up the laws that are not being observed. That is an Italianate scenario that we could well do without.
A fortnight ago, the RIPA statutory instruments passed through this House. Again, that was hugely important legislation which, I would say, scarcely anyone in the House, on any Bench, totally understood. Indeed, noble Lords will remember that one of the amendments was that the Home Secretary must bring before the House a memorandum explaining how the laws interlock, both here and abroad.
I also put it to the House that the confused and disempowered among our citizens are rendered more so by the endless change in law, even when it is intended for them. Imperfect laws that are understood and accepted are better than sophisticated replacements that are not. There is now a vicious circle, in which less and less law is implemented, leading to more and more laws. One has only to consider the situation with criminal law to see the strength of that process. I understand that since the Government came to power in 1997, more than 600 new criminal offences have been created. The number of police to implement that burgeoning number of laws has scarcely increased. What numerical increase there has been has been more than overtaken by the fact that they now spend 50 to 60 per cent of their time in the stations, trying to understand the laws that they are supposed to be implementing and filling in forms in the process.
We have no impact assessments for the laws that we pass. That is an extraordinary state of affairs, which means that many laws are never ripped out of the statute book, although they are not just useless but worse than useless. Consolidation becomes impossible, because the ground is constantly moving under the feet of those charged with the task.
I have not the time to deal with the long-term and fundamental issues that must be addressed in dealing with the issue of over-legislation, but I believe that the points that I have raised are relevant to the overall debate.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, on two points. The sooner that we get rid of ermine, which portrays a very old-fashioned and out-of-date House, the better. I agree, too, on the need to change the title of those who serve in the House. I would prefer them to be called senators rather than Lords, and I would prefer the name of the House to be changed.

243
I would like to deal with the issue in front of us tonight—the proposal that we should go forward with an appointed House. What has changed on that? I still believe that there should be democratically elected people in this House. On 4th February, I voted for all the proposals from 20 per cent to 80 per cent—and I had the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the Opposition, with me. However, I am afraid that he had not much support from his own Benches. Although one or two hardy souls ventured into the Lobby with him, the vast majority of the noble Lords sitting behind him also believe in an appointed House. That is where we are.
I shall certainly support the Government on these matters, as we are taking a step forward in getting rid of the 92 hereditary Peers. However, I see that not as an end in itself but as a beginning. The setting up of the statutory commission is another forward move, although one or two speakers have said that it will mean only the appointment by the commission of the Cross-Benchers. That is not so. It is another important piece of patronage that the Prime Minister has given up. The commission will decide on the number and timing of appointments, and take into account, especially after a general election, that the House should reflect it, but that no one party should have an overall majority. Those are very important proposals that are being entrusted to the commission, which are also powers that the Prime Minister is giving up.
The commission will also be responsible for maintaining the 20 per cent of Cross-Benchers, as well as appointing them. It will also vet the political appointments that are made. However, we do not want an appointments commission that makes appointments like the ones made by the present appointments commission. All noble Lords will recall that, before the last appointments were made, there was talk of people's Peers. The noble Lords who were appointed are esteemed and reliable, but they are certainly not people's Peers. They are all part of the great and the good, and would have been appointed to this House in any case.
I received hundreds of letters from very worthy people from all walks of life, saying that they would like to be a people's Peer. They cited to me what they had done— but, of course, it was to no avail. Since the last appointments, I have not received one letter from anyone saying that they want to be a people's Peer. I hope that, when we appoint a statutory appointments commission, we consider the person who is to chair it and ensure that it is broadly based and brings people in from all sections of our community. I hope that it pays respect to ethnic minorities and to gender, and that it represents the ordinary people who do so much work.
I should also like the commission to take into account the age structure of this House. We want younger, lively people coming in—not to say that all noble Lords are not lively people. Having younger people in would add to the House, however; they might begin to understand why a lot of young people are turning their backs on politics today and not voting, which is putting democracy itself in peril.
244
As for the 92 hereditary Peers who are left, like other noble Lords I pay tribute to many of them who play a vital role in this House. However, the one thing that cannot be defended is why they are here. They are here by accident of birth, which can no longer be defended in a democratic society. The time has come for them to go, but we are facing a real difficulty. The two amendments tonight—particularly the amendment from the Conservative Benches—intend simply to delay things again. That amendment says, "We will not defend the notion of hereditary Peers here, but we shall retain them for as long as we can". That is what it is all about. One or two noble Lords are shaking their heads, but I look at it that way.
What has changed is that both Houses have had their say, and there is no majority in another place— but there is certainly a majority here. In that respect, however much we wrap it up, we are moving to another stage. That is why the time has come for the 92 hereditary Peers to go. We shall see what happens, but that is what the fight is about. Stripped of all the delay and the talk about a more democratic House, it is about retaining those 92.
As I say, that is typical of what happens when we talk of changing this House. People are not against changing it, but there are so many ways of doing so. So in the end we maintain it as it is. That is why this House is being left behind. That is why, in many instances, its views are not regarded as part of this century. That tendency is showing its face again today. It is about change tomorrow but no change today.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, on 7th November, my son's birthday, I was very fortunate to be able to ask an Unstarred Question to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor replied. It was a quiet afternoon when not too many strident people were present. The Question was whether the proposals for constitutional reform would enhance the membership of your Lordships' House. Today, sadly, I have learned that they will not. We are probably talking of dismemberment of membership—if I may use such words in this day of plain English speaking. I wonder why I feel that way. Perhaps I should go back almost to the beginning.
I look around me at the remarkable depth and spread of quality and knowledge in your Lordships' House, and at the enthusiasm of the young Strathclyde, who, when I first joined, had just learned to walk.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Selsdon: I think that he had learned to speak as well, my Lords. I also see the enthusiasm of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who in those days had just reached his 11-plus days. I would not dream of saying anything personal about the noble Baroness opposite. However, at that time she had not yet started her 11-plus days. By the time that I joined the House, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, had already been a Member since before I was born. When I look round today and see the noble and learned Lord,

245
Lord Brightman—who was kind enough to speak on my Question—as the oldest Law Lord, and the noble Lords, Lord Roll and Lord Renton, all well into their 90s, it proves to me again that there is no reason at all why anyone should ever retire from your Lordships' House as long as they are active.
My problem is myself, unfortunately. I was elected. Whichever way we look at it, and however people may denigrate it, we are elected—not all 92; it is actually 90—to perform a role. In that role we are required to use our best endeavours to try to ensure that a second stage of reform of the House takes place. However, rather than stepping back into the same battle, I looked at one of the most shaming moments in my life, when, as the senior non-executive director at the annual general meeting of a public company, I saw that there were 3,750 votes that I should not be re-elected. It made no difference to me that there would need to be 1 million or more such votes but that 3,750 people did not feel that I had effectively done my job of scrutiny.
While we are introducing complicated legislation requiring the private sector to supervise and survey and to allow every Tom, Dick and Harry—or Greenbury, Cadbury and everybody else—to come in, we should look at ourselves. Of course, we could say that, as we have Ofwat and Ofgas, we should also have an Oflord, as we currently have an Offalconer. We have to look at ourselves. In order for a House to be democratic it must be elected. However, in order for it to be representative it does not have to be elected. Those are the two poles of the argument. I would beg and ask noble Lords opposite, please, on this day of plain English speaking, to remember that we are elected Peers. The mandate may be suspicious, but the reasons given were sound.
I turn now to this question of "binding in honour" which worries me no end. As noble Lords will know, there was a bigger majority for Weatherill than there was for an appointed House. It was one of the biggest majorities in your Lordships' House. As I said in the debate the other day, I did not vote for Weatherill because I did not think that it was morally correct. However, almost all noble Lords opposite voted for the amendment—binding in honour those who come to give it their consent. Some 51.8 per cent of the current Members of the Benches opposite voted for Weatherill. If they thought that there was anything in the words "binding in honour", did they do an honourable thing or did they not?
If I as a member of a non-executive board saw that happening in a public body, I would crucify them—I am sorry; that is a religious word and I should not have used it. I would attack them very forcibly. In the same way, if I saw a company about to break itself up, because that is what is happening now, I would fight tooth and nail. I do not want the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to go either personally or corporately. He and his colleagues have been doing a substantial amount of moonlighting outside the House, building an empire which has grown since I became a Member from 9,000 to 25,000 people. They have increased their remuneration, but that is beside
246
the point. I chair a remuneration committee, but I would have to ask outside advisers whether the remuneration was right or proper. Frankly, I think that we should go back to the old days when the Lord Chancellor had a certain number of tonnes of wine each year which he then swapped for £25,000, I think, 10 per cent of which was for his role as Speaker. Moreover it was Gascon wine—not even appellation contrôlée, unlike that which I produce myself and have to declare. I was banned from selling it to your Lordships' House because that would be non-democratic.
I do not think that we should dismember this House without having decided what goes in its place. The hereditary principle went in accordance with the 1968 Bill and it is no longer there. No one could have devised something as complex, diverse and totally unacceptable as this strange mechanism of election. However, we who are elected have a duty and a responsibility—I believe that we even have a form of legal responsibility—to ensure that change takes place. To remove the elected element without an adequate replacement—and at the same time to remove perhaps the most important part of the Temporal side of your Lordships' House, the legal aspect—would be an extremely worrying prospect.
If we decide that we have the right to decide that we are all appointed, we could then face the horror of horrors. Borne on the winds from the east, mounted on black chargers, the Vandals from the other place may come and say, "No, no, no. We are going to have an all-elected House". That is a possibility. We currently have not a House divided against itself, but political parties divided among themselves; it is slightly different.
The Conservative Party has said, "We are going to have more elected people than anyone else; therefore vote for us at the next election". The Liberal Democrats are sound and reliable because they believe in proportional representation and that is what it is all about—although a few chaps did wonder when it came to voting for self-preservation. Although those opposite say that we should effectively be democratic and elected by the people, we find that almost all of them vote for their own self-preservation as appointed Members. Then, above us all, there is the Grim Reaper. The average age of your Lordships' House is such that, at the general election after next—if that is when we move formally to a fully appointed or fully elected Chamber—328 Members of your Lordships' House will be over the age of 75. I would never suggest for a moment that any one of them should be forced to retire.
In this document which I have prepared with a new Select Committee that I formed—a Select Committee of one; the document has already been distributed to elected Peers, but appointed Peers and those who voted the right way will receive it tomorrow—I have put forward the solution for your Lordships' House which brings together Church, law and Parliament. It is called, as I have mentioned before, Towards a Peerless Future. I leave your Lordships to eager anticipation as it will be my reply to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. My reply will also include a draft restraining order which

247
I am trying to introduce—but none of the Clerks seems willing to help me—in order to ensure that the noble and learned Lord may not leave the House without the approval of 100 per cent of your Lordships.
6.58 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I rise to speak in this debate to touch on just some of the many crucially important issues before us.
First, with regard to reform of the House of Lords, the Government's approach defies description. An interview on the radio two evenings ago, between the noble Baroness the Lord President and Andrew Rawnsley on the BBC programme "The Westminster Hour", summed it up for me—an absolute unmitigated mess and muddle. It was immediately clear that the Government have not moved one iota towards genuine Lords reform since 1997. Further, we were reminded that the noble Baroness does not believe in the Government's path to so-called modernisation having recently voted, like me, for a fully elected House of Lords.
However, unlike me, the noble Baroness does not appear to be seeking to persuade her colleagues that this is the right path. Instead it seems we are to continue to have cronyism with political appointees, together with an independent commission to decide who should sit on our Cross Benches. The last so-called independent commission proved to be a real sham given that one of its members was himself chosen to sit as a people's Peer, thus making a complete mockery of the system. So much for democracy. So much for being bold.
I offer one suggestion that might begin to lift this deeply depressing manipulation of the legislative process: will the Government now seriously consider separating honours that may be bestowed upon those who have done great service to Britain, and those who are ready, willing and picked to come to this House to sit as working Peers'? Personally, like others who have spoken this evening, I favour removing the titles for working Peers as that would focus the minds of those who are seriously prepared to commit and contribute to the upper Chamber of our legislature.
I turn to proposals to abolish the office of the Lord Chancellor and to replace the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords with a new Supreme Court. Those decisions were announced to the world in a press release principally concerned with a Cabinet reshuffle. It was almost as if this came about as a knock-on effect of Alan Milburn deciding that he wanted to spend more time with his family. It is extraordinary that this and other proposed measures were announced without any prior consultation with your Lordships, the judiciary or the legal profession at large.
Was the Government's decision to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor driven by the recognition that the incumbent had become increasingly political, giving significant time to executive and party political priorities, not to mention radio chat shows, at the expense of fulfilling his role as head of the judiciary?
248
The position of the Lord Chancellor has long been subject to intense legal debate, with the primary objection to the role being the application of the doctrine of separation of powers. The Lord Chancellor occupies a constitutionally problematic role. As a member of the Cabinet and thus the executive, he retains a strong political function. However, he is also head of the judiciary, a prominent and independent legal role, while presiding over legislative business in the House of Lords.
Over the past five years the status of the Lord Chancellor has been subject to further scrutiny as it has been suggested that the position may be incompatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, involving the right to a fair trial. As your Lordships will know, Article 6 requires that all judicial and executive functions remain entirely separate before a tribunal may be considered "independent and impartial". In McGonnell v UK (2000) the European Court of Human Rights held that:
"Any direct involvement in the passage of legislation or of executive rules was likely to be sufficient to cast doubt on the judicial impartiality of a person subsequently called on to determine a dispute over whether reasons existed to permit a variation from the wording of the legislation or rules at issue".
It is clear that the consequence of such judgments calls the complex position of the Lord Chancellor into question as European jurisprudence now places increasing importance on a legal rather than political constitution.
However, while it might appear on the surface to seem to be preferable that the judicial functions of the Lord Chancellor are removed and that a senior member of the judiciary, the Lord Chief Justice for example, takes his place, I believe that a separation of powers is constitutionally unnecessary. Unlike civil law jurisdictions, our legislative and political history has been based upon the common law and thus an unwritten constitution. Comparisons with jurisdictions such as the United States are theoretical rather than practical and not, in reality, of great assistance. Having thought through all the arguments I must say that I find the notion expressed this evening by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon that the separation of powers breathes by anomalies most compelling!
I turn now to the debate regarding the abolition of the House of Lords Appellate Committee and the establishment of a Supreme Court—a proposal that raises a number of serious concerns. For example, I question the removal of the Appellate Committee from the House of Lords. I understand the argument for seeking to separate the judiciary from the legislature. However, this would, in one sweep, remove a wealth of experience and sagacity from your Lordships' House. If that happens, I support the Odysseus Trust in its Response to Constitutional Reform, in which it stated,
"that so long as there are appointed members of the House of Lords there is no reason why the Justices of the Supreme Court or any other senior judge should not be eligible for appointment on retirement".
That compromise would allow retired Law Lords to sit in the legislature and contribute their much needed expertise and knowledge, as they do at present.

