asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government would not contemplate disestablishment of the Church of England unless the Church itself wished it.

My Lords, that is a very disappointing Answer from my noble friend. How can that position be sustained when only 30 per cent of the population are members of the Church of England and only 20 per cent of them attend church regularly? In addition, does he agree that there has been a fundamental change in religious beliefs in this country, in that Catholics, non-conformists, Jews, Sikhs, Muslims, Buddhists and those who have no religious belief at all now constitute a majority? Should they not be given a status equal to that of the Church of England?

My Lords, there is a long Christian tradition in this country and it is our belief that that should not be thrown away lightly. There is no suggestion in what I have said that there is discrimination against different religions, faiths, creeds and so on. We do not see any good reason for disestablishment. It is entirely a matter for the Church to consider.

My Lords, if the Government do not wish to disestablish the Church of England, will they do something to rectify the injustice caused by the large number of Bishops—26 of them—who sit in this House? The figures I have obtained from the Library show that they represent only 2 per cent of the Christian population, leaving aside the Sikhs, the Muslims and the Jewish population. Would the Government therefore be prepared to create around 80 new Bishops to correct that imbalance?

Oh!

My Lords, I mean, of course, 80 new Lords, not Bishops.

My Lords, I do not think that that will be government policy.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that, far from wishing to see an end to the establishment of the Church of England, many other denominations and faiths support its continuance as the surest religious reference in our national life against an otherwise purely secular state?

My Lords, I am sure that that is absolutely the case.

My Lords, in the discussions taking place about a new House of Lords, there seems to be a predominance of view that the Church of England should always be represented in the House. Should there not be a wider casting of the net to bring other faiths into this Chamber? Will the Minister pass on to those who are perhaps more directly concerned in this matter that a large body of opinion in this country is non-believing and that that body of opinion is of equal worth in society? Therefore, in the discussions about the future of the House of Lords, would it not be a good idea to include as well as the Churches the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society?

My Lords, I am sure that what the noble Lord said has great relevance. No doubt, in any discussions on the future composition of your Lordships' House, those views will be taken into consideration.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the true importance of the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington is that it demonstrates that we have become a multi-cultural society? If we are to be an inclusive, as distinct from an exclusive society, the constitutional challenge that faces us all is how to give the pluralism in our society a greater presence in our political and national institutions.

My Lords, the noble Lord has put his finger on a very good point. We must encourage a much more inclusive society and find ways in which all sections of our different multi-faith and multi-ethnic communities can be represented in all our national institutions.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us look on Prayers before the start of business as the right way to start our day? Those who cannot or do not want to take pant a re entitled to remain outside, as they do.

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the discussion he has with the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society will be easy as they occupy the same office?

My Lords, I am indeed grateful for that piece of information.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that, for the Church of England, establishment is not about privilege but about service and responsibility in offering pastoral care and guidance to everyone, regardless of their religious adherence or none? By "everyone" we mean people living not only in suburbia but in some of the most difficult urban areas of the land and some of the most isolated rural areas as well.

My Lords, I am sure that the right reverend Prelate is right. During the course of my lifetime, I have greatly benefited from exactly that kind of pastoral care and support. I pay great tribute to the Church for the important work that it does.

My Lords, on reflection, does the Minister agree that it was a little unfair to accuse the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, of throwing out the Christian tradition as the noble Lord's record of respect for the rights of minorities is beyond reproach? Does he further agree that the right reverend Prelates do a great deal of good in this House?

My Lords, I agree with both of those statements.

My Lords, I hope it does not do the Minister's reputation any harm if I say how much I agree with his response to this Question. I agree also with what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said. Does the Minister agree that the whole debate about disestablishment was not helped when during the proceedings on the Learning and Skills Bill the Government chose to have partisan discussions with the Church of England without including the Official Opposition?

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for that helpful observation. There is no great debate about disestablishment. It appears to be something which is very much off the political agenda.

My Lords, have the Government given thought to the fact that 33 per cent of Grade I listed buildings are under the control of the Church of England, which pays for their maintenance? How would the Government deal with that situation if the Church was disestablished?

My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's second question is that disestablishment would make no difference at all. But as disestablishment is not part of the Government's agenda, it is not an issue on which I can possibly comment.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the new allergy specialty was established in June last year. We are currently assessing how many consultants the National Health Service will need in this specialty, in discussion with the relevant Royal Colleges and NHS management.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that of the 100 so-called allergy clinics, only six are currently run by those who have been specially trained to cover the breadth of allergic disease, which is quite considerable? Is my noble friend also aware that one in 200 four year-olds suffers from a peanut allergy which is the cause of the commonest food-induced fatal or near fatal reaction? Of those people who die unnecessarily, none has been seen by a specialist allergist. Because allergy is so common, having increased twofold or threefold over the past 20 years, why are so few allergists available?

My Lords, I certainly recognise the rising trend in the number of people affected by allergies. So far as concerns the new clinical specialty of allergy, it was established only last year. The Royal Colleges have advised us that we shall need one allergy specialist per regional centre—there are six regional centres in England. Three allergy specialists are already in post. We are training more and the centres will be fully staffed by 2005. It is also worth making the point that many other specialists are involved in the treatment of allergies, including dermatologists, gastroenterologists and immunologists. We need to look at the picture in the round and not consider only the number of specialist allergists.

My Lords, is it not the case that since 1994 the Department of Health has had an opportunity to assess how many specialists are needed in this area? Perhaps I may refer him to the report entitled Good Allergy Practice, published in 1994 by the Royal College of Pathologists, with a foreword written by his noble friend Lord Turnberg. The document recommended,

"at least one specialist in clinical immunology and allergy for every three health districts".

Is not that the correct test here?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for referring to that report. I understand that currently 106 consultants in immunology are in post. That figure is expected to rise to 135 by 2006. I believe that we have seen an expansion in that field. We are also seeing increases in the numbers of dermatologists and gastroenterologists as well as in other specialties. I recognise that there are still issues surrounding waiting times for people to be seen at such clinics. It is clear that we shall need to redouble our efforts to ensure that we are aware of the demands being made on those services. I can assure the House that we shall be doing that.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there exists a large range of intolerances and sensitivities to foods, air and water which lie outside the classical definition of allergy, but which, similarly, appear to be on the increase and for which patients are not receiving the help they need within mainstream medicine? In particular, is the noble Lord aware of the allergy unit which has been doing good work at the Middlesex Hospital, but which is likely to close down on the retirement of the present incumbent?

My Lords, it is my understanding that, as regards food intolerances, the Committee on Toxicity yesterday produced a report on adverse reactions to food and food ingredients which strongly recommended raising awareness of such problems in the food industry. I shall be happy to send a copy of the report to the noble Earl. As regards the general issues, we need to ensure that our research programme is comprehensive. I should be glad to discuss that programme with the noble Earl.

My Lords, does the Minister recall the case of Mr Patrick Webster, the serial sneezer, who sneezed several hundred times a day for 35 years? He consulted more than 60 doctors, but it was not until he saw an allergist that his treatment was successful. It turned out that he was sensitive to oats. What steps are being taken by the Minister to ensure that general medical practitioners are made aware of the work undertaken by allergists?

My Lords, this issue needs to be addressed on a number of levels within the health service. We already have in place 100 clinics, along with six regional specialty clinics which can provide the type of comprehensive service that is needed. However, I certainly accept the noble Lord's point that we need to redouble our efforts to ensure that those working in primary care—GPs and nurses—are able to deal with allergy issues. The Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Pathology have been involved in producing standards of care which will be of great assistance to the primary care sector.

My Lords, I should like to reinforce the point made by my noble friend Lord Colwyn. Can the Minister ensure that the maximum possible co-operation takes place between allergy specialists in the private sector and the NHS? I speak as one who was sceptical in the extreme until approximately six months ago when, on the advice of my noble friend Lord Colwyn, I visited an allergy specialist. I am now totally cured of the allergy from which I suffered.

My Lords, I am very glad to hear that. Of course I believe that where the private sector has specialist services to offer, it is right that the NHS should look to see whether that is relevant. I also believe that, when seeking to ensure effective services, local health authorities, in producing health improvement programmes, need to ensure that they have considered the full range of services available for allergy sufferers.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the noble Lord opposite was not the only sceptic? Many working in the medical profession have been sceptics for years. For example, multiple sclerosis was regarded as the "idle man's disease". Following on from the question put by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, has the Minister considered the problem of multiple chemical sensitivities? Because this condition is now accepted in many states in America, can the Minister say what is being done in the United Kingdom to confirm that multiple chemical sensitivities exist and that they can be treated?

My Lords, it is certainly the case that many explanations have been put forward for the rise in allergies in this country. We need to ensure that our research programme is sufficiently geared so that we are able to identify all the causes of allergies. So far as concerns the use of complementary and alternative therapies outwith the NHS, it is absolutely clear that where the NHS and individual clinicians feel that such therapies would provide the appropriate treatment, they are able to refer patients on to those services.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the existing code of practice gives guidance on policies and procedures aimed at enabling pupils with special educational needs to reach their full potential. In the SEN Programme of Action, we declared our intention to establish a working group to look into the provision made for children with communication difficulties, including stammering. That work is now almost finished and a report on speech and language services will be published in the autumn.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is she aware of the analysis made by the British Stammering Association—I declare an interest both as a member and as a long-term practitioner—which showed that 95 per cent of the teachers surveyed knew nothing about how to help a disfluent child at school? Can she ensure that the work of the British Stammering Association, which welcomes the initial interest shown by the department, is used to good effect in teaching?

My Lords, all newly qualified teachers must be able to demonstrate that they can identify pupils with special educational needs and then refer them on to appropriate services. They must also know how to give the positive and targeted support that such pupils need, and they have to be familiar with the code of practice. More specialist knowledge is provided through various forms of in-service training. The department is now spending some £26 million a year under the Standards Fund on such in-service training. However, we very much welcome the training resources that are being developed by the British Stammering Association. We shall do our best to publicise them.

My Lords, bearing in mind that 95 per cent of teachers do not have the skills or training to cope with such speech or language problems, are the Government satisfied that there are enough trained practitioners for every secondary school, so that all children can receive the treatment that they need when they need it, if teachers can identify those with difficulties? If the Government are not satisfied, what is being done?

My Lords, my department and the Department of Health have been examining the issues surrounding the recruitment and retention of speech therapists. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has set up a review to examine the difficulties in recruiting and retaining such specialists. The review will report later this year.

My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. There is an acute shortage of speech therapists. The reason for that is their abysmally low pay. Is there anything that the Government can do to help?

My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health is looking at issues of pay as well as other matters relating to terms and conditions of service and the recruitment of specialists in this area.

My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend can help me if I broaden the issue slightly. In the past two years I have visited a number of special educational needs schools and units. As well as being very impressed by the work that they do, I have been alarmed to note that decisions as to whether children should be excluded or included seem to be taken largely on an anecdotal and personal basis—one might even describe it as prejudiced. Can my noble friend assure me that sufficient resources will be made available over the next few years so that judgments can be made on a far more secure basis with regard to whether special educational needs children should be educated in special schools or in general schools?

My Lords, this matter is very much on the Government's agenda. The Government are committed to attempting to increase the number of children with special educational needs who can be educated in mainstream schools. But it is vitally important that sufficient and appropriate specialist resources and back-up are provided for those children.

My Lords, one of the categories of people who are most helpful for children who have this condition are the speech therapists who work in and with schools. Are they included in the threshold payments? It seems to me that there may well be tension now between speech therapists and the teachers alongside whom they work, given that teachers will enjoy the benefits of the threshold payments.

My Lords, speech therapists are employed by the health service. They are occasionally attached to schools, but for the most part they work outside schools, and pupils are sent to them in the clinics where they work.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, I understand that the recommendations of the All-Party Modernisation Committee in another place are intended to allow Members there to make more effective use of parliamentary time in scrutinising primary legislation. They are not intended to reduce the time available for scrutiny. The recommendations are a matter for Members of another place and do not affect procedures in this House.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. However, does she agree that most serious commentators believe that the proposed changes would curtail debate in another place and make it much easier for all governments to force their measures through? That would strengthen the executive at the expense of all opposition parties, and also at the expense of independent-minded Back-Benchers of all parties. To restore the balance, is it not essential for this House to be given the powers to prevent any possible slide towards an elective dictatorship?

My Lords, as each House has control over its own procedures, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on changes that are made in another place. As I understand it, the proposals for timetabling, which were the burden of the modernisation report, are intended to make a fair division of available time relevant to each part of every procedure in another place. There are no proposals that would affect proceedings in this House.

My Lords, in the past two Sessions government legislation from another place has reached us in an unprepared state and a very heavy task has fallen on Members of this House in attempting to put it right. To what extent would the modernisation of the other place as proposed in this plan overcome that problem?

My Lords, as I said, I do not think it appropriate for this House to comment on the procedures of another place and how they may or may not affect the scrutiny of legislation. As regards the time spent on legislative scrutiny, the figures that I have, which compare the 1995 Session with the past year, indicate that in the 1995 Session 43 Bills received 121 hours' scrutiny at Second Reading in another place, while so far in this Session 40 Bills have received over 150 hours of scrutiny at Second Reading. So, clearly, the questions of timetabling and scrutiny are not falling into disrepute.

My Lords, as the noble Baroness says, it is not our business to worry about the procedures of another place except in so far as they result in legislation of the kind that has arrived here recently, ill-prepared and ill-considered. But surely we should think more about our own procedures. Is there any barrier to this House rejecting secondary legislation?

My Lords, as has been demonstrated in this Session, we have had one rejection of secondary legislation. That was an outcome that the Government did not welcome. I believe that it was only the second time that such a thing had occurred in a very long time, probably since the Second World War. The issues of secondary legislation and how it should be scrutinised were addressed in proposals in the report on the reform of the House of Lords by the Royal Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. They would probably be appropriate matters for consideration by the Joint Committee of both Houses when it is set up after the Recess to examine the parliamentary aspects of reform.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that what concerns many of us is not scrutiny but control? Does she further agree that, over the past 30 years or so, the controlling of ill-considered legislation has been slowly passing from Parliament to the courts? While I do all honour to the courts, ought we not to try to keep our end up?

My Lords, as always, the noble Earl makes an interesting observation, but it is somewhat wide of the Question.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that an increasing number of Bills that come to this House seem to have been badly scrutinised by another place? That may not just he the fault of Members of another place but may be the result of directions given by Ministers to the parliamentary draftsmen. When it comes to giving more power to delay legislation, are not the Government doing a rather good job all on their own? The Freedom of Information Bill had its Second Reading in this House on 20th April, and the Political Parties and Referendums Bill had its first day in Committee on 11th May. What has happened to those Bills?

My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that we have not completed every part of every Bill. However, I was very pleased to report to the Cabinet this morning that we have reached Royal Assent on every single one of the Bills to which we gave agreement by the end of July. That is a long list of Bills; it will appear in the Official Report tomorrow. It is entirely consistent with the projections that we have given over the past few months. The two Bills mentioned by the noble Lord will be addressed in the overspill.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with the comments of the Speaker of the House of Commons that parliamentary reform should be in order to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of government—that it should strengthen Parliament in calling government to account—and that that should take precedence over any changes designed for the convenience of Members?

My Lords, I am always pleased to hear the noble Lord's comments on these matters. They are extremely authoritative and we have all benefited from his thinking in this area. These are general questions which may well become appropriate when the Joint Committee is set up to discuss the relationship between the two Houses.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, namely:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether an agreement to sell the Millennium Dome has been reached; and, if so, to whom and on what terms.

My Lords, Dome Europe has won the competition to take over the Dome when the Millennium Experience ends on 31st December. It has now signed heads of agreement with the Government. We believe that its proposals will deliver a high quality, innovative and economically sustainable long-term future for the Dome of which the people of Greenwich and the United Kingdom can be proud. In supporting the Dome's transition from the current Millennium Experience to another visitor destination, Dome Europe proposes to create an urban entertainment resort through a combination of uses inside the Dome and on adjacent land. The latter will include hotels, a convention centre, commercial leisure, restaurants, residential units, offices, retail and community facilities. Although all of the proposals are subject to the granting of planning permission and much work remains to be done to complete the sale of the site, we are confident that Dome Europe's proposals will deliver an exciting contribution to the continued regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula.

Further, the Government have decided that of the overall consideration from the sale of the Millennium Dome, some £53 million should be paid to the New Millennium Experience Company from total expected early payments of £105 million. In the agreement with Dome Europe there is also provision for additional payment for land value in certain circumstances and a share of profits if and when the business changes hands from Dome Europe. The balance of that total amount, after the payment to NMEC and meeting third-party commitments, will go to English Partnerships.

In reaching this view, we took account of the benefit to the Greenwich peninsula and the Thames gateway in terms of continuity of jobs and assured future private investment in the site, building on the substantial public investment already made—more than £1 billion—towards major environmental, transport and other improvements on the peninsula. The Dome company's agreed entitlement to that share of the proceeds of sale means that it will continue to operate within its approved lifetime budget of £758 million. The Millennium Commission has agreed to consider how it may assist the Dome company in realising its share of the proceeds of the sale to underpin the company's finances in the period before Dome Europe take over the Dome.

The Government have always supported and believed in the long-term legacy which will be achieved on the Greenwich site because of the investment of lottery funds in the Dome. The Millennium Dome has brought benefits to the national and local economy. It has been a hugely innovative public sector enterprise that has harnessed private sector money. It is a project which will be a model for future regeneration schemes, with £160 million of private sector sponsorship secured.

During 2000, over 5,000 people will be employed at the Dome, and 6,000 long-term jobs will be created through all of the peninsular developments. The Greenwich Millennium Village will provide 1,377 mixed-tenure homes and a further 1,600 elsewhere. The first people will move into the new houses by the end of the year. Greenwich council estimates that 30,000 jobs will be created as a result of the Dome.

Successive governments and the Millennium Commission have always supported and believed in the long-term legacy which will be achieved on the Greenwich site because of the investment of lottery funds in the Dome. We are delighted that a successful outcome has been achieved and that it has been possible to unlock the new value in the site as a result of the commission's investment. This good result means that the Dome has secured its future and can plan and deliver the next five months with confidence.

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for allowing me to table this Question. I also thank the noble and learned Lord for coming to the House to reply. First, can the Minister tell the House how much of the proceeds will reach English Partnerships? From the response of the Minister, it sounds as if English Partnerships, which represents the taxpayer, is at the end of a very long queue of creditors. Secondly, from the response of the Minister am I right to believe that in order to stay open until the end of the year the Millennium Commission is being asked to make available either a loan or a facility to keep the Dome project afloat until Nomura takes it over at the end of the period?

My Lords, as to how much English Partnerships will receive, for reasons of commercial confidentiality I cannot set out in full the details of the agreement reached with Dome Europe. However, I have indicated that early payments of £105 million are to be made. Of that, £53 million will go to NMEC and the remainder to English Partnerships. The amount that goes to English Partnerships will be totally unencumbered and will reflect a fair split of the money with the Dome company. The Dome company and English Partnerships each owns part of the Dome, and there has been a sensible and fair split between the two.

The noble Baroness asked whether for the Dome to stay open the Millennium Commission is to provide a loan facility. The present position is that the Dome company has the asset; namely, the expectation that it will receive its share of the proceeds. The Millennium Commission has indicated that it will agree to consider how that asset may be realised between now and when Dome Europe takes over.

