asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether it is their policy to encourage an increase in the number of special constables.

My Lords, special constables are a key element of our police reform agenda. We are working on a package of measures designed to help reverse the decline in numbers by improving the way in which they are recruited, managed and deployed. We are particularly keen to improve liaison with employers. After all, Specials bring a wealth of training and experience to their wider workplace. By the end of this year we shall publish guidance on good practice and we have set aside £300,000 to help "Specials champions" drive forward initiatives to improve the recruitment and retention of Specials.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply. Are the Government concerned about reports of fewer candidates volunteering to become Specials? If that is correct, are the Government doing their best to reverse the situation?

Yes, my Lords, we are concerned about that. As I made clear in my Answer, we would like to reverse the decline. I am happy to say that my right honourable friend Mr John Denham announced, at the annual Ferrers award, that the Government are working on a package of measures. I am sorry to see that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is not in his place. When at the Home Office, the noble Earl instituted a special award for special constables. At the presentation of that award on 18th June my right honourable friend announced the package of measures that I laid out in my Answer, which seek to reverse the decline, to encourage people to apply to be special constables and to encourage them to stay as special constables. We regard that as very important.

My Lords, is the Minister saying that the campaign, which was launched on 2nd January by the Minister, John Denham, and which cost half a million pounds, has not proved to be successful? What response has there been to those proposals?

My Lords, I am not saying that the campaign has not been successful. However, a sustained campaign is required to indicate the Government's commitment to special constables, and a sustained process is required by which the merits of being a special constable are brought to people's attention so that we can indicate to the public at large that we want people to take up such places. I cannot give the noble Baroness the precise results of the campaign, but I shall write to her.

My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware—I would be very surprised if he is—that when I was a young constable I was violently assaulted on Tyneside and knocked to the ground? A bus driver came to my rescue who, I was delighted to discover, was a special constable. That illustrates the importance of the Special Constabulary. I remind the House that not so many years ago Special Constable Glen Goodman lost his life to the IRA in the course of his duty. Does my noble and learned friend agree that we should all pay tribute to the work of special constables?

My Lords, I entirely agree with the sentiments behind my noble friend's remarks. I was not aware of the assault on him but I was aware of the sacrifice of Special Constable Goodman in Northern Ireland. The role that special constables play is second to none. For that reason we are very keen to encourage recruitment and retention.

My Lords, what is the age group of special constables?

My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer that question. I shall write to the noble Baroness.

My Lords, I, too, recognise the valuable part played by special constables. I am grateful to my noble friend for raising the issue. The Minister has referred to a package of measures that the Government hope will address the fact that since 1997 the number of special constables across London has dropped by 51 per cent and across England and Wales by 37 per cent. The police believe that one of the main reasons for that fall is that there has been so much micro-management from Whitehall. Will the Government now agree to undo some of the extra bureaucracy that they have loaded onto the police force in general?

My Lords, having looked at the figures, the noble Baroness will be aware that the total number of special constables has decreased from 19,000 in December 1992 to 12,000 in September 2001. A number of reasons are given for that decline. One is the profile of special constables and another is that significant numbers of special constables want to join the full-time constabulary. A variety of reasons have led to this situation. The critical point to make clear is that we support special constables, we want to see more of them and we are taking steps to achieve that.

My Lords, when special constables retire, for whatever reason, are exit interviews held? If not, perhaps such interviews would give the answer to the conundrum that the noble and learned Lord has enunciated.

My Lords, I am not aware of whether or not there are exit interviews and, if so, what they show. Steps have been taken to try to find out why the numbers have gone down. There appear to be a variety of reasons and, as I say, the answers are inconclusive. Again, I make it clear that we support the special constables and want to see more of them.

My Lords, can the Minister say whether recruitment from ethnic minorities into the Special Constabulary is part of this campaign? If so, does he see that as a stepping stone into recruiting more people from the ethnic minorities into the full-time police force?

My Lords, it is a vital part of the campaign. Having regard to the fact that significant numbers move from the Special Constabulary to the full-time constabulary, it can be an extremely useful stepping stone to increasing the number of black and minority ethnic groups who form part of our full-time constabulary.

My Lords, have the Government an open mind as to the prospect of paying special constables?

My Lords, we do not pay them at the moment, but we are looking at whether allowances should be improved.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What action they propose to take in respect of prostate cancer in the light of the information published by the Institute of Cancer Research on 27th May.

My Lords, the information published by the Institute of Cancer Research on 27th May highlights the importance of prostate cancer and the efforts being made to understand the disease. That is why the Government started the NHS prostate cancer programme in September 2000. It is also why the Government are increasing the money spent on directly-funded research to £4·2 million a year by 2003.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer and welcome her to the Dispatch Box. Bearing in mind that 10,000 men are killed by this dread disease every year, is it not regrettable that, according to the report of the Institute of Cancer Research, to which the noble Baroness referred, prostate cancer research is 10 years behind equivalent research for other major cancers? Also, what progress has been made in replacing the PSA test? That is a matter of great concern. It is widely used but does not sufficiently indicate aggressive forms of the disease. I should point out that I asked this Question over two years ago, on 23rd May 2000, and it appears at col. 639 of Hansard.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind words and much appreciate them.

It is always difficult to anticipate and read across from one form of research to another. A survey carried out between 1989 and 1998 showed that our researchers were producing 5 per cent of the total research output. Therefore we are holding our own arid the £4·2 million we are committing will certainly help.

As the noble Lord rightly said, he has drawn attention to the PSA test in the House before and we are grateful for that. But two problems are associated with the test. First, raised PSA levels do not always indicate cancer and the test misses cancers which are present when PSA levels are low; secondly, the test does not distinguish between aggressive and slow-moving cancers. A great deal of research has been funded over the past year or two, of which I shall be glad to give the noble Lord written evidence, including specific studies on the PSA test. We are also standardising the test across the UK so that it is of a uniform quality. That will also make a difference.

My Lords, will my noble friend agree that raising awareness among at-risk groups, particularly with this form of cancer, is of the utmost importance? What are the Government's plans for further raising public awareness?

My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. Prostate cancer is problematic because of the element of embarrassment associated with it. But we are making progress. In July 2001 the prostate cancer management research programme was introduced. Its intention was to provide an informed choice for men. A pack is being circulated among GPs, who were consulted. It gives a lot of information and enables men to make an informed choice on both the tests and the treatment, which in itself is problematic. That too will help GPs. We hope it will be in the surgeries by the summer. In relation to other forms of raising awareness, some interesting research is about to begin on Afro-Caribbean men who have a high incidence of the disease. It is imperative that we get the results of that research out as fast and as effectively as possible.

My Lords, in view of the research which consistently shows that processed tomato products, as opposed to fresh tomato products, are very beneficial and that the taking of tomato juice or tomato sauce on a regular basis is an effective preventive not only for prostate cancer but also for breast cancer, will the Minister suggest to the Department of Health that through health education they encourage people to go on to tomato juice?

My Lords, I shall do my best. One of the problems connected with research related to diet is that people are susceptible to making either the right or wrong choices. However, I shall certainly take the suggestion back to the department.

My Lords, while I warmly acknowledge all the help given by my noble friend Lord Hunt in response to the concern expressed—more especially by our good and noble friend Lady Howells of St Davids about the finding that black men are much more prone than others to prostate cancer and in its most virulent form, can my noble friend Lady Andrews say what recent further progress has been made in increasing research in this important policy area? Finally, I, too, rejoice at the presence of my noble friend at the Dispatch Box this afternoon.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. The noble Baroness raised the question in the House a year ago. Research into the incidence of the disease among Afro-Caribbean men is about to start at Bristol and in London, as is research on other risk factors connected with genetic and family history. So we have made progress.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that we need a major expansion of research—as my noble friend Lord Ezra said—so that we can rapidly develop a screening test which is better able to predict the aggressive forms of the disease? Does she also agree that for too long the cancer charities have borne the major cost of cancer research, and that it is about time that the Government made a reality that others would recognise their aim of trying to match what the cancer charities have put in?