249
I now turn briefly to the issue of judicial appointments. The present system has been subject to criticism, most notably for the lack of accountability and transparency. However, in the main, the system has worked well and the standard of judicial appointments has remained at a consistently high standard. The reforms advocated and subsequently implemented as a direct result of the Peach report demonstrate a positive step towards securing judicial independence in the appointments process. Now we have more proposals for change without any prior consultation, and this worries me greatly. I agree with Justice, which, in responding to these proposals, said:
"We are concerned that legislation may be drafted too quickly on matters which are of considerable constitutional importance and where consultation would normally take much longer. Given this, time should be found for pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft Bill to be presented in the next Parliamentary session".
Does the Minister accept that these reforms must now be placed before a draft scrutiny committee before being introduced to this House?
I am at a loss to understand the Government's rationale behind the proposal to establish a recommending commission as outlined in the recent consultation paper, A new way of appointing judges, to replace the current system with a more politicised process conferring power on the Secretary of State to veto a judicial appointment. I agree unreservedly with the Society of Conservative Lawyers on this point, which states that,
"it would be nonsensical to replace the present system of judicial appointments with a system in which there was greater political involvement or politicisation of the process, or with a system which failed to choose the most able candidate. The sole criterion for judicial appointment should be merit, irrespective of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or political affiliation".
The Government must carefully consider what problems these reforms seek to address. While I strongly advocate the need to defend the independence of the judiciary from political intervention, I do not support transference of power from the Lord Chancellor to a Cabinet Minister who need not have any legal knowledge or experience. The Lord Chancellor, despite his constitutionally difficult position, is able to defend the independence of the judiciary at the heart of the executive. If that power were to be removed, there would be no legal representation in the Cabinet and any decisions to appoint members of the judiciary made by the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs could be arbitrary, ill informed and politically motivated.
It is imperative that any system is free from political bias or interference to ensure that public confidence and democratic legitimacy are maintained. I believe that the creation of an independent Appointments Commission, consisting only of judicial, academic, professional and lay representatives, is the only viable alternative to our present system.
In conclusion, the journalist and lawyer, Joshua Rozenberg, was wrong when he wrote in the Telegraph on 20th November that with regard to a constitutional reform Bill to bring about profound and irreversible changes to the judicial system of the United Kingdom none of the political parties is taking this seriously enough. The Conservative Party is
250
taking this very seriously and again I urge the Government at the very least to accept that there is a need to subject these far-reaching proposals to draft scrutiny.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I should love to join in the debate about the future of this House and lock swords with people such as my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle. However, instead, like a good Liberal, I shall talk about voting systems, particularly the Government's steady move towards turning all our public elections into all-postal voting elections or other so-called modern systems.
Already we have pilots regarding local elections under the Representation of the People Act 2000. The Government have told the Electoral Commission that they agree in principle to moving to all-postal votes in almost all local elections. In due course we shall consider the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill which will lead to all-postal ballots in three of the regions in the European elections together with any associated local elections next June. That is, at this stage anyway, a retrograde and very dangerous step. The pilots have been widely seen as improving turnout, which I think means increasing turnout, but there is a very important difference between the number of votes sent back and the number of people who actually send those votes back. A great deal of evidence shows that postal voting is associated with a lot of low-level, fairly benign fraud, and that it can be and in some cases is associated with very severe and organised electoral fraud.
The noble Baroness the Leader of the House said, in introducing the debate, that the Government wanted to produce ways of voting more in tune with modern lifestyles. The penny post was actually introduced more than 30 years before the secret ballot came into operation at polling stations. It was not used in those days and has not been used since except, until very recently, for people who really needed it, for very good reasons.
If we go back several hundred years, elections took place at meetings. Those few people who had the ability to vote were gathered together. The sheriff or some such local officer determined the election by taking the voices of people there, a means that the House will understand well. If necessary, they had a show of hands. That is a modern system that this House has not quite caught up with yet. Then, because there were obviously disputes over who had shouted loudest of the four people there, or whatever it was, they took to recording the votes of individuals. By the early 17th century, it became common practice to have an officer who recorded how people voted in some sort of register or ledger.
By the 19th century, the tradition of hustings had grown up, where a stage—usually wooden—was built, and people who were allowed to vote turned up and announced in public how they were voting. Very often, a lot of the ordinary folk who did not have the vote gathered there and cheered or booed according to

251
what was said. That, too, led to a great deal of abuse, but it had one great safeguard; namely, that people had to turn up in person to vote. If the person who turned up was not the person entitled to vote, people could object. They very often did so, and sometimes there were riots.
Then, after a lot of electoral abuse, the Ballot Act 1872 came in, when the famous pencils with pieces of string attached to them in rickety booths were invented, which government Ministers have taken to denouncing as old fashioned. The Ballot Act had two fundamental principles. First was the old principle that one cast one's vote in person, and could be challenged if one was not the person whom one was supposed to be. The second—it was crucially introduced by the Ballot Act—was that the vote was cast in private. It was a secret ballot in the strange little booths.
From some of the local election pilots that have taken place, and from postal votes in other places, particularly parts of Lancashire such as Oldham, Blackburn, Burnley and Pendle, all of which have led to police investigations and complaints that postal votes have been abused, it is quite clear that postal voting can very easily contravene both those principles. The safeguards are simply not there to make sure that people vote in person—that someone else does not vote for them—and in private, without anyone standing over their shoulder telling them what to do and watching how they do it.
As 1 said, some such activity is benign. I am indebted to my colleague Councillor Suzanne Fletcher, who I think is leader of our group on Stockton-on-Tees Council, which had a pilot in May. She reported a large number of instances in which people had told her what had happened. One example was,
"mine's been sent in, and I filled his in for him as well".
That woman added that she thought she would go round to the neighbours and vote for them as well, but decided that it would not be quite right. Another example was:
"I've filled all ours in".
That person then saw the look of disapproval on Councillor Fletcher's face and added that it was all right because, "they were all for you". The examples continue. Another is:
"I did his for him as well, he'd never have got round to it, you know what he's like".
Another was someone who had filled in her son's paper for him. That again drew a horrified look from Councillor Fletcher, so that person quickly added that she had rung him up first to check whom he wanted to vote for. There is nothing malicious about that, but it contravenes some very fundamental principles about postal voting. The final quote that I have states that,
"at 8 o'clock in the morning a woman at the bus stop got these 3 white envelopes out of her bag, and she started doing something with the papers. She was voting on all three, at 8 in the morning would you believe it, 8 in the morning. Then she posted them. All three".
252
A lot of evidence suggests that one reason why the poll goes up in such elections is that people vote for other people. They do so thinking that it is the right thing to do.
When we get round to debating the subject later, I shall talk in considerable detail about some of the organised fraud that has taken place in some of the places that I have mentioned. The classic way of doing it is that an activist from the party—someone's agent—follows the postman and picks up the votes. They either make sure that they are filled in there and then—they might allow them to do it in private or stand over them and make sure that they have done it properly; they might want to check all the votes before they are put in the envelopes—or simply take them away and get them filled in. All that has happened in a number of those places recently. I am not saying that it is rife across the country but, in certain places and in certain communities, it is very dangerous.
If politicians can cheat, some politicians will cheat. Widespread postal voting is wide open to people who want to cheat. Under the present circumstances and without inventing some very substantial new ways of stopping the abuse, it is a recipe for widespread electoral fraud, voting corruption and, inevitably, a number of activists, probably from all political parties, ending up in prison.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I have the strongest possible views about the proposed statutory execution of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—or, perhaps more accurately, his office. I listened with silent applause on my part to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who of course has almost more experience than anyone in this House. I listened with equal silent applause to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell. Having listened to those speeches and others in a like vein, I find that all I can do is, to coin a phrase, say that I agree and have nothing to add. When it comes to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, he will have my vote with some enthusiasm.
I want to turn to something different, although it is not as far removed as postal voting. It is the Parliament Act. I do so because on Sunday I watched Peter Hain on "Breakfast with Frost". He was complaining that this House had lost its way. He told the public—to my surprise, but not perhaps to that of the public—that its true function was to revise legislation passed to it from the other place, not to veto it. Still less was it entitled to give it only cursory consideration as, he claimed, had been the case with the Hunting Bill in the previous Session.
Those assertions by someone holding such a prominent position in the Government as the Leader of the House of Commons should not be ignored and should be answered, because otherwise they may become accepted by the Government as justifying still further attempts to curb the already truncated powers of this House. As noble Lords will know full well, he has got it quite wrong.

253
The fact is that this House surrendered the power of veto in 1911. It retained a power to delay Bills in order to give the government of the day time for reflection and having second thoughts—which might well be wiser thoughts. This is not an obstructive power; it is an essential partial safeguard against the government of the day rushing into ill advised and destructive legislation.
If Mr Hain had his way, the role of this House would be purely advisory. It would receive a Bill from the other place and say that it was a good or bad Bill, or that it wanted amendment in the following respects. It would then return the Bill to the other place to do as it liked with the advice and that would be the end of the story. That, it seems to me, is what the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, championed when he suggested that any attempt to delay a Bill would be improper.
There is an issue as to whether the Parliament Act 1949 has abridged the period of delay from three Sessions to two, but that is not for this debate. It may well have to be decided by the courts, including this House in its judicial capacity, during the coming year.
What does require careful consideration is the allegation that this House made no attempt to perform its revising role in relation to the Hunting Bill. It is an undoubted fact that consideration never went beyond Committee stage before prorogation. I do not know the reason for that. It may have been the case that the Government's business managers were not prepared to accept a programme which would have given this House the time to undertake a full examination of the Bill.
Alternatively, it may have been appreciated by the usual channels that any further consideration not only would jeopardise the future of other more important and less controversial Bills, but would have been a waste of time as the other place was not interested in any form of revision or reconsideration.
However, this aspect of the working of the Parliament Act requires further and serious consideration. The Act can apply to any Bill which has been sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the Session and is rejected by this House before the end of that Session. Perhaps here I may interpolate as I have been asked today whether a Private Member's Bill qualifies. The answer is that it does because it is a Public Bill. Only Private Bills in the sense that X corporation wants to increase its local powers do not qualify. Therefore, if the Hunting Bill returns in the form of a Private Member's Bill, so be it—it will qualify for consideration under the Parliament Act.
A Bill is deemed to be rejected by this House if it is not passed without amendment, or only with amendments agreed to by both Houses. That underlines the importance of how much time we have to consider such a Bill.
Nowadays, it might be thought that leaving this House only one month in which to give full consideration to what almost by definition will be a
254
highly controversial measure is quite inadequate unless it is intended that all other business shall be shelved. This is particularly the case if some parts of the Bill have never been considered by the other place because of the operation of the guillotine.
Furthermore, the Government's business managers will usually be able to ensure that the Bill cannot receive sufficient time for full consideration in this House. On the other hand, there has to be some time limit in order to prevent the frustration of the Parliament Act process by a filibuster extending until the end of the Session—a parliamentary form of kicking into touch.
One solution might be to provide that the Bill must be sent to this House at least three months before the end of the Session. Another, which could be added as it is not inconsistent, might be a clause whereby, on a Bill-by-Bill basis, this House could resolve that further discussion of a Bill at the beginning of the following Session should, for the purposes of the Parliament Act, be deemed to have occurred in the previous Session. However it is dealt with, we ought seriously to reconsider the operation of the Parliament Act in all its different aspects.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am in partial agreement with the Government on the principle of the separation of judicial powers from a Minister of the Crown. However, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, I do not agree with the way in which it was announced. I hope the proposal will be given long and careful consideration when eventually it is brought into effect.
I am not a lawyer and I have always had great respect for the Law Lords in your Lordships' House. Most of those I have heard are retired. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I hope that they will return at an early stage if the proposals are put into effect. I have found it difficult to understand some of the arguments I have heard and read today from lawyers and Law Lords who oppose the separation of powers. I read with great interest an article in The Times of 13th November by Peter Riddell. I do not suppose he wrote the headline:
"The law lords are acting like members of the FBU".
I know what is meant because below that the sub-editor wrote that it was "over-the-top resistance". The article is worth quoting:
"Imagine the outcry if a Prime Minister proposed that the head of the judiciary should be a senior minister. And, moreover, a member both of the Cabinet and of the House of Lords. The Government would be denounced for outrageous political interference … of the judiciary and acting dictatorially".
I am sure that neither this Government nor their predecessor would have dreamed of doing any such thing.
The plain fact is that we had a brilliant Lord Chancellor sitting in the Cabinet of which I had the privilege of being a member. I refer to Lord Elwyn-Jones. who many in your Lordships' House will know was a wonderful man, a brilliant Lord Chancellor and a marvellous Cabinet Minister.

255
The consultation paper that has been published asks for our views, so I thought that briefly I would give mine as I have the Floor. We are informed that it is the job of the Lord Chancellor to deal with ecclesiastical patronage, visitorial jurisdiction and charities and schools. We all know that most of that work is rubber-stamping decisions that have already been taken. Indeed, if Lord Chancellors interfered, usually they were wrong to do so. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is interested in my views, I hope that he will happily give up those jobs. As for the job of being Speaker in your Lordships' House, normally— apart from today when he has sat throughout the debate—I am happy to see that he does not sit for too long on the Woolsack.
My concern about the consultation document relates to value for money—a matter I used to have something to do with—and what the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will do when he is stripped of those rubber-stamping jobs. It was particularly worrying to read in the document that the Lord Chancellor would still be in charge of a major department with "large spending powers". I would be grateful if my noble and learned friend would tell us perhaps today just what he has in mind to spend his money on. In other words, how many staff will he have and what will they do when they are stripped of these powers? I should be happy if he would write to me or tell me on another occasion.
I turn briefly to the subject of House of Lords reform. I shall leave my main comments until we debate the Bill itself. The major decision concerns the abolition of hereditary Peers. I have set out my views on that decision to your Lordships on other occasions. The principle that no one should sit in Parliament simply because of something that his ancestor did must be right, even if that person is as good as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Having said that the hereditary Peers should go, I do not say that there are many hereditary Peers here who are any worse Members than the life Peers—many of them are far better. However, that is still no reason for them to be here.
The Cranborne deal is now being criticised because there is no new stage of reform. I said, and believed at the time, that it was a bad deal negotiated between our then Lord Chancellor and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, although the noble Viscount was sacked for doing so. The plain fact is that the deal should not have been done. Now, there is no agreement on the composition of your Lordships' House. There is no agreement in either House and certainly not in your Lordships' House. No one who sits behind the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, agrees with him, as he knows too well.
Some of the criticism has been ludicrous, but sometimes it has been serious. I refer to when the Statement was first made on 18th September. At that time, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, finished his remarks by saying that,
"he can expect a major fight on his hands, and it will not be confined to this Bill".—[Official Report, 18/9/03; col. 1062.]
256
That kind of threat will not be at all helpful when we come to give proper consideration to the Bill in due course. However, we heard even worse from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on the Liberal Democrat Benches, who I understood to be a moderate Liberal Democrat lawyer. He said that the Government were trying to castrate your Lordships' House. Even the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, did not use language such as that.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an entirely fair point and therefore perhaps I may make one in return. He may even agree with me. The position with which we are faced is that the Government have broken an undertaking given to Parliament. Yet they expect everyone else to stick to their agreements and their conventions. The Government cannot have it both ways. If they are going to behave in this entirely cavalier fashion, we shall give it back to them. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, must surely agree with that.
Lord Barnett: No, he does not. My Lords, the plain fact is that if the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, opposes this proposal, it is because he knows that there will be no changes and therefore it will be an opportunity to retain all the hereditary Peers. That is not a view that I hold. However, that is not to say that that is the end of my view on this matter, as he knows very well.
As I said, there is no agreement on how your Lordships' House should be composed. Therefore, frankly, to complain that the Government are seeking to castrate the House or that they are taking dictatorial powers or that the issue will be fought to the death is not a serious way to debate these matters. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, knows now, the plain fact is that the Government have 28 per cent of the votes in your Lordships' House. That figure may rise slightly in due course. But the Government have made a commitment that they, and any government in the future, will never have a majority. When the Bill comes before us, the House will have an opportunity to ensure that that commitment is carried through. Perhaps that is what the noble Lord is upset about because, for many years, his party had a majority in your Lordships' House with the huge number of hereditary Peers.
In due course, the independent commission will select Peers according to recommendations. I hope, as I have already said, that we shall have an opportunity to see many of the excellent hereditary Peers return as life Peers. The noble Lord knows that that is my view and I hold to it. However, I hope that the commission will have regard to a matter which it did not seem to take into account in relation to previous appointments—that is, that we are talking about working Peers.
I saw on page 12 of the document that the commission would ensure that the balance of Members had regard to the outcome of the previous general election. Perhaps my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton will be able to tell me how the commission can have regard to the balance at the previous general election and, at the same time, ensure