My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that we welcome his Answer today which is a very satisfactory outcome, remembering as we do that the whole Dome project was conceived with all-party support? Is the noble and learned Lord also aware that what has been, and will be, done in Greenwich will do a great deal to assist the local economy?

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for reminding the House of the all-party support for the scheme by successive governments. I am also very grateful to him for reminding the House of the very substantial contribution that the Dome has made to the regeneration of Greenwich and the whole Thames gateway. We are all aware that that was one of the reasons why the Millennium Commission decided to go ahead with the Dome project and place it there.

My Lords, can my noble and learned friend inform the House who is Dome Europe, what it intends to do with the Dome once it has acquired it, and how it managed to acquire such an unfortunate name?

My Lords, Dome Europe is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nomura. I do not know how it secured its name, but it chose it. As I indicated in my initial response, it proposes to create an urban entertainment resort through a combination of uses. The latter will include hotels, a convention centre, commercial leisure, restaurants, residential units, offices, retail and community facilities.

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the recent tattoo on Horse Guards Parade, finishing as it did with impressive scenes of young servicemen caring for children in disadvantaged parts of the world, represented everything that was finest in the traditions and heritage of this country which, by contrast, the Dome has from its inception failed to address? Will the Minister do all that he can to rectify that situation in the future use of the Dome?

My Lords, I entirely agree with the observations of the noble Viscount about the tattoo. I believe that if the noble Viscount goes to Greenwich and sees the effect that the Dome has had on regeneration, employment and people who previously could not get work, he will conclude that the project is a very worthwhile legacy.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord on having got shot of a project which I am sure has been a total anxiety to him and everyone else from the point of view of its capital costs, running costs and disposal. The noble and learned Lord must be very glad to be rid of it, because it has not been a great success, has it?

My Lords, I have genuinely been proud and privileged to be involved in the project which is now the most popular pay-to-visit attraction in the whole of the United Kingdom. It is a project which the British Tourist Authority believes will bring approximately £1 billion-worth of tourism to this country this year. It is also a project which has transformed the derelict and unusable north Greenwich peninsula into an area which now has hope and the prospect of 30,000 new jobs. I believe that that is a legacy that has been well worth fighting for and sticking by throughout the life of the Dome.

My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord believe that the Japanese will make a better job of running the Dome than he and his friends?

My Lords, the popularity of the competition, and the number of strong commercial enterprises which entered it, indicated that they thought that what had been created was a good commercial operation. I think that they will build on the good progress we have made.

My Lords, I fully understand that we cannot go into the detail. However, can the Minister tell the House whether there are also warranties and indemnities in the contract?

My Lords, there are to be negotiations. It would be wrong for me to comment.

My Lords, last Thursday the Minister three times gave absolute assurances of his confidence that the company would reach its financial objectives. Only the next day the annual report spoke of significant risks and uncertainties. One was the arrival of satisfactory funding from the sale. Others were the reductions of costs and maintaining adequate revenue. Can the Minister explain why his confidence was so much greater than that of the company? Will the noble and learned Lord confirm that it will be essential for a significant tranche of that sale, in one form or another, to be available by November?

My Lords, if the noble Lord had read it, he would have seen that the annual report indicates confidence, and, quite properly, the risks. I remain confident that the Dome will complete the year up to 31st December 2000 within its lifetime budget of £758 million. If it needs to realise before December the asset it now has, namely the sale, the Millennium Commission will consider how best to realise that.

My Lords, will the Government undertake an inquiry into the history of the project? Will the results of that inquiry be published? In particular, will that inquiry cover the question which has exercised a number of us about whether the Government overruled objections from the Millennium Commission about the propriety or otherwise of its continuing to support this project in view of its financial difficulties?

My Lords, no, I shall not give such an undertaking. The issue was raised the week before last by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, in an Unstarred Question. In the course of that debate it was established that there have been five Select Committee inquiries, in excess of 1,000 Questions, and a National Audit Office inquiry into the specific question to which the noble Viscount refers. In those circumstances, it does not seem appropriate that there should be any inquiry—far from it. This is an issue which requires parliamentary scrutiny, which it has had.

My Lords, with the—

My Lords, we have reached 12 minutes.

My Lords, perhaps I may—

Order!

My Lords, the Companion indicates that a PNQ taken after Question Time normally takes 10 minutes. That is the time for what one might call a fifth Question. In this instance, given the length of the detailed response to the Private Notice Question which my noble and learned friend gave with great courtesy to the House, the Chief Whip and, I believe, the Leader of the Opposition signalled to each other that 12 minutes should be taken. Those 12 minutes have now passed.

My Lords, with permission I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is on the health service and is as follows:

"The NHS was the greatest achievement of the post-war Labour Government. It was based on one solid founding principle: that healthcare should be given on the basis of a person's need not his wealth. Some objected to that principle then. Some would like us to abandon it today. But this side of the House will never abandon what was one of the greatest civilising acts of emancipation this century has ever known. Our task is instead to provide both the money and the reform to make the NHS and its founding principle live on and prosper in the 21st century.

"As to investment, in March we took a profound decision as a government. We had sorted out the public finances. Debt service payments were down. Spending on unemployment benefits was down. It was the tough decisions we took on the economy that gave us the opportunity to make an historic commitment to the NHS—an average real terms increase in spending of 6 per cent. Over five years the NHS will grow by a third in real terms, the largest ever sustained increase in its funding.

"The plan shows, first, how that money will make up for years of under-investment. Over the next four years, it will provide 7,500 more consultants, a rise of 30 per cent; 2,000 extra GPs; 450 more GP trainees and more to come after that; in time 1,000 more medical training places each year—on top of the 1,000 already announced—a 40 per cent increase since 1997, and more than 20,000 extra qualified nurses, to add to the 10,000 extra already in post making 30,000 in total.

"For decades the NHS has failed to invest sufficiently in modern building and equipment. The plan will mean 3,000 GP premises modernised and 500 new one-stop primary care centres, 250 new scanners for cancer and other illnesses, modern IT systems in every hospital and GP surgery, 100 new hospital schemes in the next 10 years; and 7,000 more hospital beds in hospitals and intermediate care including the first rise in acute hospital beds in 30 years.

"This is only possible because we are making this historic investment in the NHS. Caring better for NHS staff will mean better care for NHS patients. That is why this plan sets out new facilities for staff, starting with 100 on-site nurseries; and money for training for all staff not just the professions but the support staff as well. Our task is not just to tackle years of under-funding but years of low morale too.

"We know money alone is not the solution. Over the past few months, myself and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State—to whose work I pay tribute today in drawing up the plan—have had scores of meetings with NHS staff and professionals, visited hospitals and GPs and spoken to providers and users of the NHS. Because the issue of funding has been alleviated, at long last people have been able to lift their heads and look at the system in which they operate.

"The NHS staff are magnificent. They are the greatest asset the service has. They are the basis of the trust British people put in the NHS. But in truth they have been, often still are, working flat out in a system that is still organised as it was in the 1940s, when today patients and staff expect and demand a wholly different type of service for the new world in which we live.

"What amazes me is that this is the first time that Government have looked long and hard at all aspects of the NHS: the absurd demarcations between staff that keep patients waiting; the splits between social services and the NHS that make life misery for many elderly people; the consultants' contract unchanged since 1948; the issue of private practice and NHS work left unresolved; GPs' contracts being based too much on quantity not quality; and a stand-off between the private sector and the NHS that is not in the interests of NHS patients. All difficult issues, all a relic from 1948. All addressed in this plan.

"In this plan, each of these issues is faced up to and fundamental reform proposed. The aim is clear: to redesign the NHS system around the needs of the patient.

"First, the role of nurses will be radically enlarged and old barriers to modern working removed. A qualified nurse has had at least three years' training. It is wrong that in many places nurses are unable to make and receive referrals, admit and discharge patients, order tests, run clinics and prescribe drugs. In future these old rules will be swept aside and nurses in every hospital will have that opportunity.

"Secondly, in respect of GPs, the vast majority do a superb job. They are highly respected and rightly so and we should never allow publicity given to the few exceptions to undermine the excellence of the GPs' reputation. But the GPs' contract again is outdated and inflexible. GPs can do more, even some work presently undertaken by consultants, and should have far more freedom in how they use the money they have. Over time, without compulsion but with clear incentives, we aim to move GPS on to a new system of contractual arrangements—the Personal Medical Service contract—which will reward doctors on the basis of quality of care as well as numbers of patients and will give them within it far greater flexibility to innovate and change. There will be more salaried doctors. This will be the most significant change to the way GPs operate since 1948 and can literally transform primary care in this country.

"Consultants do an extraordinary job for the NHS. Their expertise and immense skill are key to the future of the NHS. That is why we are increasing consultant numbers by a third and giving leading clinicians a greater role in the setting of national standards. But the consultant contract has remained largely unchanged since 1948. And though most consultants work extremely hard for the NHS beyond their contractual commitments, there is no proper management of their time. So for the first time we will make sure that all consultants have proper job plans setting out their key objectives, tasks and responsibilities. Consultants will also have their performance regularly reviewed.

"But most of all, we want to reward those who make most commitment to the NHS. First, to encourage high standards of performance and the use of the new national service frameworks. In this case, the consultants, along with others, will have access to the new £500 million performance fund which will give extra money to those meeting the highest standards of service.

"Secondly, we will merge the existing distinction awards and discretionary points schemes and increase the funding of them. By 2004, we will increase the number of consultants in receipt of a superannuable bonus from under one half of all consultants at present to around two-thirds and double the proportion of consultants who receive annual bonuses of £5,000 or more.

"Thirdly, we offer the consultants a deal. From now on, once someone is newly qualified, then for the first few years of their service they will be contracted to work exclusively for the NHS. Again, these will be the most substantial changes to consultants' contracts since 1948.

"The next major reform is to remedy the incredible situation where at one time thousands of older people are in the wrong place for their needs; stuck in hospital when they could be better cared for in their own homes. So for the first time, social services and the NHS will in every area use pooled budgets and new arrangements which ensure they work together for the good of the patient. And where local councils and primary care trusts want to go further and merge into one organisation we will enable them to do so, creating new care trusts that will deliver one-stop care with an entirely unified budget. Where partnerships persistently fail to deliver, we will require local health and social services to join together in a new care trust.

"I would like to thank Sir Stewart Sutherland, who chaired the Royal Commission for Long Term Care, and the other members who sat on it. A full response to the commission's report is published alongside the Health Plan.

"Today we are correcting a major injustice in the system. The NHS provides nursing care free of charge for people living in their own home or in hospital. But until now nursing provided in a nursing home has been charged for. This will now change. From October 2001, subject to parliamentary approval, nursing care in nursing homes will be treated as nursing care elsewhere in the NHS; free at the point of use.

"In addition, we are investing in a major expansion of intermediate care, prevention and rehabilitation services for the elderly. By 2004 spending on new services and facilities will rise to £900 million a year. Also, as the commission proposed, we will expand respite care for services benefiting 75,000 carers and those they care for.

"This package amounts to an extra £1.4 billion per year for older people, more investment than the Royal Commission itself called for.

"Next, there is a series of reforms aimed at preventing ill-health and improving the nation's health, including measures to reduce smoking and improve diet.

"Central to this are measures to reduce health inequalities. The truth is that there are gaps between the health of the poorest and the better off in our society which are completely unacceptable in a modern Britain. And it is children who pay the biggest price. That is why programmes like Sure Start, like the enhanced maternity grants, increased child benefit and the New Deal for Communities are so vital and why we should fight so hard to protect them against those who would abolish them.

"Next, we will reform the treatment of the most serious illnesses such as cancer and heart disease. Up until now, there have been no national standards and patchy treatment. Some get drugs, others do not. Some are seen quickly, others are not. For each of the main conditions, there will be a national framework of standards which will lay down minimum standards of access and care to which patients should be entitled. For cancer, for example, this means maximum waiting times covering not just referral to diagnosis but also diagnosis to treatment; a big expansion in cancer screening and cancer specialists; and an end to the postcode lottery in prescribing cancer drugs. Four hundred thousand patients every year will benefit from new equipment for diagnosing and treating cancer. For coronary heart disease there will be an extra £230 million a year by 2004; a 50 per cent increase in cardiologists; and shorter waits for heart operations.

"These national service frameworks will reflect a fundamental change in the relationship between central government and the local NHS. The centre will do what it must do: set standards; monitor performance; support modernisation; put in place a proper system of inspection; and, where necessary, correct failure. The new Commission for Health Improvement will inspect and report on hospitals, primary care groups and primary care trusts. This information, like Ofsted on schools, will be available to the public. If necessary, the worst performing trusts will have new management put in. The 3,000 non-executive board members of trusts and health authorities will not in future be appointed by the Secretary of State but by an independent appointments commission. There will be a new independent panel to advise the Secretary of State on proposed reorganisations of local hospitals and health services.

"There will be maximum devolution of power to local health professionals. Primary care groups will over time move to being primary care trusts offering minor surgery, physiotherapy and diagnostic tests and minor operations in the local primary care centre. And for all PCTs, health authorities and hospital trusts there will be a new system—what is called "earned autonomy"—which will radically reduce the amount of central intervention where performance is high. Patients put their trust in frontline doctors. So do we.

"The best performers will be given greater freedom and flexibility and all will get access to additional funds tied to clear outcomes in performance.

"This will include a new framework, a concordat, with the private sector. There should be and will be no barrier to partnership with the private sector where appropriate, as the PFI hospital building programme shows. Where the facilities of the private sector can improve care or help fill gaps in capacity, we should use it. But let me make one thing clear. We will never permit people to be forced out of the NHS for non-urgent care. That would destroy the NHS. Where the private sector is used, it will be fully within the NHS service-free at the point of use to the patient.

"We also examined in detail alternative methods of funding the NHS. We concluded that the proposals of some to expand healthcare through tax incentives for private health insurance were massively inefficient and took vital resources out of the NHS and that moving entirely to a continental European type of social insurance system, while less inequitable than many other suggested alternatives, would cost an extra £1,000 to £1,500 per employee per annum. We also estimated that through the NHS, administrative costs are hugely reduced compared with other systems. We were therefore confirmed in our view that modernisation of the NHS was what was required not its dismantling.

"At the heart of these reforms is the idea of re-designing the system round the patient. Too often, whatever the quality of actual care, the patient is catered for in dirty wards, rundown premises with standards of food and basic amenities far below what would be tolerable in other services. Part of the reforms outlined go to remedy this situation. Clean wards and better hospital food will become central to trusts' work, with new resources to back it up. This will get under way now. By 2002, 95 per cent of mixed sex wards will have gone. NHS Direct will be available in all parts of the country. In time, we aim to have the ability to link all parts of the system through technology so one call will put the patient immediately to the right place.

"By 2005, booked appointments will take the place of old waiting lists. As a first big step towards this, all hospitals will by April 2001 be using booking for two of their major conditions. By 2003–04, two-thirds of all appointments will be pre-booked.

"By 2004, there will be an end to long waits in accident and emergency and people will get an appointment with a GP within a maximum of 48 hours. Plus, if an operation is cancelled on the day it is due to take place, other than for medical reasons, patients will get another one within 28 days or have their treatment funded somewhere else.

"Patients will also have more say and more choice with a patient advocate and forum in every hospital to give patients immediate help with sorting out their complaints and a voice in how the hospital is run.

"Over time, these changes, plus the money and staff, will allow waiting to come down substantially. By 2005, the maximum waiting time for an outpatient appointment will be three months and for an in-patient six months, rather than the present 18 months with urgent cases being seen the most rapidly. Average waiting times will, as a result, also come down from seven weeks to five weeks for outpatients and from three months to seven weeks for operations. That means reduced waiting times for all conditions—not only some. And our eventual objective, provided that we recruit the staff and that the NHS makes the reforms, is to reduce the maximum waiting time for any stage of treatment to three months by end of 2008.

"Many other proposals for change are set out in the plan. It will mean, over time, a very radical change in the NHS. But I emphasise to the country that it will take time. Some changes will be fast; others are crucially dependent on new investment in staff and facilities. Staff are crucial to this process. Uniquely, the principles that underpin the plan command the wide support of professions and staff across the NHS, as will be seen from the signatures to these principles at the start of the plan.

"But there is another cause for optimism. At every level of the NHS there are already examples where change and reform have made a difference. We know that the plan is achievable because somewhere in the NHS it is being achieved. The challenge has been to remove the outdated practices and perverse incentives that have prevented the best from becoming the norm. And I make this clear to NHS staff: we shall continue with the same system of co-operative working and partnership that has characterised the past four months. This is the beginning and not the end of that process.

"The challenge is to make the NHS once again the healthcare system that the world most envies. Now, with the money being invested, the reforms can follow. Therefore, we can proclaim loud and clear that the idea of decent healthcare, based not on one's wealth or position but on one's need and suffering, is not an old-fashioned principle that has had its day but is, rather, a timeless principle that this generation has found the courage to reinvigorate for the modern world. I commend the plan to the House".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made earlier today by the Prime Minister. As the House knows well, over the course of the past few weeks, the noble Baroness and I have dealt with a number of such Statements emanating from the Prime Minister. I have to say that this is the first one of any real substance. Compared to the banalities of the annual report or even the one about the G8 Summit earlier this week, this Statement is very much worth dealing with.

Of course, that is why the Prime Minister elbowed aside the Secretary of State and decided to make the Statement himself. Therefore, I express my sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. The House has come to appreciate his deep knowledge of healthcare and I am sorry that he did not have the opportunity to make the Statement today.

In essence—and I know that the noble Baroness will forgive me for saying this—much of the Statement atones for and, indeed, repudiates the policies pursued in the first years of this Government, for which the noble Baroness herself bears some responsibility. In that sense, it is particularly appropriate that she should be making the Statement this afternoon in this House. This must also be one of those eye-catching areas, referred to in the infamous leaked memo, with which the Prime Minister wanted to be associated as closely as possible.

The Statement deals with our most important national service. The last Conservative government gave the NHS record levels of support and the next Conservative government will do the same. We have made clear that we shall match whatever spending the Government commit to the support of healthcare in Britain. Therefore, the debate is not about how much we shall spend but about how it will be spent. We are becoming familiar enough with this Government to know that we shall need to study the small print with great care before we can reach a final conclusion on that.

Is it not extraordinary that this Statement was not the Statement made three years ago? During the election the Prime Minister said that there were 24 hours to save the NHS. Since then we have seen three wasted years in which many of the best initiatives of the last government have been torn up for narrow political reasons and precious little else has been done. One has only to look at the present day realities. Waiting lists to see a consultant are up by 154,000; 80 per cent of health authorities report that more patients are waiting over a year for their operations; the number of heart bypass operations has fallen for the first time in 25 years; and, as the Prime Minister's Statement acknowledged, morale among staff in the service is exceptionally low.

As we now know, the Prime Minister's closest adviser has written:

"TB has not delivered. He said he would improve the NHS but instead things have got worse".

Quite! Therefore, we must all think that this Statement marks a new beginning—a real break away from the course plotted in 1997 and 1998—and, so far as it does, it will have our strong support.