My Lords, since 1999 we have increased spending on prostate cancer by 20 times to the present figure of £4·2 billion—by four times in the past four years. We are delighted to work in partnership with Cancer Research UK and all the cancer charities. They part-funded and helped with the prostate management cancer research programme. They do invaluable work. But we are spending significantly more than we were.

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box for a full House. A smaller group of noble Lords had the pleasure of the noble Baroness at the Dispatch Box on a more select occasion recently.

Can the Minister tell us how many men over 50 have had a PSA test following the department's informed choice project? And is the department satisfied with the take-up?

My Lords, I cannot give the figure for the number of men over 50 who have already had the PSA test. This year's informed choice programme will be properly evaluated so that we shall have those figures in a year's time. If there are figures, of which I am simply ignorant, I should be happy to look for them.

My Lords, in view of the figure of £4·2 billion being spent on prostate cancer research, can the Minister tell us what is the comparable figure spent on AIDS research in this country? The figures given today for the number of people who have died are quite horrific.

My Lords, it is £4·2 million. I am afraid that I do not have the comparative figures for AIDS research. I think that all noble Lords would agree that the figure of 10,000 avoidable deaths is far too high. We are committed to a national screening programme if and when we have the improvements in testing and treatment.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the Criminal Records Bureau is meeting its targets for processing applications.

My Lords, the Criminal Records Bureau is not meeting its disclosure application processing service standards. It has introduced a performance improvement plan including revised procedures, rapidly recruiting additional staff, increasing resources and extending working hours. There is a special procedure for teachers. The application backlog has been outsourced to Hays Plc's Chennai (India) data processing centre.

My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that response. Since Capita, the private service provider, is taking taxpayers' money to deliver an agreed level of service, will it be fined for failing to do so? When is it expected that the target time of three weeks to process applications will be met so that both voluntary bodies and local authorities can get the protection that the Criminal Records Bureau was set up to provide to the public?

My Lords, Capita and the CRB have to work together to ensure that they deliver the performance standard to which my noble friend refers. It is vital that that is delivered. Once that standard has been delivered one can start determining what the consequences are of not having met it before. But the critical matter is to ensure that Capita and the CRB work together to deliver that standard as quickly as possible.

My Lords, I support the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett. Why is the Criminal Records Bureau in such a shambles? It takes over three months to carry out a criminal record check on people working in the sensitive fields of childcare or teaching. That has a serious impact on applicants—particularly those working in the field of resettlement—employed in non-sensitive jobs. What will happen later in the year when not only will sensitive checks be required but people will have to produce their records to employers? How will the Government meet the target when full disclosure is required whether or not people are in sensitive jobs?

My Lords, the process has been going since March of this year. Everyone agrees that it was a sensible policy to have a CRB which could make disclosures of the kind that it makes. It is not meeting its target. I made that absolutely clear in my original Answer. We are working as hard as we possibly can to try to ensure that it will meet its targets. A recovery plan has been agreed between the Criminal Records Bureau and Capita to try to meet those targets. I agree entirely with the noble Lord that in relation to teachers or anyone who works with either children or other vulnerable people, it is important that the check is made and that it is made within a reasonable time. That is what we are working towards. But we need time to get there.

My Lords, the Minister has referred to the fact that there is now outsourcing of this processing to Madras in India. Can he tell the House what guarantee there is of the integrity of the information being outsourced? If, by any remote chance, there was a slip-up and information was not kept confidential, against whom would an individual have to bring a complaint and a case? Would it be against Capita or against Hays which controls the system in Madras?

My Lords, the material that is being sent to India is the application forms. It does not include the material which will be matched with the application forms. The application form involves people giving their name, address and the particular job that they are applying for and some other information. It does not include the information that comes from, for example, the police national computer. Having said all that, there are plainly security considerations. We have made checks to ensure that the levels of security are reasonable.

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord says that the CRB is not meeting its targets. By how much is it missing them?

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Corbett said, the intended target is that 90 per cent of enhanced disclosures should be issued within three weeks. The precise figure of how many we are meeting within three weeks is not known, but it is dramatically below that.

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the concern in the voluntary and charity sector that more than 2 million applications per annum are now being made? It is reckoned that it costs roughly £10 to £20 in administration charges for each application. There is a £12 fee in respect of each application which is waived in respect of volunteers only. But, on any reckoning, the charity and voluntary sectors have to bear something like £30 million plus a year in extra overheads under the process. Will the Government give sympathetic consideration to assisting the voluntary sector in meeting those charges?

My Lords, as the noble Lord rightly points out, in relation to volunteers the fee has been waived completely. However, registered bodies must countersign applications so that not just anyone can apply. Those registered bodies charge voluntary organisations. We have tried to keep the costs down as much as possible. But a balance must be struck between getting that protection—namely, ensuring that there is a CRB check before someone works with children or young people—and, on the other hand, not being able to do it because of the costs. We think that a sensible balance has been struck. We have heard the representations made. Our response to those representations was to make it free for volunteers. We think that that is about the right balance.

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that this is merely the latest in a long list of alleged failures by this company? How long will it continue before the Government receive large penalty payments from the company? Is it possible to appoint another company in its place, or has it got the Government over a barrel for five years?

My Lords, as I said to my noble friend Lord Corbett, it is critical to reach a solution with the company as quickly as possible. If that is not possible, we will have to examine the legal remedies.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What assurances they can give to the Kurdish people living in the Iraqi Kurdistan region of northern Iraq that their security will be protected in the event of the outbreak of military offensives in the region.

My Lords, the Government remain committed to preventing a recurrence of the grave humanitarian crisis which led to the establishment of the northern no-fly-zone.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she agree that since 1991 the socio-economic and political progress made by the 3·6 million Kurdish people who live in northern Iraq has been remarkable? Does she also agree that there is now widespread anxiety that since the United States appears committed to an attack on Iraq, Turkey might take advantage of any military offensives in the region to pursue its own agenda, creating chaos and disaster in the region? What assurance can the Minister give to the Kurdish people with regard to those concerns?

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is right; I am aware that Kurdish areas are better off than Baghdad-controlled Iraq, because the Kurds have the political will to make the oil-for-food programme work for the people. Those improvements have occurred despite the attempts of the Iraqi regime to obstruct the programme in northern Iraq. For example, it has repeatedly delayed the arrival of demining equipment which could save lives.

With respect to the anxiety mentioned by the noble Baroness, we have repeatedly made clear that no decision has been made to launch an attack on Iraq. With respect to Turkey, it supports the territorial integrity of Iraq and is co-sponsor of the Ankara process. Turkey has demonstrated its commitment to securing peace and stability in northern Iraq and, as I have said, will remain committed to preventing another humanitarian crisis in northern Iraq.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that 13 per cent of the oil-for-food programme has helped the Kurdish people enormously in improving their lives? What assurance can Her Majesty's Government give to the Kurdish people that even if the sanctions were lifted, they would have 13 per cent of the oil revenues? Finally, will my noble friend tell the House whether the Government will support a permanent solution for the Kurdish people within Iraq?

My Lords, it would be difficult for us to give guarantees about the percentage of oil revenues which continue to go to northern Iraq, given that we do not know the outcome of the possible circumstances alluded to by my noble friend. It would be extremely rash of us to do that. Furthermore, we have always supported the territorial integrity of Iraq. We want to see autonomy, not independence, for the Iraqi Kurds and the Kurds have made it clear that that is what they want.

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Kurdish people of northern Iraq on the economic progress they have made. Will the Minister say what further steps the Government are taking to persuade the KDP and the PUK to form a unified administration so that they are better able to protect the people they serve from any future Iraqi incursions? Furthermore, does the Minister agree that if there are military operations in the region, as postulated by the question, it would not only cause immense harm to the Kurdish people of northern Iraq but would have a destabilising effect all around the region, in particular in Turkey?

My Lords, we welcome the progress made by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) on the Washington agreement and we encourage the dialogue that has taken place as a result. Again, it would be wrong to speculate; I made it clear that no military action is planned and that remains the position.

My Lords, I understand the reply that the Minister has given to the House. However, does she agree that in 1991 the principal casualties as a result of the unconcluded Gulf War were the Kurdish/Iraqi people and that they are right to feel a sense of apprehension with weapons of mass destruction situated close to their enclave and because within half an hour of their cities there are tanks which could roll into those areas should hostilities occur?