257
that no party has a majority in your Lordships' House or, indeed, how the commission should choose any Cross-Bench Peers. After all, not many Cross-Bench Members were elected at the previous election. I should be interested to hear from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor how he would deal with that point.
The question remains: what now? When, the other week, I asked a Question concerning the hereditary Peers who wanted to sit and whether they would be nominated for life peerage, I was told by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that he or she would be open to be so nominated.
I very much regret and, indeed, deplore threats from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I must tell him that if he presses ahead with that kind of party-political argument, he will certainly lose my support and that of many other noble Lords on this side of the House. I want to see those hereditary Peers nominated and considered seriously by the appointments commission with, it is hoped, with a new chairman.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and shall be very brief. He has expressed his feelings very strongly about what he regards as the strong language used by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and my noble friend Lord Goodhart. Does he have any idea of the feelings that we have about the constant berating of the unelected House for attempting, for example, to amend serious legislation when we have made every possible attempt to have the House elected?
Lord Barnett: My Lords, having served in Cabinet with me, the noble Baroness knows how reasonable a man I am, even if I did not always give her the money that she wanted. I should like to reply at some length but, frankly, I have already spoken for 12 minutes and I want to draw to an end.
As I said, I hope that all the hereditaries who want to do so, and are supported by an independent commission, will be able to return as life Peers. However, in the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—most of which, as I have made clear, I disagree with strongly—there are at least two or three words with which I do agree and which I hope my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will accept. I hope that my noble and learned friend will concede the reference in the amendment to "meaningful consultation" and will hold such consultations. We would then have an opportunity to consider the House of Lords reform Bill in a serious manner, which has often not been the case in today's debate.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, if only because he wants life peerages for all the hereditary Peers, as do I. But what the noble Lord does not appear to appreciate—I have said this previously but I repeat it in case he was not present—is that the appointments
258
commission, as constituted in that wretched consultation document, provides no guarantee of that. That is one of the problems.
We are debating the shadows of a House of Lords reform Bill and a constitutional reform Bill, together with consultation paper CP 14, on which there has been no consultation whatever. The amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde demonstrates propensity to oppose the Bills. It seeks withdrawal in the absence of cross-party consensus and consultation. It warrants the support of noble Lords wherever they sit or have sat or hope to continue to sit in your Lordships' House, whatever their political reservations may be. The Government contend that the Cranborne deal, a formal undertaking given to the House, ratified by the House and which may be enforced only by the House, subject to the will of Parliament, no longer applies. That is an unconscionable contention that mocks the integrity of this place.
My opposition to the House of Lords Bill, as has to be declared, was on the ground that the opinion polls favoured a referendum; my opposition to the Weatherill amendment was that it was hybrid and discriminatory; and my opposition to the Cranborne deal was that it afforded election only to hereditary Peers. Having declared my position, of course I defer to the view of the House.
A deal was struck. It was spoken to and approved by the House on the basis of one bone of contention that there should be no stage one before stage two, which was known then to require the approval of Parliament. There was no fine print and no reservations about obligations to encourage consensus or about permanency, such as has been suggested in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the consultation paper, that one is tempted to regard as a form of political placebo. No conduct has arisen to frustrate consensus or to frustrate the deal so as to justify instant removal. No unforeseeable circumstance has arisen such as could justify negation of the deal as frustrated, and in any event if it were frustrated why not renegotiate instead of seeking to impose by statutory imposition? Your Lordships have already given some answers to that question.
The Bills proposed in the gracious Speech assume an appointed Chamber, which I support. No constructive purpose is to be served today by revisiting those debates as to competition in both Houses, but speaking for myself I hope that the new shadow Cabinet will reconsider the arguments as presented by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth and other noble Lords and as accepted by a fair majority of this House.
If legislation were to remove the hereditary Peers, it could amend Section 2 of the Act to remove the exemption from the general exclusion, and Standing Orders that gave effect to the deal could be rescinded. The Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain would remain ex officio, but not so under the consultation paper. I need not repeat the fair criticisms made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, as to the consultation paper concerning the Appointments commission.

259
The Government do not propose to offer any life peerages, as I have said, to the removed hereditary Peers, much to the displeasure of many noble Lords on all sides of the House. The structure of the constitution has suffered a series of dogma-driven, seismic shocks. Certain cracks beyond repair, such as rescission of the hereditary entitlement to sit and to vote, were initially opposed by my noble friend Lord Cranborne on the basis that opinion polls supported a referendum. When later attracted to the Cross-Bench compromise my noble friend took command and after strenuous negotiations concluded a deal with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, which it is the purpose of this speech to uphold.
The gracious Speech proposed the introduction of Bills to put the hatchet not only to the exemption from the general exclusion under the Cranborne deal, but also to the office of Lord Chancellor and the system of judicial appointments and to remove the Appellate Committee from your Lordships' House. Your Lordships have dealt with the merits or demerits of those proposals already. Shall the dingle bells of political dogma continue to ring their changes just for the sake of change? Are there to be more constitutional detonations, more mindless change, as described by a distinguished journalist. Is that where we are going? I look at the time and with your Lordships' leave I shall conclude.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I cannot be here tomorrow I had intended at the start of my remarks today to make some constitutional points relating to the European Union, but given the time and the direction of the debate, I shall leave those matters for another day. I had always intended to conclude with a few remarks about composition of the House—after all, almost every noble Lord has.
I begin by drawing the attention of the House to the fact that I am one of those on political death row. I recall when I was reading for the Bar the advice given that anyone who acted as an advocate for himself had a fool for a client. I have not forgotten that advice so I shall leave that advocacy role to others although it has occurred to me that my predicament seems to give a slightly different meaning to having one's sentence commuted to life.
As well as being an hereditary Peer I am also an elected politician elsewhere. I have been struck by the widespread perception that what the Government appear to propose can hardly be perceived as bona fide political reform. That is most dangerous. In the words of Chris Patten in a recent somewhat controversial article in the Spectator, I am,
"a Tory to the tip of my toes",
so why should it matter to me, or to anyone else who is not a committed supporter of the party opposite, that the Government find themselves so badly misunderstood? However, I believe that it matters because we are all part of the wider political process which changes over time. Governments change. It was not all that long ago that it was said that we would
260
never see a Labour government again. One thing that is certain is that the party opposite will not govern this country until the world comes to an end. If the political process is abused, public trust in our institutions as a whole will be eroded as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said in her opening remarks.
I do not believe that it is by accident that the Parliament Act does not apply to legislation to extend the life of a Parliament, even if it applies to the legislation to reconfigure the composition of the second Chamber. It would appear from what we have so far heard from the Government, that at a stroke this will achieve a materially different political balance in your Lordships' House. That makes it easier for the Government to drive business through this House at a time coincidentally when they have been complaining of having problems doing that.
No one should get me wrong: the government of the day should get their business. But we must not forget that the government of the day do get their business. The legislative process is not the parliamentary equivalent of taking money out of a form of legislative cash machine. One puts in the card, taps out the code and the money comes out straightaway.
On a number of occasions I have spoken, if not actually in favour, at least sympathetically of gridlock. Time to pause for thought avoids dangerous dogs legislation. That is something that must be in everyone's interest. Delay is a legitimate political device. In our country the process of government is carried on within a framework of rules, laws and procedures. It is not the mere exercise of raw political power. In that context I should also declare an interest. I am told that when I was standing at the Dispatch Box for the previous Conservative government I had the singular distinction, if I can put it that way, of leading the then Conservative government to their biggest defeat in your Lordships' House since the Second World War. Quite honestly, I do not think that it did anyone much harm. I had a great deal of egg on my face and I had to take it on the chin from some of my colleagues, but we got the business through in due time.
Nevertheless, if I go from this House, so be it. But I would make one final plea to the Government from the foot of the gallows that the noble and learned Lord opposite is building for me. That is, find some better arguments for what you propose, ones which the public find constitutionally convincing and politically acceptable. Currently, the jury of public opinion does not believe the case the Government are arguing. That is bad for Parliament and bad for Britain.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Butler of Brockwell: My Lords, as the Leader of the House says, the gracious Speech contains some very significant legal and constitutional proposals. The issue is whether it contains the right proposals.
On the abolition of the remaining hereditary Peers in your Lordships' House, I support the proposal put forward by my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig and supported tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett; that

261
it would serve the interests of this House and it would be fair if a way was found for the remaining 92 hereditaries to be created life Peers. I hope that the Government will be generous about that.
On the question of whether the Government have broken an undertaking by going ahead with this legislation before the second stage of the reform of your Lordships' House, I put it to your Lordships that the truth which dare not speak its name is that the appointed House, which will exist after the removal of the remaining hereditaries, is the second stage of the Government's reform. That may not be something that the Government want to tell their own supporters. But we do in fact know that that outcome is wished for by the Prime Minister and the former Lord Chancellor.
I make no quarrel with that. The Wakeham Commission, on which I served, recommended that a significant minority of the Members of your Lordships' House should be elected. What it had in mind was that every region of the United Kingdom should have a voice in your Lordships' House. It felt that those who were speaking for the various regions of the United Kingdom should be chosen by the electors of that region. But its overall approach was that your Lordships' House should add value to the work of another place by bringing to it a range of experience and expertise which does not exist in another place, except by chance. That can be achieved only by appointment.
So, I support the Government's approach on the condition that they are generous to the hereditaries who remain in this House and who have served it so well. For that reason, I shall abstain on the amendment tonight.
However, there are two elements of the Government's proposal with which I take issue. One is the method of appointment to this House. The Leader of the House said tonight that the proposals for a statutory Appointments Commission would remove much of the Prime Minister's patronage. I heard the leader of another place say in an interview on the radio that this place would be composed of no one's cronies. But, 80 per cent of those who will sit in this House under the Government's proposals will be appointed by the patronage of the Prime Minister or the leaders of the other parties.
I believe that we will not free the public from suspicion of patronage in this House unless the Government are prepared to go further and to do what the Royal Commission recommended and allow the recommendations themselves to be made by the Appointments Commission. Of course it would be right for the leaders of the political parties to make recommendations to the Appointments Commission of those who should serve them in this House. It would be right for the Appointments Commission to take very careful note of those recommendations and in a great majority of cases to follow them. But I believe that the fears of the public about cronyism will not be put at rest unless the Government take that further step.
262
The other element of the Government's proposals that I dislike is the proposal on the extension of disqualification. I dislike its retrospective nature and the fact that is it appears to be directed at a single individual, which seems to me to introduce a very disagreeable note of vindictiveness.
I want to say a few words about the abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor. I am one of those who regrets almost every aspect of the effects of this proposal. I also regret, as others have done, the lack of consultation that preceded it. When my noble friends Lord Wilson of Dinton and Lord Armstrong and I were giving evidence to the Select Committee on Public Administration in another place, my noble friend Lord Wilson said that the exercise of great constitutional power should be undertaken in a way that does not create shocks. This did create shocks.
I would have preferred to see this measure not included in the gracious Speech and the inclusion of a measure about the Civil Service, to which the Government have been committed since before they came to power. I am sorry to say that my feeling that the Civil Service requires the protection of legislation in the interests of Parliament and in the interests of future government is reinforced by what I can only say I feel to be the levity with which the Government have become committed to the abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor.
7.58 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it is very hard to follow a speech given with such authority as the one to which we have just listened. Several noble Lords have suggested that the new second Chamber should be called the senate. That struck me as being an even more reactionary name than that of the House of Lords. The concept of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, being referred to as a conscript father, which I believe is what Cicero was referred to when he was the senator, was rather amusing.
It also brought me to remember Mark Antony on the steps of the senate after Caesar was assassinated. As your Lordships know even better than I, the speech starts by saying that Brutus and Cassius were honourable men. I wonder whether we will be able to say that Blair and Falconer were honourable men. I say that hoping desperately that they will prove me wrong in my suspicions.
I am horrified to think that a Lord Chancellor cannot live up to the standards of Sir Thomas More and Thomas a Becket, who would not have dreamt of reading—as the Lord Chancellor says he has—the words of their predecessor about being binding in honour, then say that the circumstances alter the case. Neither Thomas a Becket nor Sir Thomas More would have dreamt of that; they would have murdered to keep their word.
As your Lordships know I have no time for my own position in this House, except to thank God for allowing me to do it. I have enjoyed it beyond anything, but I have never seen any reason why someone whose forebears got pissed with Pitt the

263
Younger should be allowed to boss his fellow citizens about. I still do not think that. I have enjoyed it enormously, but before I go I want to ensure that what comes after me is infinitely better than what is me.
There is no other authority in the realm than election. Is it not interesting to notice that Macaulay says of the Plantagenet kings that their power was restrained by that of an hereditary nobility? What was good for Edward II and Edward III not being allowed an appointed Chamber goes just as well for the present First Lord of the Treasury: he should not and must not have a wholly appointed Chamber.
Of course this House voted for an appointed Chamber. It could not do anything else. I am not decrying anyone's honour—on this occasion. The idea that cows vote for the cattle race so that they can all trot up towards the captive bolt pistol to be turned into hamburgers or filet mignon is odd. My noble and learned friend Lord Howe got around this problem. If election is introduced gradually, life Peers will gradually die off. No one would be disqualified; everyone would be happy.
I am here because it was agreed that 92 hereditary Peers would remain here as a permanent reminder—a grit of sand, a pustule on the rump of the body politic; call it what you will—that stage two must come about. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the Labour manifesto referred to a democratic House of Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, said that stage two is to be an appointed Chamber. In 1997, the Government said that they wanted a democratically elected House. They were holding their fingers behind their backs and holding them crossed. That is what they say and that is what I am here to remind them. That is what we should do.
I know that other people do not like the proposal. I have been four minutes; briefly, I should like to comment on the prospect of the abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor. It appears that this was discussed for quite some time before it was decided to do it. The discussions were so detailed and so great that they did not even know that he could not be "disappointed" without a very serious Act of Parliament. That is not very sensible.
I suspect that part of the muddle has come because French is not such a vivid language as English. As we all know, Montesquieu noticed that the English functions of government are separated, or séparé. Séparé means both separated and separate. In England, the functions are not separated, but they are separate. The Crown must appoint judges; the executive must appoint judges. The executive is responsible to the legislature, as well as a part of it. Therefore, they all have separate functions but they are not separated. Because French is a language which cannot differentiate between the two words, Montesquieu gets it wrong, the Americans get it wrong and off we go to a different kind of constitution.
I also ask myself why is it that we all recognise that the judges are of the highest quality. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that. So we have got
264
to find a separate method of appointing them. My Garrick friends—if one is allowed to say that in your Lordships' House—say that the judicial Bench is of the highest order possible. It is proposed to set up a committee with possible elected politicians, without having been subject to the judicial oath, with the qualities of the independence of mind that a Lord Chancellor should and, in my experience, has always had—be it Lord Elwyn-Jones, Lord Hailsham or what I remember about Lord Gardiner and, above all, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. They all had the ability to separate in their minds being political or being judicial.
If we have a jolly good Bench whose judgments no one queries, why change the system of appointment? I believe that the House of Lords costs £200,000 to run. If there is a new building, as proposed, that cannot be anything but much more expensive. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was associated with the Dome. Perhaps if we get a new building, it will make the new Scottish Parliament look like an exercise in fiscal prudence. That is inevitably what happens.
If the Government break their word of honour, I shall draw their attention to the words of Edward Gibbon about the emperor Septimius Severus. He said:
"He promised only to betray, he flattered only to ruin; and however he might occasionally bind himself by oaths and treaties, his conscience, obsequious to his interest, always released him from the inconvenient obligation".
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may raise one point. He said that his ancestry does not entitle him to boss anyone about. That is quite right, but no one in this House—be they an hereditary or a life Peer—bosses anyone about. Nothing proposed in this House gets anywhere unless the elected Chamber subsequently agrees to it, which is as it should be.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I used the expression "bossing about" in a slightly flippant way. I am sorry that it floated gently over the head of the noble Lord, Lord Monson.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, it is not often that we get a chance to talk about Scotland in this Chamber, which will be my main point, but I should first like to say how strongly I support my noble friend Lord Strathclyde in his remarks and the amendment that he has tabled to the gracious Speech.
Trust is an important word in British politics and it is sad that the Government have broken their promise and trust to this House. That deserves all the criticism that it will receive later, when the Bill is debated here. The gracious Speech contains a Scottish Bill to maintain the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament in Hollywood.
However, I want first to ask the Government where they now stand on the West Lothian question. Whatever the Bill or the Boundary Commission do, the West Lothian question will not go away. As