We welcome, for example, the help given to older people in nursing homes—a measure that we had been calling for. We congratulate Professor Sutherland and the Royal Commission, who are the real authors of this proposal. However, will the noble Baroness explain where the boundaries are drawn between personal care, for which the NHS will not pay, and nursing care, for which it now will? For example, how much care for an Alzheimer's disease patient is classed as personal care and how much as nursing care? Will bathing or feeding a dementia patient be personal and paid for, as the Royal Commission suggested, or will it be disallowed as nursing care? Has a decision been taken by Her Majesty's Government on where the line will be drawn?

We welcome other aspects of this Statement. We welcome the additional responsibilities given to nurses. Professionals, such as pharmacists, nurses and members of the professions supplementary to medicine, have long been under-used in the NHS. We welcome the renewed commitments to care for serious conditions, such as cancer and heart disease. We welcome the additional resources for healthcare. And we hope that the money is used wisely and that better patient care will be the result.

However, the Prime Minister seemed unclear about his attitude to the private sector. On the one hand, he extends a ban on trained consultants working in the private sector; on the other, he talks of co-operation in treating patients. Is it not about time that the Government got over their schizophrenia with regard to private health and acknowledged and embraced it as part of our national resource, to be used wherever it is of service to NHS patients, always free, of course, at the point of use? Bluntly, can the noble Baroness tell us unequivocally this afternoon that she welcomes the existence of the private sector in health in this country?

Now that there is no argument about lack of resources, will the Government restore GPs' freedom, abolished last year, to send patients to the hospital of their choice? And will the noble Baroness tell the House whether the waiting list initiative remains a core of the Government's policy on health? And when the Prime Minister declares an end to what he calls the "postcode lottery for drug prescribing", can the noble Baroness confirm that that will apply to the prescription of drugs for patients of chronic conditions, such as, specifically, MS?

We shall wait to see how the plan works. If it is to work, it will do so only because of the skill and dedication of the hundreds of thousands of people who work in the NHS. We on this side of the House share in paying our tribute to them. However, if I have one nagging worry about this Statement and about this policy, it is that the Government trust them too little in some respects and trust centralisation too much.

The Government abandoned local initiatives when they scrapped GP fundholding and the autonomy of NHS trusts. Yet many of the best initiatives in the NHS have come from local innovation. I hope that the noble Baroness can confirm that it is not the Government's aspiration to move to an entirely salaried GP service. I hope, too, that she can confirm that, in centralising GP and consultant contracts, they will not lose their personal concern for the individual patient and freedom of action that has always characterised the best in healthcare.

This afternoon, the Prime Minister, and the noble Baroness in this House, made an important statement of intent. It requires examination and further debate. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to indicate her approval—if not definitely conclude that it will happen—for a debate to take place in this House when we return in the autumn so that the Statement can be properly judged. It is very important that this House, particularly with the great expertise that exists within it, should be allowed to take a view.

My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made elsewhere by the Prime Minister. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in only one major respect: it is a pity that this Statement was not made two or three years ago. History will say that the great error was that the Chancellor committed himself to the spending plans that he inherited. Over the past two or three years, the National Health Service has deteriorated as a result of inadequate spending.

However, the tone of my remarks, which I hope will be echoed elsewhere, is that the Statement and the plan deserve a generous welcome. It is the best statement of policy that I have seen from this Government. I hope that it will receive wide support. We are all in the business of politics and I fully understand that there will be argument about the detail. It will be the duty of this House and another place to monitor the progress of the plan. I shall return to that point. Having said that, however, I hope that there will be a genuine attempt to find a consensus among all parties that will enable the national health service staff at every level to get on with the job.

I note that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, effectively gave an undertaking on the quantum—in other words, he said that the Conservatives would not spend less—but he went on to imply that there might be major changes in the direction of the spending. Of course, one cannot deny the right of any opposition party to think of alternative ways of spending, but it would be a great mistake on this occasion to look for reasons to disagree with the proposals, rather than reasons to go along with them. Agreement will give the National Health Service the stability that it requires.

Of course, we can argue about the past. For a quarter of a century, from 1948, we believed that our national health service was the best in the world. We were living on sentiment, because no government did enough to give it a proper future. In the end, it was limping and falling behind. Then there was another quarter of a century of positive neglect. I do not want to argue about who was responsible. Political parties did not give the necessary leadership in saying that it is impossible to maintain the quality of the National Health Service that the nation requires unless the costs are met. Those costs ultimately fall on the taxpayer and on no one else. It would have been far better if we had been honest about that throughout that long period.

I say that because successive governments have fiddled with management and structure to avoid the central issue. However justified some of the changes may have been, as are further changes now, there is no escaping the fact that the National Health Service cannot be put on a proper basis and meet its agreed objective without the resources being made available to it. I ask for consistency over a considerable period of time in the availability of resources, and some consistency in objectives and the means of delivering them.

Let us recognise that mistakes will be made. Some priorities may change. That is the nature of medicine. There will be advances and events in medicine and technology that we shall need to take account of. However, within that framework, there will still be a great deal of room for giving the NHS support on all sides. I hope that that will be done.

No one should seek to restore the past and move back to 1948, more than half a century ago. I take it from what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has said that the principles set out in the Statement are endorsed on all sides. Those objectives—that need, not wealth should determine the availability of healthcare and that that care should be the very best—should be common to us all. They are repeated at the end of the Statement, with reference to the poorest and the better-off. It is shaming that the poorest in this country have a worse standard of healthcare than those who are comfortably off and know where to go to get considerably better care. We must apply ourselves to that issue. That means that a great deal more must be done in the areas of most need.

It might be said that we find it easy to support the plan because, for the most part, it is consistent with Liberal Democrat policies. However, even if it were not, we should try very hard to examine each issue on its merits and see whether we can support the plan.

I have two points to make. The first is on long-term care—an issue that is familiar to the Leader of the House and on which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. We believe that the Royal Commission's majority report was right: we should not separate nursing from personal and social care. More to the point, we do not believe that the policy will work. That is one of the proposals in the plan that, in the end, will come unstitched.

The second point that needs to be looked at carefully is the role and effectiveness of public/private partnerships. We should remain sceptical about their effectiveness and about whether they are the best and cheapest way of getting the money required for the investment on which I hope that we are agreed.

Apart from sharing the view of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that an early debate would be welcome, despite our heavy programme, my only question for the noble Baroness is how the Government intend to monitor and audit the process that they have begun today. We all want it to succeed. How can we ensure that it does and how will progress be reported to Parliament?

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their welcome for the Statement. In a sense, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, made his own point by saying that it was a Statement of substance. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, went further, saying that it was the best policy programme put forward by the Government since the election. I endorse the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about the knowledge and understanding of my noble friend, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, but with all due respect to my noble friend, the serious and substantive nature of the policy statement makes it worthy of the Prime Minister's involvement.

Both noble Lords have to some extent ignored the opening paragraphs of the Statement, which deal with the economic situation and the reasons why the Government are coming forward with the Statement now. As we have said many times, including at the time of the recent Comprehensive Spending Review proposals, the Government have now enabled this level of public investment in the health service, which was agreed at the time of the Budget, by achieving a stable economic platform.

The past four months have been spent in a collaborative process, as was mentioned in the Statement, with members of the professions, members of the public, members of the voluntary sector and people representing NHS staff, to produce this comprehensive plan. It has been brought forward now rather than in 1997 because of the state of the economy that we inherited, in which 42 per cent of public expenditure went on financing debt and on social security payments. We have changed that to the extent that the figure is now 17 per cent. That has enabled a real-terms rate of investment in the health service of 6 per cent a year, making it possible for us to make substantive and important changes.

The questions of detail about GP contracts and the way in which consultants and others are employed are relevant, but the point about the relationship with the private sector is clearly set out in the Statement and in the detail of the report. The Government have said that where there is extra capacity in the private sector that can enable health service patients to be treated quickly and appropriately, particularly at times when the health service is under pressure, such as in the winter months, that extra capacity should be used.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, used the word "schizophrenia". There is nothing split-minded about the question of the private healthcare industry and the concerns that the Government have about consultants. I think that most people will understand that that is a pragmatic approach to using the resources of the private healthcare system within the overall healthcare economy. On the other hand, if one considers the enormous expenses invested by the taxpayers to train doctors in the health service and take them on beyond undergraduate education to the point at which they achieve consultant appointments, it seems to me perfectly legitimate to say that they should then invest their time for a period of years exclusively in the health service. If they then have opportunities to take on private practice, that is something which they can in turn enjoy. But the concept of a return on the taxpayers' investment in this extremely long and complicated training, in the form of a reinvestment of their very high skills into the health service, is generally acceptable to both members of the public and to the medical profession itself.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked about issues related to prescribing and individual types of disease and medical conditions to which these would apply. Of course, under the national service frameworks and the development of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence and its work on recommending ways in which treatment should be applied in every part of the country, all conditions will over time be able to achieve this uniform part of treatment and care. One of the criticisms most vociferously expressed by patients all over the country is that their expectations of what they will receive in one particular postcode will not be the same as in another. The development of these national service frameworks will, of course, lead to much greater stability and uniformity of treatment and care in that way.

The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, asked me how these new standards will be monitored. That is a rather complicated question, which I am delighted to answer in précis. However, it is a question to which we may usefully return. The current measures of performance are contained within the so-called performance assessment framework. These will be extended, because they presently apply basically to health authorities and it is thought appropriate that they should be extended to all NHS trusts, which would, of course, include all district general hospitals as well as primary care trusts. That system will therefore be extended.

As I said in the Statement, it will be monitored by the Commission for Health Improvement, and the Audit Commission will work with the Commission for Health Improvement to achieve that monitoring. We hope that in time this will result in a progression to a situation in which the very best of NHS practice, which certainly occurs in many parts of the country, can be extended throughout the whole of the system. One sadness about the NHS at the moment is that there are often pockets of extraordinarily good practice that are not spread around throughout the system. Monitoring by an organisation such as the Commission for Health Improvement, working on the basis of the system which I previously described, with national service frameworks in place to enable particular standards of care and treatment to be expected and provided by all hospitals and general practitioners, should enable proper benchmarking and proper dissemination of good standards throughout the system.

A number of questions were asked about the details of the organisation, including the questions relating to prescribing to which I have referred. Overall, the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about prescribing is "yes".

With regard to the question about the relationship between personal care and nursing services, the issue of agreeing how one defines a service that is delivered under the nursing care arrangement and one which, as the noble Lord rightly said, could possibly be described as personal care, has always been a grey area. What has now been rather sensibly decided is that, instead of trying to demarcate between different services, it should be understood that all care provided by a registered nurse should be eligible for the free treatment arrangements. That defines it more by way of the person who is giving the care rather than by some artificially demarcated system of services, and I know that the Government and the health service together feel that that is a more useful way in which to approach it.

I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, spoke as he did about the overall and universal way in which we hope that this will be taken forward to improve healthcare and to improve the situation in which we have gross inequalities in standards of health in various parts of our community. In my view, one of the most hopeful and inspiring parts of the report is that which contains the signatures right at the beginning of this document. They cover everybody who is involved in the provision of healthcare and the leaders of health services in this country, all of whom have put their signatures to this document, which very clearly sets out the core principles and the NHS mission statement, to use that inelegant word, which lie behind the health service and which will continue to represent its values in the modern setting of the 21st century. They range from the President of the Royal College of Physicians to chief executives and chairpersons of individual, voluntary organisations. That creates a universal accord for the virtue of continuing, delivering, promoting and improving publicly-funded healthcare in this country, which I am sure the vast majority of our citizens want and expect.

Hear, hear!

My Lords, on a day when we have heard much about improvements to the health service, can the noble Leader of the House assure us that, in the abolition of postcode prescribing, NICE will not result in a levelling down rather than a levelling up? In particular, can she comment on the imminent announcement of the multiple sclerosis Beta Interferon NICE decision? Can she assure me that that will not be slipped out quietly in the shadow of this report?

My Lords, I am afraid I cannot comment on the noble Baroness's final point. As I understand it, the Government have not yet received this. Therefore, I am not in a position to comment on it.

On the noble Baroness's overall point regarding levelling down, of course that will not be the case. The whole point of the national clinical frameworks, as devised and set out by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, is precisely to incorporate both clinical excellence and cost-effectiveness when considering the matter of prescribing.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister. I also welcome the commitment now demonstrated by the Government to making the NHS responsive to the needs of patients and helping NHS staff to deliver the care. These are radical reforms, and I support much of what is contained in the plan.

Consultant and specialist registrar expansion is most welcome. We know from today's Question Time that more consultants are needed in the service. However, I should like to ask the noble Baroness if a stop will now be put to the current round of reductions of specialist registrars in training that is recommended in respect of some of the specialities. If a stop is not put to it, there will be difficulty in filling consultant expansion.

I also welcome the recommendation in the plan for the funding of specialist registrars from central funds. The current arrangement of 50 per cent of the funding coming from postgraduate deeds and 50 per cent from the trust is not working satisfactorily. Many specialist registrar posts are not currently being filled.

In relation to specialist registrar training, I was, as the current chairman of the Specialist Training Authority, a little surprised to read the proposal to establish a medical education standards board to replace the current Specialist Training Authority and the Joint Committee on Postgraduate Education in General Practice. Nevertheless, although I welcome the proposal to establish a board with a wider representation from the professions, the NHS and the lay public, I hope that the Minister will agree that an opportunity will be provided to those currently responsible for running the two competent authorities on postgraduate medical education to take part.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his authoritative thinking about some of these issues. As he will be aware, all the concerns about registrar training and training for particular specialties are being looked at by the overall workforce planning initiative of the NHS. As I understand it from the document, it is proposed that there should be 1,000 more specialist registrars by 2004 and those will be targeting key specialties. That will obviously deliver a further acceleration in the number of consultants later in the decade.

As I said in the Statement, one of the advantages which those who have written the Statement and worked on it in government have experienced is the enormously co-operative and collaborative part played by the medical profession and the different specialists who have taken part in developing that plan. As I also said when repeating the Statement, the Government regard that as the beginning, not the end, of that process. It is our intention that this matter should be taken forward on a collaborative basis.

My Lords, those of us who hold at heart the best interests of the NHS and, indeed, do not believe that private medicine is the route for its salvation will support the broad thrust of the plan before us today. There will be some disappointment, however, in terms of the treatment of older people, as my noble friend indicated, and the failure to accept the recommendations on personal care.

There is one particular issue in addition to that in terms of the limits on means testing for those entitled to accommodation costs in nursing and residential homes. Will the noble Baroness comment on that? There is also a considerable gap in terms of the treatment of those in hospices. There seems to be no mention of palliative or terminal care. That is an essential part of our health and social care. I wonder why that particular gap should exist.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, invites me to repeat what I said in reply to the two noble Lords who spoke first. The Government are making an unprecedented new investment over the next three years in improving old people's services by making them more responsive and more fairly funded. The Government's investment will cover the costs of the Royal Commission's recommendations and there is no shortfall in the proposals which the Government have made against those made by the Royal Commission. But the Government have decided that making personal care universally free is not the best use of those resources.

I shall have to write to the noble Lord on the question of hospices. I too am not familiar with any detailed recommendations on that work but I recognise its importance. If there are proposals in the report which I have not yet read about or ancillary proposals, I shall write to the noble Lord.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Government deserve warmest congratulations on a highly constructive and tremendously impressive set of proposals? She must have been very proud to announce them. They are great.

I have just one reservation. Is my noble friend aware that there is a great deal of anxiety among certain disabled people about charging for personal care, mentioned earlier? In point of fact, there is no real difference between nursing care and personal care because people need that personal care because of their sickness or disability. There is no real difference whatever. Will the Government reconsider that point?

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his first comments. I was very proud to be able to repeat the Statement. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, I realise that I have walked into a situation which should properly be for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, given the enormous amount of work which he has done in this field in the past two years. It is a great privilege for me because, as the Statement said, this is part of the fundamental principles of a civilised society: to try to make the reforms of the health service work in the way which this outline report will now do when it is developed in detail. The Government's reputation will last on this for many generations.

On the point about charging people, I must repeat to my noble friend the point which I made to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. The Government decided that while making a major investment in the care of old people, which goes beyond that recommended by the Royal Commission, it was not the best use of resources to try to demarcate in the way which I hoped I explained earlier between the types of care being offered, one category being personal care and the other being nursing care.

I know that that is not entirely satisfactory and may be difficult to implement on the ground. But if we identify those services which are offered free as those being offered by registered nurses in whatever environment and surroundings they offer those services, then that is a major step forward which I know my noble friend will welcome.

My Lords, I too hope that these proposals will succeed. There is one proposal which I do not think the noble Baroness mentioned but which was mentioned on television this morning; namely, that newly qualified consultants employed within the National Health Service should for the first seven years not take private patients. If that is not the proposal, that is splendid.

My Lords, the reason that I shook my head is that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was not here when I gave a very detailed answer to that point when it was raised on an earlier question. I shall be delighted to repeat it. It seems that I am invited not to repeat it.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that assurance.

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has misunderstood on both occasions. The point I was making was that I had answered the questions about the way in which consultants would be asked to work only for the health service immediately after they qualified. I was not responding to the point that the television programme was inaccurate. As far as the noble Lord described it, the television programme was accurate.

My Lords, I welcome the plans and the report and I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I want to make two points.

Order, order!

My Lords, I am sorry, I want to ask two questions. I welcome the fact that nursing care—looking after old people—will now be free at the point of delivery, wherever the person is. But could not that be defined sufficiently broadly to encompass care which needs to be given or supervised by a fully qualified nurse? As the numbers of old people increase, there will have to be some instances of delegation to people who are not fully state registered. We do not fall into little boxes, particularly as we age. Many people suffering from multiple pathologies get weaker and stronger as they are cared for during treatment and rehabilitation.

The other point is about children. The RCN, among other bodies, has pointed to the urgent need for children and young people to have an explicitly key focus at all levels of health policy.

My Lords, the Government agree with the point which the noble Baroness has just made about the need for a special focus on children and young people's services.

On the previous point, I fear that I am becoming repetitive. I can only repeat what I said to my noble friend Lord Ashley and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Perhaps the noble Baroness will refer to paragraph 2.9 on page 11 of the report which states:

"In the future, the NHS will meet the costs of registered nurse time spent on providing, delegating or supervising care in any setting. This is a wider definition of nursing care than proposed in the note of dissent to the Royal Commission report which suggested that it should include those tasks which only a registered nurse could undertake".

My Lords, the debate has focussed on care of the elderly. Have maternity services been considered at all? The Statement said that for each of the main conditions there will be a national framework of standards. The National Service Framework for Mental Health has been successful. In the debate that took place with members of staff in the National Health Service, were maternity services rated as a high priority in the order of national frameworks that will be established?

I welcome the idea of care trusts, where local councils and primary care trusts merge. Will those be new organisations? If not, where will the corporate governance, the accountability, lie?

My Lords, I do not believe that maternity services as such are contained in the national plan. I am afraid that I cannot tell the noble Baroness what private discussions were held with National Health Service staff. My suspicion is that if National Health Service staff had wanted to focus on those services and had wanted to advocate them with great vigour, they would have been contained in the plan. That is not to say that they did not advocate something that it is worth while looking at, but it was not something that emerged as a major national priority. That is probably because, on the whole, maternity services are rather good.

The next national service framework, as the noble Baroness may be aware, will be in relation to older people. The Government have not made a decision about the national service framework to be developed after that. It probably would be useful if other priorities were set out and perhaps in that context maternity services would be included.