Does she also agree that one of the best signals that could be sent to the Kurds in that area would be to ensure that the policy she has announced today—that is the right to autonomy within a federated Iraq—should be agreed with the US State Department and with Turkey?

My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that there is discussion and dialogue between ourselves, the United States and others with respect to the situation in Iraq and that those discussions will continue. As regards the noble Lord's specific question about weapons of mass destruction, UN measures played a vital role in frustrating the ambitions of Saddam Hussein to develop them. We continue to press for the earliest possible resumption of UN weapons inspections to ensure Iraq's full compliance with its disarmament obligations and we will continue to do so. It is a cornerstone of our policy and it remains important under a number of UN Security Council resolutions.

My Lords, will the Minister indicate what arrangements would guarantee the availability and distribution of humanitarian supplies to Iraqi Kurdistan in the event of prolonged military action?

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate will understand when I say that it is not in our power to give such guarantees. However, we remain committed to preventing a grave humanitarian crisis, as I made clear in my original Answer. That is why the northern no-fly-zone was established in 1991 and that will continue to be a key part of our strategy.

My Lords, will the Minister accept that we on this side of the House welcome the continuing commitment to safeguard the Iraqi Kurds through the no-fly-zone and other arrangements because they certainly need it and are under constant threat? We also welcome the longer-term vision—I am afraid that it is only that at present—of a federal Iraqi democratic state.

However, will the Minister clarify the most important question of all? When it becomes necessary to use force against Saddam Hussein—as it will—are Her Majesty's Government prepared to go along with that or not? We need to know that before the event.

My Lords, we have made it absolutely clear that no military action is planned. In a statement made in April, the Prime Minister said that we would consider the matter in a calm and measured way. That continues to be the position.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the G8 Summit.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Filkin on the Order Paper.

Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

• Clauses 1 to 3,
• Schedule 1,
• Clauses 4 to 13,
• Schedule 2,
• Clauses 14 to 48,
• Schedule 3,
• Clauses 49 to 69,
• Schedule 4,
• Clauses 70 to 88,
• Schedule 5,
• Clauses 89 to 100,
• Schedules 6 and 7,
• Clauses 101 to 108,
• Schedule 8,
• Clauses 109 to 140,
• Schedule 9,
• Clauses 141 to 143.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 6, at end insert "and the legal profession"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. I was instigated by the Law Society of Northern Ireland. This morning I reread the Hansard report of our debate on the amendment in Committee. Having received no further arguments from the Law Society, I do not intend to move it.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 2, line 1, after "Appeal" insert "or judge of the High Court"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that the eight judges of the High Court, along with other senior judges, should not be appointed by the commission. I am disappointed that the Government have not relented on this. In Committee the issue was clouded with irrelevance with regard to who would or who would not become a Privy Counsellor. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, argued that because judges of the High Court are not Privy Counsellors, they could not be appointed in the same way as the Lord Chief Justice and the Lords of Appeal. However, when the point was put to her by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, the noble Baroness admitted that only on a few occasions do the Lords of Appeal exercise their UK-wide responsibilities. If that is the case, then it does not appear to me to be relevant whether High Court judges are appointed in the same manner.

In Northern Ireland we face a difficulty in that we are living in a period of transition. We are in a hugely difficult situation in which the whole political process is finding it hard to bed down. The one element of life in Northern Ireland that has been consistent over the past 30-plus years is the judicial process. Yet it appears to us that this legislation may reduce the appointment of High Court judges to a farcical process; that is, something in the nature of Buggin's turn. That is because the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are going to be put in the position where they have to strike a deal. However, even today they are not natural allies, although because of the special nature of politics in Northern Ireland, they work together. But it is possible that the First and Deputy First Ministers may grow far further apart in years to come.

The best way in which I could describe what is likely to happen to the High Court judges is that they will be appointed by a form of sectarian rotation. If such a move were to be decided in your Lordships' House, then it is not something on which we could congratulate ourselves.

No matter where you go in Northern Ireland, a huge emphasis has been placed on the sectarian balance. But it is one that—certainly in recent times has never emerged in terms of the appointment of High Court judges. We have sought all kinds of ways and means to resolve the problem. With regard to positions in the district and borough councils and, indeed, in the Northern Ireland Assembly itself, we have adopted the d'Hondt system. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal would not want to see such a system applied to the appointment of High Court judges.

It is essential for the Government to take this away and look carefully not only at whether we may be creating a climate of jeopardy for the judiciary or whether potentially we may be undermining the existing stability of the judicial process, but whether we may be introducing something that will have a knock-on effect, thus further destabilising those who are having foisted on to them the responsibility to agree to the terms of the appointment of High Court judges.

I have set out my logical and serious arguments for this amendment. I do not want to spoil the case with the stark truth; that is, with my personal perception of what is going on. But throughout our consideration of the Bill, I sense that something may be encapsulated within it that is designed to weak en the traditional links between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom and to provide a high-speed highway for links with the Irish Republic.

In respect of the judiciary and of judges of the High Court, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal will do his best to set my mind at rest by assuring me that the provisions contained in the Bill are not simply the means by which to regularise a process that is now secretly under way; rather, that those in the Irish Republic both have been and are being consulted in respect of judicial appointments in Northern Ireland. We shall return to the matter at other points in the Bill where, for no good or accountable reason that I can think of, special consideration is to be given to bodies within the Irish Republic which are not helpful either in a practical sense or in any sense, given the disquiet that such matters can cause in Northern Ireland.

The Lord Privy Seal will do us all a service if he can let me know on which occasions in recent times consultation has been held in respect of the appointment of High Court judges either with government Ministers or perhaps, more discreetly, through the Law Commission. We need to know exactly what is the level of liaison and whether the form of appointment that has been outlined in the Bill before us is to facilitate it even further.

I wish to raise one or two other matters. In Grand Committee on 11th June, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, indicated at col. CWH13 of Hansard that. the implementation of the Bill and its various elements would take place in stages. I do not wish to stray on to matters which will be discussed later, but my own experience suggests that there has been precipitate activity in the Northern Ireland Office and that matters which are only just at the consultation stage are being overridden by the implementation process. To put it in colloquial terms, someone is at his work.

I want to believe that what we achieve in terms of judicial appointments will be transparent and secure; that it will not be open to question or the kind of conflict that we have seen—I say this with some sadness—in terms of the appointment of the Chief Constable. That kind of conflict endangers everything that we in Northern Ireland have struggled to put in place. I cannot believe that that is the objective of the Bill. I know that your Lordships would not allow its objective to be the damaging or undermining of the Belfast agreement, which is still in its infancy.

But we have seen this happen from Weston Park to more recent events in Northern Ireland. We have seen a sleight of hand that is hugely disturbing for those of us who have to live with the situation in Northern Ireland. It is for that reason—returning to the issue of High Court judges—that I and most noble Lords want an assurance that the process will be transparent and not one which is so flawed that it will create further distrust and destruction in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal was kind enough to write to all noble Lords who took part in the Grand Committee proceedings and to commend the quality of their contributions. We are all grateful for that. We recognise the noble and learned Lord's touch in so doing, and we are grateful for it.

High among the matters that were referred to by many noble Lords in the course of the Grand Committee proceedings was a recognition of the extraordinary quality of the performance of the judiciary in Northern Ireland over the past 30 years and more. There was no dissenting voice. I have far less experience than many noble Lords who took part but, nevertheless, I was able to say that in the years when I had responsibility as Secretary of State, and before that as a Law Officer, I never heard it seriously contended that the judges were other than wholly impartial and showed the highest degree of judicial integrity.

What I want to say in support of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, is limited to this: the High Court judges are the cornerstone of the judiciary. The compliments paid to the judiciary as a whole extended right across the board, to the resident magistrates as well as to the higher ranks of the judiciary, but the High Court judges are the cornerstone. They undertake the Diplock hearings, where they are the judges of fact as well as of law, sitting without a jury in cases where that is necessitated by what is still called "the emergency". Their jurisdiction extends to the highest and most serious offences and their powers of sentence extend to sentences of life imprisonment and extremely long finite sentences. They exercise the function of judicial review, which is always extremely important. I tend to think that that is more difficult in Northern Ireland, with its special circumstances, than elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

There is a character distinction to be made between the High Court judges and the remainder of the judiciary which should be reflected in the provisions in the Bill for their appointments. I do not endorse everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. I do not dissent from what he said latterly because I understand his suspicions. I do not advance what I am saying in support of him as an endorsement of his suspicions, but I warmly endorse his anxieties about the means of appointing the small body of High Court judges in Northern Ireland on the recommendation of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting together. The High Court judges should be separated from their jurisdiction.