265
everyone knows, that was highlighted recently by the vote in another place, which the Government survived with the votes of Scottish Westminster MPs. It is ridiculous that we have a Minister for Health from Scotland who cannot vote on Scottish health but is responsible for health here in England.
When the Scottish Westminster MPs are reduced to 59, the West Lothian question will remain. What will happen about those 59 MPs voting on English legislation at Westminster? The Government trumpet democracy and transparency, but seem to have no answer about what to do about the West Lothian question. Our Scottish Conservative MP does not vote on English legislation.
Returning to the Scottish Bill and the Scotland Act 1998, it was absolutely clear in the Commons and the Lords that when the MPs were reduced to 59, the number of MSPs would be reduced automatically to 109—or to a figure decided by the Boundary Commission. However, we must first make clear the position and timing of Westminster constituencies. At a Speaker's Conference in 1944—not under the Act of Union, as many people think—it was agreed that Scotland would have a minimum of 71 MPs. The figure is now 73. Under the Scotland Act, the Boundary Commissioners now propose 59 MPs; the commission will report between 2002 and 2006.
The Boundary Commission has virtually completed its work: it has held its inquiries, is listening to appeals and will report soon. If we accept that the next general election will be in the spring or summer of 2005, what is the latest cut-off date for the establishment of the new constituencies, voters rolls and other administrative adjustments? Will it be the summer or autumn of 2004 or when? The country of Scotland is entitled to know how the Government will handle the Boundary Commission report and when they will implement it. I hope that the Government do not hide behind the excuse that they cannot do anything until the commission reports. They must make preparatory arrangements now.
Many of us remember that in the 1970s, the then Labour government laid reports, dillied, dallied and then voted against them. I do not want that to happen again. It is perfectly obvious that the Government are dragging their feet and hoping that they can get away with leaving the decision until after the 2005 election. I hope that the Government will this evening clear up what they intend to do.
The Bill, when it arrives before Parliament, will not be so urgent, because the next election for Holyrood Members of Parliament in Scotland is not due until 2007—for Holyrood if the building is completed by then. The Scotland Act made it absolutely clear that when the number of Westminster MPs was reduced, so would be the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament. Mr Donald Dewar, Mr McLeish and the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, in this Chamber, made it abundantly clear to all and sundry—even arguing against amendments tabled to the contrary—that they would automatically reduce the number of Scottish Members of Parliament at Holyrood when the Boundary Commissioners completed its work here.
266
I know that they may have had some consultations, but why has there been a complete U-turn, with the Government now intending to keep all 129 MSPs in Edinburgh? We will then have new constituencies for Scottish MPs; Westminster constituencies; local government constituencies; European Union constituencies. All together, it will be an absolute shambles for anyone in Scotland to know in which constituency, for what and when they will vote. The Government are being very unfair to Scotland by how they are handling that constitutional issue.
Why are they doing that? One could hardly say that Members of the Scottish Parliament are grossly overworked at present. They do not sit on Mondays or Fridays and their constituencies are smaller than those in Bavaria, Quebec, Catalonia and other areas. They have 28 Ministers, when other governments did the job with five.
When the Government took the legislation through Westminster, they said that they wanted a leaner and more effective Parliament. Now they are voting to keep it much bigger than necessary, purely to retain the Labour government seats in Edinburgh and a majority, supported by the Liberal Democrats.
Overall, the Government have treated Scotland very badly. They are interested only in seats at Westminster and Holyrood. It is a disgrace to democracy and, coupled with the astonishing revelations during the current Holyrood inquiry, a disgrace to the Labour Party in Scotland.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am delighted that the Government are bringing forward this Bill, as it shows just how much they dislike having us lot here. That is why we are here—as an irritant, to get up their noses and give them an impetus to produce stage two and a decently organised House of Lords to take through the rest of the century. The fact that our presence gets up their noses something rotten is exactly what the guarantee was about.
There is no conceivable reason why there should be 92 hereditary Peers in this House if a deal had not been done. There was no logic in having any remaining hereditary Peers after the first House of Lords Bill unless as a guarantee of later things. I find it shameful that the Government should think of repudiating that. Of course the Government change their minds: they did so on tuition fees; they wanted an elected House of Lords and now they want an appointed one. That seems to be all in the life of a government. But to go back on such an undertaking on the continued existence of the 92 hereditary Peers—in other words, the bringing forward of stage two—is shameful. I shall support my noble friend with conviction.
Ultimately, it is up to the other place to decide what kind of House of Lords we have. Whether the House of Lords should be elected or appointed is a matter of principle for elected politicians, not something on which I, as a hereditary Peer, should stand pat. It does not, therefore, seem that such an issue can be the essence of stage two. The essence of stage two is that

267
the House of Lords is a stable, coherent organisation. We will not leave it with major changes still in the wings, and another House of Lords Bill a couple of years away, it being pretty obvious that the Bill to come before us is incomplete and has left major decisions not taken.
We cannot judge the Bill at present. The consultation period does not end until 12th December, and I suspect that we shall have to wait until next year to see what is in the Bill. However, the Government must sort out, and take a view on, certain major issues. In their consultation paper, they have not taken a view on fixed-term membership or membership for life. One cannot leave that undone and call this stage two. We must decide on the basis of membership of this House and how we are to progress. We cannot seek such a fundamental debate in the future and say that we have reached stage two. We must know what obligations Members of this House will have and how we will deal with the changing membership of this House as elections dictate a change in the balance. There is some incomplete thinking in the Government's proposals that must be dealt with for us to be able to say that we have reached stage two.
We must be clear about what people are in this House for. People who take up peerages and then not bother to turn up do not do this House justice. If we are to keep membership associated with the peerage— and I am by no means committed to that; it would be excellent if we had called this House a Senate—we should follow the logic of what has happened with hereditary Peers. We must be prepared to sever the holding of a peerage from the right to turn up and vote in this House. People may accept a peerage merely because they have done great political service or they are important people in the world of business or the arts, or whatever else it might be. They may flaunt and sport that peerage outside this House but may not intend to turn up much. Well, we have an honours system, so why not give them that honour? However, if they are not prepared to accept the obligations that come with being a Member of this House, they should not have the right to sit here.
We should allow people who, in all the best faith, take on a peerage and say that they will take part in this place and then do not, to retire from it gracefully. If they do not participate to the extent that we expect, we should require them to retire gracefully—or gracelessly. If we had that degree of turnover or obligation it would become much easier to deal with the changing pattern of the House that we could expect to see from one election to another.
Such basic questions need to be settled. However, next year, we could have before us a Bill that solves those problems and leaves open only the arguments about the proportions in the House, the exact details of its comings and goings, and how we deal with people who vote for the Green Party or other such matters. Those are not fundamental things. As an hereditary peer, I could not stand up and claim that the Government had broken their word because they had not done what I wanted them to do in respect of some
268
of the relatively minor aspects of the House of Lords Bill. I am quite hopeful that, at the end of the day, we will see a Bill that constitutes stage two. I am disappointed, however, that the Government are not promising that at the moment. They seem to think that they can get away with something that is an incomplete stage two and go back on the word that they first gave us those few years ago.
We must be careful with our constitution. It is important to fight for democracy. After all, we are fighting for democracy in Iraq at the cost of many lives, but we are not prepared to introduce democracy to the House of Lords. We should put our hearts behind defending and promoting democracy whenever the opportunity arises. Although we seem to live in a comfortable world at the moment, with a benign Government and good economic prospects, we must be conscious that that may not always be the case.
We must be careful to defend the independence of the judiciary. When those Bills come before us, we must be careful that we are comfortable about going forward with such matters and we must pay the greatest attention to what the noble and learned Lords the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary are saying about the effects of the abolition of the Lord Chancellor on the long-term independence of the judiciary.
The Government are not averse to gathering enormous powers unto themselves. The draft civil contingencies Bill would, in the event of a crisis, have given the Government the power to abolish or tear up legislation and, by ministerial fiat, to create any legislation. Perhaps we will see something different when the Bill emerges, but under the draft Bill they would have the power to destroy the constitution—to abolish judges and Parliament and create a dictatorship—and it would all be entirely constitutional and legal. We must be careful about those things. It is sensible to give the Government power to deal with an emergency and say that, in such an event, they should be able to make things right as quickly as possible. However, we must be careful to guard against the advent of a less benign government.
As the Leader of the House said, we face falling numbers of people voting and a lack of faith in our institutions. That sort of trend is rather like the brush drying out in the south of France—it creates conditions in which a fire can burn. A new philosophy or political movement could pick up and quickly gain support from those who have become disillusioned, disenfranchised and disconnected from the political process of which we are part. We have to be sure that, if such an event occurs, democracy will be robust. That means that we must fight hard, when the House of Lords Bill arrives, to make sure that we have a robust institution, safe from the power of an overweening government. We must not have an institution that the Government can master.
We must be sure that we keep the judges safe. They are the guarantee of the power of the individual against the state. We must be sure, to the extent that they must do things to satisfy us, that the Government keep their word. Casting aside such a solemn and binding promise is not the sort of precedent that we

269
should set. It is not a great inconvenience to the Government that we should continue here until they are able to fulfil the promise. I am glad that it is a sufficient inconvenience that they feel that they want to fulfil their promise.
8.26 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, it is with some diffidence that I take part in the debate, a diffidence that, some might feel, is generated by the fear of any charge of self-interest. Apart from a longstanding family concern in the reform of the House of Lords, I pray in aid the fact that I am one of the three surviving Peers whose names appeared on the so-called Weatherill amendment, Lord Carnarvon having, sadly, passed on since then.
I recall being slightly surprised at the time that the Government should have accepted the amendment so readily. Of course, it offered the prospect of a fairly quick resolution to a problem that might have dragged on for an embarrassingly long time. No doubt it was also felt by some that a measure of agreement might be possible in three years. In hindsight and given the intractability of a problem with a 150-year history, we might have won the blue riband for optimism, even in a profession that exists on it.
Because of what was said then and has been said on numerous occasions in the intervening period, I am in no doubt that, in seeking to overturn their solemn undertaking, the Government have left themselves open to the charge of acting in bad faith. That is a serious matter in the normal run of things, but is particularly so if it jeopardises future parliamentary business and results in the souring of relations in this House, which are normally genuinely friendly.
It is an unusual concept—one, I suspect, that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would not, in his distinguished legal career, have met too often in the commercial courts—that a change of circumstance entitles one of the two parties to an agreement unilaterally to declare it null and void. It is difficult to imagine how, were that to be the norm, the City of London would enjoy the pre-eminence that it enjoys today. The bond market—if I may make a play on words—would become seriously devalued.
With his genuine charm and skill, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has, for the most part, managed to restrict criticism of the Government's proposals to accusations of being disingenuous. By a happy chance, I found in my dictionary that the word after "disingenuous" is "disinherit". I digress.
Unpalatable though the circumstances are, we must move on. To coin an in phrase, that was then and this is now. As if to reinforce that point, I was struck by the phrase used by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition following Her Majesty's gracious Speech last Thursday. I was so struck that I wrote it down. Because I do not make a habit of doing that, I hope that I have got it right. The noble Lord said:
"We recognise our duty to carry the Queen's business".—[Official Report, 26/11/03; col. 14.]
Amen to that.
270
I hope that the amendments moved today do not precede a scorched earth policy in respect of the Government's forthcoming legislative programme.
To embark on such a course in the coming Session would be counter-productive and the equivalent of committing hara-kiri or, as Adlai Stevenson was noted as saying in another context,
"As a very rich, tired man said to his chauffeur, 'Drive off the cliff, James. I want to commit suicide'".
Quite apart from anything else, it would enable the Government spin machine, and through it the media, to point out—correctly or otherwise—that much-needed legislation was being obstructed by a handful of unelected toffs, or whatever elegant phrase the tabloids come up with. That is, I know, slightly ironic when one bears in mind that, however bizarre the elections and the size of the electorate, the group referred to is the only one in the place technically to have been elected.
Where do we now stand in this epic reform? It is welcome news indeed that the Joint Committee has been asked to try to resolve the impasse and there are certain peripheral matters which at least can be settled relatively easily such as, for example, faith representation. The inclusion of appropriate representatives of other Christian denominations, the Jewish community and other ethnic faiths should be relatively simple to kick start, commanding as it does general support from all sides. I must leave it to the legal professionals to battle it out over the proposals concerning a supreme court and the appointments system within the judiciary, while it would take a whole debate in itself to comment on the future role of the Lord Chancellor. I have not left time for that.
Perhaps I may turn to the composition of the House itself. Nothing that has been said in our many debates on the subject has altered my conviction that this should be, if not an all-appointed House, at least a largely appointed one if it is to retain its role of revision and constructive improvement of legislation. It seems to me that at the very heart of the opposition to this concept is not only an all-embracing and admirable dedication to the democratic process, but rather the fear and suspicion surrounding any appointment arrangements that are finally made. However, I refuse to believe that, if the will is there, it will not be possible to devise a transparent and open selection system which will be demonstrably fair and which can make use of the best talent that this country has to offer.
I move briefly from the general to the particular. Surely it is inconceivable that the new statutory appointments commission—if it survives the thought-provoking dissection made on it earlier in the debate by my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley—will not, for the most part, nod through the political lists presented to it by the appropriate groups.
However, understandably and for historic reasons, there exists no machinery with similar authority to provide Cross-Bench names. That is a lacuna which demands early attention—initially of course from the Cross-Benchers, but then sympathetic support from the Government—before the newly appointed commission