I understand that one way of looking at the care trusts—this may be familiar to the noble Baroness with her great knowledge of the organisation of health and social care in the United Kingdom—relates to the way in which social care and health boards are organised; for example, in Northern Ireland there is an integrated provision of services and governance seems to be satisfactory.

My Lords, this afternoon is a very moving occasion for me. I sat in this House, which was then the House of Commons, while the entire National Health Service Bill was passed. I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the way in which the plan and programme, which I have now read, have been put before the House. I also congratulate the Opposition on the honourable part that they have played this afternoon in sustaining the Government who will need all the help they can get from all quarters of the country in order that the plan may be achieved. What Aneurin Bevan started in 1948 now has the strong probability of being furthered to the good of the country as a whole.

My Lords, I strongly welcome the Statement, particularly the significant increase in expenditure of more than a third over the next few years. However, I do not agree with the comments that National Health Service expenditure should have been greatly increased three years ago because, when the Government came into power, there was a deficit of £28 billion. Nevertheless, the Government have had three years to consider these proposals. Included in the proposals is an increase of 7,000 in the number of doctors. Will the Government and the noble Baroness consider what the public should be told about the fact that it will take between five and seven years to train 7,000 new doctors and, therefore, they must not expect quick results under these new plans?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs. I believe that I said in the Statement that such matters must be related to the time for training and the time for improving the labour force, if one can describe it that way, of the health service in all professions and in all healthcare areas. We are building on a situation where already more doctors and nurses are in training and more doctors and nurses are being recruited into the health service than three years ago. The additional number that has been announced this afternoon is based on a position that is already strong.

My Lords, the noble Baroness referred in the Statement to 100 new hospital schemes over the next 10 years. Are they to be funded under the PFI initiative or centrally? In relation to her reference to run-down premises—I draw on my own experience as a chairman of an NHS trust in London for several years—can she tell the House whether the system of capital allocations will be changed to allow those that may have to last for 10 years or more to be suitably built, rebuilt, added to, or adapted in a way that meets the aspirations to which the Statement refers?

My Lords, the expansion of buildings and facilities, to which the noble Lord rightly draws attention, will be achieved by a combination of the schemes that are exclusively PFI and other methods of funding. I am sure that the noble Lord will welcome the fact that within the plan, although not within the Statement, was the fact that this autumn £30 million will be given to hospitals to clean up wards and so on—in other words, to have a spring clean in October.

My Lords, the whole nation will be deeply grateful to the Government for the increased spending on the health service, for their focus on the fabric of the health service and for their focus on, and, above all, their support for, the staff of the health service. It is greatly cheering to hear the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, make the point that this should not be a political football and that we should try to find an accord on all sides so that we can establish the best way of managing the health service.

Perhaps I may make a specialised plea for one group of patients who are rather neglected, who are subject to the postcode lottery and who, in many cases, are subject to inordinate waiting lists and a great unevenness of practice. Given the Government's commitment to family values and the importance of the family, can my noble friend the Leader of the House give us some assurance that people with reproductive difficulties will be better catered for in the forthcoming health service?

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his support for the plan overall. On his special pleading point for his own specialty, which we understand, I am sure that he realises that some of the arrangements that are being made for the commissioning of specialist services should iron out the problems that he has described to your Lordships' House relating to "postcode treatment" of people who have particular problems. That is something that could be addressed by a national service framework and, as in the case of maternity services mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, this could be a good candid ate for future work in that area.

I am grateful to my noble friend for making the point that this must be a collaborative effort by everyone involved in healthcare. I recommend to the entire House the statement of principles at the beginning of the plan which sets out, in the most sensible and clear way, the basis on which the plan will be taken forward. As I said originally in answer to another question, it is signed by all those who have a particular responsibility for delivering healthcare, not only on a non-political basis, but also on a professional and a patient-centred basis. We all hope to achieve that.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the first four items in the report were first put to the House in the committee's last report which was debated on 21st June. At the end of the debate I withdrew the Motion to approve the report, partly in response to complaints that the report did not contain enough information. At its most recent meeting, the committee reaffirmed its approval of these items, which are now reported back to your Lordships but in greater detail. The final four items in the report are put before the House for the first time. I do not intend to speak to any of them now but I shall try to answer any questions Members may have about them.

As I believe the House will expect, I now turn to item 5, the proposal to appoint a consultant to lead a review of the management structure of the House and the structure for taking decisions about its services. After this proposal was criticised during the debate on 21st June, both the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee and the Offices Committee reconsidered the matter at great length. For the reasons set out in the report, the committee remains convinced that a review is necessary. But as your Lordships will have seen from the report, the terms of the proposal have been revised and, in addition, we recommend that it should take place under the supervision of a small steering group of Peers.

The financial management structures of the House have not been reviewed since they were put into place in the early 1990s when the two Houses assumed control of all parliamentary expenditure. In the last financial year, the budget for this House alone was £45 million. A review would help to assure the House that its services are being delivered efficiently and that its procurement procedures are robust enough to avoid the threat of litigation.

As the report notes, the House of Commons may change the way in which it supervises the services which are shared between the two Houses, such as the Parliamentary Works Directorate. It seems sensible for this House to take any changes into account and to respond to them if necessary.

I should also like to say a word on behalf of the Clerk of the Parliaments, who has been charged with the responsibility for delivering services for the House. He would welcome advice on these matters and, if for no other reason, Members may wish to permit him to seek the advice that he requires in order to discharge his responsibilities to the House. That is not intended to imply that the House is badly managed at present. However, although it is clearly the case that we have great expertise within the House, I would hope that we would not regard ourselves as the sole repository of all wisdom and knowledge on these matters or that we are not capable of benefiting from outside advice. A review would benefit from the involvement of someone with knowledge of modern management practices and who could approach the task without any preconceived views. That is why the committee recommends the appointment of Mr Braithwaite to conduct the review.

As the report emphasises, the final decision on whether or not to implement any recommendations will be made by the House and its committees. But I appreciate the desire within the House to keep any review under its control, especially after the criticism of this proposal last time. The committee therefore proposes that a small steering group of Members of the House be appointed to supervise the review. I do not believe that the House has anything to fear from what is proposed, since decisions remain within the control of the House. On the contrary, I believe that improvements to our management structure can only be to the benefit of individual noble Lords and the House as a whole. I commend the report to the House.

Moved, That the sixth report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 97) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.) Following is the report referred to:

My Lords, I thank the Chairman of Committees for that statement. Before I turn to the main issue of the consultant, perhaps I can put two main points to the House on paragraph 1 and the pay proposals for fast-stream Clerks. I strongly agree with that and am delighted to support it. We need good quality Clerks and I am very happy with that proposal.

In paragraph 2, under salaries of the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman, I have a specific question which was not answered last time. We are now told that the increase is from around £64,000 to £66,000, back-dated to 1st April 2000. That is a perfectly reasonable increase, which I support. But, according to the annual report and accounts, a year earlier the Chairman's salary was £54,000. So the increase during the course of the year was £10,000. I do not know whether that is an oversight but I shall be glad to know how that happened. I see the Leader of the Opposition nodding, indicating he too seeks a reply. It may be that there is some special reason for that £10,000 increase. If so, perhaps the committee could find a special reason for increasing the expenses for your Lordships.

Let me turn immediately to the main issue, which I raised last time; that is, the question of the consultant. I am obliged to the Chairman of Committees for the further information. We have now heard, and read in the report, the case for a review. Let me say at once that I strongly agree with that; after 10 years there can be little doubt about it. The case for a consultant, however, is an entirely different matter. The last time we discussed this, my impression was that most, if not all, of your Lordships agreed with me that we did not need a consultant.

We now see in the report that the main case put forward for a consultant is that the House,

"would greatly benefit from the involvement of someone with in-depth knowledge of modern management practices and who could approach the task with an open mind and without preconceived views".

I hope the committee will not mind my saying that that is an insult to your Lordships. We are now told, as a way out of this difficulty, that we are to set up a small steering committee—presumably made up of Members of your Lordships' House with open minds. I shall be glad to know how they will select that type of Peer.

We are told that the consultant will lead the review. What will he do? One thing he will do is consult. That is what most consultants do. They then tell us what those they consulted recommend. That will be the case here. Except, as we saw from the House of Commons report, the Members will be consulted. So presumably the consultant will consult noble Lords with or without open minds; then the consultant and the committee will come back to your Lordships' House with the result.

But the Offices Committee does not simply recommend a consultant; it recommends a specific consultant—Mr Braithwaite. Let me make it clear that I do not know the gentleman. I imagine he is a good consultant; he gets paid reasonably well. So the Offices Committee will appoint him, despite the fact that it has not used the rules that normally apply; namely, the Nolan rules. The committee recommends we appoint that gentlemen with or without the Nolan rules. Why? Because he did a great job in the Commons.

I understand that we want to begin the review as soon as possible. But the gentleman concerned was appointed in the Commons in October 1998. He reported one parliamentary year later and that report was debated in January 2000. If we have such a review, with or without the consultant, can the Chairman of Committees ensure that some of the interim decisions are brought before your Lordships' House rather more quickly than happened in the other place?

We are asked to support this review without being told what it will cost. The committee cannot tell us because it does not know how long it will take. Perhaps we could be told how much an hour or a day will be paid. I can tell your Lordships that the cost to the other place of employing Mr Braithwaite was £77,000, "of identifiable expenditure". That is a new phrase. So £77,000 was "identifiable", but we have no idea what was unidentifiable. No one could tell us that. But that figure included the cost of printing a 179-page report. So the amount we are being asked to agree to will be in that region. The report in the other place was actually drafted in its entirety by a senior Clerk. So perhaps that will stand as a warning to the Clerk of the Parliaments to consider who will draft this report here if we agree to it.

Unless noble Lords have changed their minds from what was implied the last time we discussed this matter, the setting up of a steering committee, with or without a consultant, is crucial. If that committee was appointed by your Lordships—the Leader of the Opposition shows surprise that I suggest that—it could employ a consultant or an adviser, but that should be for that committee to decide.

Judging by the way that these matters progress, this is likely to finish up being dealt with by the usual channels. I hope, therefore, that we shall at least be given an assurance that the committee will consist of senior Back-Benchers. They are the Members upon whom we can rely to speak for us—that is to say, for your Lordships' House. If I may say so, with the greatest possible respect, this should not be a matter for the usual channels, or even the usual authorities. The committee must represent us.

So I hope that we shall be given an assurance that, whatever happens, we shall have a speedy interim report that can be dealt with properly, and which includes, for example, the question of accommodation referred to in paragraph 8 of this report. We know that there are some 40 rooms in this House that are still used by the House of Commons, despite the fact that the other place now has 200 extra rooms at a cost of £1 million a piece. I hope that we shall not be reminded of the terrible cost about which we are talking, when the other place still has—and will not give up—40 rooms that should be available to us. I trust that that matter will be dealt with quickly by the proposed committee.

I rest there what case I have. I hope that we shall receive assurance that, whatever happens, we shall have an early debate on these matters. I also hope that I shall receive support from all parts of the House for what I have said.

My Lords, as usual, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has put the case far better than I could have done. However, I should like briefly to support the burden of his remarks as regards paragraph 5 of the Select Committee's report. It seems to me to be rather perverse for this report to suggest that there should be a committee whose job would be to steer this review. If that committee has as its purpose the job of steering the review, it seems at least curious that part of that steering exercise should be taken from it and determined before its members have even been appointed. If the job of the committee is to steer that review, would it not be much more sensible for its members to be appointed and for consideration to take place thereafter on who should be appointed to undertake the nuts and bolts of the review, so that that person can report to the committee? In that way, we would have some assurance that the committee is not just a piece of window dressing to enable the powers that be—whoever they may be nowadays—to get through their pre-agreed solution.

It was extremely helpful of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees—indeed, the House should be most grateful to him—to take into account to such a degree the concern that many of us expressed on the previous occasion such a report was debated on the Floor of the House. I wonder whether the noble Lord will be able to consider the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett; namely, that, if the steering committee is to perform its task properly, it would give a number of us a considerable amount of reassurance that the House is in control of its own affairs if the proposed committee were commissioned to examine who might best help it to carry out the review.

It may well be that Mr Braithwaite will be the right man for the job. In fact, there is a good argument for that because, I dare say, a good deal of what another consultant might be required to do would duplicate the work that Mr Braithwaite has already accomplished for another place. Indeed, we might economise on his services in that respect. I believe that this House would be well served if it were possible for the steering committee to be set up first. The committee should then consider who best to appoint to assist it in this task. Thereafter, as is the way with modern appointments, the committee should, if it thinks it right, hold a suitable beauty parade. In that way, we would be assured that the committee had exercised due diligence in deciding upon the appointment.

As I said, the House should be extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who, as we know, is vigilant in such matters. Indeed, his experience as a former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, let alone as Chief Secretary to the Treasury under a previous government, affords him a considerable amount of authority in matters financial.

My Lords, I speak as a relatively new member of this committee. As a simple soldier, I have found myself somewhat perplexed by its proceedings and its organisation. I believe that this is the time for me to say so. The committee seems to have sub-committees that are, apparently, totally autonomous. They do not report, and are not subordinate, to the Offices Committee. Moreover, up until now, it seems to me—and I speak with the greatest respect to the Chairman of Committees—that the Offices Committee has been acting as little more than a rubber stamp as regards certain proposals that come before this House.

The last time that the Select Committee reported to the House I had some reservations about the report, but I kept them to myself. However, when I heard the somewhat acrimonious exchanges that took place at that time in the Chamber, it seemed to me that some of these matters needed to be reconsidered. Those matters have now been looked at and a fuller report is before the House which I hope is more acceptable to your Lordships than the earlier one.

Perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words on the matter about which everyone is most concerned; namely, the proposed appointment of a management consultant. I have to confess that I, too, have had reservations about this and have made them clear in the committee. I am dubious about the need for outside advice. It seems to me that there are people in this House who have the kind of qualifications that are needed to make the sort of recommendations required to improve the structure, the management, and the committee structure of this House.

The argument about the outside consultant having experience of the House of Commons is not entirely persuasive to me. The House of Commons is art entirely different place with a completely different history and traditions. I do not believe that we should place too much emphasis on the experience of a consultant as regards his activities in another place. However, the majority of the committee decided that this appointment was desirable. Being a good democrat, I went along with that decision. Indeed, I am persuaded that there should be a review of some kind. If the majority of the committee want to appoint a management consultant, I am persuaded that that is the proposal and the recommendation that should be made to your Lordships.

However, my only reason for being so persuaded at this stage is because of the two important qualifications that have now been introduced into the report. The first is that the review shall look at the management structure. It may be helpful to the House if I mention the exact words in the report. The recommendation states that there should be,

"a review of the management structure and the structure for taking decisions about the services of the House and other domestic matters, including"—

this is the part that I wish to emphasise—

"the impact on the domestic Committee structure".

That is rather different from the original idea that the management consultant should look at the committee structure. Noble Lords will notice that this qualification is an important one. Whatever else the consultant looks at, it will stop short at,

"the impact on the … Committee structure".

The second, and most important, qualification is the one that we have already discussed; namely, the matter of the steering group. I am persuaded that that will ensure that the House has control of whatever organisation is established to carry out the review. I should like to echo the feeling expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that this should be a committee of Cross-Benchers—

Oh!

I am sorry, my Lords; I meant to say Back-Benchers. However, as I am not a candidate for the job, I am sure that noble Lords will accept that as a slip of the tongue. But that is not to say that I believe that such a committee of Cross-Benchers would not be a good one. The committee should comprise Back-Benchers; it should not consist of either Front-Bench Members or others from the usual channels.

Having made that point, I should stress that I am persuaded that such a review is needed. I hope, therefore, that we can find a way of going ahead and agreeing on how it should be done. It is important for us to know when and how this steering group is to be selected and appointed. I very much hope that the views of the noble Lords who have already spoken, as well as those of noble Lords who will speak shortly, are taken fully into account.

My Lords, I wish to pursue points raised by my noble friend Lord Barnett and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I am sure that Mr Braithwaite is an excellent man and I do not wish anything I say to impugn him in any respect. However, he has carried out a study of the House of Commons and there are certain matters that we should consider. My noble friend mentioned the report which Mr Braithwaite produced. The House of Lords' Offices Select Committee report states on page four that Mr Braithwaite,

"has just completed a second review for the House of Commons into the Parliamentary Works Directorate and the Parliamentary Communications Directorate".

The "Parliamentary Works Directorate" is "parliamentese" for accommodation. Mr Braithwaite has carried out a review of accommodation in the Commons. I understand that that report will be published in September. With the best will in the world, I am sure that all the work that he has carried out has given him a mindset almost as a House of Commons person. I am sure that if he undertakes the job that we are discussing, he will find it difficult to adopt the flexibility which is needed.

I inquired about 7 Little College Street and Millbank House which have been acquired for parliamentary use. I was informed in a Written Answer of 10th July that the annual rent over the road is £33.50 per square foot. The building has a 15-year lease; that is not terribly long. I then tabled a Question to ask how many square feet were involved. I was informed that the area comprised 28,500 square feet. That means that a rent is being paid of £1,035,000.

My noble friend Lord Barnett said that there are 40 rooms in this House which are being used by Members of the House of Commons. I do not like to correct my noble friend but I walked along the second floor corridor this morning and discovered 43. There are 43 offices in our own premises occupied by Members of Parliament from the Commons and yet Portcullis House across the way is being opened up. All this has been examined by Mr Braithwaite. We are in a new situation now. We are becoming more accountable and, in many ways, more representative. We are no longer the poor relation of the other place. In our fight for more resources and better facilities we shall have to come to grips with the House of Commons over a number of matters. I should have thought that one of the first should be the issue of 43 Members of the Commons in offices on our own premises when we are looking for accommodation all over the place and paying rent over the way of £1 million a year.

There is much public scrutiny now of that kind of expenditure. We have a duty to protect ourselves in this regard. I wonder whether a man who is so deeply immersed in the study of all aspects of the House of Commons can bring to bear the total objectivity which is needed. For once, we should think about ourselves and our reputation with the public.

My Lords, I rather regret the trend of employing outsiders to inquire into our affairs. As far as concerns Parliament, this is a comparatively novel innovation. Many of us expressed reservations about the work of the noble Lord, Lord Neill. It is not that we object to the nature of the work that he is carrying out, but he is doing it from outside the House. Some of us thought that that was not the right way to proceed. I wonder whether appointing a consultant from outside the House is the right way to proceed in the matter we are discussing. Is it not better for noble Lords to conduct their own inquiries and look after their own affairs in these matters?

On the question of accommodation, the plain fact is that we are appallingly provided for in this House. Most noble Lords do not even have a desk, never mind a room. Most Members of the Front Benches do not have a room. They are lucky if they share a desk in a room with others. Those shortcomings must be looked into and, I hope, addressed firmly and effectively. As the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, has suggested, let us start with the 43 rooms within our building which I hope the other place will make available when it moves into the new, grand place over the road.

I raise another point which is not directly mentioned in the report but which I believe comes within the description of facilities for Members of your Lordships' House; that is, the medical facilities available to Members of your Lordships' House. I believe that there are good medical facilities available to Members of the other place. I am told that the staff who man those facilities have specifically been told that they may not, except in exceptional circumstances, attend to noble Lords. Will the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees confirm that that is the case? If that is the case, what is the rationale for that? It is not satisfactory, if that is the case.