We shall come back to this issue again in other amendments and there will be other opportunities to reflect on the Judicial Appointments Commission. But there is an important character distinction. If I may put it this way, you will know it when you see it. I have seen it for quite a long time. I therefore support the amendment.

My Lords, I rise to express my concern at the Bill as it now stands. I read the proceedings in Grand Committee. I was not persuaded about the distinction between judges of the Court of Appeal and High Court judges in this respect. If I recall correctly, the point was made that a judge of the Court of Appeal is a Privy Counsellor. I did not attach any importance to that in that context.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, had much longer experience than I had as Attorney-General. I visited Northern Ireland frequently every few weeks for the purpose of meeting the judges and talking to them—I always had a meeting with the Lord Chief Justice—all in the interests of ensuring that I, as an outsider, knew a little of what was happening.

The problem—I hope that the Government will listen to this point—is that you have here a small core of very high quality judges. That is beyond argument. Secondly, they carry out their very difficult functions as High Court judges, sitting as judges both of law and of fact in Diplock cases. It was my function and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, when he was Solicitor-General to take away from a number of people each week their right to trial by jury if they were alleged to be concerned with offences under the schedule. I was always conscious of the high quality of the judges who exercised that onerous responsibility as judges of fact and of law in criminal trials.

The problem that has not so far been canvassed is that judges of the Court of Appeal—to my astonishment—are substantially interchangeable with High Court judges. Judges of the Court of Appeal sit to hear ordinary trials that a High Court judge would normally hear. There is a very small number of judges of the High Court and above in Northern Ireland. It is sometimes difficult to find someone to hear a case: he may already have heard the judicial review, and then his function is to hear either the main trial or the trial in the Court of Appeal. Therefore, to my surprise, there is a much greater degree of interchangeability than one would find in an English or Welsh jurisdiction.

Likewise, High Court judges sit in the Court of Appeal, but it is the fact that it happens the other way round that causes me concern—although it is not unknown for even the Lord Chief Justice to take a trial from time to time in various parts of England and Wales, but it is unusual to say the least. Therefore, I ask the Government to consider carefully what is the real basis for this distinction. I am concerned, as I was when I read the debate that took place in Committee.

My Lords, I want briefly to express my full support for the case made by my noble friend Lord Maginnis. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, has calmly and accurately illustrated the enormity of what the Bill sets out to do. To illustrate the point, if the Bill were to apply in Great Britain to England and Wales, we would have the Prime Minister and the leader of the Conservative Party appointing and sacking Her Majesty's judges. However skilfully some may try to dress the matter up and to camouflage it, that is essentially the problem.

My noble friend Lord Maginnis is perhaps more hopeful than I. He said that there could be a change within 10 months at an Assembly election. The general view has been expressed by the news industry—I do not always uphold its views but there seems to be a conclusion across the board—that there will be a change of parties, so that without any reflection on the integrity of those who might be appointed, according to the polls we could have a First Minister and a second Minister who were even more opposed than at present.

The problem is that they would have to act jointly. I can hardly see the Prime Minister and the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition acting jointly on a matter as fundamental to British justice as the proposal in the Bill. The appointment of judges would simply become a matter of conflict between the First Minister and the second Minister. As has been implied and stated, instead of judges being appointed on merit alone, we would end up with a bargaining situation between the two Ministers: "You get one, and I'll get one", without any regard to merit. That is the horrifying thing about this provision.

I feel strongly that High Court judges must not under any circumstances be made pawns in a political game, as the Bill proposes.

My Lords, I am straightforward in my support for the amendment. My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, have stated very clearly the seriousness of the amendment and of the situation of the eight High Court judges in Northern Ireland. There is a strong case for the Government to do some rethinking.

To touch on the politics of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, this should be a straightforward technical Bill devolving power in regard to the judiciary and the Northern Ireland judicial system. But, unfortunately, too great a reference to politics has been introduced, unnecessarily, in the form of overstatements and over-actions in different parts of the Bill. A great deal of this was discussed in Committee. I have no intention at this stage of going over any of the arguments. I hope that the Government will realise that they are hearing arguments concerning the small print politics included in the Bill which need not have been there.

My Lords, I hope that I shall be able to give noble Lords greater assurance than we seem to have been able to manage to date. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, that the Government have given these issues very careful consideration. We too want a transparent system which generates the trust that is necessary to make the Bill work.

These amendments were considered both in another place and in Committee. The intention is to give High Court judges the same appointment procedures and tenure as the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Justices of Appeal. I regret to say that the Government have not been persuaded by the debate on the issue so far. Perhaps I may recite some of the reasons why.

First, the review was clear. The Judicial Appointments Commission should appoint all judges up to and including High Court judges. I do not depart for one moment from the warm endorsement given to the judges by all noble Lords in Grand Committee, and reiterated quite properly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. That was a unanimous view.

I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that the High Court judges are one of the cornerstones of the judiciary and that they have had, to date, the character and distinction which mark them out for the proper role. All of those who have been burdened with that office in Northern Ireland have discharged the duty with distinction. These changes in the structure do not seek to change any of that. The case for excluding the most senior members of the judiciary from the remit of the Judicial Appointments Commission has not been made out, we respectfully suggest, for the High Court judges. We are looking to the future at what will be the next structure once devolution takes place.

The Chief Justice and the Lord Justice of Appeal are members of the Privy Council, as has been rightly noted by a number of noble Lords, not least by my noble and learned friend Lord Morris. But there is an important distinction. The Lord Justices of Appeal are members who potentially have responsibilities beyond Northern Ireland jurisdiction. This has not so far made much demand on their time, but they could be called on to act as Privy Counsellors in the future. That is perhaps more likely now, given the Privy Council's role in determining devolution matters. The issue is not simply whether they have done so in the past. They retain that potential and will do so in the future.

The Government agree with the review that it is appropriate to differentiate at this level of the judiciary. That line was taken with Scotland, where appointments and removals at the equivalent level are devolved. The amendments would remove that provision.

I know that there is concern. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, talked about Buggins' turn for judges. Buggins has never lived in the courts of our country and I do not think that he is going to get there now.

Clause 5 makes it plain that merit is the only criterion that will be operated. Subsection (2) says:

"Only a person selected by the Commission may be appointed, or recommended for appointment, to a listed judicial office".

Subsection (7) says:

"The First Minister and deputy First Minister must, on being informed by the Commission of the outcome of the reconsideration of its decision, appoint, or recommend for appointment, the person selected by the Commission after the reconsideration".

Subsection (8) says:

"The selection of a person by the Commission to be appointed, or recommended for appointment, to an office (whether initially or after reconsideration) must be made solely on the basis of merit".

If the First Minister and Deputy First Minister cannot agree on the commission's first recommendation for appointment, they must accept the commission's second recommendation, as set out in Clause 5(7). It is plain that the Lord Chief Justice will have a vested interest in making sure that the judges so appointed are of the highest possible calibre so that the high standards that have always prevailed in Northern Ireland will continue.

As I said in Grand Committee, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland currently makes a significant contribution to the deliberations on appointment, because he has the most intimate knowledge of Northern Ireland, its judiciary and those who seek proper judicial office. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor makes no bones about the reliance that he places on the Lord Chief Justice's good judgment.

I hope that noble Lords agree that the structure that we have put in place for High Court appointments is robust. Not only that, it underlines the importance of merit continuing to be the only criterion that will determine office—not Buggins' turn or political interference, but real quality. That is what Northern Ireland needs and has always had. The Government are determined that Northern Ireland will continue to benefit from that.

Of course I understand the anxiety when we chart a new course, but we have to have a little courage and trust. The judiciary is well supported by a vigorous independent Bar and legal profession, which is drawn from and reflective of the community as a whole. Those good men and women have been trusted to date and the Government feel that they can be trusted in the future, together with a proper structure that will support them and enable them to come to the right decisions.