271
starts to spread its wings. In the first instance, only working Cross-Benchers will possess the necessary knowledge to assess whether a name may be suitable for such a list. This would be no theoretical exercise, for although it is generally accepted that the right to a seat through birth is no longer appropriate—we have heard that repeated countless times during the debate—surely those evicted should have as much right as any other citizen to seek selection. Indeed, in a rational world, their years of service and consequent expertise on how this place is run might in some cases even give them a good start over the rest of the field.
What is beyond doubt is that if the oft-repeated commitment to a strong and independent element in the new House is to be anything more than a pious aspiration or a media soundbite, then these matters will have to be addressed, along with the need for a larger and more representative independent element on the new statutory appointments commission itself. I cannot speak for the Cross Benches as a whole; it is an old and honourable tradition that we speak only for ourselves, but I believe that in emphasising these points I may be reflecting a general feeling in their ranks. It is one of which the Government will wish to take note when they seek Cross-Bench approval for any future proposals.
That great constitutional expert, Walter Bagehot, wrote some 130 years ago that:
"It is incredibly difficult to get a revising assembly because it is difficult to find a class of respected advisers".
Over the coming months, let us set out to prove that, for once, this eminence grise and parliamentary totem got it wrong.
8.35 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: And now for something slightly different, my Lords. I have chosen to speak in the debate because, before I entered your Lordships' House, I worked for more than 30 years in the field of equal opportunities, and aspects of equal opportunities are to be debated today in this part of the response to the gracious Speech.
The Conservative years were lean years from an equal opportunities point of view. Yes, we had the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act already on the statute book, but successive Conservative governments did nothing to build on them. Indeed, it appeared at times that they were deliberately weakening them. There was little understanding of, and scant sympathy for, those who were discriminated against. The only real step forward in this area came via the much maligned European Commission, which was more enlightened than the Conservative Party.
Since 1997 this has changed substantially. The Labour Government came to power with a pledge to improve equality legislation and they have done so. Such improvements have, in my view, been among their greatest achievements. They are still continuing to improve the legislation, as can be seen by a number of measures outlined in the Queen's Speech.
272
A Bill is to be introduced to allow same-sex couples similar legal rights to married partners in such areas as inheritances, pension survivors benefits, parental responsibilities and many other areas. This is a radical measure, long overdue in our legislation, which will bring to same sex-couples the security previously denied them.
The gracious Speech also contained proposals for a further discrimination Bill designed to rectify weaknesses and loopholes in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It should extend the definition of disability and enable many more disabled people to be protected against discrimination and, it is to be hoped, will provide a public duty to positively promote disability equality and diversity, thus removing the justification for employers taking discriminatory action against disabled employees.
In addition, included in the proposed Employment Relations Bill will be measures to change the law to allow unions to exclude racists and fascists from their memberships. Of course, some unions have already taken action along these lines, one of the first being— perhaps surprisingly—the Prison Officers' Association. It introduced a rule to ban members of the National Front from its membership in the mid-1990s and expelled certain members from its ranks accordingly. The proposals in the Employment Relations Bill will allow extension of such action. Such proposals in all three Bills have been welcomed by both the TUC and the EOC as forward-thinking and positive measures.
I am often asked why I feel so passionately about equality issues. To me, the answer is simple. If we wish to build a civilised society, fair to all its citizens, then equality of opportunity must be a baseline for that society. Equality legislation goes beyond merely placing equality on the statute book; it sets the scene for society's attitudes. Equality is not only about the rights of minorities; it helps to create a society in which everyone can fulfil his or her potential; where differences are both valued and respected; and where individuals and communities can live safely and with dignity in a more cohesive way.
Once discrimination is recognised and acted against, there is less chance of discrimination being accepted; there is less chance of hearing sexist, racist or gay so-called jokes; there is less chance of a person's disability being laughed about or remarked upon; and there is more chance that each person will be valued for themselves.
Although it was not mentioned specifically in the Queen's Speech, I understand that further steps will be taken in the equality area by the establishment of a new single equality commission, about which a White Paper is expected, possibly—hopefully—in the spring. The EOC, the CRE and, more recently, the Disability Rights Commission have carried out sterling work over the years. However, the equality legislation with which those bodies work needs overhauling and upgrading, as all legislation does eventually. The Government believe that the full implementation of the relevant two EU directives provides a great opportunity to do just that, and propose to establish a

273
single equality body rather than establishing three new commissions—for religion or belief, sexual orientation and age.
Like the EOC and the TUC, I believe that such a commission must be based on a strong vision of why equality matters; it must have real teeth and definite powers; it must respect the diversity and the needs of each of the strands that it will cover; and, above all, it must be adequately resourced. I ask my noble and learned friend to draw to the attention of those currently working on the establishment of the new body the need for adequate powers and sufficient resources to enable it to work well.
Finally, I turn briefly to the reform of the House of Lords. As a member of the Joint Committee, I have been immersed in the issue for some time. Much has been said about what was, and what was not, in the 1997 Labour Party manifesto. Whatever the actual words were, I do not believe that it was ever in the Government's mind to have a clone of the other place in this House. The Joint Committee had hoped that there would be some form of consensus when the two Houses voted. In the event, it was not to be so. However, this House spoke firmly against election to it, which cannot be ignored. The other place did not get its act together and gave very little steer for the future.
During the debates in both Houses and in the Joint Committee, several issues were raised that could and should be considered further, such as the size of the House; how to improve the membership geographically, with geographical representation; and, possibly, even the length of time for which Members should be appointed. I was pleased to hear my noble friend refer to a future joint committee in her opening address, and hope that such issues can be considered in future.
8.42 p.m.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson. We served together on the Joint Committee. I was very surprised to hear her account of the previous Conservative governments and their contribution towards equality. I would have been far more persuaded of her enthusiasm for equality if she had taken time to denounce the provisions in the gracious Speech that aim to discriminate against middle-class children going to universities. That will be the effect of the proposals—
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, we shall have debates on those issues in future months, and 1 ask the noble Lord to listen to what I say then.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I will. However, it is somewhat typical of her party's position these days that they are delighted to talk about the past but not about their own record or their own plans for our country. In the gracious Speech are provisions that aim to discriminate against middle-class children, in the main, coming to university with proper qualifications. They will not get their places, however hard they have worked, because this Government
274
want to establish a new office for fair access—a body set up deliberately to discriminate against certain people.
The noble Baroness could not find it in her speech to remark on that; nor could she find it in her speech to remark on the provisions in the gracious Speech that provide for those women with children who are asylum seekers to be blackmailed into leaving the country by the threat of their children being taken into care. Instead, we got a very distorted and partial account of the previous Conservative government's very distinguished record in that area.
I was struck by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Lucas about the need to keep this House safe from an over-riding government. My goodness me, is not that what we have got? We have a Government who talk about constitutional reform—but constitutional reform, if one considers it, is about advancing the interests of the Labour Party. Devolution in Scotland was about trying to create a permanent Labour administration in Scotland. Constitutional reform in this place is about removing the votes which inconveniently speak up for the many people in this country who believe, for example, in jury trial. It is about gerrymandering our Parliament.
This is a Government who rubbish anyone who attacks them. We saw it most recently with the Minister with responsibility for children attacking someone who had been a victim of child abuse. We have seen that also with civil servants; Martin Sixsmith also was rubbished and attacked. This is a Government who are now abusing their power to advance their own interests.
I have listened to most of the speeches in this debate including that by my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson. The speech by the former Cabinet Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, absolutely astonished me. Any government would be wise to listen to what they had to say about the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor. My noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson explained the very powerful arguments for retaining that office. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, went so far as to say that he thought that it was appalling and that he wanted to have a Civil Service Bill for he feared for the independence of the Civil Service. We have seen how this Government, in their attack on the press officers and on civil servants, have abused their power.
I look at the gracious Speech and I see a Government who have lost not only their way but their compass. The gracious Speech states:
"Up-front tuition fees will be abolished for all full-time students and a new Office For Fair Access will assist those from disadvantaged backgrounds".
It also states:
"A Bill will be introduced to enable more young people to benefit from higher education".—[Official Report, 26/11/03; col. 1.]
I ask and I wonder why it is that the Labour Party north of the Border believes that there should be no tuition fees but the Labour Party south of the Border believes that English parents should have to pay £3,000 and more. As someone living in Scotland, I wonder why it is that there will be tuition fees if my

275
children decide to go to an English university but none if they go to a Scottish university. There is a principle here. The principle used to be that there was equal access to higher education throughout the United Kingdom.
It is even more appalling that English taxpayers are expected to contribute an additional 25 per cent more per head so that Scottish parents can send their children to Scottish universities and not pay tuition fees. There is no equality or equity in that. It is a nonsense brought in by this Government.
In the gracious Speech we have the gimmick politics of the child trust fund. We are told that its purpose is to enable children to save up the money and have a little nest egg when they are 18. Yet this is the same Government who next year will take away the tax relief provided for those who saved in ISAs by means of advance corporation tax relief on dividends. Those who are saving in ISAs will therefore be disadvantaged. The end of advance corporation tax relief on dividends is taking £5 billion out of pension funds every year, giving us a total of £30 billion, and yet we are asked to take seriously a gracious Speech that says:
"Legislation will also be introduced to encourage both employers to provide good-quality pensions and individuals to save more effectively for their retirement".
Her Majesty is now the vehicle through which the Government give their spin. In the face of the havoc created by the Government's policies and as people's pensions have decreased in value and they have looked to work longer than previously, the gracious Speech tell us:
"A Pension Protection Fund will be set up to protect employees and pensioners if companies become insolvent".—[Official Report,26/ll/03;col. 2.]
We are expected to be grateful to the Government for that. I have all the gratitude that I would for an arsonist who arrives with a fire extinguisher and then tells us:
"By the way, the extinguisher is empty. And we expect the pension funds to pay for the guarantee fund when it is set up as there will be no Government standing behind it".
At the end of the gracious Speech we are treated to a commitment to reduce "burdensome and outdated legislation" and regulation, and yet the gracious Speech proposes setting up no fewer than four new commissioners and bodies full of people, adding to the burden on taxpayers and the wealth-creation sector.
We are promised yet more on constitutional reform. My noble friend Lord Monro talked about the sudden and astonishing commitment to maintain the size of the Scottish Parliament at 129 MSPs. I wonder whether that has something to do with the electoral interests of the Labour Party.
As the Scottish Parliament sits only one and a half days a week on average, why cannot we get rid of all 129 altogether? Why cannot we have Scottish MPs sitting in the Scottish Parliament on Mondays and Tuesdays? They could discuss English business at Westminster. On Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays
276
they could come down and we could discuss UK business. That would solve the West Lothian question and save the salaries of 129 MSPs who are all paid full salaries and allowances, and we could spend the money on doctors, nurses and teachers who might be more useful.
We see a Government who are really struggling—a Government who started by promising that they would reduce the number of cars on the road led by the Deputy Prime Minister in his two jags. Now we are told that legislation will be brought forward to improve traffic flows and manage roadworks more effectively. What an admission of failure. All governments—I was a member of one—run out of steam and all governments lose their way, but this Government do not understand the difference between the interests of the country and the interests of their party. We are seeing in this Government a government who are abusing their power at every turn and a government who have lost their philosophical base.
I thought that this evening I would be able to speak about the Government's proposals on higher education. But, surprise, surprise, the Government's flagship Bill has not been published today, as promised. The Government's flagship Bill is under water. At the weekend we were told that the proposals in the gracious Speech were being rethought completely. This evening we learn that the proposals in the gracious Speech in respect of domestic violence are now also being rethought as a war takes place between the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General. This is a Government who can no longer find agreement among themselves, a Government who have abandoned their philosophical base, a Government who are now seeking to attack the very foundations of our constitution and a Government of which the country needs to be rid soon.
8.52 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, that is a difficult speech to follow. I shall manoeuvre into quieter waters. I am no constitutional lawyer and therefore I should proceed with great caution in debating the future constitutional reform of the House of Lords. However, I get the impression that there is more than a whiff of short-term political expediency behind the Government's approach to this aspect of the gracious Speech. That seems totally at odds with the reassurances given in the previous Parliament. The Bill on the reform of the House of Lords could be described by some as hard-ball politics rather than a constitutional reform and I shall discuss only a small part of it.
I detect a general feeling of antipathy towards the hereditary Peers which might even extend to their families. In my view there appears to be no proper recognition of the extraordinary contribution that those families have made to this country over the past thousand years and more. The perhaps unintentional attitude of the Government is that hereditary Peers' families will have no part to play in the future of the House of Lords once the hereditary Members have left the House.

277
I fully accept that the holder of the title of a hereditary Peer will no longer have any right by birth to sit in your Lordships' House except, for the time being, those 92 designated Peers as proposed in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. However, I speak both as a life Peer, which I am proud to be, and as the younger son of a hereditary Peer. I am perhaps expressing the unspoken feelings of younger sons and daughters of all hereditary Peers inside and outside your Lordships' House. Cannot they have some role to play as ordinary citizens in this House and so keep at least a sense of continuity or history which lies behind virtually every other aspect of this House? In future cannot they be actively encouraged rather than discouraged from applying to sit either as working Peers or in one of the political parties in this House, or applying to the appointments commission to sit as independents on the Cross Benches?
In the past, younger sons and daughters of hereditary Peers were the inherited reservoir of young people who gave great service to this country, both at home and abroad. They did so out of what I believe was an inherited sense of duty to the nation. Their elder brothers may have sat in this House, but they served in the Armed Forces, the colonial and foreign services, the Church and so on. I feel—although I have not read it anywhere—that a sense of resentment may pervade future generations of younger sons and daughters, and replace the positive attitudes that they have always had towards making a contribution to the future well-being of this nation.
Can we draw on that historic reservoir before it is too late, by finding suitable candidates to become a proportion of working or independent Peers in a reformed House? My suggestion is based not simply on sentimentality, but on the hope that people of the right age will be introduced, perhaps of independent means, which may be a necessary requirement to top up the poor remuneration that goes with this job of a working Peer. Might not the appointments commission contain at least one hereditary Peer's son or daughter, to maintain some connection with the past and perhaps help to vet any suitable applicants from hereditary Peers' families?
I shall switch to the Bishops for a moment. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth mentioned his local knowledge—through his diocesan work, I assume—that was a great help to him in making a contribution in this House. Many years ago—I think it was in 1998—I raised the question of why the Bishops wore robes and sat in their part of the House, which did not necessarily reflect their political affiliation. Having consulted all the books, the answer from the Government was that they were allowed to wear robes as a form of mufti. They were their travelling clothes, and the Bishops were not meant to carry any form of religious insignia on their garments or person. They were to speak from the experience that they gained in their dioceses.
The Bishops make an amazing contribution to this House. However, I may have to disagree with my noble friend Lord Tenby. If we have other faiths represented here, it will be a very complicated business. In the future, I would much rather see an entirely
278
secular House, because that is complicated enough. The matter has to be fully and delicately debated before we go any further.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, with the greatest respect, what we wear has nothing to do with what we say. However, I take the point about coloration.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I take the right reverend Prelate's point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, and other speakers drew our attention to the falling numbers of voters in all elections. The noble Baroness called for a fully elected House, but what would be our electorate if we had to put ourselves up for election? If the Government were to fund expenses for the candidates for the reformed House of Lords through the political parties, how would independent Peers' election expenses be funded?
Are not our voters democratically represented enough through their local community councils, regional councils, devolved parliaments, the Sovereign Parliament, and the European Parliament? From experience to date, does it not seem that the more democratically elected bodies are created, the less attractive they seem to the number of electors who are prepared to vote for them? Has not the greater variety of politicians simply widened the disillusionment of the voters, especially the young, in our political system? Is not that disillusion primarily based on a failure to deliver political promises or public undertakings by the government of the day? Is not that the issue on which we should vote tonight?
8.59 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is my pleasure to take part in the debate. I recognise that there are divisions on both sides of the House and among all parties on the central issues. I shall express my own views but, like many Members of the House, I do so from my own background, belief and start in life. It is right that I should remind the House of what I have said before and where I stand on the issues.
First, all my life I have believed in the abolition of the hereditary principle in this House. Over the years, I have not changed my arguments and no one has persuaded me otherwise. Secondly, I believe in a wholly elected second Chamber. If I am told, as I was during our great debates on this, that the House will be either wholly elected or wholly appointed, I would be prepared to settle, if not for half, for something less than what I want. I share the view of the Leader of the Opposition, my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. We worked together amicably for many years. He has nailed his flag to the mast and said that, heretofore and notwithstanding, an 80 per cent elected second Chamber would satisfy his ideas of a change. I would accept that.
After examining the recent past, where do we stand on this now? I say with great respect to many Members opposite that we need not have been in this position. From 1979, they had 18 years in which to bring about