Finally, I mention one other point which arises from the report which the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has brought before us. The report refers to the decision of the committee to allow our non-parliamentary colleagues—our former hereditary colleagues—to continue to sit on the Steps of the Throne, as was originally provided for. That is entirely right. However, will the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees tell us what work is now being done to review the other facilities available to our former hereditary colleagues? I am one of those who felt that we did not do enough for our departing hereditary colleagues. I know that there is more than one respectable view on that but my view is that we ought to do more. I hope that we can do more. I hope that what is presently provided for will be reviewed on an urgent basis.

My Lords, I hope that I may add a few words of support for the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. I missed what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, called the acrimonious debate which took place on 21st June. However, having considered the report, I fully understand how it arose. I do not think that in retrospect any Member of the Offices Committee should feel at all upset or surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, raised these matters in the way that he did. However, I must confess that I was surprised that the issue arose in that way. I reflected on the debate of 10th May initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. There was a large measure of agreement in the House on that occasion in two respects. The first concerned what I might refer to as management. I said on that occasion:

"I hope we can adopt a more efficient system for the management of our part of the Palace of Westminster. I have seldom sat through more unsatisfactory meetings than those of the Offices Committee of this House.—[Official Report, 10/5/00, col. 1587.]

I think that the view was widely held in the House that something ought to be done about the way we manage our day-to-day affairs.

The second respect concerned policy and scrutiny; that is, whether we were looking after our affairs in the proper way and, in particular, whether we were moving forward on the appointment of Select Committees and whether there were the resources available. The view that I mentioned, which was widely reflected in the debate on 10th May, I thought was reflected in the decision first of the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee and then of the Offices Committee. It was a genuine attempt on the part of those present to address the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, had raised with the general approval of the House.

Perhaps it was unfortunate—however, sometimes things work out this way—that the meeting of the Liaison Committee which addressed the question of committees took place on 26th June, but the report did not appear before the House until, I believe, 17th July. In a sense we got the cart before the horse. The House was not aware that progress was being made on the substance of the matter at a time when it was being asked to endorse the appointment of a consultant.

I believe that lessons have been learnt from this matter. I am sympathetic—I cannot say more than that—to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that the steering group should comprise Back-Benchers.

I hope that the House will not itself attempt the role of management. We are not here as managers; we are here as legislators, as Members of Parliament. It is important that those who are appointed to manage the place are allowed to get on with the job. If this means the appointment of a management consultant, so be it—the decisions will still be made by this House., to which eventually his report will come.

We are nearly at the end of the Session; I hope that we can now get on with it in the spirit of the debate on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Of course there will be some doubt, some unease—we all admit that—but let us get on with it; let us not delay as so often, I am afraid, we are prone to do.

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, I have been a member of the Offices Committee for only a short period of time. It is one of the most remarkable committees that I have ever sat on in my life. If I were to disclose to your Lordships everything that went on, I doubt if you would believe me. However, I am not about to do that. What I will say is that your Lordships would benefit from a scrutiny of the minutes of that committee, in addition to the report it produces and the minutes of the subcommittees of that committee. When I went to the Library to ask for the minutes of the sub-committees, no one there knew if it had them—which shows how many Members of the House are aware that the minutes of the sub-committees are available to them, at some delay.

As a result of that, I have learnt several things about the committee. First, members of that committee are far better informed, in my experience, than other Members of this House. Extraordinarily, they do not seem to realise that they are much better informed than other Members of this House. We have a serious problem in ensuring that information about the workings of the Offices Committee become available to all Members of the House.

The second thing that I find interesting about the Offices Committee is that I am never sure what is decided. Under the benign, elegant and gentle chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, we discuss things—but nothing is ever put to a resolution or to a vote. I have therefore taken as a guiding principle that if anything I say is not contradicted by anyone, it is thereby to be endorsed by the whole committee. At least I hope that is right; we shall find out. The third thing, as I have said, is that the reports do not do justice to the committee.

I confess that when I was first on the committee this proposal for a management consultant went through. I was a new boy; I was very diffident—as your Lordships will know—and I said nothing on the subject. I then read the report of the debate on the Floor of the House and I came to the view that the proposal could not be justified. I therefore spoke to that end at the previous meeting of the Offices Committee, where I was argued out of my position. I think I lost the argument in the committee and I now accept that it would be of value to this House to have the objective views of an outsider—to whose recommendations none of us is bound in any way. It would be beneficial to us to have a fresh, outside view, provided it is a guided scrutiny of our affairs.

In my view, the most important part of the report produced by the Lord Chairman of Committees is contained in the very brief paragraph on accommodation. I am sure we all agree that the conditions in this House are simply intolerable. I have my views—I shall give them briefly—of what should be the minimum standards of accommodation in this House. First every Minister should have an office to himself or herself of a size appropriate to the status of that Minister. I can say that because I shall never be one again; I know that perfectly well. In other words, a Minister of State who has to entertain visiting ambassadors and visiting defence ministers should have an office of appropriate proportions.

Secondly, all Front-Bench spokesmen of all opposition parties should have an office to themselves, if they want one, on the premises and accommodation for at least one secretary/researcher for each spokesman, as close as possible—it may not be possible—within the Palace of Westminster.

As to the remainder of us, the humble Back-Benchers, many will want separate offices. I should tell the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees that this is where I take issue with the minutes of the previous meeting of the Offices Committee. I raised then the need for a survey to be taken of all Members of the House to discover who wanted individual offices. Not everyone of course will want one— some Members are more gregarious than others—but until we know how many Peers want individual offices, how many want provision for secretaries or researchers, we shall not know the extent of the problem. I hope that that lacuna in the minutes of the previous meeting of the Offices Committee will be rectified at the next meeting; if it is not, I shall make sure that the issue is raised.

It is very unlikely that we shall meet even the first two criteria that I have set out for improving our accommodation without a redistribution of the accommodation within the Palace, as was very forcefully adverted to by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks. It is difficult to know precisely what is the division of the Palace of Westminster between this House and the other place. I have armed myself with a floor plan of the House of Lords, covering all floors, which is dated July 1998. I am glad to tell your Lordships that, on the principal floor at any rate, at least part of the Central Lobby is marked down as belonging to the House of Lords. It is my view that, as a starting point, the division of the two Houses should be on a line through the Central Lobby on the axis of St. Stephen's Chapel. That produces some very interesting consequences, which go far beyond what the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, said about a few offices on the second floor. For those of your Lordships who are not familiar with the consequences, I should be very happy to lead a guided tour and explain what we might get based on that formula.

In addition to obtaining a floor plan of the House of Lords, I have asked the Library how the line was drawn between the two Houses following the reconstruction after the fire of the 19th century. I also asked the Library to prepare me a document showing every single alienation of Lords' territory into the care of the House of Commons since that time, together with any supporting documents there may be by way of Statements on the Floor of the House, White Papers and so on. I shall be happy to make those available to your Lordships when I get my hands on them.

Your Lordships will be interested to know that when it comes to the question of resources and how we acquire the resources we need, there is more than one view. I was told within the past couple of weeks by a very senior person in this establishment—who I will not embarrass by identifying—that, of course, we have to get the approval of Treasury officials. I said that I was afraid that that line disclosed a great rift between us as to the view of the relationship between this House and Treasury officials. I do not know whether the House of Commons got a £¼ billion just by talking to Treasury officials; I should be very surprised if it did. It is my view that we tell Treasury officials what we want; they provide it; and if there is any dispute it is between this House and Treasury Ministers—the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor—and not with Treasury officials.

I do not think that we need anything like £¼ billion to accommodate ourselves properly and to a standard equivalent to that of the House of Commons, but I am quite clear that we have to do something drastic. When I first arrived in the other place some 30 years ago, I went into a room where there were six colleagues and six desks, with one telephone on top of a filing cabinet at the other end of the room. The Commons has improved its accommodation since then. I left the Commons to come to this place; I became a Minister of State for a time; and I found that I had to share an office with two colleagues—one of whom was not even a member of the Government—whereas, as an opposition Back-Bencher, in the other place I had a comfortable office to myself, with a chair in which I could sleep and room for all kinds of other amenities. I was told that I was very lucky to have an office as a Minister and that it would not be very long before I would have one to myself. Of course, I never did get one. When I ceased to be a Minister I was told how lucky I was that I was going to get a desk. I went back to a room with six desks—this time shared with seven people—with some of the most congenial people one could ever meet in one's life. I was delighted to be among them. We had a telephone on each desk. We had one television set with two remote controls. The trouble was that the remotes had insufficient power to operate the television set from my desk. So whenever my colleagues had left the room and I wanted to change the channel, I had to get up with the remote control and operate it from about half way across the room. So noble Lords can see the deprivation that some of us suffer.

I know how fortunate I have been compared with other noble Lords. I know I speak only for myself on these recommendations with respect to accommodation, although, from conversations with colleagues, I have a feeling that my views are not entirely unshared. I have told the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip that after the Recess I think it will he of value to test the opinion of the House. I propose to come back and table a substantive Motion to test noble Lords' opinion on the Floor of the House on the standard of accommodation they want. That will be very helpful for those who have been negotiating on our behalf. It is high time that we moved beyond talking about these things and did something very firmly, very quickly.

My Lords, I remind the House that we have two extremely important Second Readings to follow, with 33 speakers. We should try to wind up this debate.

My Lords, the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip pre-empted me. I have sat on the Front Bench for the past two and a half hours. Although some useful work has been done, we have not yet started what the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, called our main duty as legislators. There are these hugely important and highly controversial Second Readings to follow.

I am a member of the Offices Committee, so I declare an interest. I attended the first two committees when we looked at the matter. I am a member also of the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee of the Offices Committee and played a part also in that. Most of the report is uncontroversial; it is—as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, said—managerial material. I cannot believe that it will not be approved.

Other questions have been raised, particularly by the noble Lords, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe and Lord Gilbert, on accommodation, and by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne on medical matters. It was entirely correct for them to be raised, but perhaps the best place to consider those matters is in the subcommittees. If the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, in the spill-over tables a substantive Motion to discuss accommodation on the Floor of the House, I shall welcome that and encourage the Government to give him the time, because clearly there is a great deal of concern on the matter.

There are points that need to be clarified on the issue of the appointment of a consultant. I was part of the committee that looked at that. Having heard the arguments several times over, I am convinced that we should appoint the consultant, Mr Braithwaite. We should get on with that as soon as possible after return from the Recess. If it is the wish of the House—as I think it is—that the steering group should be made up of Back-Benchers, I support that too.

My Lords, I rise briefly to support what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has said and indeed the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. I am aware, as the Chief Whip said, that we have not yet reached the substantive business for this afternoon. Indeed, the debate has continued longer than the one on the National Health Service Plan. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, the proposal has been approved by those committees, of which we are both members. We have been taken through the matter on two occasions and we have both been convinced, as were other members of the committee, as noble Lords have said, that that is an entirely meritorious proposal.

The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, and other noble Lords have raised points which are of general interest and which sit comfortably within the framework of the debate raised by my noble friend Lord Peston. As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, has said, those of us who listened to the presentation of the proposal by those who came from the subsidiary committee to the main committee believed that it was a continuation of the discussion on some of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, so usefully raised in his debate, and to which other noble Lords spoke. But this comes back to the basic point, which many noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon have re-emphasised, as did my noble friend Lord Barnett, that these matters will always ultimately rest with the decision of your Lordships' House. None the less, I am persuaded that the time has come to appoint a consultant to assist the Officers of the House. I simply say to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who said that it was a novel and perhaps not entirely happy idea, that it was 10 years ago, when the management procedures were first reviewed, that an outside accountant was brought in to help precisely with that review. Those of us who support the appointment of Mr Braithwaite in the present context see it as a continuation.

So far as concerns the point that Mr Braithwaite may be dominated by House of Commons concerns, I say simply that I am sure that he is very well aware of the many important differences between the Houses. He has a working knowledge of the services which are shared between the Houses, without being dominated by a House of Commons perspective. Therefore, he is uniquely qualified to help us with this particular task. For those reasons—very briefly put because both the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, have explained the position arrived at by the committee very clearly already—I advise your Lordships to accept the Motion and, as the noble Lords, Lord Rodgers and Lord Gilbert, have said from slightly different positions—get on with the proposal.

My Lords, I am reluctant to stand up after my noble friend, but too many noble Lords have so far participated in the debate in private. Some Back-Benchers want to say something in public, because this is the only time that we shall have the opportunity to give any expression of view.

First, I refer to paragraph 8 on accommodation. I do not want to go into detail because it has been extremely well explained, but one begins to get some measure of the irritation being felt by Back-Bench Members. We had a debate in May, much of it about accommodation, in which we expressed our concern about the lack of accommodation. We received a report back from the people who are supposed to address that concern. They told us that they are concerned about the lack of progress. So we have had a reciprocal expression of concern about lack of progress, but no progress. We need better channels of communication between those in the committees who purport to represent us and those who feel that at the present time our views are not being represented.

We had the opportunity of an extremely good debate in May. That debate seems to have sunk into the sands. Other people are making decisions without the communication process happening.

Secondly, so far as concerns smoking policy at Millbank House—a point which has not been mentioned thus far—I should like someone to explain to me the precise logic of having a smoking policy in the public areas of Millbank House which is a different policy from the smoking policy of public areas in the Palace. They are both places of work and I should like someone to explain the logic of having different policies in two places of work.

My Lords, I rise to say that I never agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, but this is one occasion when I do! We have not been given the opportunity to put our views. For that reason I intend to speak briefly. First, I do not like to appoint any consultant on what I call a taximeter basis; that is, one pays according to how long he takes. I cannot see why we cannot have a beauty contest, as noble Lords suggested, and ask people to quote a fixed price for the job. That would be a more efficient way of doing it.

Secondly, I support the point made about the 43 offices. I waited 12 years to get a desk in a room with eight other noble Lords. It is scandalous to have to manage one's work in the House on that basis.

Finally, I understood that when we put down the red carpet in the Pugin Room it was because we were about to get it back. The red carpet is beginning to look worn and we still have not got it back.

My Lords, I should like to ask a brief question about paragraph 9 of the report entitled "Smoking policy in Millbank House". Is it contemplated that there will be some kind of smoking room for the use of poor, wretched, smoking Peers who are not allowed to smoke in the common areas and whose stablemates in their office object to smoking; or will they be forced out into the street? I do not smoke myself but I did for 40 years of my life. I have great fellow feeling for them.

My Lords, I do intend to speak. I am becoming extremely angry. Perhaps I may say—I can say it to my noble friend Lord Carter as we are very old friends—that I object very strongly to being told that we must get a move on because there is other business of importance to be discussed. I intend to speak for the length of time I wish to speak.

When I raised this matter some weeks ago, I said that one of the problems of debating these matters is that we are always told that we must get a move on because there are much more important things that need to be done. I was assured by the Chairman of Committees that there was no such pressure on us and that we could speak and debate these matters as fully as we wished.

My Lords, I must intervene because I think my noble friend may have forgotten that he had an extensive five-hour debate on precisely these subjects in May. That is one of the reasons why those of us who have supported the Motion before the House today feel that that is a way of taking forward those matters, which we agree are important and were so very well discussed.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that intervention. I shall explain to her in a few moments why I disagree with her about as strongly on that as I do on everything else.

I feel that I have a moral obligation to speak because I am a devoted Member of your Lordships' House and this is a chance to begin to get your Lordships' House right. However, I believe that I am completely wasting my time and probably that most other noble Lords are wasting their time. If noble Lords ask why that is so, I have two answers. First, my noble friend the Leader of the House, the noble Lord the Leader of the Official Opposition, the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Democrats and, for all I know, the Convenor have already agreed on this matter. They think that this is a good idea; they are the most distinguished and able Members of our House and this is what they want. I cannot believe that we would stop them. None the less, those of us who disagree have an obligation to go on the record about these matters.

The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, was most kind about the debate that I introduced. But that debate was not on anything of this kind. That debate was about this House improving its role in scrutinising and criticising legislation. The other reason why I am completely wasting my time today, as I now realise I did when I introduced that debate, is that nothing has happened as a result of what I had to say then—absolutely nothing. I now believe that nothing will happen. Perhaps I may add that I do not single out anyone for that. I blame all those who lead the House on all sides for the fact that nothing has happened. But I do believe that I have wasted my time. We have not moved forward and I see no sign of us remotely moving forward on that matter. I do not believe that the debate I introduced in May has anything to do with what we are doing today.

Everyone has been rather gentle. I do not feel gentle about this at all. Everyone else is well balanced. I am not. I read the document:

"Furthermore, many Members have expressed their dissatisfaction with the House's 'domestic' committee structure and their apparent failure to deliver all the improvements which Members would wish to have".

I feel obliged to go into an American mode here and say, "You're darn right they are dissatisfied about this". But what most amazes me is the sentence:

"None of this is intended to suggest that the House is poorly managed at present".

Perhaps no one else thinks that the House is poorly managed at present. But in a House where for years we have lacked resources, for years lacked accommodation and everything else that is required for us to be a proper legislature, what else can we say but that there has been a failure of management? I do not wish to talk about anyone as an individual person, but who is taking responsibility for this state of affairs?

My Lords, I suggest to the noble Lord that it is not a failure of management. It is, as he said, a failure of resources. If one does not have the resources, one cannot provide the facilities. I do not blame the management. I think that the place is well run within totally inadequate resources.

My Lords, I have to say to the noble Lord that his concept of management may be different from mine. Who is responsible for getting the resources? I am not; nor is the noble Lord. We have no role in this matter. If I am asked why we do not have the resources, I must say that those who are in positions of authority—those who are part of what we call the management—have not provided them.

We cannot carry on in this gentle mode of saying, "Really, we want a few changes but we don't want to criticise anyone. We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings". It is all nice and cosy, as your Lordships love it to be. But there is something wrong about what has been going on in your Lordships' House. It is not something wrong that has emerged since the Labour Party became the Government. It has been going on all the time I have been here. The reason I am in an angry mood is that what is particularly wrong is the wish for us not to expose these matters and demand that something be done. Having said I think that we are wasting our time—I do believe that —I agree with the notion that the committee should consist entirely of Back-Benchers.

I have another point. What we are getting, as always, is talk and no action. That is what this debate is about and that is what we have had for years. What we want is action and no talk. What we are not remotely told is how long what is proposed will take. I am entirely sympathetic to the view of my noble friend Lord Barnett that this is an attempt to make sure that it takes a long time. I cannot see it being done in time for some of us to live to see it, but that may be unduly cynical on my part. I should like to have seen in the report that someone would say to the consultant, whoever he is, "We would like the job done by that date. Will you do it?" If the consultant said, "That is not enough time", we could say, "We will find another consultant. He will do it by that date".

I really do wish to introduce a nasty note into this discussion. I think I have succeeded in doing that. I really do wish to offend the powers that be, because I regard them as the target for criticism. They are responsible. They should have taken the necessary steps. They should not be hiding behind consultants and committees. I do want to criticise people. But what I really want is for the resources to be made available soon and for something to happen.

My Lords, I wish to ask the Chairman of Committees a question. I have been trying to ask it for the past three-quarters of an hour. On page five of the report, the paragraph entitled "Costs" reminds one of Alice in Wonderland. It states:

"The final cost of the review will depend on the time it takes to complete".