The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, asked again about commencement. Clause 86 sets out the position succinctly. It says:

"The preceding provisions of this Act (with the Schedules) shall not come into force until such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint".

Subsection (2) says:

"An order may appoint different days for different purposes".

We shall be able to look at the right time for these provisions and set that time for implementation when all is ready. I assure noble Lords that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and this Government are as jealous as anyone to maintain the integrity of the judicial system in England and Wales and, as it should properly extend, in Northern Ireland.

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, can she explain Clause 5(3)? Does it mean that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, acting jointly, can foist on the commission a candidate whom the commission did not want?

My Lords, that is not the proper interpretation of Clause 5(3).

My Lords, in that case I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would explain the proper meaning of that subsection.

My Lords, Clause 5(3) enables the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, acting jointly, to require the commission to add an extra person to that which needs to be appointed. It would be preferable if I could explore the issue further and come back with a fuller explanation. My interpretation is that the subsection would not enable the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to oblige the commission to recommend someone who would not properly be appointed in accordance with the normal procedures. I shall certainly come back to that.

My Lords, perhaps I can fill in a little time while the noble Baroness gets some advice. It would seem extraordinary if we were asked to vote on the issue when the noble Baroness cannot explain the meaning of the clause and says that it does not mean what it appears to mean, but that she does not know what it means.

My Lords, if there is a vacancy, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister can require the commission to select a person, but it is for the commission to decide whom it recommends. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister cannot specify that they want, for example, the noble Lord to be selected. They can simply say that they want someone to be selected for the post. That is my understanding. They cannot identify the person.

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down—and perhaps to fill in a little more time—I have a further question. In Committee I asked whether she had any information about the extent to which Lords of Appeal and Lord Justices of Appeal in Northern Ireland had served in the Privy Council in an English jurisdiction. Not surprisingly, she was not able to answer at that time. She said today that the responsibility has not made great inroads into their time. I wonder whether it has made any inroads.

My Lords, there has been the potential for that, but it has not happened. We did a quick trawl on this. In 1997, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland was invited to sit as a Privy Counsellor in a particular matter. Regrettably, his other commitments made it impossible for him to sit. Requests can be made, but it depends on whether judicial officers are free to sit on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on a particular date. The important issue is that the potential is there. They are invited to sit from time to time, subject to availability. As I said earlier, it may become more important to have someone with a proper understanding of the worries and concerns of Northern Ireland when the Privy Council comes to deal with devolved issues, as will happen in future. One can envisage that there may be a greater call on their time in the future than there has been so far. They will obviously sit as just one of a number.

My Lords, I am grateful for that explanation. It is obvious that, in practical terms. they have so far not acted outside their jurisdiction. That is therefore not an argument that should unduly influence us. However, I am finding it difficult to follow the Privy Council argument itself. It is certainly an argument for making Lord Justices of Appeal Privy Counsellors. However, it is not an argument that is directly relevant in distinguishing the form of appointment of High Court judges who may be asked to perform within Northern Ireland precisely the same functions as those performed by Lord Justices of Appeal. I fear that the Privy Council argument is a complete red herring, or I may be unduly dim-witted and cannot understand it.

My Lords, I would never suggest that the noble and learned Lord is dimwitted or anything of that sort. On this occasion, however, I would say that he has perhaps failed to see the force of the arguments that we are putting forward. Perhaps I should make those arguments a little more clearly to assist him. As I said, the Lord Chief Justice has been asked on one occasion. Before 1997, however, previous Lord Chief Justices sat as Privy Counsellors. The noble and learned Lord wanted in particular to know what has happened since 1997, and that is our understanding of the situation.

I have emphasised that, in future, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will sit to rule on devolution issues, possibly including whether the Assembly's legislation is within the competence of the devolved Administration. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, will agree that it would be important to ensure that those sitting in the Privy Council on such matters have some expertise and knowledge of those matters. Whereas they currently form part of a pool of people who can be drawn upon to sit in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, subject to their availability, it is particularly important that those with particular knowledge are available to assist the Privy Council on devolution issues.

It is a distinction because of that important potential to sit on broader jurisdictional issues. It also precisely mirrors the line taken in Scotland. There is therefore a certain symmetry between the rules that we have put in place in one part of the United Kingdom and those that we have put in place in another. I know that Northern Ireland has always been very anxious about parity of treatment. There is parity in the rules that we have put in place for Northern Ireland and for Scotland.

My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me, but she has managed—perhaps because I do not have a legal background—to magnify the confusion that. I felt when I arrived here today. Her argument on the role which Privy Counsellors may have to play in deliberating on devolved government and devolution issues seems to be self-contradictory. Is she saying that our High Court judges will not be Privy Counsellors although they will have to adjudicate on devolution issues in Northern Ireland? Or is she saying that judges who have a competence throughout the United Kingdom will be required to adjudicate on devolution issues in Northern Ireland? As she can cite only one occasion when a Lord Chief Justice has been required to serve as a Privy Counsellor, and no occasions on which a Lord Justice of Appeal has been required to do so, is it likely that the services of High Court judges will be called upon first? I am beginning to wonder whether the whole issue is an absolute and total red herring and has little to do with the issue that we are trying to resolve.

My Lords, I am happy to assist the noble Lord. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will sit from time to time to determine a variety of issues such as those affecting the Commonwealth and countries in which the Judicial Committee is the final court of appeal. Additionally, it will now have jurisdiction in relation to devolved matters. When the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sits, it will be able to draw upon any number of Lord Justices of Appeal or Lords of Appeal in Ordinary who are fit to sit in the Privy Council. The Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland is one of those. When an issue relates particularly to devolution, it may be particularly important to ensure that the complement of judges sitting to hear that issue possess some knowledge of that subject and its history. Such judges may therefore be drawn from the pool of judges to sit on the issue thereafter.

High Court judges are not Privy Counsellors and cannot be called to sit as a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. All judges in Northern Ireland might have to decide devolution issues. However, the Privy Council is the final Court of Appeal on such issues. I hope that that explanation is a little clearer.

My Lords, I think that we require a certain element of discipline here. As I understand it, we are at Report stage and the Minister should not be subjected to this type of harassment. There should be one speech after the Minister's speech and no more.

My Lords, the answers that we have been given today are not sufficient to satisfy us. They are not sufficient in relation to the Privy Counsellor issue, and they have not even attempted to provide the assurance I requested on the role of the Irish Republic. Consequently, and because the situation in Northern Ireland is currently in jeopardy, I feel that I would be failing in my duty if I did not press the issue to a Vote.

My Lords. with the leave of the House, I beg leave to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the G8 Summit in Canada. Copies of all the documents agreed at the summit have been placed in the House Libraries. I pay tribute to Prime Minister Chretien for his excellent leadership at the meeting.

"This was the first meeting of G8 leaders since September 11th. We reviewed progress made in tackling terrorism, including steps taken to cut off terrorists' sources of financing, and action in Afghanistan and globally against A1'Qaeda and other terrorist networks. I set out detailed United Kingdom proposals for curbing opium production in Afghanistan, which is the source of 90 per cent of the heroin on our streets; and we agreed collectively to step up efforts to deal with this menace. We also agreed a set of practical measures to enhance the security of the global transport system.

"The events of 11 th September proved beyond doubt that terrorists will use any means to attack our countries and our people. We therefore agreed at Kananaskis to launch a new global partnership against the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and so help ensure that these deadly materials cannot fall into the hands of terrorist groups. The world's largest stocks of sensitive nuclear and chemical materials are in the countries of the former Soviet Union—above all, in Russia. The G8 has agreed collectively to raise up to 20 billion dollars over the next 10 years to fund projects under the global partnership. Among our priority concerns are the destruction of chemical weapons, the dismantling of decommissioned nuclear submarines and the employment of former weapons scientists. As part of this programme, the UK plans to commit up to 750 million dollars, spread over the next decade.

"We also discussed pressing regional issues. On the Middle East, G8 leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the 'two state' vision first set out in the Saudi peace initiative: a state of Israel, secure and accepted by its Arab neighbours, living side by side in peace with a stable and well-governed state of Palestine. We called for continuing efforts on India/Pakistan.