279
some change—any change—in this place. As regards the balance of power, the whole country knew that whatever power the Conservative Party won in the other place, it could, give or take the odd hiccup, rely on Members of this House to support it.
I remind the House that, in 1984, 535 Members of this House took the Conservative Whip and 136 took the Labour Whip. Any measure of change that the Conservative government proposed could be carried, but they proposed nothing because the situation suited their books. In 1997, the last year in which the Conservatives could have done something, there were 481 Conservative Peers and 116 Labour Peers.
In 1999, there were 473 Conservative Peers and 168 Labour Peers and there was a move to achieve a proper balance. One might ask: what are the consequences of having such a gross imbalance? Members opposite complained that all of a sudden, in 1997–98, the issue was dragged to the fore, but they could have avoided that if they had had a plan to address the imbalance.
I painfully learnt the consequences of that as Opposition Chief Whip. In 1974–75, there were 119 Divisions in this House and the Labour government were beaten 103 times; and do not let anyone tell me that that has nothing to do with the generality of the argument. I am telling the House where I come from and what motivates me on this issue. In 1975–76, there were 146 Divisions and 126 defeats for the government. Those opposite who look at me and smile were here and recognise that. They knew the power of the majority that they enjoyed. In 1977–78, there were 96 Divisions and 78 government defeats.
Between then and 1996–97, in no year were the Conservative government defeated more than 20 times; five, seven, three and 17. But moving to 1997–98, there were 39 defeats for the new Labour Government. In 1998–99, there were 31 defeats; in 1999–2000, there were 36; in 2002, there were 56; and last year there were 80.
I simply say to the House, without wanting to be offensive to any hereditary Peer or any party manager, that the situation about which they now complain could have been avoided. A rotten situation was perpetuated and it sustained the Tory government over all those years. Today's situation could have been avoided if they had sought meaningful discussions.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, does the noble Lord consider that in those days the legislation was better drafted than it has been over the past few years?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, over the past 30 years that I have been in the House, I cannot recall a time when someone could not stand up legitimately and ask, "Could not the legislation that we are dealing with now have been improved?". That argument always exists. Of course, the noble Lord is right. I understand the arguments—particularly those raised in the previous Session—about the wrongs in the legislation that need to be put right. I fully support those who take the opportunity to oppose.
280
However, I am an arithmetic man. I recognise that abolishing the right of hereditary Peers to come here will make a difference to the way that votes will be cast. For example, of the 92 hereditary Peers, 50—surprise, surprise—are Conservative, four are Labour and 29 are on the Cross Benches. Of course, one spin-off from perpetuating the policy that the Government are putting forward is that the arithmetic will change. I glory in that. I want to see change. I want to see the arithmetical imbalance improved in support of my party—a party, would you believe, that won landslide victories in 1997 and 2001. One great problem for Members opposite is that they cannot yet get their minds around the fact that twice in the past five or six years they have gone to the country and been thrashed. So far as I am concerned, this is a real debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that he sensed that the proposals posed a threat to the House. I believe he is right. It is a threat to the House as he knows it and as he has known it. Our aim is to change the nature of the House and increase the value of the threat. So far as I am concerned, the proposals of the Government are long overdue and I welcome them.
9.7 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, this will be the fourth occasion on which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will have sought to convince the House that there is not, and I quote his own words,
"one iota of dishonourable conduct in relation to the Government so far as this matter is concerned".—[Official Report, 18/09/03; col. 1074.]
I have a large quotation from the noble and learned Lord's predecessor which your Lordships will have heard many times during the course of the day. I shall not repeat it in full now; I need only refer to the catch-phrase at the end:
"But the 10 per cent will go only when stage two has taken place. So it is a guarantee that it will take place".
The noble and learned Lord, with great sensitivity, went on:
"Thirdly, to insist on fulfilling the manifesto pledge by one step, not two, would bring down the curtain unceremoniously on the whole of the hereditary peerage, many of whom, and whose forebears, have given so much to this House and to public life. The compromise will enable the elected 75 to participate in our counsels and to vote as the stage two plans are developed and debated. It will allow those who do not stand, or who are not elected, to depart with dignity … and without rancour".— [Official Report, 30/3/99; cols. 207–8.]
I cannot visualise a more categorical and binding undertaking than that.
It is no good the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, saying that the situation has changed and that Her Majesty's Government are justified in breaking this agreement because, inasmuch as the situation has changed, it is their fault, and theirs alone, that it has changed.
Back in the days soon after the 1997 election, when reform of the House of Lords had been promised, but the precise form of it had not yet emerged, we told them again and again that the only way to achieve a workable reform was to legislate for the composition of the new

281
House in the same Bill that removed the hereditary Peers—what inevitably came to be known as the big bang. The House of Commons has always been nervous of a reformed House of Lords, and perhaps rightly so. Power is a finite commodity and, if one House gains more of it, it can only come from the other. That is why between 1911 and 1997, in spite of several attempts, nothing was actually done. The only course would be to define the form one wished the new House to take, show it to the Commons, and tell them, "Here is what you have wanted for the past 90 years, this is how you do it and this is the price you have to pay". We offered our help to achieve it, just as we did in 1968. But the Government knew better; they threw away the one bargaining counter they had, the removal of the hereditary Peers, and got nothing in return. That is how we have reached the position we are in today.
It may seem a small point, but when they set up the Royal Commission in 1998, they refused to include in it a single hereditary Peer, the one section of the political world which had years of experience of how the wheels of a successful revising Chamber go round. That this was a successful revising Chamber, many previous leaders of the Opposition of both main parties would have been able to testify, had they been alive today.
The Royal Commission reported by the end of December 1999, and this was to have been followed as soon as may be by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, which would have provided a sort of Committee stage to the Wakeham report. But this was put off again and again until, in September 2001, it was announced that it would be dropped altogether. This in itself was a breech of an undertaking from the Dispatch Box. I came down overnight from Scotland to remonstrate with the noble and learned Lord, the then Leader of the House, the late Lord Williams of Mostyn. He saw me with his invariable charm and courtesy and gave me a good three-quarters of an hour of his time, but he was adamant. I remember that several times during that interview I was on the point of asking him, "If the Government were breaking that relatively minor undertaking, why should we trust them not to do so over the big one, that of the 91 hereditary Peers?" But the noble and learned Lord was not only a political opponent but also a personal friend and a trusted colleague, and I could not in the end bring myself to risk offending him by making such a suggestion. Indeed, I did not really believe it myself at that time.
Finally, in July 2002 Her Majesty's Government found that they had no alternative but to set up the Joint Committee after all, but it was too late. The matter had gone cold on them, with the inevitable result.
When my noble friend, now the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, first told me among others, under Privy Counsel terms, of the negotiations he had been having with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, I was extremely dubious as to their value, although I never for a moment doubted their genuineness. What brought me round in the end was the fact that they would give representatives of the hereditary Peers, and none of us knew at that time that we would be of their number, the opportunity to play
282
a part in deciding the composition of the definitively reformed Chamber. The fact that it involved a stay of execution for the 71, later to become 92, hereditary Peers, for a few months or a year or two was almost irrelevant. What mattered was that, for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, it was a guarantee of his good faith that phase two would take place, without any doubt whatever, and for us, the about-to-be-deposed hereditary Peers, the fact that we were going to be allowed an input into just who, and under what conditions, were going to fill the places that we were vacating, an input that had been denied to us when the Royal Commission had been set up.
Perhaps I should have remembered from my school days the Latin tag caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. I am told that Latin tags are out of fashion in legal circles these days and perhaps it is just as well. But it is a sorry state of affairs if the vendor is the Government of the day.
9.14 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in the debate on the gracious Speech it is unusual to set aside a whole day to discuss constitutional and legal affairs. This year it is necessary to do so because the programme for this Session includes two major constitutional Bills. First, there is the Bill to set up a Supreme Court and a judicial appointments commission, which we are told will be called the constitutional reform Bill; and, secondly, there is the Bill to reform your Lordships' House.
In my speech I shall concentrate on those two Bills in spite of a number of interesting and valuable contributions from your Lordships on other subjects, including those from my noble friends Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Greaves.
We support the constitutional reform Bill, although we regret the clumsy manner in which the reform was introduced. We have argued the case for these reforms for years. We are hardly going to change our views when success seems at last in sight. Few Members of your Lordships' House, except for the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, concentrated on that particular Bill. It is of course a Bill of enormous importance. I intend to spend a few minutes discussing it.
The creation of a Supreme Court involves a separation of powers. In the United Kingdom the executive and legislative powers have become hopelessly intertwined and cannot be separated without pulling the constitution completely to pieces. That I believe makes it all the more important that the highest court in the land should be separate from the executive and the legislature. To a limited extent that happens already: lay Peers do not sit on the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House and Law Lords rarely speak or vote in your Lordships' House on political issues.
However, it is important that powers should not only be separate but should be seen to be separate. Outside your Lordships' House, the case for a Supreme Court has recently been made in powerful speeches by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Bingham and Lord Steyn.

283
Of course, the Government must accept that the new Supreme Court must have a proper home and proper facilities, including library and support staff. They do not get those facilities here, where they are far too cramped. I should like to pass on a suggestion given to me by my noble friend Lord Roper. He proposes a large modern unused building in north Greenwich— with which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may not be entirely unfamiliar—which might perhaps make a suitable home.
The other main part of the constitutional reform Bill will be the creation of the judicial appointments commission. That is an essential step. There are at least four factors which mean that there is a greater conflict between the judiciary and the executive now than in the past. First, judges have become more activist and have turned judicial review into a major check on the powers of the executive; secondly, there is the European Communities Act 1972 which has given judges the power to enforce European laws in the United Kingdom; thirdly, there is the Human Rights Act 1998; and, finally, there is the conversion in recent years of the Lord Chancellor's Department into a government department with responsibilities going far beyond its historic functions.
Recent Lord Chancellors have been admirably impartial in the appointments they have made. That was not always the case, certainly it was not in Lord Halsbury's day, and it will not necessarily be the case in the future. If we leave matters as they are I believe that some future Prime Minister of any party may well appoint a Lord Chancellor who will make such appointments to the judiciary that the Prime Minister wants him to make. That is a real risk. The response of some critics in not recognising that risk is short-sighted.
Some speakers in the debate—I mention the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Rawlinson and Lord Donaldson of Lymington— are I think harking back to the old days of a Lord Chancellor with a tiny office, employing a small team of barristers and sitting in a few rooms in the furthest reaches of the Palace of Westminster. That I am afraid is just nostalgia. It does not recognise today's reality of the Lord Chancellor as the head of a large government department with a staff of 25,000 and a budget of billions of pounds. Therefore, we are wholly behind the principle of a judicial appointments commission. The details are important and must be got right.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may protest against the criticism of Lord Hailsham as regards his judicial appointments. I do so publicly now.
Noble Lords: Lord Halsbury.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I was not protesting against Lord Hailsham, I was protesting against Lord Halsbury, with entire justification should one read about him.
284
We are therefore truly behind the principle of a judicial appointments commission, but the details are very important and must be got right. I shall turn to three such details. First, ministerial involvement must be restricted. A judicial appointments commission should recommend a single name to a Minister for appointment to a senior post. That Minister, if he vetoes the name, should give the commission reasons for the veto. Secondly, not only the judicial appointments commission, but also those who appoint the members of the commission, should be wholly independent of the Government. Thirdly, we are concerned that it is proposed that the lay membership of the commission be restricted to five out of 15 members.
The third element in the Bill is the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor. I believe that is inevitable because the Lord Chancellor, as head of a major government department, cannot now sit as a member of the judiciary, let alone act as head of the judiciary.
I therefore turn to the more controversial of the two major Bills; namely, reform of your Lordships' House. I welcome a number of sensible speeches from the Conservative Benches with which I agree; notably, those made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. We, and our predecessors in the Liberal Party, have been campaigning since the Parliament Act 1911 for the complete removal of the hereditary membership of your Lordships' House and its replacement by a democratic system of election.
We came agonisingly close to that goal in February when the proposal for an 80 per cent elected membership came within three votes of a majority in the House of Commons. I do not believe that the Government are entitled to rely on the absence of a majority in the House of Commons when they, through the Prime Minister, are responsible for the failure to achieve that majority. Those in all parties who have campaigned for a democratic second Chamber felt a strong sense of betrayal.
We are now to get a Bill that does no more than remove the remaining hereditaries and to set up a statutory appointments commission to appoint non-party Members. We are in favour of those changes, but we want them not as ends in themselves but as steps towards our real objective; namely, a second Chamber in which most or all of its Members are elected. Our attitude to any Bill brought forward by the Government will depend on whether we see the Bill as furthering that aim.
Taken by themselves, the Government's proposals are merely window dressing. They will enable the Government to wash their hands of further reform. What was unfinished business in 1911 will remain as unfinished in 2004 and, if the Government have their way, for many years thereafter. I disagree with the noble Lords, Lord Morgan, Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Hoyle, who said that they would vote for the Government because their proposals are a start. The Government—as the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, made clear, he thought, and supported—believe that those proposals are not the start, but the end. As my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton said, that means that we in your Lordships' House will end up as the biggest quango of all.

285
I am aware that a large majority of Members of your Lordships' House, including my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf and a number of other noble friends, voted for a wholly-appointed House. Therefore, I should explain why I believe that election is so important. It is only the election of the political Members of your Lordships' House that can give it the strength to carry out its proper constitutional role. Expertise and distinction of appointed Members, however great, will not give us that strength.
What is the role of your Lordships' House? First, of course, as a revising Chamber, but revision is not just a matter of correcting errors and oversights; if the role is to be meaningful, we must be able to make amendments that are not wrecking but which are nevertheless substantial and sometimes controversial. When we have done that, we have been doing no more than our duty. We must have the strength to force the Government to negotiate.
However, your Lordships' House is also the guardian of last resort of the constitution. In the end, the House of Commons can have its way through the Parliament Acts, but the power of your Lordships' House to challenge and delay legislation that it believes to be unconstitutional is vital and part of the checks and balances of the constitution. That power is weakened if, as happened last week, the Government can rubbish us as an unelected House.
Of course, there are drawbacks to an elected House.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he misrepresents the case. The power of the Lords is not confined to alleged constitutional laws; it applies to all laws—it could apply to fox hunting. His view is incorrectly stated.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, of course there is power to reject any Bill; I am describing what the proper role of your Lordships' House should be. It is plain that your Lordships' House has power to reject any Bill, as the constitution stands, but not as a matter of convention.
For a detailed examination of what is to be included in the Bill, we must wait until we can read it, but I shall make three points on what should or may be in it. First, political appointments should be directed to making membership proportionate to the share of votes at the previous election, not the share of seats. A House that was a clone of the House of Commons would be meaningless. When the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, referred to an overwhelming majority, he was referring to a majority not of the vote but of the seats. The vagaries of the voting system meant that the Government have an overwhelming majority on the basis of 42 per cent of the national vote.
Secondly, there are strong arguments for giving appointed Members of your Lordships' House— political and non-political—appointments for terms of, perhaps, 15 years, rather than life. That would enable the House to be somewhat smaller and remove some of those who no longer play an effective part in
286
your Lordships' House for reasons of health, boredom—in some cases—or want of expertise. That idea was supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and others.
Thirdly—this has not been mentioned but is important—although we welcome the creation of a right to resign membership of your Lordships' House, it is essential that Members should not be able to resign after a short time to stand for the House of Commons. That would mean allowing your Lordships' House to be used as a training college for the House of Commons, which would be a complete disaster.
Lord Elton: My Lords, would the noble Lord go further and say that no one should be able to use an early resignation to obtain preferment to a well-paid post under government subsidy?
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, it is difficult to envisage cases in which there would be an inconsistency between membership of your Lordships' House and taking up another post. If the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has an example in mind, I shall obviously consider it when we debate the Bill.
This is our first debate on issues that are likely to dominate this Session of your Lordships' House. No doubt many more such debates are to come. We have made our attitude to the House of Lords reform Bill clear: we will support it only if it is part of a process leading within a clear timescale to our objective of a mainly elected second Chamber.
With regret, I must say that we cannot support— although we will not vote against—the Conservative amendment, which seeks further discussion. We have not been short of talks in the past; more talks in themselves will lead nowhere. After a year as a member of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform, 1 see no prospect of its reaching a consensus or any remotely helpful conclusion. We have tabled our amendment to make clear that our objective is not more talks but election to the second Chamber. It is time to finish the unfinished business.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, it is trite history that the post of the Lord Chancellor has lasted for more than 1,000 years; but it is worth reflecting for a moment on what that means.
It means that, for at least 1,000 years, each generation, in each year, has confirmed the value of the Lord Chancellor's role by retaining it, whatever the political weather. Through all the turbulent events following the Norman Conquest, through the great constitutional reforms of Henry II, the Wars of the Roses, the constitutional upheavals of the 17th century leading to the rule of law, the great Reform Act, universal suffrage, our signing of the European Convention on Human Rights and its enshrinement in our own law by the Human Rights Act, the constitutional role of the Lord Chancellor has been endorsed.