We are responsible to the taxpayer for the cost of the House. When the Chairman of Committees comes to reply, can he say whether the committee has put a cap on the cost of the review—at any rate, a cap on the cost of Mr Braithwaite? We would be failing in terms of our responsibility to the taxpayer if it has not. That follows on from the question asked by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes.

My Lords, I should like to spend a couple of minutes supporting my noble friend Lord Peston and other noble Lords who have spoken on this matter, except perhaps those who constitute the usual channels. I want to say in my noble friend's support that he is absolutely right that the resources available in this place are deplorable. They are a disgrace. If they were applied in any outside industry, they would be illegal.

My noble friend has a very good point. But I want to make this point, too. If noble Lords have read Hansard and have read the Written Answers, they will have seen that this House is now sitting for more hours than the House of Commons, it is sitting on more days than the House of Commons and it is doing much of the legislative work of scrutiny that the House of Commons, unfortunately, is not doing. If it is to continue to do that—to sit late at night, at all the hours God sends—then it needs very much better resources.

I shall also say this. If noble Lords have been reading their Written Answers in Hansard, they will have seen that it costs £45 million a year to run this House, whereas the House of Commons costs £270 million a year. That is six times more than the House of Lords. The amount of money available to us is only one-sixth of that available to the House of Commons, even though we are doing the job—the job that we should be doing, of course—of revising and scrutinising legislation on an ever-increasing and far more important scale.

For those reasons, I believe that my noble friend Lord Peston was right to be tough. I hope that his tough talking will be taken on board by the Offices Committee and by the usual channels.

My Lords, I should like to ask the Leader of the House, who represents the interests of all Members of this House, if, during the spillover period, she would be kind enough to put down a Motion for this House to agree that we require back the office accommodation on the second floor currently being used by the House of Commons at the end of the next Session of Parliament. That will give them plenty of time to make alternative arrangements.

My Lords, I shall speak briefly because I contributed to this debate on the last occasion. I should like to point out that the House should set an example in connection with procurement and contracting procedures.

If a local authority had appointed a consultant on the basis that the next-door local authority thought that he was a "good egg", that authority would find the Audit Commission and every other agency jumping down its throat. I am not persuaded that one needs a management consultant, but if that is to be agreed, then one of the roles of the corporate officer of the House, as it states in the report, is to ensure that,

"procurement and contracting procedures are sufficiently robust to avoid the threat of litigation".

Litigation was pursued in another place. I suspect that that was because the members of that committee decided to "Buy British" and did not comply with the rules on public procurement.

I can see no reason why, if the House wishes to employ a consultant, it should not comply with the rules covering public procurement by putting work out to competitive tender and considering alternative proposals. The House should set an example and follow the procedures that would be expected of all local authorities and other public agencies.

My Lords, perhaps I may begin by agreeing with one of the general points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon; namely, the point he made on the length of the Sittings of this House. For quite some time I would tell people from outside of the House—especially visiting parliamentarians—that another place was the longest sitting Chamber in the world, while this one was the second longest. The noble Lord is quite right to say that your Lordships' House has now overtaken another place. I agree that that is something to be borne very much in mind when we discuss resources. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, along with other noble Lords.

I should like to go on to say this. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if, after our detailed debate, I do not attempt to respond to every point that has been made, or to every individual speaker. Indeed, I believe that some of the contributions spoke for themselves. A further point develops from that comment. I am grateful for the contributions made by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. They have already dealt with some of the points of detail which would otherwise have fallen to me.

Before addressing the main point made in the debate, I was asked a specific question by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. He asked about paragraph 2 of the report covering the salaries of the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees. He asked in particular whether there was a special reason for the increase awarded last year. I feel bound to reply to that. Yes, the answer is that there was a special reason. I shall quote a memorandum from the Clerk of the Parliaments to the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee written in July of last year. I shall quote only a part of it:

"Following a review by the Senior Salaries Review Body, the Prime Minister announced on 31st March 1999 that the pay of Lords Ministers below Cabinet level and other paid office holders would increase from 1st April 1999. The SSRB recommendation was that the salary of each post should be increased by £8,500 a year, in addition to the 4.31 per cent that other ministerial posts have received. The Chairman of Committees and the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees are not covered by the order, but the SSRB recommended, and the Government accepted, that the salaries of these two posts should receive equivalent increases".

I hope that that provides an answer to the specific question. I hope also that your Lordships will forgive me if I say that I do not think that it would be seemly for me, in the circumstances, to join in a debate about these salaries. Indeed, when the first occasion to discuss the increases arose in the committees of your Lordships' House, I offered to withdraw. However, the members of those committees declined to accept a withdrawal. On every occasion since, I have reminded those committees of my offer to withdraw.

My Lords, I do not wish to debate this matter, but I should like to know when noble Lords were told of this.

My Lords, it was reported last summer to the meeting of the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee when the Clerk of the Parliaments presented the memorandum from which I have quoted. That was duly approved and those details (the Clerk of the Parliaments will correct me sotto voce if I am wrong) were made publicly available.

My Lords, it might be my own misunderstanding, but the matter is still not clear to me. When did your Lordships' House approve this?

My Lords, in July of last year.

My Lords, I apologise for intervening. I wish only to follow up the point made by my noble friend Lord Barnett. So far as I am aware, the minutes of the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee are not available to the House and not available even to the Offices Committee.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. It was in fact in the Offices Committee, whose minutes are available in the Library. The Offices Committee receives reports from this sub-committee as well as from its other sub-committees. That was the position on that matter.

Perhaps I may turn to the main matters which have been debated this afternoon. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, for their kind words about the further consideration which has been given to those matters. However, those thanks are not due to me, they are due to your Lordships' committees, which have given their further consideration.

As regards the proposal for the appointment of a management consultant, perhaps I may say that, if your Lordships approve this matter, I cannot tell the House this afternoon who would be the members of the steering group. Until this matter is passed by noble Lords, it will not be possible to go into the matter. If one were to approach it the other way round, then I believe that your Lordships would be forgiven for thinking that we were taking noble Lords for granted.

However, points have been made from all sides of the House as regards the wish expressed by a number of Members for Back-Benchers to be considered to serve as members of the steering committee. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I go only this far this afternoon—it is all the power that I have—and say this. I shall ensure that those quite strong expressions of view are brought to the attention of those who will participate in the consultations which will take place, as is usually the case with appointments to our committees and recommendations to your Lordships' House. There will be no way after the matter has been raised this afternoon that that point will be ignored.

On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and touched on by other noble Lords that it should be for a committee of the House to decide and give its recommendations on the question of a management consultant, that has in fact been done. Committees of this House considered these matters and decided to recommend that proposal to the House. So that hurdle has already been overcome, which is why this recommendation has been put forward to your Lordships.

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord in mid flow. Will he also consider the question of whether it is sensible to divide the responsibility for supervision between unspecified other committees of the House and the Steering Committee which is now to be appointed? Would it not be more sensible for the role to be undertaken as a whole by the Steering Committee and for the Steering Committee to consider whether a management consultant should be appointed and, if so, who should be appointed?

My Lords, I understand the noble Viscount's point. But that kind of consideration was gone into thoroughly in the course of lengthy deliberations in the committees, both before the previous recommendation was put forward to your Lordships on 21st June and again in the reconsideration of this matter. It was clear that the Offices Committee wished to put this recommendation before your Lordships. So while I understand the noble Viscount's point, those considerations have already been taken into account, which is why the proposal is before the House.

My Lords, will the Chairman of Committees tell the House how many candidates were considered? Also, will he assure us that Mr Braithwaite has not already been appointed?

My Lords, certainly he has not been appointed. He cannot be appointed until your Lordships have, if your Lordships do, approve this Motion.

A number of points have been raised on the matter of procurement, tendering and so on. If noble Lords will forgive me, I shall wrap up all the contributions in one in my reply to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes.

It was decided that the tendering process was not necessary. There must be a tendering process if the expected amount is approximately over 100,000; that must, for one thing, be in accordance with European Union rules. Alternatives to Mr Michael Braithwaite were considered. I can go so far as to say that a distinguished and very experienced Member of this House who is very knowledgeable in these matters was consulted, and two other possibilities were considered. However, the outcome, which was overwhelmingly accepted by the Offices Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, was that because of Mr Michael Braithwaite's extensive experience and qualifications, and in particular because of the two inquiries that he had carried out on behalf of another place, he had in the first place a considerable head start over any other possible candidates and it would be a comparatively short period of time before he could, to use a colloquialism, "get up to speed" so far as this House is concerned. The committee was convinced that that was a substantial reason for pacing him as the strong contender.

The other point—

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Chairman of Committees, but I thought that the figure of £ 100,000 related to a requirement to advertise tenders in the European journal. Surely, for orders or procurement under that value, if a local authority gave a consultancy contract to someone for £50,000 or £70,000, could it do it simply on the say-so of someone else? Would it not need to obtain competing proposals?

My Lords, I understand that the way in which the Offices Committee approached the matter is perfectly acceptable. I do not think that I can take that matter further now.

I was in the process of explaining a point on the question of cost. If Mr Michael Braithwaite is appointed, because of the other work that he has done and because of the length of time that he would need to spend on an inquiry into this House, his fee would be substantially lower than it otherwise would have been. I have been left in no doubt that the fee is less than it has been in another place, and substantially less than the £100,000 that I quoted.

My Lords—

My Lords, perhaps I may just finish this point because it is relevant to the sentence that I last delivered. Another quotation that we received was between £120,000 and £150,000, plus expenses. In terms of qualifications, that was one of the contenders who was also considered suitable.

My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again. Perhaps I may quote from the minutes of the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee, which are not available to the House. I proposed that,

"the terms and conditions of engagement of any consultant should be made known".

I believe that that is right, and the House should know those terms and conditions.

My Lords, I quite understand the point that the noble Lord makes. It is not advisable for me to deal in a public way with any negotiations that may have to take place. The costs will, of course, be made known in due course if your Lordships go ahead with this proposal. But it would not be right for actual amounts to be settled in a public way like this. I suggest that it is much better for the matter to be settled in a less public way. Indeed, we do not know the number of days that will be needed if Mr Michael Braithwaite is appointed. Indeed, it is for the Clerk of the Parliaments, as our accounting officer, to settle the daily terms. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not go further than that this afternoon.

My Lords, Mr Braithwaite comes to us with great experience of these matters. Is he not able to say how many days this will take him?

My Lords, that depends on a number of factors—not least, if he is appointed, on the number of interviews with noble Lords and members of staff whom he finds it necessary to consult. If noble Lords will forgive me, it is simply not possible to put a figure on these matters this afternoon. If the House decides to go ahead with this proposal, it must be left for later negotiation and to see how long the inquiry will take.

Another matter raised by a number of noble Lords is the speed of the inquiry and the possible need for an interim report. I give noble Lords an assurance that, if the Motion is passed, this matter will be pursued with all due speed. I should not be happy about a great deal of time being spent on it. We need to get on with further action. A great deal has already been done, and insufficient credit has been paid to your Lordships' staff, the Parliamentary Works Department, and others who have dealt with the matter. However, I shall not be satisfied if we spend too long on these matters. While I cannot say until the inquiry gets under way, if it takes place, whether it will be absolutely necessary, there is no reason why an interim report should not be made to your Lordships to show how things are going.

Two noble Lords referred to the medical service. I can confirm that a nurse and occupational health physician are available to Members and staff of both Houses. That is kept under a great deal of scrutiny by the Offices Committee. The Offices Committee was criticised for being something of a rubber stamp. Those noble Lords who raise that kind of point are not alone in believing that, as at present constituted, the Offices Committee is perhaps not the right vehicle to carry forward these matters. I agree that that is something that we must look at, not in the present context although it arises out of it.

My Lords, can the noble Lord give the House an assurance that the point I raised in the Offices Committee about the need for a survey of the needs of all Members of the House, including secretaries and researchers, will be considered as soon as possible?

My Lords, I can give the noble Lord an assurance that I shall bring back that proposal to the Offices Committee. I do not believe that it is for me to commit your Lordships' committees to something until they have had an opportunity to consider it. I am sure that the point made strongly by my noble friend, not only this afternoon but elsewhere, will not be overlooked.

I deal with one other point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. Some kind of smoking room is proposed for Millbank House and 7 Little College Street which would be usable by both staff and Members. The reason why Millbank House, which encompasses 7 Little College Street, has been considered separately in this way is because that is new accommodation which is becoming available. It was thought appropriate to deal with it straight away as one proposal. The other matters relating to the Palace of Westminster are to be returned to later. That was the reason why it was thought to be a good opportunity to deal with the matter in one go.

I am conscious that noble Lords who have raised other points that I have not dealt with this afternoon will be disappointed. I hope that I shall be forgiven if, following this quite lengthy debate, I leave the matter there. Together with other noble Lords who have made this recommendation, I very much hope that, in the light of the significant changes which have been made since 21st June, your Lordships will pass the Motion this afternoon.

My Lords, I apologise for taking up a little more time before the Question on the Motion is put. It was not I or any other Member of your Lordships' House but the usual channels who decided that the matter should be debated today before the two major Bills. We could have had this debate a few days ago. The report from the Offices Committee was published on 19th July. The last time that we had this degree of confusion, if I may put it as mildly as that without being provocative—as my noble friend Lord Peston always is—the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and I simply asked whether the appointment of this consultant could be made by the steering group. I believe that there was general agreement that that should be so. Incidentally, contrary to what has been suggested, that steering group should not be composed of some, but all, Back-Benchers. That was what I asked for, and that is what I hope will happen.

The last time this matter was debated and there was a degree of confusion, at my suggestion the Chairman of Committees withdrew the report. We are now told that if we approve the report we shall approve the appointment of Mr Braithwaite as consultant. That is not confusing but quite simple. Mr Braithwaite may be a lovely man—like me—but that is not the issue. We are being asked to appoint him now on a simple resolution. I hope, therefore, that the Chairman of Committees will listen to the Clerk of the Parliaments; better still, perhaps the Clerk of the Parliaments can speak to us.

It is clear that the mood of the House is that, once again, noble Lords today are not willing to support the appointment of Mr Braithwaite. Perhaps the Chairman of Committees will consult the usual channels. We can adjourn during pleasure, which is the normal procedure, and deal with the two major Bills tomorrow morning.

My Lords. I see no reason why the proposal for the proposed management consultant should not be put before the steering group when it is set up, if your Lordships pass this Motion this afternoon. For obvious reasons, the steering group cannot be set up until the spill-over. There would, therefore, be delay. But if it is the view of noble Lords that that delay is worth while so that the steering group can consider the matter, I take it upon myself to give that assurance.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps as a simple Back -Bencher I may ask the Chairman of Committees for a degree of elucidation on this matter. Does the noble Lord propose that we should pass the Motion before us to approve the existing report, which includes provision for the appointment of the consultant but that that consultant should not be appointed, or that we should reword the resolution in order to accept every part of the report except for the appointment of the consultant which should be left to the steering group? If it is the latter, I am with the noble Lord; if it is the former, I am not.

My Lords, it is the latter.

My Lords, is the Chairman of Committees saying specifically that if we pass this resolution we shall not be appointing Mr Braithwaite?

Or anyone else, my Lords?

My Lords, as I hoped I had made clear when I responded to the point earlier, if the Motion is passed this afternoon, it will be put to the steering group and it will be for the steering group to make the appointment.

My Lords, would the steering group have the right to say "No" to Mr Braithwaite or anybody else, or would it be stuck with Mr Braithwaite?

My Lords, of course it would if the matter was referred to it in the way that I suggested. But if your Lordships pass the Motion this afternoon, it will be for the steering group to settle the matter. I do not suggest that the matter should again come back to the House before we can proceed. The matter should be left to the steering group; otherwise, we shall never get on with the serious work which really needs to be done.

My Lords, I have succeeded only in becoming more confused. We have a report which, it is proposed by the noble Lord, should be accepted in its entirety with the verbal reservation that that report does not apply in its entirety. Is it open to this House to pass a Motion which does not represent what we intend?

My Lords, it is not without precedent. Assurances have been given. They are given on a variety of matters when your Lordships are considering proposals. I should have thought that such an assurance from this Dispatch Box would have meant something and would have been acceptable to your Lordships. Surely we can proceed in the way I have suggested and leave it for the steering group to deal with this point.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he quite sure about this? If the House passes a Motion which appoints Mr Braithwaite and subsequently a sub-committee of a committee of the House decides not to appoint him, is it not likely that Mr Braithwaite would have a good case to sue for breach of contract? It is proposed today that we make a contract to appoint Mr Braithwaite. Surely we are not saying that a sub-committee of a committee of the House can then reverse that decision.

My Lords, there is no contract involved.

My Lords, perhaps I may introduce a note of conciliation. I understood the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees to say precisely that there would be a steering committee. He heard our views on its composition. He has given us—it is acceptable to me—his personal assurance that that steering group would have the final say. He has said that twice and placed it before this House. He says that that is what passing the resolution means. If he says that as Chairman of Committees—he has so declared and no one has said that he cannot do so—I can live with it. I have heard what he said and he is an honourable man. The Chairman of Committees has stated that the steering committee will decide. If that is what he says, that is good enough for me.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston—

My Lords—

My Lords, I was in the middle of a sentence. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to complete the point.

In order to place the matter beyond peradventure—some noble Lords have qualms despite the helpful intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Peston—I propose that if your Lordships agree to pass the Motion today the report will be minuted to exclude the words in the final sub-paragraph of paragraph 5,

"and that Mr Braithwaite should be appointed to lead the review".

My Lords, the Question is that this Motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion shall say "Content"—

Order! Ackner!

My Lords, a Motion has been put before the House that the report of the Offices Committee shall be accepted with the deletion of the words that refer to the appointment of Mr Braithwaite. There has also been a clear assurance from the Chairman of Committees that the steering group will be responsible for the appointment of the consultant. There is no contract with Mr Braithwaite. This will delay the work that needs to be done. There is a clear Motion before the House which removes from the report the appointment of Mr Braithwaite.

My Lords, we are seeking to perform totally unnecessary gymnastics which convince no one who is prepared to consider the terms of the report that we are doing anything except passing the report.

I respectfully submit that all that is necessary is to bring back the matter tomorrow with paragraph 5 redrawn. Then we shall see precisely what we are voting for and the gymnastics that are going on will be entirely unnecessary. I suggest that it is a thoroughly bad precedent to pass a clear resolution with secret or collateral provisos.

My Lords, I understand the noble and learned Lord's point. However, I do not believe that it is necessary to trouble your Lordships by bringing back the matter tomorrow. If the Motion for the approval of the report is put to the House with the deletion of the words I have quoted, and for complete clarity I again quote the words to be deleted,

"and that Mr Braithwaite should be appointed to lead the review".

that will meet what I believe to be the requirements of your Lordships. Accordingly, I commend the Motion with the deletion of those words.

My Lords—

My Lords, with the deletion of the words as stated by the Chairman of Committees, the Question is that this Motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the Contents have it. Clear the Bar.

Division called.

I have to advise the House that Tellers for the Not-Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 53. Therefore a Division cannot take place, and I declare the "Contents" have it.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill comes from the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, which has its basis in the Good Friday agreement. The Government have committed themselves to the implementation of the Good Friday agreement—

My Lords, we are beginning the debate of an extremely important Bill. I would ask noble Lords who wish to converse with each other to leave the Chamber.