"The summit marked a major shift in the G7's relationship with Russia. G7 leaders agreed that Russia will assume the G8 presidency in 2006 and host our summit that year. Taken together with agreement by both the European Union and the United States to grant Russia market economy status, and with the launch of the new NATO/ Russia Council, these moves constitute a significant further step in building a strong partnership with Russia on security and economic issues. The next step is Russia's accession to the World Trade Organisation.

"But the main focus in the summit was Africa. Let me remind the House why. The tragedy of Africa is that it is a rich continent whose people are poor. Africa's potential is enormous. Yet a child in Africa dies of disease, famine or conflict every three seconds. These are facts that shame the civilised world. In Genoa last July, G8 leaders agreed to draw up a comprehensive action plan for Africa. Central to this proposal was the concept of a deal: that African governments commit themselves to economic, political and governance reforms; and that the G8 responds with more development assistance, more debt relief and greater opportunities for trade.

"Over the past year, African leaders have developed the New Partnership for Africa's Development—NePAD. This is an African-led initiative, which puts good governance at its heart. African countries have pledged to raise standards of governance and have committed themselves to a peer-review mechanism which will provide an objective assessment against these new standards.

"In response, at Kananaskis the G8 published its action plan for Africa. The plan sets out specific measures in eight areas. Peace and stability are preconditions for successful development everywhere, especially in Africa. Eight million Africans have died in conflicts in the last 20 years. The G8 committed to intensify efforts to promote peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in Sudan—two of Africa's bloodiest wars—ancl to consolidate peace in Angola and Sierra Leone.

"For the long term, we need to develop the peacekeeping capacity of African countries themselves. By 2003, we will have a joint plan in place to build regional peacekeeping forces, trained and helped by us. But we must also tackle the underlying issues which so often drive conflict. We pledged our support for a UN initiative to monitor and address the illegal exploitation and international transfer of natural resources from Africa that fuel armed conflicts, including mineral resources, petroleum, timber and water, and to support voluntary control efforts such as the Kimberley process for diamonds.

"Around 50 million children in Africa are not in school of any kind. We agreed to implement the education taskforce report which will increase significantly bilateral aid to basic education for African countries with a strong policy and financial commitment. Recent analysis by the World Bank sets out clearly which policies work. Where countries have those policies in place, we will ensure that they have sufficient external finance to meet the goal of universal primary education by 2015.

"We will also continue our efforts to tackle HIV/ AIDS through the new global health fund. G8 countries committed to provide the resources necessary to eradicate polio from Africa by 2005.

"Twenty-six countries, including 22 in Africa, have already benefited under the enhanced HIPC—heavily indebted poor countries—initiative, receiving 62 billion dollars in debt relief. Eventually, 37 countries are expected to benefit.

"At Kananaskis the G8 agreed to provide up to an additional 1 billion dollars for the HIPC trust fund. This will help to ensure that those countries whose debt position has worsened because of the global economic slowdown and falls in commodity prices will get enough debt relief to ensure that they are able to exit HIPC with sustainable levels of debt. On trade, we committed to make the WTO Doha round work for developing countries, particularly in Africa. We reaffirmed our commitment to conclude the negotiations no later than 1st January 2005 and, without prejudicing the outcome of the negotiations, to apply our Doha commitment to comprehensive negotiations on agriculture aimed at substantial improvements in market access and reductions of all forms of export subsidies, with a view to their being phased out.

"At Monterrey in February, the international community pledged to increase official development assistance by 12 billion dollars a year from 2006. In Kananaskis the G8 agreed that at least half of this new money would go to reforming African countries for investment in line with NePAD's own priorities. This is a substantial commitment by any standards—an additional 6 billion dollars each year for the world's poorest continent. It recognises Africa's needs. But it is also a strong signal of the G8's confidence that the commitments African leaders are making under NePAD really will transform the environment in which our aid is invested.

"The United Kingdom will contribute its share of these additional resources. I can tell the House that we expect UK bilateral spending on Africa to rise from around £650 million a year now to £1 billion by 2006, which is three times the level we inherited from the previous government.

"President Mbeki of South Africa said,

`there has never been an engagement of this kind before, certainly not between Africa and the G8 … it is a very, very good beginning'.

"President Obasanjo from Nigeria called it an,

`historic moment for Africa and for the whole relationship between the developed and developing world'.

"Africa is not a 'hopeless' continent, as some have described it. Uganda has reduced poverty by 20 percentage points in the past 10 years; growth has averaged around 7 per cent a year. HIPC debt relief and aid have been used to help provide free primary education. As a result, enrolment has doubled, putting millions of children into school.

"Mozambique has seen growth of 9 per cent over the past four years. Tanzania is now providing free primary education. As a result of courageous new policies, Mali has reduced poverty dramatically in the past four years.

"Of course we need to do more; much more. But for the first time there is a comprehensive plan dealing with all aspects of the African plight. For the first time it is constructed with African reforming leaders as partners, not passive recipients of aid. For the first time we link explicitly and clearly good governance and development.

"This is not our destination, of an Africa renaissance, achieved. But it is a new departure. It is a real signal of hope for the future. It is up to us now to make it a reality. I am proud of the part Britain has played in it. There are those who say Africa matters little to the British people. The millions who donate to charities, who give up time, energy and commitment to the cause of Africa, eloquently dispute this. Africa does matter; to us and to humanity. We intend to see the plan through."

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I assure him, as I am sure will the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that we very much welcome the commitment of the G8 to support education in developing countries and to assist them in tackling the scourge of diseases like AIDS, TB, malaria and polio. The progress made on international debt relief is also very welcome.

The Prime Minister understandably focuses on the G8's meeting with African presidents and the UN Secretary-General to discuss the New Partnership for Africa's Development. It is an important step in the right direction. But does he share my surprise that the Statement was not more forthright on the matter of dictators who have despoiled Africa and on the case of Mugabe in particular? Indeed, the Statement mentions almost every single African country except Zimbabwe where it has been reported recently that children are now starving to death.

We are told that there can be no partnership for development with countries which do not respect political freedom and the rule of law. But what does that amount to in the case of the racism, violence and corruption so evident in Zimbabwe? Did the Prime Minister press the summit to demand fresh presidential elections or to co-ordinate sanctions between the EU and North America?

On a wider theme, we have heard much recently of the doctrine created by the Prime Minister that claims a right to require other countries to change their governments or to exclude certain parties from power: for example, last year Austria; this year France; or intervention in the former Yugoslavia. And now we have the Prime Minister's statement that African countries must have proper commercial and legal systems and respect for the processes of democracy. Did the summit try to define exactly what criteria third countries have to meet to pass the acceptability test and receive support? If not, can the noble and learned Lord undertake to lay before the House a document which sets out in detail what this country's own criteria are? This surely must be a key working text of an ethical foreign policy.

Can the Leader of the House say whether there were discussions on the implications of the creation of the International Criminal Court for the fight against terrorism? Has he any news on the latest situation with regard to the UN operation in Bosnia? As he will recall, we expressed our concern in this House on the issue now being raised by President Bush. We wanted the ICC to work but we also wanted to protect our own troops against malicious prosecution. The French Government wisely put a declaration and reservations into the Rome Statute designed to protect their military personnel against the jurisdiction of the court. This House tried to achieve the same for our forces. The Government resisted it. Does the noble and learned Lord now regret that? Would not sensible safeguards for troops engaged in lawful operations set the court on the firm basis we all want from the beginning?

Kananaskis was the first G8 gathering since 11th September. Naturally. we welcome the practical steps agreed to fight international terrorism and prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. We also welcome the full re-emergence of Russia on the world stage. It is right that the G8 should help to reduce her nuclear stockpiles and fitting that Russia will assume the presidency of the G8 in 2006.

I turn briefly to the communiqué on transport security. Can the noble and learned Lord explain what is meant by minimum standards for the issue of travel and identity documents by October 2002? What, in the Government's view, is involved in recommendations on minimum standards for the application of biometrics in procedures and documents by spring 2003? Does he anticipate that any of that will require domestic legislation? And can he assure the House that the sharing of information on certain passport data will accord with this country's rules on data protection?