287
Then we come to the year 2003. What is it about this year that makes it so different from each of the previous thousand years? It appears to have started benignly enough. There was no leak from No. 10 that the Prime Minister got up in the morning and said, "Gosh, I am afraid that I will have to get rid of Derry's job because it contravenes the Human Rights Act".
Then, just over two months later, on 7th March, in a debate in your Lordships' House on ministerial and other salaries, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, said:
"It has been suggested that by implication, the Human Rights Act might make it inappropriate for my noble and learned friend to continue to exercise any judicial functions".
He continued:
"the office of Lord Chancellor, straddling as it does the three parts of the constitution, makes its holder uniquely placed to protect the interests of each part against the demands of the others. In particular, it both upholds judicial independence and mediates between the executive and the judiciary when occasion for controversy arises".
The noble Lord went on:
"The Lord Chancellor is able to perform that function both because of his seniority in Cabinet and because he is head of the judiciary and sits as such from time to time. Through his office, the judiciary has a representative in the Cabinet. The Lord Chancellor is in a position to promote mutual understanding in order to avoid collisions at the major intersections in the separation of the powers".
He continued:
"It is of course important when the Lord Chancellor sits as a judge, it should not be in a case in which it would be inappropriate … It can be argued, of course, that whatever may have been appropriate in the past, the Human Rights Act now makes it unacceptable that the Lord Chancellor should continue to fulfil his multiple functions. The Government do not accept that. I would point out, first that the only jurisprudence on this subject from the European Court in Strasbourg, the McGonnell case, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, emphasised that The question is always whether, in a given case, the requirements of the convention are met'. The court accepted the UK's contention that neither Article 6 nor any other provision of the convention required, 'states to comply with any theoretical constitutional concepts as such'".
The noble Lord concluded:
"It follows that the Government do not accept that the Human Rights Act 1998 causes us to review the role of the Lord Chancellor".—[Official Report, 7/3/03; cols. 1095-97.]
That speech was made on 7th March. Just over three months later, the role of the Lord Chancellor was purported by the Government to be abolished. All the reasons that they gave in the press release for its abolition flatly contradicted the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, some three months earlier.
One can speculate about why that might have been so. History has never had a great resonance for this Government. Indeed, there have been occasions when one might have thought that they endorsed the memorable statement made by Henry Ford in the early 1920s that "history is bunk". However, I believe that the reasons for the Government's change of heart about the role of the Lord Chancellor are more pernicious than even that statement.
288
It is well known that, for the year leading up to the events of the middle of June, there was a struggle in the Cabinet—some might say that it was a clash of the titans— between the Home Secretary and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. As we all know, the noble and learned Lord lost, and the spoils of victory for the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary were the removal of the Lord Chancellor from the Cabinet and the removal of all the Law Lords, together with the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Justice, from your Lordships' House. That amounts to nothing less than a substantial weakening of the judicial arm of our constitution.
Make no mistake about it: this is not the same as the issue of judicial independence. Of course, it is vital that judges remain independent in their day-to-day work in the courts to decide cases and interpret the law, free from bias. However, the issue of the role of the judicial arm in our constitution, although related to independence, is quite distinct. It is about the ability of the Lord Chancellor in Cabinet and noble and learned Lords in your Lordships' House to tell the Government to think again when they are proposing to do something in a particular statute that will breach the rule of law.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said in his splendid speech that he was always aware of the looming presence of the Lord Chancellor in the Cabinet. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, will remember, perhaps to his cost, the events of 1989 and 1990, when certain noble and learned Lords came down from the Strand to take a different view about some changes that he had proposed. How much easier it was for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, to achieve the objectives that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, had hoped but failed to achieve 10 years earlier, when the noble and learned Lords, Lord Bingham and Lord Woolf, came down and endorsed everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, wished to do in the Access to Justice Act 1999. That is the measure of the power of noble and learned Lords in your Lordships' House when your Lordships shape legislation.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, spoke eloquently about the importance of having a senior member of the Cabinet who has nothing to hope and nothing to fear—because he or she has reached the pinnacle of professional ambitions and acts without fear or favour in the Cabinet. The Lord Chancellor may seek to give the same protection in his proposed constitutional arrangements, but he will have to mimic the role of Lord Chancellor in Cabinet. In that case, what is the point of making those changes in the first place?
I have one other reflection about the events of the middle of June. They have, at least in the Temple, quite transformed the image of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. Once reviled for diminishing the power of the designated judges, introducing conditional fees and reducing the rate of legal aid, he is now spoken of in hushed tones of admiration. He is fêted for his jurisprudential wisdom. The noble and

289
learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, reminds me somewhat of that great couplet in "Antony and Cleopatra". It is said of Caesar's wife that,
"She's good, being gone;
The hand could pluck her back that shov'd her on".
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde spoke with great eloquence about the other matter that is before us today: reform of your Lordships' House. I shall add just that it seems to me that the motives for the Government's Bill on the reform of your Lordships' House are similar to their motives for their Bill on the abolition of the Lord Chancellor. Just as the Bill on the abolition of the Lord Chancellor seeks to strengthen the executive in relation to the judicial arm of the constitution, so the Government's Bill on House of Lords reform seeks to strengthen the executive arm in relation to the legislature.
Your Lordships' great problem is that the House has been too successful in scrutinising government legislation, so successful that many supporters of the Government have often failed to vote in support of government measures.
What has been the Government's response? It has been to say, as many of your Lordships have said today, how disgraceful it is that the undemocratic arm of the constitution should seek to hold up the business of the elected House. What hypocrisy.
The Government have no intention of democratising your Lordships' House. What do they intend to do instead? They intend to introduce a provision that makes the balance of power in your Lordships' House reflect exactly the balance of power in another place, thus making opposition to the government of the day almost impossible and making a mockery of the Parliament Act, which was so skilfully explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, this afternoon.
In any case, how can the Government enforce such a requirement? In no time, as one government succeeds another, your Lordships' House will double in size. The Government's provision on that matter is not only deeply disingenuous but ludicrous as well.
A good way of summing up both provisions would be to say that they are an unedifying combination of Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" and Fred Karno's circus. They ought to be opposed.
9.43 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, it has been an important debate and an extraordinarily striking one, as far as concerns the position of the other side, the Conservatives. As my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton pointed out, they were in government for 18 years with an overall majority in this House. The essential complaint that has been made about our proposals for constitutional change is that they will weaken Parliament and strengthen the executive not just in relation to Parliament but in other ways. We must examine that central charge and see how powerful it is.
290
Just before I do that, I shall identify three other constitutional changes that this Government have produced that have been opposed by those on the other side. First, there is the independence of the Bank of England. At the time, the Conservative Party described it as an outrage and opposed the Bill. It was the de-politicisation of an institution that should be de-politicised. The Conservatives then opposed devolution to Scotland and Wales. The giving up of power by this place and by the executive in this country was, again, opposed. Thirdly, they opposed the Human Rights Act 1998. The Act places limitations on the way in which the executive can behave. The complaints that have, at the moment, been made about our constitutional reforms should be viewed with some scepticism, in the light of the previous misconduct of those on the other side.
Let us look at the two major items in the Queen's Speech that have been the subjects of criticism in the debate. I would submit that the theme of both of those proposals is one of the giving-up of power and the provision of proper independence for institutions which, for some considerable time, have required it.
First, I turn to the Constitutional Reform Bill covering the abolition of my office of Lord Chancellor. I should say straightaway that this office has been discharged with great distinction by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and by my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg. The distinction with which both noble and learned Lords discharged the office has perhaps disguised for a considerable time the difficulties of its existence.
What does the Lord Chancellor do? First, he is the head of the judiciary. That means that he can tell judges to go from one place to another; he can move judges around if, as would never occur under the current arrangements, they do not suit his purposes. What else can he do? He can appoint every single judge. But he is a judge whom, as time went on, judges did not want to sit with any more. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, has made it absolutely clear in a number of pronouncements outside the House that the idea of a Cabinet Minister sitting in the judicial House of Lords is no longer a sensible course. I am not sure that there are many lawyers and judges who disagree with the proposition that a head of the judiciary who sits in the Cabinet should not decide cases. That is a reform which has already been accepted. Should a Cabinet Minister be the head of the judiciary with the powers that I have described? In my view, clearly he should not. Again, that is an issue with which not many people now disagree.
Should the Lord Chancellor be the Speaker of this House as well? He has substantial roles in relation to the judiciary and, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out so eloquently, he is moved from the positions of being a judge and a Speaker of this House to being a Minister in the Cabinet with billions of pounds of expenditure and tens of thousands of civil servants for whom he is responsible. My noble friend Lord Barnett asked what he is doing with all those billions of pounds and tens of thousands of civil servants. I shall tell noble Lords: he is responsible for, for example, the administration of the Court Service—the county courts, Crown Courts, High Courts and magistrates' courts. He

291
is responsible for the dispensing of legal aid. He is responsible for human rights. He is responsible for freedom of information. He is responsible for data protection. I could go on and on. If he is responsible for all these matters, which he is, then it is right that he should, in discharging those functions, do so like any other politician; namely, by being responsible and accountable to the electorate.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, why has this changed in three months? If this was suddenly visible in July, why was a completely opposite answer given in March? None of what the noble and learned Lord has said suddenly appeared like a puff of magic mushrooms on the political scene between March and July 2003.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we must judge the argument on its merits, and so far as concerns the merits of the argument, I believe that the case is overwhelming for moving forward. The public is entitled to a Minister discharging those responsibilities who is accountable in the ordinary way. The public is entitled to a situation in which the person who is the chief judge in England and Wales is no longer a politician and is instead a judge. The people are entitled to an arrangement where a member of the Cabinet cannot move judges around at will. That is wrong. The time has come for change.
I want to make one further point. The excellent Select Committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, proposed that this House should have a Lords Speaker who should be paid at the same rate as a Cabinet Minister. He would sit in this House because he recognised the importance of the job. I thoroughly agree with that proposal. The idea that those three jobs—head of the judiciary, Speaker of the House of Lords and a Cabinet Minister with the responsibilities I outlined—can all be carried out by one person is, with great respect, entirely wrong and, in the interests of the country, we need to look forward.
I should address the important central issue of judicial independence, which has been protected extremely effectively by recent Lord Chancellors. It is worth pointing out that in the 1940s the then Prime Minister, who, according to the history books, did not like his Lord Chancellor very much, flipped him out of the Cabinet for a period of time. So the constitutional position of the Lord Chancellor within the Cabinet has varied from time to time.
But judicial independence is an absolutely vital part of our constitution. It is accepted by all as something on which our constitution depends. Should it be dealt with by a looming presence at the end of the Cabinet table? Is it utterly dependent on the personality of the Lord Chancellor at a particular time? Or has the time come for the importance of that independence to be enshrined in statute so that everyone can see how important it is and that it is there as a clear duty?
292
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, quite rightly asked about the enforcement of the duty and what form it would take. What is the current position in relation to the Lord Chancellor? We have a series of ill defined conventions of great importance. Yes, they have worked, but if they are put into statute there will be clarity and people will be able to see and understand that important part of our constitution. It will reflect what we all accept—that is, the importance of the independence of the judiciary, which must be protected in whatever arrangements we make.
The time has inevitably come for us to move on to the position that every other modern democracy has reached, with a Minister accountable as a Member of the Government and a judiciary utterly independent of the executive.
I noted with interest what the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said about what Montesquieu meant by the separation of powers. I do not believe for one moment that any realistic constitutionalist has rejected the idea that the judiciary must be separate from the executive.
The establishment of a Supreme Court will be an important constitutional change. There are differing views on whether we should create a Supreme Court. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in what appeared to be a flight of fantasy, said that the Law Lords were being removed from this House—if I understood his rather crazed account—as part of the reward for the Home Secretary in another place. That is complete nonsense.
Let me describe the argument in favour of a Supreme Court and quote the words of a current Law Lord in this respect. He said:
"The aim must be a Supreme Court independent of the other branches of government, in the framework of our existing system in which the supremacy of Parliament is the paramount principle of our constitution. Such a court would in the eyes of the public carry a badge of independence and neutrality: it would be a potent symbol of the allegiance of our country to the rule of law".
That is an extract from the Neill Lecture given on 1st March 2002 by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn. There is absolutely no intention to undermine independence—far from it. The intention is to increase independence.
As regards the House of Lords reform Bill, the position has now been reached where the House has a choice. The argument advanced by the Conservatives is that the way to protect the independence of the House is not to allow the House of Lords reform Bill but to rely on the 92 hereditary Peers to ensure independence. I began my remarks in relation to the constitutional reform programme by saying that we were depoliticising the independence position and making sure that there was a proper separation between the executive, legislature and the judiciary.
The proposal that we make in the House of Lords reform Bill is that, instead of the Prime Minister being able at any stage to determine what the size of the House may be, or what the make-up may be between individual political parties, those matters will be determined by a body that is beyond politics. Those on