My Lords, the Bill comes from the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, which has its basis in the Good Friday agreement. The Government have committed themselves to the implementation of the Good Friday agreement in all its aspects. One of these, and an extremely important one, is a new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland.

In this context, it would be helpful to remind the House of what the agreement says on this issue. It is important because the agreement gives the Government and should give all democrats in Northern Ireland, a message of what is expected of us.

The agreement states:

"We should recognise the sacrifices that have been made, including by the RUC, GC. This Government does recognise all the sacrifices, but in particular when considering a Bill dealing with policing I would like to pay tribute to the work and courage of the RUC in defending democracy, to the 302 men and women who lost their lives and the many thousands injured".

The Government recognise the trauma and suffering caused to individual officers and their families as well as police widows. The Patten report drew further attention to that and the Government accept the case for a substantial fund to help police widows, injured officers, injured retired officers and their families. That matter has been raised in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Laird, who has asked oral Questions about the matter and who has bombarded me with Written Questions because of his particular concern in relation to the issue. It is time for progress to be made.

Yesterday, the Secretary of State appointed the former senior civil servant, the director of security and policing in the Northern Ireland Office, John Steele, OBE, to conduct a review into Patten's recommendation for a substantial fund to be set up to help injured police officers, injured retired officers and their families as well as police widows. He was appointed yesterday, 26th July, with the aim of presenting a report to the Government by the end of October. This should make recommendations on the purpose and administration of such a fund. This is a means of making progress on an issue which the noble Lord has pressed for a considerable time.

The Good Friday agreement also recognises that policing is a highly emotive subject. No one who knows anything about Northern Ireland could deny that. But there is an opportunity for a new beginning to policing. An opportunity which I know the police want to embrace. They are ready and willing to change and have already begun the process of doing so. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in recognising their positive approach.

In the context of the agreement, what does a new beginning mean? It means an opportunity to create a police service which is representative and, to quote from the agreement,

"capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole".

Perhaps I may dwell on two parts of that for a moment or two. The first is a call for a new beginning. We all have an opportunity to contribute to that and I know we will act accordingly. Indeed, the people of Northern Ireland have overwhelmingly told us to do So.

The second point is on the support of the community as a whole. There is no doubt that in looking at the recommendations in the Patten report the Government have faced very real challenges when measuring the proposals against this test. The debate on the name and symbols of the police service exemplifies this. But the Government believe that they have sought to deal with this issue in a sensitive manner; in a way that recognises the linkage between the RUC and the new police service that we want to see and in a way which should command the support of all.

Furthermore, we should not lose sight of the fact, as the Chief Constable has said, that,

"the vast bulk of the recommendations in the Patten report are about good and effective policing".

The police want to move forward. They want to become more representative of the community they serve. They want to be able to modernise and normalise their approach to policing.

I note in this context the very helpful comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, when he said in this place in response to the Government's Statement on the Patten report, that while he had a

"few criticisms of a huge report … it is worth saying that much of the report was lifted from the Chief Constable's own review",

and that his party,

"share the Government's objective of changing the policing environment".—[Official Report, 19/1/00; col. 1168.]

On that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, said,

"we recognise the need for fundamental change of the kind that Patten proposes".—[Official Report, 19/1/00; col. 1169.]

I look forward to hearing and responding to the views of noble Lords, but would ask them to consider what the Government are hoping to achieve and what they are looking for in the new policing service for the people of Northern Ireland. The key elements are, first, a police service which is effective and efficient. It should be one capable of dealing with the public order situation and with terrorism, which we are sadly still facing, as well as dealing with what are known as "normal policing functions". I want to emphasise that the Government recognise the significance of the security environment. They have made clear, as indeed did Patten, that certain recommendations—for example, on phasing out the reserve—are security dependent. I can assure noble Lords that they will not gamble with the lives of people or officers.

The second element is a police service which is accountable to the community it serves and responsive to its needs. The Bill has considerable focus on this. The third is a police service which is representative of the community. As the Chief Constable said in April, the RUC is,

"greatly under-representative and anything which can put right that under-representation is to be welcomed".

Fourthly, we also want a service which is focused on a human rights based approach. The Human Rights Act, which applies to the police, comes into force in October. Fifthly, we want a service to be delivered in constructive and inclusive partnerships.

All of those issues are found in the Good Friday agreement. The Bill before your Lordships lays the foundations for this approach.

When the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill was introduced in another place on 16th May, the Government acknowledged that it would need some changes, some adjustment. They said that they would readily accept changes if they added to the aims of the Bill and the Good Friday agreement but not otherwise.

My right honourable friend in another place repeated the point at Third Reading on 11th July. He said that the Government remained,

"open to argument, to further debate and change, which no doubt will take place … That is because I recognise the historic importance of this opportunity and of this legislation".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/00; col. 819.]

I can tell noble Lords, therefore, that while the Government believe that the Bill meets the key elements or objectives that I have set out—it will modernise and enhance policing in the interests of all in Northern Ireland—we remain open to persuasion and prepared to consider constructive changes.

Perhaps I may touch briefly on the detailed provisions in the Bill. Part I, which I hope will not obscure our vision of the Bill as a whole, deals with the name. The Government thought long and hard on the name and have established a link between the RUC and the new police service.

As my right honourable friend said in the other place at Third Reading on 11th July,

"The body of constables known as the RUC will form part of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and it will be incorporated in the new police service. At the same time we have introduced a new name—the Police Service of Northern Ireland … [This] will be used for all operational and working purposes, wherever and in whatever circumstances when the police interface with the public".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/00: col. 818.]

The Bill has very many other important measures. Part II creates the Northern Ireland policing board in place of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland and sets out its general functions. Schedule 1 sets out the arrangements for appointments to the board. Part III provides for district policing partnerships and other local consultative arrangements, with Schedule 3 governing appointments to district policing partnerships.

Part IV provides for the police planning process. Part V introduces measures to require the policing board and the Chief Constable to secure continuous improvement in the efficient and effective exercise of their functions. Part VI sets out the general duty of members of the police and the duties of the Chief Constable. It deals with recruitment and severance arrangements. It also covers the new declaration, the registration of interests of police officers, the code of ethics, a regulation-making power on police flags and emblems and arrangements for co-operation with the Garda Siochana.

Part VII sets out the policing board's power to request reports from the chief constable on any aspect of policing and to cause inquiries to be held. Safeguards are set out in the part, although the Government propose to make further changes to those in Committee. Part IX provides for the appointment of a commissioner to oversee the implementation of changes in policing in Northern Ireland and enables the Secretary of State to establish a Royal Ulster Constabulary GC foundation to mark the services and sacrifices of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

The Government are committed and determined to create a new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland and one in which we all have a stake. They want to see reciprocation from others through support of the new arrangements. As my right honourable friend said in another place on 6th June, the Bill sets out,

"a radical vision of modern civic policing that is rooted in the whole community—and will draw its legitimacy and strength from its support in all parts of the community".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/6/00; col. 177.]

I commend the Bill to the House.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining the measures in this important Bill. For the past 30 years the RUC has stood as the thin green line between the rule of law and the descent into anarchy and, in doing so, has borne the brunt of the most wicked and vile acts of cowardly terrorism. Without the RUC, the opportunities for a lasting peace created by the Belfast agreement would, quite simply, not exist. It is largely thanks to the RUC, supported by the Armed Forces, that we can be confident that the future of Northern Ireland will be determined only by democracy and never by violence.

The RUC has responded to that violence with the highest standards of discipline and professionalism, and I utterly reject the claims of those who describe it as a sectarian force. In our view, the RUC has more than demonstrated its even-handedness and impartiality. Most recently, it stood literally in the middle between loyalists and nationalists at Drumcree. All of us should be profoundly grateful for the way in which the RUC has policed the situation at Drumcree in the past few weeks, often in the face of the most appalling provocation.

The contribution of the RUC has been apparent not only in Northern Ireland itself; it has stood as the first line of defence against terrorism here in mainland Great Britain and in the Republic, where it has thwarted many potential loyalist atrocities.

The sacrifice of the RUC is without equal. That is why the award of the George Cross by Her Majesty in a deeply moving ceremony at Hillsborough in April was so richly deserved. No one is more deserving of our praise and no one stands to gain more from the establishment of a lasting peace. It has been a real force for stability in Northern Ireland. The RUC is a police force that after 30 years can truly walk with its head held high.

This Bill, of course, gives effect to the recommendations contained in the Patten report on policing in Northern Ireland. One of the most serious deficiencies of the report is its failure to give all but the most cursory recognition of the achievements and sacrifice of the RUC. Overall, the bulk of the Patten proposals formed a useful basis for what policing in Northern Ireland could be like when the main terrorist threat is finally over. However, there are other areas, such as the scrapping of the RUC's royal title, to which we are implacably opposed, and those such as the security-sensitive recommendations that should be considered only when there is a lasting peace in Northern Ireland.

Much of the Patten report was foreshadowed in the Chief Constable's fundamental review of policing, initiated following the first IRA cessation in 1994. That review was predicated on three scenarios: first, a continuing high level of terrorist activity; secondly, an end to bombings and killings, but with the terrorist organisations remaining fully armed and engaging in shootings, beatings, mutilations and racketeering; and, thirdly, an end to terrorism, with the terrorist organisations dismantling and decommissioning their weapons. Only in that scenario was it envisaged that there should be a fundamental change to policing and, importantly, significant reductions in the size of the RUC.

Regrettably, we are still a long way from scenario three. Despite the re-establishment of the Executive and the Assembly, coupled with the offer of the IRA to put its weapons "completely and verifiably beyond use" and to engage in a confidence-building measure, there has been no decommissioning and the main terrorist threat remains. Even in the event of a permanent end to violence by the main terrorist organisations, the threat from the dissidents— especially on the republican side—will remain potent. We know that they are currently recruiting members; that they have access to more sophisticated weaponry; and that it is only through the skill of the police and the Army that recent attacks have not resulted in more serious damage and loss of life.

While any of those groups remain active aid retain their capability, it would be absolute madness to introduce any of the controversial security-sensitive measures recommended by Patten. That is why we do not believe that the time is right to make cuts in the strength and capability of the police, or at this stage to begin phasing out the full-time reserve; nor do we believe that it is right to tamper with Special Branch in a way that could undermine its intelligence efforts and effectiveness.

Above all, no changes must be made for political reasons; changes must be made only with the full support of the Chief Constable. Nothing must he done that in any way undermines the ability of the RUC to uphold the rule of law and to protect the people of Northern Ireland. We believe emphatically that the continued operational independence of the Chief Constable is vital. Operational independence remains the single most important feature of policing in the United Kingdom. The Chief Constable must be allowed to run the police service without interference from any politician or group of politicians. That goes, too, for the new policing board that the Bill sets up to replace the existing Police Authority.

The new policing board will consist of a majority of politicians from parties represented in the Executive. As we said in our submission to Patten:

"We do not in principle set ourselves against the greater representation of locally elected politicians on the Police Authority, though with safeguards".

However, we have grave anxieties about the scope for political interference by the board that could result from Patten's recommendations, especially when we consider that they will include parties which even now cannot bring themselves to support the police. The problems will be even more acute on the district policing partnerships (DPPs), especially in areas where one political party or tradition might be dominant. Rather than satisfying Patten's aim of taking the politics out of policing, they could have had exactly the opposite effect and politicised the police to a greater extent than at any time since before 1970.

We remain totally opposed to the inclusion on the policing board of members of political parties who remain inextricably linked with terrorist organisations that have not even begun to decommission their illegally held arms and explosives. We find it completely unacceptable that the Bill will not provide explicitly for the disqualification from the board of political or independent members who have been convicted of terrorist offences.

Similarly, we are concerned about the district policing partnerships to be established by the Bill, which mirror the reorganisation of the police into districts based on the existing local government boundaries. We welcome the fact that they will have only a consultative role, but we remain concerned that they will still seek to interfere in the operational decisions of a district commander. We oppose the Secretary of State's decision to leave open the option of increasing their powers, including the possibility of giving them the ability to raise money to buy in additional policing services.

We believe that it is wrong for any party—loyalist or republican—to be represented on the DPPs if their paramilitary associates have not decommissioned a single gun or an ounce of Semtex. The provision to disqualify any person from sitting as an independent member if they have been convicted of a scheduled offence should also apply explicitly to any political members with previous terrorist convictions.

Patten's proposals to rid the RUC of its proud name and cap badge are, of course, the most controversial aspects of the report. They have caused significant hurt and anger, and are wholly without justification. We profoundly disagree with the assertion that the police service should be free of any association with the symbols of the state, particularly as acceptance of the Belfast agreement means acceptance of the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's constitutional status.

On the cap badge, I can only repeat what has been said many times before: it would be difficult to come up with anything that better encompasses the British and Irish traditions than the current one.

In Committee, the Secretary of State accepted a Unionist amendment that incorporates the name of the RUC in the so-called title deeds of the new police service. That amendment went on to say that for operational purposes the name used would be the "Police Service of Northern Ireland". That goes some way to addressing our concerns about the royal title being lost, although we should have preferred it to have gone further and established a dual title—the "Police Service of Northern Ireland-Royal Ulster Constabulary".

On Report in the other place, the Secretary of State proposed a further amendment that defined operational purposes in such a way as to make it impossible ever to use the name RUC again. That amendment was not moved. If the Government seek to bring it back in Committee here, we shall implacably oppose it.

We all agree that there has to be change in the RUC. The RUC, under Sir Ronnie Flanagan's fine leadership, recognises that. It is wrong that the force is so overwhelmingly Protestant. The RUC has for many years sought to recruit more Catholics. But let us be clear; the biggest single disincentive to Catholic recruitment remains intimidation and the threat of murder. Anybody who doubts that should recall how the number of Catholic applicants to the RUC doubled after the first IRA ceasefire in 1994, only to fall back again when the ceasefire broke down.

The situation has not been helped by the refusal of nationalist politicians and members of the Catholic clergy to recommend that young Catholic men and women join the police force. I very much hope that will change. There can be no justification for it.

We all share the objective of seeing the composition of the police more accurately reflect the make-up of the community in Northern Ireland. We all want the RUC to be routinely unarmed, with no need for flak jackets and armoured vehicles, and able to patrol all parts of Northern Ireland without the need for the support of the Army.

The biggest single contribution to that, and to transforming the policing environment in Northern Ireland, would be for the paramilitaries—republican and so-called loyalist—to end terrorism for good, dismantle their organisations, and begin to decommission their illegal weapons. When that happens, it should fall to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, with its proud name and symbols preserved, to rise to the challenge of policing the peace just as valiantly as it has policed Northern Ireland throughout the darkest days of terror. The RUC deserves our support. The Bill, without amendment, does not.

My Lords, I associate myself with the Minister's remarks about the casualties sustained by the police service over the past three decades. The RUC has made an enormous sacrifice by any standards.

This is a significant Bill that will have a profound influence on future developments in Northern Ireland, so it is important that we get it as right as we can. The Liberal Democrats strongly support the broad thrust of the Bill. It is in accordance with the Belfast agreement and implements most of the Patten report.

The Bill is a compromise between the concerns of the nationalist and Unionist communities. As such, it will attract criticism from the more extreme elements on both sides. Compromises are a hallmark of democratic politics. That is why, as devolved government gets under way in Northern Ireland, the arrangements in the Bill will gather increasing support from the majority of its citizens. The key to that lies in the provisions for community co-operation and involvement and in the checks and balances, including the ombudsman and the commissioner.

While we welcome the Bill and broadly support it, the Liberal Democrats still have some concerns. If they could be satisfactorily addressed, the Bill could be further improved. We shall move amendments on those issues in Committee, when I shall be greatly assisted by my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond, who has considerable experience of police matters.

The major worry that I shall concentrate on is the issue of recruitment quotas, as detailed in Clause 45. The provisions now in the Bill are worse than when it was first introduced in another place. Originally, the quota provisions had to be renewed every three years, together with a sunset condition under which quotas would cease to operate after 10 years. That sunset clause has now been removed. That means that unless the triennial orders renewing the provisions are defeated in Parliament, quotas can be employed indefinitely. That would be a matter for despair.

I should explain why the Liberal Democrats strongly oppose quotas per se. We fully understand the Government's motives, which are highly commendable. They want to achieve an equal balance in the police between the two communities. Well before the Patten report, the Opsahl commission observed in 1993 that,

"As with political structures, the key question about policing is how to ensure its acceptance by the nationalist community".

The use of quotas is one of the confidence-building measures aimed at ensuring that acceptance. However, we do not believe that they are the best way to go about it. Indeed, they could well be counter-productive. While I fully understand the symbolic significance of a 50:50 quota, I query its practicality. What would be the consequences at the triennial review if recruitment fell below the designated 50 per cent Roman Catholic enrolment? We may well be storing up trouble for the future, which could be avoided if targets were substituted for quotas.

The Home Secretary has laid down targets for the recruitment of ethnic minorities for constabularies throughout England and Wales. He specifically ruled out quotas in a speech on 14th April 1999 to the national conference for recruitment, retention and progression of black and Asian officers. He said:

"But let me be clear about what I am not doing. I am not setting quotas and saying that you have to take somebody on because of the colour of their skin. I am setting targets to enable the police service to more fairly represent the community you serve".

The advantage of targets over quotas is that they allow for greater flexibility in monitoring the new recruitment process. High targets can be set—even 50 per cent—but any shortfall in reaching a set target is much less damaging than a failure to achieve a rigid quota. I fully appreciate why the Secretary of State adheres so strongly to the quota option at this point in the legislative process, but the crunch will come at the first triennial review when, if the recruitment quota has not been fulfilled, it will be a major problem for whoever is the Secretary of State at that time. Although we all hope that an equal balance in recruitment will have been achieved, we shall need to anticipate the situation if it has not. Targets will help us to aim for success. Quotas are more likely, albeit inadvertently, to prove a recipe for failure.

We also have other concerns. In view of the time and the many speakers to follow, I shall refer only briefly to them. They will be taken up by my noble friend. We have a number of concerns regarding the relationship between the board, the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State. The Patten report expressed the hope that the new police board would be considerably stronger than the police authority that it replaced. However, the Police Bill assigns many powers to the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable rather than to the board. We do not, however, question the need for a role for the Secretary of State in policing. What we are concerned about is that the relationship between the Secretary of State, the Chief Constable and the board is out of balance in favour of the Secretary of State.

With the exception of these reservations, which we will address further at the Committee stage, we strongly support this Bill. The Liberal Democrats believe that the Bill aims to preserve the best of the old, while addressing the imperatives of the new.

My Lords, few people can produce any real justification for the Patten report and this Bill. It is rather as though in 1940 Churchill had decided to set up a commission to recommend drastic changes in the composition and structures of Royal Air Force Fighter Command and investigate the political and religious views of the pilots who won the battle. I wonder whether we can assume that Churchill would then have appointed Oswald. Mosley to that board to ensure a fair balance and arranged for the Luftwaffe itself to be represented, perhaps even by Herman Goering, if he could have spared the time, so that allegations of undue force used by the spitfire and hurricane pilots could have been thoroughly investigated. Had there been a Northern Ireland Office in those days, of course, it would have been only too happy to organise the release and repatriation of the German pilots. After all, the Northern Ireland Office has doubly excelled itself today by releasing the Docklands bomber and making concessions and promises in other ways as well.