We welcome the attention being given to container security although the lead times seem long. But, given the aspiration in the communiqué only to seek to agree standards on reinforcing flight deck doors on passenger aircraft by April 2003, can he say when the Government expect improved security to be in place on U K carriers?

We note the balanced statement on the Middle East, which we endorse. But what is the meaning of the statement by the Prime Minister that,

"we have got to have a Palestinian leadership with whom we can negotiate seriously"?

In the noble and learned Lord's view, does the Palestinian authority have such leadership today?

On Afghanistan, can he tell the House whether British troops will be involved in action to eliminate opium production and trafficking as was agreed at the summit?

Finally, the noble and learned Lord may not yet have seen on the communiqué on co-operation projects on counter-terrorism in guideline ix that,

"measures will be put in place to ensure effective protection of sensitive information and intellectual property".

What are the implications of that for the issue of academic freedom that is of such concern to this House on the Export Control Bill to which we shall soon return?

If the summit is to be remembered, it will be judged by what it achieves for Africa and whether the G8 and, no less important, African leaders can make good the aspirations set out. We have learnt through decades of bitter experience that the size of the aid promises does not necessarily lead to long-term development and prosperity. Against this background, does the noble and learned Lord think that the £200 million cost of the summit, as is alleged, was excessive? What will be the cost to United Kingdom taxpayers of hosting the summit in 2005?

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I make some congratulatory remarks to the Government although in some matters I shall be closer to the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde.

I congratulate the Government on what I understand was very much a UK initiative with regard to the opium crop in Afghanistan. The UK Government seized upon it, rightly, and then pursued it, bringing their allies along with it. The Government should be fully commended.

Although we shall come to the issue in the questions, I also congratulate the Government on the position that they have taken consistently to try to do something serious about the continent of Africa. I have reservations about some of the conclusions of the summit. However, I wish to make it plain that in my view the United Kingdom in this respect has been consistently more proactive than many other members of the G8.

I regret the brevity of the reference in the Statement to the Middle East. It is a matter of only three or four lines. At this extremely troubling and even fateful moment in history, at least two questions should be asked. First, what position do the United Kingdom Government take in the light of the G8 Summit Statement and of the earlier Statement from Seville, Spain, about the EU summit, where, specifically Israel was asked to cease military operations in occupied territories? That was not reflected in the summit Statement. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can tell us exactly where the Government stand.

On the other side of the troubling equation of the Middle East, allegations have been made in particular by some leading American politicians on the deep involvement of the leader of the Palestinian authority, Yasser Arafat, in terrorist operations. There are implications that at Ramallah and elsewhere evidence has been turned up to show that there are close links between terrorist operations and Mr Arafat himself. I do not expect to receive a straight reply on the matter, but perhaps the Government, along with other G8 leaders, would consider publishing any evidence that they may have of Mr Arafat's direct involvement in terrorism. Obviously, that is very germane to the question about whether or not he can be accepted as the democratically-elected leader of the Palestinian interest in the Middle-East.

On Bosnia, my remarks are somewhat close to the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, though I approach them from a rather different angle. I very much hope that the Government will not blink on the subject of the International Criminal Court. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that any government with a proper judicial process—with proper rights of defence and a recognition that people are innocent until proven guilty—may try any case of this kind in its own courts about its own nationals. It is only where such cases cannot be adequately dealt with for one reason or another that the ICC comes into the picture. It is important to make that observation because, as someone with considerable respect for the American judicial process, I do not believe that miscreants, or others, who are involved in war-crime activities would not be properly tried in that country. Therefore, such cases would be unlikely to come before the ICC.

We on these Benches cannot fully accept that any country, however excellent its standards and however high its implementation of such standards, can be found never to be likely to be guilty of any crime at all in the international field. Would it were so! Let us be honest, every country has some bad apples. That must include the United States, and certainly this country. The great thing about the ICC is that it looks into such matters most carefully.

I have a few questions to ask the Minister on the two major issues. As regards weapons of mass destruction, I should declare an interest as a board member of Senator Nunn's nuclear threat initiative (NTI). In that context, I should point out that, according to NTI, Russia probably has the capacity to create 80,000 nuclear weapons. It is estimated that the great majority of the nuclear arsenal in Russia is still not fully protected. Anyone who has visited the Arctic Sea, or, for that matter, the Black Sea, will have seen deteriorating nuclear submarines in water up to their conning towers at any time. The situation is extremely grave; indeed, one could say that it is most frightening.

Can the Minister assure the House that the finances now being made available for the purposes of cleaning up Russia will enable those concerned at least to secure the most dangerous and vulnerable sites as quickly as possible? That is all the more important in the light of the fact that, since the US/Moscow/Russia treaty came into effect, the much more careful inspection and monitoring provisions of the original START treaties have been abandoned. It is an extraordinarily troubling situation.

Due to lack to time, I am unable to pursue that matter further. I shall conclude by asking the Minister one or two questions about Africa. We welcome the new 12 billion dollars for ODA announced at Monterrey, though that sum seems to have more than one function—half is to be used for Africa. The estimate of Kofi Annan is that Africa needs between 40 and 60 billion dollars a year to deal with its desperate problems. Therefore, 6 billion dollars is a relatively small sum of money. As regards the pursuit of dealing with corruption in government, which is a serious issue in Africa, and of dealing with money laundering, can the Minister assure the House that there will be full co-operation from western governments? I have to say that that has not been forthcoming in all G8 countries, especially as regards money laundering. Without such help, it is simply useless to expect African governments to do on their own what can be done only as a combined effort.

Finally, whatever happened to that wonderful vision expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, at the US Federal Reserve Bank earlier this year? Can the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House tell us whether that is still in play, or whether it has simply disappeared?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for the general support, subject to the usual caveats and questions, that they offered. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, made a point with which I entirely agree; namely, that there are dictators who have despoiled Africa and corrupted the economies. That is the whole purpose behind the present approach. It is legitimate—indeed, it is right and ought to be mandatory—that, in future, countries that seek aid from those who are wealthier should recognise the collateral obligations that that aid is properly spent, and that internal judicial systems are there to work.

It is very important that there should be internal judicial systems. In my experience, no country will ever be able to attract inward investment if there is no mechanism for the proper independent, non-corrupt, impartial settlement of civil disputes. Allied to that—and this almost always follows—is that if you have an independent, non-corrupt civil system and an independent civil judiciary, it is inevitable as night follows day that a criminal system will have to be established.

The noble Lord raised the question of Zimbabwe and asked why there was so little reference to it in the Statement. I should tell him that it is essentially because the House of Commons and the House of Lords have been given a Statement from the Prime Minister in order to bring them up to date with the present situation. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, is in his place. I believe that he would agree with me that the question of Zimbabwe has frequently been discussed, and rightly so, in this place. It was raised at the G8 summit. I do not pretend that it was the core of the discussion but, if any country wants assistance of any sort, it must conform to the norms of a civilised society, and I do not refer to the United Kingdom alone. It must conform to what general international norms dictate.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked for definitions of "independent commercial legal systems". It is not possible to have one-size-fits-all; nor would one wish it to be so. After all, we are a very close colleague of the United States, but the system in that country is not the same as the one that applies in this country. Indeed, its systems are not the same as ours because some of them are Roman law systems in the former states that were French or Spanish properties, while others, which did not have that good fortune, have common law open systems like ours. Their laws are different: one size will never fit all. However, one can have a peer review like the one that is due to commence in Africa. This is a very long journey. No one pretends that it will happen overnight.

The question of the International Criminal Court was raised by both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, though in slightly different forms. The noble Lord asked whether I had any regrets in this respect. I had the great pleasure of assisting my noble friend Lady Scotland in the passage of the ICC legislation through this House. We were an early signatory to the treaty: we ratified, and we did right. The noble Lord asked whether it was perhaps disproportionate to think that members of the armed services "acting lawfully" might be subject to prosecution. No member of the Armed Forces acting lawfully has any prospect at all of being arrested or prosecuted.

The noble Baroness is quite right in what she says. We spent a little time in our debates on—I am afraid to fall into jargon, but it is useful shorthand—pointing out that the statute relies specifically on complementarity. Its jurisdiction does not even begin to be thought about until the internal national jurisdiction has displayed the bad faith of which the noble Baroness spoke.