293
the other side propose that we rely on the 92 hereditary Peers, plus a Prime Minister from any party at any stage, to be able to determine the size of the House.
Make your mind up as to which is a better protection for this House. Make your mind up as to what will lead to much greater independence for this House and much greater freedom from the depredations of the executive. At every stage, every aspect of our constitutional reform process is designed to create greater independence, greater depoliticisation and greater faith in the public that things will be run on a proper, clear and transparent basis, rather than on a political one.
With the greatest respect, I go back to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Graham. For a long time while they were in power, it was perfectly satisfactory for there to be a large Conservative majority. Not any more, because, as our proposals make clear, we have set out arrangements by which no one party will ever have a majority in this House again.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I may have misunderstood the noble and learned Lord, but he seems to suggest that our contention is that the 92 Peers should remain here in perpetuity as guarantees of independence. That is not at all what we are saying. We are here merely as a guarantee that phase two takes place, and some of us will be very glad to go when it has and are not prepared to go before it does.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, may I come to that? A most convenient situation has been reached for the Conservatives. They have an elegant and persuasive leader in the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who is well able to persuade practically everyone in the whole world of his arguments, except, unfortunately, those sitting behind him, none of whom supports him. He, wringing his hands, tells us that nothing would give him greater pleasure than to support us in these measures, as long as we introduce an elected element.
Sitting behind the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, are noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who voted for an 80 per cent appointed House and for an all-appointed House in the course of our debates. I assume that he wanted an all-appointed House and, in default of that, an 80 per cent appointed House. Our proposals will involve a statutory appointments commission, making appointments offshore from the executive. They make arrangements for the removal of hereditaries—and the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, does not want to see hereditaries stay, in his long-term arrangements. I am sure that he would have issues about what precisely is done with the Bishops, for example, or precisely how long some noble Lords stayed. However, broadly, what is being proposed to make the House more stable is that which the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, voted for on 3rd February 2003.
The Conservatives are in the happy position of having a leader who says that the House must be elected, although he sadly cannot make any progress
294
on that, while behind him large numbers of noble Lords are saying, "This is precisely what we want and we are outraged by it". It is very difficult to see that as a coherent position. It may well be that, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, suggested, I misunderstood the Conservatives' position, but I believe that I could be forgiven for that in the context.
I apologise for taking so long over those two Bills, which are the two by which the House will, plainly, be most detained. We on our side of the House believe that the Bills are very important; we have a clear position on all of the Bills, which we intend to put before the House. I commend the Bills to the House.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord seems to have finished. However, he might answer one question that I posed to him. He has not answered any of the questions that I posed to him. so let him have a go at answering one. During the debate, it has been raised by many noble Lords from all sides of the House. There seems to be much division in his own party as to whether this is stage two or part of a process to get to a stage two. Will the noble and learned Lord give us the answer to that question? He must have done the thinking about it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I think that we have made it clear. No consensus was reached. It was not possible to put forward a concluded—
A Noble Lord: Answer the question.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Excuse me, my Lords; I am answering the question. It was not possible to put forward a concluded consensus view. In those circumstances, these measures were taken to put the House on a stable and coherent basis.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in which case the answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is that there is no promise of further reform; and that no doubt will be noted.
This has been a long day and there have been some excellent speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that this is the first time that we have been able to debate these issues since the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made his announcement on 18th September. It will not be the last. This has been a useful curtain-raiser to a Session whose hallmark will be these sorts of constitutional debates. The quality of the speeches no doubt will improve; so will the disagreement. However, one useful sign that we have received from the noble Baroness the Lord President and Leader of the House and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is that they wish to turn their backs on consensus and on consultation. That is what my humble amendment calls for. I very much hope that the House will support it.
10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 188; Not-Contents, 108.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Goschen, V.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Ampthill, L.

Greenway, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Hanham, B.

Arran, E.

Hanningfield, L.

Astor, V.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Attlee, E.

Henley, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Higgins, L.

Bell,L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Belstead, L.

Hogg, B.

Biffen,L.

Home,E.

Blaker.L.

Howe, E.

Blatch, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hylton, L.

Buscombe, B.

Inglewood, L.

Byford, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Caithness, E.

Jopling, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Keith of Castleacre, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kimball, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Carrington, L.

Kingsland, L.

Cavendish of Fumess, L.

Kirkham, L.

Chadlington, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Chalfont,L.

Laird, L.

Chester, Bp.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Cobbold, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Listowel.E.

Colwyn, L.

Liverpool, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L.[Teller]

Lloyd-Webber, L.

Courtown, E.

Lucas, L.

Cox,B.

Luke,L.

Craigavon, V.

Lyell, L.

Crathome, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Deedes, L.

L.

Denham, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mancroft, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Mar, C.

Dundee, E.

Marlesford, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Elles, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Elton, L.

Monson, L.

Feldman, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Ferrers, E.

Montrose, D.

Flather, B.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Fookes, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Moynihan, L.

Fowler, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Freeman, L.

Naseby, L.

Freyberg, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Noakes, B.

Garel-Jones, L.

Northesk, E.

Geddes, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Glentoran, L.

Onslow, E.

296

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Sharples, B.

Palmer, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Palumbo, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Patten. L.

Slim, V.

Peel,E.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Sterling of Plaistow, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Strange, B.

Plumb, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Swinfen, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Tanlaw, L.

Prior, L.

Tebbit, L.

Rawlings,B.

Thatcher, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Reay, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Rees, L.

Trumpington, B.

Renton, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Ullswater, V.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Vinson, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Vivian, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Waddington, L.

Saatchi, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover,

Wakeham, L.

L.

Waldegrave of North Hill, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Walpole, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Wilcox, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Wolfson, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Wolfson of Sunningdale, L.

Selsdon, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
10.13 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosbyrose to move, as an amendment to the Motion for an humble Address, at the end of the Address to insert "but regrets the decision of Your Majesty's Government to propose changes to the House of Lords which repudiate their previous commitment to create a more democratic and more representative House; and calls on Your Majesty's Government to introduce legislation which, while ending hereditary membership of the House, will ensure a majority of Members of the House are democratically elected."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I want simply to say that the reforms mentioned by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor were largely inspired by the party on these Benches, and that we regard the argument that we presented for a democratic House of Lords as, with great respect, not having been responded to in any adequate way. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion for an humble Address, at the end of the Address to insert "but regrets the decision of Your Majesty's Government to propose changes to the House of Lords which repudiate their previous commitment to create a more democratic and more representative House; and calls on Your Majesty's Government to introduce legislation which, while ending hereditary membership of the House, will ensure a majority of Members of the House are democratically elected."— (Baroness Williams of Crosby.)
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 141.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Goschen, V.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Ampthill, L.

Greenway, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Hanham, B.

Arran, E.

Hanningfield, L.

Astor, V.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Attlee, E.

Henley, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Higgins, L.

Bell,L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Belstead, L.

Hogg, B.

Biffen,L.

Home,E.

Blaker.L.

Howe, E.

Blatch, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hylton, L.

Buscombe, B.

Inglewood, L.

Byford, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Caithness, E.

Jopling, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Keith of Castleacre, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kimball, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Carrington, L.

Kingsland, L.

Cavendish of Fumess, L.

Kirkham, L.

Chadlington, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Chalfont,L.

Laird, L.

Chester, Bp.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Cobbold, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Listowel.E.

Colwyn, L.

Liverpool, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L.[Teller]

Lloyd-Webber, L.

Courtown, E.

Lucas, L.

Cox,B.

Luke,L.

Craigavon, V.

Lyell, L.

Crathome, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Deedes, L.

L.

Denham, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mancroft, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Mar, C.

Dundee, E.

Marlesford, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Elles, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Elton, L.

Monson, L.

Feldman, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Ferrers, E.

Montrose, D.

Flather, B.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Fookes, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Moynihan, L.

Fowler, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Freeman, L.

Naseby, L.

Freyberg, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Noakes, B.

Garel-Jones, L.

Northesk, E.

Geddes, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Glentoran, L.

Onslow, E.

296

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Sharples, B.

Palmer, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Palumbo, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Patten. L.

Slim, V.

Peel,E.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Sterling of Plaistow, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Strange, B.

Plumb, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Swinfen, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Tanlaw, L.

Prior, L.

Tebbit, L.

Rawlings,B.

Thatcher, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Reay, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Rees, L.

Trumpington, B.

Renton, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Ullswater, V.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Vinson, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Vivian, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Waddington, L.

Saatchi, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover,

Wakeham, L.

L.

Waldegrave of North Hill, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Walpole, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Wilcox, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Wolfson, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Wolfson of Sunningdale, L.

Selsdon, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Gale, B.

Alli, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Gilbert, L.

Andrews, B.

Golding, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bach, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Barnett, L.

Grantchester, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Greengross, B.

Berkeley, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Blackstone, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Haskel, L.

Borrie, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Brett, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Burlison, L.

Hoyle, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Carter, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Chandos, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Jones, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Layard, L.

Crawley, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

David, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Desai, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Dixon, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Eatwell, L.

Marsh, L.

Elder, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Mitchell, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord

Morgan, L.

Chancellor)

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Nicol, B.

Filkin, L.

Parekh, L.

297

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Pendry, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Thornton, B.

Prys-Davies,L.

Turnberg,L.

Puttnam,L.

Uddin, B.

Varley, L.

Ramsay of Carrvale,B.

Warner, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Richard, L.

Whitaker,B.

Rooker,L.

Whitty, L.

Sawyer, L.

Wilkins,B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Winston, L.

Simon, V.

Woolmer of Leeds. L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Young of Old Soone, B.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Henley, L.

Dholakia, L.

Hylton, L.

Falkland, V.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Freyberg, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Goodhart, L.

Lloyd-Webber, L.

Greaves, L.

Lucas, L.

Hamwee, B.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

298

McNally, L.

Russell, E.

Maddock, B.

Selsdon, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller]

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Northover, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Onslow, E.

Tope, L.

Redesdale, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Roper, L.[Teller]

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Ahmed, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Alli, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Haskel, L.

Ampthill, L.

Higgins, L.

Andrews, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bach, L.

Hoyle, L.

Barnett, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Belstead, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Berkeley, L.

Jones, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jopling, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Kimball, L.

Borrie, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Bowness, L.

Kirkham, L.

Brett, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Layard, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Burlison, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Carter, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Chandos, V.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Marlesford, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Marsh, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Crawley, B.

Mitchell, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Morgan, L.

David, B.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.[Teller]

Naseby,L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde,B.

Nicol, B.

Desai, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Dixon, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Eatwell, L.

Palmer, L.

Elder, L.

Parekh, L.

Elles,B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Elton, L.

Peel, E.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Pendry, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Chancellor)

Pitkeathley, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Feldman, L.

Puttnam, L.

Ferrers, E.

Radice, L.

Filkin, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Reay, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gale, B.

Renton, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Rooker, L.

Gilbert, L.

Sawyer, L.

Golding, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Simon, V.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Slim, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Grantchester, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Greengross, B.

Swinfen, L.

299

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Warner, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Tebbit, L.

Whitaker, B.

Tenby.V.

Whitty,L.

Thornton, B.

Wilkins, B.

Turnberg, L.

Winston, L.

Varley, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Vinson, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned until tomorrow.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past ten o'clock.

  Criminal Records Bureau: Disclosures and Registered Bodies
  Baroness Hilton
  of Eggardon asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What plans they have to make regulations under Part 5 of the Police Act 1997. [HL127]

  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
  I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of a consultation paper on draft regulations to be made under Part 5 of the Police Act 1997 aimed at strengthening the role of registered bodies in the disclosure process. Responses to the consultation are invited by 23 February 2004.

  The draft regulations will be made under new powers conferred by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. These implement key recommendations of the independent review team appointed, in September 2002, by the Home Secretary to take a fundamental look at the operations of the Criminal Records Bureau. In particular, the review team recommended that the critical role of registered bodies in the disclosure process should be upgraded by making them unambiguously responsible for validating the identity of disclosure applicants and for ensuring that application forms are fully and accurately completed. The draft regulations achieve these objectives by attaching conditions to registration; where such conditions are breached the provisions in the Criminal Justice Act will enable a registered body's registration to be suspended or revoked.

  The Criminal Records Bureau will put in place a registered body assurance team to improve the level of training and support to registered bodies to help them to meet the standards expected of them. To meet the cost of managing and supporting the registered body network, the draft regulations provide for registered bodies to pay an annual fee of £300. The consultation paper invites views on alternative means of funding the registered body assurance team.

  By raising the professionalism of registered bodies in this way we can further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the disclosure process. The performance of the CRB has improved considerably over the past year. It now has the capacity to process over 50,000 disclosure applications per week, double the number of summer 2002, and is consistently meeting its service standards of issuing 90 per cent of standard and enhanced disclosures within two and four weeks respectively. Moreover, the CRB has now taken on the processing of some one quarter of a million applications from staff working in the care sector.

  We have previously made clear that the CRB must be self-financing from 2005-06. As the CRB moves towards full-cost recovery, it is necessary to reduce
  WA22
  (from £18.8 million in 2003–04 to £8.1 million in 2004–05) the substantial subsidy the bureau currently receives from the general taxpayer and make a compensating increase in the disclosure fee. From 1 April 2004 the fee for an enhanced disclosure will be £33 and for a standard disclosure £28. The fee payable by a registered body for registering an additional counter-signatory will be increased to £33. Disclosures will continue to be issued free to volunteers, saving the voluntary sector some £12 million in 2004–05.

  Home Office: Autumn Performance Report
  Baroness David
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  When they plan to publish the Home Office autumn performance report. [HL179]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  The Home Office autumn performance report 2003 has been published today by command of Her Majesty. Copies of the report are available in the Library. The report is also available on the Home Office website.

  The report sets out the progress the Home Office has achieved towards the key targets set out in the 2002 spending review. This includes those targets that the Home Office is solely responsible for delivering and those targets that it owns jointly with other departments such as the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Crown Prosecution Service.

  The department's PSA targets were published in the SR2002 White Paper. How progress will be measured, and the success criteria for each target, are set out in the SR2002 Public Service Agreement Technical Notes, published by the Home Office in March 2003 and updated in July 2003.

  The report sets out the latest outturn data against each of the contributory measures from the technical note.

  The results show: crime is falling; the justice gap is narrowing; asylum is increasingly under control; we have a coherent drug strategy and our correctional services are operating effectively.

  Service Children's Education Agency: Quinquennial Review Report
  Lord Gregson
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  When the Quinquennial Review Report of the Service Children's Education will be published. [HL128]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  We are today placing a copy of the Service Children's Education (SCE) agency Quinquennial Review Report in the Library of the House. The review has examined the agency in detail and concluded that SCE is delivering a good service to parents and children and that, as a core component of military life overseas, the balance of
  WA23
  advantage lies with it remaining part of the MoD. Agency status was judged to have delivered benefits and have the scope to continue doing so through the ongoing target-setting regime. The review identified a number of issues for further study and these will be taken forward by chief executive of SCE who has the responsibility for overseeing the implementation of the review's recommendations, most of which are specialist education issues.

  Defence Mental Health Services
  Baroness Gale
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What plans they have to modernise and improve defence mental health services. [HL129]

  Lord Bach
  As part of our strategy to modernise and improve defence mental health services, we can announce today that the Ministry of Defence has awarded a contract to the Priory Group for the provision of in-patient psychiatric services. This is the first time that we have awarded a mental healthcare contract to an independent service provider, although individual service patients have been referred to the Priory on a case-by-case basis when their condition was outside the treatment offered at the Duchess of Kent's Psychiatric Hospital (DKPH). Service patients can be admitted to selected Priory Group facilities from 8 December. The full transfer of in-patient care from the DKPH to the Priory Group will occur from 1 April 2004. This is in line with an Answer given in another place by my honourable friend the WA24
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence on 16 October (Official Report, Col. 324W) that the DKPH is expected to close by 31 March 2004 when alternative facilities are in place.

  The Priory Group can provide in-patient care locally. The awarding of this contract should be seen as part of our wider strategy to improve healthcare for service patients by reconfiguring mental health services to be community focused with the emphasis on local provision, as recommended in the medical quinquennial review. It also permits Defence Medical Service mental health staff to work within their local service community, which is more closely aligned with their operational role.

  Airline Pilots: Blood Alcohol Screening
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  When they plan to implement the provisions of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 relating to the blood alcohol level of airline pilots. [HL15]

  Lord Davies of Oldham
  Part V of the Railways and Transport Safety Act will come into force as soon as existing police screening equipment is ready for use at the new low aviation limit. The necessary type approval process is nearing completion. Thereafter a period of approximately one month will be needed to carry out equipment modifications and to familiarise officers with its use in the aviation environment.