Some contributors give the impression that they are thinking of a body akin to traffic wardens. Regrettably, we in the United Kingdom cannot afford that kind of luxury. When the Patten report was being shaped well over a year ago, there was a belief that because 70 per cent of the electorate voted for peace, there would be peace. There was an innocent belief in the assurances of Her Majesty's Government, and particularly those of the Prime Minister, in the campaign to secure a "yes" vote in the referendum. There was an expectation that the published Patten report would ensure that nationalist and republican leaders would encourage Roman Catholic recruits to enlist in the police force and thus achieve a sectarian balance.

I am at one with the noble Lord, Lord Smith, about the hideous danger of quotas as opposed to targets. Unfortunately, that all-important aim was recently dashed by both elements following the passage of this Bill through another place. They have made it quite clear that they will not encourage Catholic recruits to join even the restructured force. Those four Patten assumptions have simply disappeared and are no more valid than the excessive spin doctoring that has damaged faith in democratic government in the minds of the United Kingdom electorate in general.

I realise that most Bills evolve over a period of consultation and discussion and that inevitably the situation could be transformed by the time any given Bill receives Royal Assent. However, in the case of the Patten conclusions not only has the landscape already changed but the very foundations have simply disappeared. One of the causes was the blatant and naked pressure applied by America to secure acceptance, of a sort, of the Good Friday agreement. People have now had their eyes opened.

I frequently expressed grave reservations many years ago about the intolerable pressure used when Israeli and Palestinian representatives were shipped across the Atlantic, were given the pressure cooker treatment and starved of sleep until, in desperation, they accepted what was termed an "agreement", which endured until they returned home to face their respective hostile people. Now President Clinton has this very week washed his hands of a situation made worse by his dazzling high wire acts.

On this side of the Atlantic, the British and Irish Governments imported the very same devices and methods and, with highly questionable means, achieved an illusion of success. But when the conjuring tricks were revealed, great was the disillusionment on the part of tens of thousands of people who now bitterly resent being deceived. They have resolved never to be conned a second time, which creates a very difficult situation for anyone engaged in future experiments. A few weeks ago the Irish Foreign Minister mocked the victims of deception by revealing that the entire process is designed to eliminate all traces of Britishness from Northern Ireland. That was an eye opener to all who had placed their trust in princes and politicians.

Therefore, like the innocents who were told that they were voting for peace, your Lordships will rightly resent having been invited to join in that conspiracy, directed against what I have always termed "the greater number of all faiths and none", who have one simple desire—to remain within the same kingdom. We can be certain that in the next two months until your Lordships return to the consideration of this Bill, the terrorists will have been granted still further concessions, because it is an unstoppable flow, and many more traces of Britishness will have been removed before we return in October. In like measure, resentment in the minds of that betrayed "greater number" will have increased.

In October that greater number, Protestants, Roman Catholics, other faiths and none, will be listening to your Lordships focus on those clauses in the Bill that are designed to eliminate Britishness and certainly not intended to improve the quality of policing in a part of the United Kingdom. It will therefore be the task of your Lordships to disregard all the threats of all shades of terrorists and their allies in drug dealing and protection rackets. Our duty will be to make a splendid police force even better.

There are those who would seek to mutilate and dismember the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which has protected the greater number of citizens to which I have already referred. Your Lordships' role will be the opposite. As has been said, we shall need to look at crucial points such as the title of the force, the command structure, political oversight, retention of the necessary equipment and financial accounting and budgeting.

I am sorry that because a commotion was caused by those doing their best to obstruct our proceedings this evening, the noble and learned Lord had difficulty in making himself heard. But if I heard him aright, he suggested that the Bill had a certain parentage because it was a recommendation of the Belfast agreement. I do not think that I am misquoting him. That was the gist of what he said. But he will realise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, said, that we are not there yet. Page 23 of the Belfast agreement said about the setting up of the Patten commission that it should include,

"proposals on any necessary arrangements for the transition to policing in a normal peaceful society".

That was what it was commissioned to do. It was not to disarm the police; to change the name of the police force; to mutilate its whole structures and make them impotent. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, said, we are not there yet and that is the problem. So the Bill gets the wording wrong because it starts the wrong way round. We are not in a normal peaceful society as yet. We all hope that we shall be. At that time, many of us would be prepared to support some other features which are currently objectionable. But I repeat that we may have a long way to go before it is possible to implement those provisions.

Fortunately, our two months of Recess provide your Lordships and the Government with ample opportunity to examine the Bill; to remove the numerous flaws which there are because of the timetabling which the Bill suffered in the other place; and to introduce constructive amendments, it is hoped in co-operation with the Government—and we all look forward to that. Most importantly, we must do nothing to weaken the capacity of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to play its part in protecting the nation from the various active terrorist units prepared to strike at will. The Provisional IRA remains in possession of its arsenal, which arsenal is constantly updated and reinforced. Parliament and your Lordships' House have an overriding responsibility to secure that counter-terrorist capacity of the police is in no way impaired.

My Lords, I regret that due to the lateness of the proceedings, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, could not take part in this debate. I should have liked to hear his remarks.

First, I quote to your Lordships what the Good Friday agreement said about policing. It stated:

"The participants [in the negotiations] believe it essential that policing structures and arrangements are such that the police service is professional, effective and efficient, fair and impartial, free from partisan political control; accountable, both under the law for its actions and to the community it serves; representative of the society it polices, and operates within a coherent and cooperative criminal justice system, which conforms with human rights norms".

The same paragraph goes on to say that any structures and arrangements should be,

"capable of delivering a policing service, in constructive and inclusive partnerships with the community at all levels, and with the maximum delegation of authority and responsibility consistent with the foregoing principles. These arrangements should he based on principles of protection of human rights and professional integrity and should be unambiguously accepted and actively supported by the entire community".

I say that because it is very important to remember—I have said this before in this House—that the Good Friday agreement was an international agreement. It was signed not just by the UK Government but also by the Government of the Republic of Ireland and with the active support and presence of the Government of the United States.

That is very important because it was in pursuance of that paragraph in the agreement that the Patten commission was appointed. It is something of a paradox that someone who was a former chairman of the Conservative Party is certainly unpopular in ways that I would not have anticipated.

I am sure that my noble friend Lord Fitt is more qualified to speak on this than I am, but the basic problem, as we know, is that Northern Ireland is a divided community. It has been divided for not just the past 30 years but for the past 80 years. We must not forget that background.

Perhaps I may quote from the evidence which the Catholic Bishops of Northern Ireland gave to the Patten commission. Two remarks were made which reflect that division. On the one hand, it was said about the RUC that there was "a deep legacy of distrust" and on the other hand that there was,

"the deep sense of possession of the police force by the Unionist community".

I join those noble Lords who have paid tribute to the RUC for its gallantry and bravery. It is a very uncomfortable position to be caught in the middle of a divided political society and to have to defend not just the people but very often yourself under difficult circumstances.

The Patten report stated that,

"the issue of policing is at the heart of many of the problems that politicians have been unable to resolve in Northern Ireland".

If we are to tackle that problem head-on, and not just for the next two, three or four years but permanently, we must do so in the spirit in which the police force becomes a policing service. Of course, it must be effective, efficient and accountable. It must be accountable not only to a certain formal body but in ways that are transparent so that it becomes accountable to the entire community.

I do not want to speak on the issue of targets versus quotas or anything like that. But in that respect, it is extremely important to say that even the composition does not matter so much as winning the confidence of the community. That is an extremely important point. Permanent peace will come when that is achieved.

I want to say something about accountability. Paragraph 1.15 of the Patten report refers to,

"effective and democratically based oversight of policing".

"Democratically based oversight" does not necessarily mean "politically interfered with oversight". It means that the community's involvement through democratic procedures and processes is taken into account so that people feel that the police belong to them. That is the sort of policing that we have been able to achieve here on the mainland and I do not see any reason why that should not he our goal for Northern Ireland.

I do not want to go into the details of the Patten proposals and so on. If I thought that the Bill did not follow Patten, my direction would be exactly the opposite to that of some noble Lords who have already spoken. So I shall not go into those details. But it is extremely important that the issue of human rights should be addressed absolutely head-on, not only because the European Convention on Human Rights is about to come into operation in the UK, but also because the issue of human rights embodies many of the fundamental concerns which any policing force must address in a modern society. It is in a difficult situation like this—I agree that it is a difficult situation because peace has not come yet—that human rights are most likely to be violated. We must be vigilant. If the community does not see the policing service as its policing service, operating in its interest, we shall not be able to achieve the peace and prosperity that we want for Northern Ireland.

My Lords, at the start I should declare an interest as the recipient of hospitality in Dublin a few weeks ago. I acted as host for the Police Federation of Northern Ireland at a deeply moving occasion when a number of those who were widowed and a number who were crippled as policemen during the past 30 years were received with great kindness and imagination by the Taoiseach, the entire political establishment in Dublin, as well as a goodly proportion of the Irish press.

It is a great pleasure to have the privilege of following the noble Lord, Lord Desai. It is some years since I have had that privilege in your Lordships' House. He always presents a case that is difficult to answer. In this instance, I wholly agree with what he said about the need for transparency. However, I draw his attention to chapter 4 of the Patten report which, among other things, deals with views throughout the nationalist community of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong, but a remarkable phenomenon was noted by my right honourable friend Mr Patten in which it was generally accepted by a large majority in the nationalist community that the RUC was biased against them. But in every community a clear majority felt that that was the case in the whole Province but that it did not apply to the RUC in their particular area.

My right honourable friend concluded differently from me, that that meant that perhaps there was a bias. I concluded that from their own experience they felt that there was not one, but that they had been told that there was a bias in the community as a whole and they accepted that general view. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, may feel that that may be worth some consideration.

Turning to the Bill, your Lordships will agree that we consider this Bill at a time when explosions and attacks on security forces have, thankfully, declined dramatically in Northern Ireland. The Province seems to us, and to most of its inhabitants, to be more nearly at peace than at any time in the past 30 years. Countless lives have, therefore, been saved and in many parts of the Province prosperity has either returned or has made an appearance for the first time, particularly in the western part of the Province.

On this side of the water, both press and public take that impression at face value and, as we all are, they are grateful that the threat of explosion and assassination seems, for the moment, to have all but disappeared here as well. Although as my noble friend Lady Seccombe pointed out, and as those of us who unfortunately have professional relations with the Special Branch know, that is more because of the efficiency of the security forces in protecting us than because the threat has disappeared.

In the context of this Bill I ask whether this apparently happy state of affairs is real, or is it a delusion. Of course, we long for it to be real and we long for the terrorists to long for it to be real. Indeed, it seems to me that the whole peace process has been based on the expectation that the terrorists can be seduced into surrendering the uncomfortable politics of the Armalite in exchange for the comfortable politics of the ballot box and the ministerial limousine.

What is the reality on the ground in Northern Ireland? The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is in a better position than most to tell us about this and we greatly look forward to hearing what he has to say on the subject. My Northern Irish friends tell me that the reality in many parts of the Province is still extremely grim. It seems that increasingly the poorer areas are becoming ghettos. Many areas have always been ghettos, whether loyalist or republican, but the mixed areas are becoming fewer. I use the word "republican" rather than "nationalist" deliberately because, as I understand it, the SDLP is now too soft to count for much any more in the mean streets or in bandit country.

These ghettos are ruled by terrorist organisations. They exact total obedience through brutality and the fear of brutality. Like all terrorist organisations, both loyalist and republican, they have become indistinguishable from organised criminals. Some, of course, continue to finance a portion of their operations from the donations of deluded romantics in the United States of America, but increasingly both sides finance themselves by becoming mobsters. Their rackets are drugs, extortion, protection, prostitution, taxi services and all the paraphernalia of organised banditry which we associate more with 1930s Chicago than with a modern United Kingdom. Genuine peace and the rule of law will seriously damage those bandits' financial health and luckily for them, but not for us, we have not yet achieved genuine peace.

The Government, through the RUC, have to provide us with statistics and if noble Lords visit the website of the RUC, they will find that in the year so far to 2nd July there have been no fewer than 125 paramilitary-style attacks, compared with 136 in the comparable period last year. In parenthesis, it is interesting to note that both for last year and this there was a higher recorded incidence of loyalist attacks than republican attacks. That is perhaps because the republicans are less divided on the ground, have greater control over their own people and do not need to intimidate them. In the four years to December 1999 recorded paramilitary attacks—we know about the recorded ones only—fell from 326 in 1996 to 196 in 1998, but they rose again to 206 in 1999. I believe that many of those incidents reflect the fact that the godfathers intimidate their own communities rather than attack the other side.

Your Lordships can only imagine how that regime restricts the liberties that we fondly imagine every citizen of the United Kingdom enjoys. Just in case we consider that for the police and security forces the situation has returned to normal, the RUC's website is equally instructive. It is true that, thank God, in 1999 and so far during the current year, no security force deaths have been attributed to terrorism. However, between 1st and 15th July this year alone, there have been 332 attacks on the security forces, including 13 shootings; 88 RUC officers and six soldiers have been injured. There have also been 313 petrol bombing incidents and 611 incidents of criminal damage of various kinds.

Clearly, from those statistics alone one can see that large areas of the Province are still controlled by terrorists. I fear that that is hardly surprising. This is where I begin to become rather controversial. It is a province whose newly devolved government contains representatives of terrorist organisations whose very presence there has been engineered by the threat of a return to full-scale terrorist war.

For anyone who doubts that, noble Lords have only to contrast the public statements of the British and Irish Governments with the contents of an internal Provisional IRA document known in the trade as "TUAS" and circulated before the first ceasefire referred to by my noble friend Lady Seccombe. TUAS is an acronym that stands for "tactical use of armed struggle" and boils down to one thing: if the British Government do not give way, threaten a resumption of the bombing campaign and then they will. Contrast that with British and Irish Government pronouncements, which seem to me to reflect all too clearly the success of TUAS.

In the Dail, on the day that the Downing Street declaration was promulgated what now seems many years ago, Mr Spring, the then Republican Foreign Minister, said,

"We are talking about the handing in of arms and are insisting that it would not be simply a temporary cessation of violence to secure what the political process offers. There can be no equivocation in relation to the determination of both governments in that regard".

Yet in spite of those admirable sentiments, in the wake of a resumption of violence followed by,

"a complete cessation of military operations"—

a declaration in which the word "permanent" was conspicuously absent—the government of whom I was a member decided to assume as a "working assumption" that the ceasefire was indeed permanent. The retreat from our insistence on an unequivocal surrender of the Armalite in favour of the ballot box has continued since then, accelerating rapidly since May 1997.

I shall not weary your Lordships with a repetition of the various formulations which have been drawn to our attention during the ensuing years and months. But your Lordships will know that, as a result, Sinn Fein was able to enter talks without handing over a single weapon, and then enter the Executive itself.

We are all aware of how, in order to preserve the ceasefire, the Government have failed to stick to any of their demands that weapons should be surrendered before the peace process began. TUAS has worked; and seeing that it works, the loyalists are gearing themselves up to be able to respond in kind. Instead of strengthening the centre of the political spectrum—something which all of us in this House want to see and which so many people, particularly representatives present from all sides of the community in Northern Ireland, have endeavoured to achieve—governments of both persuasions have achieved exactly the opposite. They have hollowed out the centre and strengthened the extremes instead. That may secure a temporary respite. But in the end it leads to trouble, particularly when large numbers of the most dangerous terrorists are being let out without any guarantee that they will not return to their past.

This Bill must be viewed in that context. Those of us who believe in parliamentary government and its consequences for the rule of law must believe that those who govern us and sit in our representative institutions will not use violence or the threat of violence to achieve their aims. We must also believe that the government we elect will use every means to ensure that that is so and remains so; that they will be prepared to draw a bottom line if it is not so and to defend the ballot box against the Armalite by any means at their disposal if it cannot be done by sweet reason.

If there is no sanction that parliamentary government is prepared to use to force the men of violence to rely exclusively on Parliament and the ballot box, I suggest that the men of violence will always win. In spite of the feebleness of British governments of all political complexions and their readiness to give in to the threat of violence, the RUC has become an increasingly effective first line of defence against terrorism, as my noble friend so eloquently told us. As she also said, that is true not only for the inhabitants of the Province, but also for those of us on this side of the water and the inhabitants of the Republic as well.

This Bill, in a number of ways, undermines the capability of the RUC as an effective anti-terrorist force at a time when terrorism and the threat of terrorism are at least as potent as they have ever been, certainly in their effects if not in the number of victims that they are taking, which seems to be no longer necessary. I shall look at three examples in addition to the points made by my noble friend Lady Seccombe. First, the name and oath as set out in Clauses 1 and 38 are not merely cosmetic: they affect morale in a way one has to have been shot at to understand. Anybody who knows the works of Sir John Keegan, particularly In the Face of Battle, will understand the importance of symbols of this kind.

Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, said, the imposition of quotas is counterproductive and shows clearly that the Government have ignored, as my right honourable friend Mr Patten did, the role that intimidation plays in preventing Catholics joining the RUC.

Thirdly, the composition of the district policing partnerships could all too easily allow representatives of terrorist groups who have no convictions to become members. Of course, we shall return to those matters in the remaining stages. I hope that it will be possible, before Committee stage, to see the regulations anticipated in Clauses 44 (on recruitment) and 52 (on emblems and flags) at least in draft before we come to discuss the clauses in detail.

However, I must place on record my own fear that, although much of this Bill is welcome, as many noble Lords have already said—indeed, the RUC welcomed at least 70 per cent of the recommendations of the Patten report—there are parts of it whose consideration, let alone introduction, I am sorry to see before the ghettos are once again free, while the Government continue to submit to terrorist threats, and before the terrorists have thrown away the Armalite in favour of the ballot box. If that happens, it is right that we should examine many matters and be prepared to treat former terrorists in a spirit of generosity and reconciliation, which is absolutely essential if peace is to return to the Province.

Until we are sure that terrorism has really disappeared from the Province and that the men of terror are really prepared to give up violence, I wonder whether we are aware of the delusion from which we are suffering. Indeed, I wonder whether my old friend Mr Patten does not feel, in his heart of hearts, the same. I noticed in a report in The Examiner dated 17th February this year that he was quoted in the context of the suspended Assembly. Some of his strictures in that press report apply to what happens in the Province when the Assembly is suspended. However, there are other strictures which do not seem to apply to that circumstance. For example, in setting out the central arguments for his policing reforms, my former right honourable friend stated that the arguments,

"are affected if some people now eschew their obligation to give primacy to democracy".

He went on to say,

"While some of our proposals would depend on what happened on the ground, some of our proposals would clearly affect for the better what was happening on the ground. But it is difficult to make those judgements when one isn't entirely clear where the security situation is going to develop".

He adds,

"Now, clearly, a commitment to the democratic process involves an equal commitment to taking the gun out of politics, and I don't see how any number of elaborate casuistries can avoid that simple proposition".

I hope that my right honourable friend can be persuaded to repeat that remark in the context of this Bill.

As your Lordships will have ascertained, I agree particularly with that last sentence. Until the gun is taken out of Irish politics, North and South, we need a police force in Northern Ireland with the morale and capability to continue doing the job it has been doing for the past 30 years with increasing success and courage. If we act in the way we are acting now before that happens, we are in danger of breaking the very foundations on which this House acts and which another place supports as the foundation of our own polity, let alone anybody else's.