As regards the noble Lord's question, which was not rhetorical, I shall, nevertheless, offer a rhetorical answer in return. Is it to be said that the servants of international organisations should be free of all jurisdiction if those countries that could take jurisdiction refuse it? I know of no state organisation all of whom's agents are perfect. If one is dealing with gross crime, it seems to me that those alleged crimes should not go unpunished. I believe that there is an international criminal tribunal sitting at present. I know it to he true: I have been there. Indeed, I was present on the day that Madame Plavsic surrendered herself to the jurisdiction. I do not believe that the United States has ever objected in principle to that tribunal or to other tribunals that have been set up. The world has long changed. Domestic jurisdictions are not always sufficient, and if they are not, the gap in law must be filled. I do not regret the passage of the Bill; I rejoice in it. It was a distinct step forward.

I believe that I have dealt with the questions of the noble Baroness on the International Criminal Court. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked about Russia. It has significant problems. The only way to deal with them is to behave co-operatively. President Putin shows himself to be a statesman and not an internal politician. He wishes to join the G8; he wishes to have the presidency, which has been agreed; and he is determined on reform in a country that has had no significant change for the better part of a century. Russia has vast problems and the international community must engage in them. The capability of weapons or the dangerous relics of nuclear armaments must be dealt with in our interests as well as in the interests of Russia.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked about transport. A start has been made. We have been supportive of the initiative for the compulsory fitting of reinforced cockpit doors to all passenger aircraft and the last plane on which I flew—I believe that it was a Virgin plane—had such a door and not just because I was a passenger! Russia retains a reserve on some of the ambitious dates put forward. We have to deal with ship and port security plans—it is not just a matter of dealing with aircraft—and we have to deal with systems of automatic identification for ships. Some are in place and some are not.

The noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about the Middle East. Our attitude, which is plain, was set out at Seville: we wish an end to the occupation and the early establishment of a viable democratic, peaceful and sovereign state of Palestine on the basis of the 1967 borders, if necessary with minor adjustments to be agreed. I repeat what I said quite unambiguously that there is no prospect of this Government, or any successor government, abandoning the absolute right of the state of Israel to exist within stable and secure boundaries as a democratic state in a part of the world where democracy is not universal.

Recently the Foreign Secretary said that it is not within our gift to choose the leaders with whom we deal. There are many leaders of foreign countries with whom we are not entirely in sympathy, but we do not have the luxury to pick and choose.

In relation to Afghanistan, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked about drugs. It is not simply a matter of destroying crops. We need to build local capacity in the security sector and we need to rehabilitate the rural infrastructure with roads and irrigation. That is the work of many years, as the present situation is the consequence of decades of wilful destruction. We need to introduce modest schemes, such as micro-credit schemes, to underwrite small loans for small farmers and we need agricultural input provision, such as seed, fertiliser, tools and expertise. It is not simply a matter of armed forces, although they discharge their duties magnificently.

The noble Lord asked about academic freedom. I believe that the objection to the Export Control Bill has been wholly misconceived, as may be realised.

The noble Lord spoke about Africa where there is a fantastic opportunity. NePAD is capable of being made to work. The noble Baroness spoke of the Secretary-General's figures, which are substantial—up to £6 billion a year. It is true that the Secretary-General spoke about much more, but I understood that he was speaking about total investment and we are hoping to provide the infrastructure upon which substantial increased investment can be based.

The noble Lord asked about the cost of the G8 summit. The cost to the United Kingdom Government must have been one of the smallest because our delegation was one of the smallest. It was of the order of 25 to 28 officials with about five security people.

The noble Baroness asked whether evidence relating to Mr Arafat's involvement in terrorism existed or whether it would be published. I do not know the answer. I read various assertions, followed by vigorous counter-assertions and I have no personal knowledge or any means of judging whose assertion is correct.

I have dealt with Bosnia. I take the point about the significant numbers of weapons in Russia. I cannot guarantee that they are fully protected, although substantial resource is being provided for clean up and protection in Russia.

On the specific question of the noble Baroness about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I believe that my right honourable friend Mr Brown made it clear that we would need additional money for Africa, with which we agree. Donations will not be enough. We want engaged investment, which the wisest, most prudent and most imaginative of the African leaders recognise. It is still in play; it has not been abandoned. I accept that the Statement is only a summary of substantial achievement, but it is an optimistic summary.

My Lords, while it is right that corruption in all its forms should be denounced, and without seeking to defend dictators in Africa, does my noble and learned friend accept that fault in relation to Africa lies not entirely within Africa? Does he recall the years of the Cold War when the dictatorship in Zaire was fully supported by Western governments because it sat on the right side as far as Communism was concerned? Does he also recall that decades of strife in Angola were artificially fostered by the United States arming the UNITA rebels of Savimbi? Perhaps we may take comfort from the fact that the problems in Africa are now being given serious consideration. I welcome the support promised to Angola so that it can stabilise a long-lasting peace.

In terms of support for Africa I believe that we have moved a long way. Some of the rather mean comments about the summit have to be set aside the words of President Mbeki of South Africa who says that this is the end of an époque of colonialism and neo-colonialism. Although it may be a long time before that journey is completed, at least we are making an honest start.

My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. If one wants to attack bad governance and corruption in Africa perhaps one should occasionally look at the beam in the eye closer to home. He has a vast experience of South Africa and knows as well as I do that the first free elections took place only in 1994, which was barely eight years ago. When one considers that extraordinary achievement, he is right to challenge those who are mean-hearted and mean-spirited.

My noble friend has made a soundly-based point about Angola. Too often the countries of Africa have been used as the playthings and the client states of other states which have behaved ignobly. The other evening I had the pleasure of speaking to the Ambassador of Angola who represents his government's view that there is a vast amount to do, and that, although the war has recently ceased, they are intent on further progress.

Let us consider the example of Mozambique on which the Prime Minister reported in his Statement. There has been a terrible, remorseless civil war for many years and tragedies and catastrophes due to the weather and floods. Those are significant factors and we should not overlook them.

My Lords, is it not extraordinary that neither in the two press conferences given by the Prime Minister nor in the two documents specifically about Africa published by the conference was Zimbabwe mentioned, though four other African countries which have had troubles were mentioned by name? Is not the situation in Zimbabwe going from disastrous to catastrophic, whether in the realms of human rights, the rule of law or now starvation? Would not this have been a good opportunity for the G8 governments to have impressed on the African leaders who were present the importance of their making clear to Mr Mugabe the importance of his abiding by the African statement,

"good governance and human rights as necessary preconditions for Africa's recovery"?

Is not the reality that Mr Mugabe will take this conference as a licence to carry on exactly as he wishes?

My Lords, I bow to no one in my respect for the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, in his concerns, about which I have often spoken in this House. I do not believe that Mr Mugabe regards himself as being in need of any sort of licence. He has determined upon his activities, which have been roundly condemned in every section of this House and by the British Government on many occasions. References are made to the need for humanitarian concerns and respect for human rights to be put at the forefront of the NePAD partnership.

It is true that there is no specific reference to Zimbabwe in the Statement which I read out. But time after time in this House, to my knowledge and that of the noble Lord, my noble friends Lady Amos and Lady Symons have repeated the Government's view on Zimbabwe. There comes a time when one may need to focus on other things, particularly as there has been constant reporting on Zimbabwe in this House virtually on a weekly basis.

My Lords, I welcome what the Leader of the House and the Statement on the summit said about tackling endemic poverty in Africa. The figure he announced today, which was announced previously, of 6 billion dollars additional funding is to be welcomed. Can he set out to the House precisely how that will be linked to anti-corruption measures and whether we will retaliate directly against governments by reducing aid programmes if there is corruption in those countries?

The noble and learned Lord said that he dislikes the way in which African countries have been used as playthings and client states. Does he agree that the sale of arms, particularly to places like Liberia, Angola, Mozambique, Rwanda and the Sudan, has inflamed conflict in those areas over the years and debased the countries which simply continue to sell arms without any concerns for the consequences? Indeed, in the sale of sophisticated air traffic control systems to countries like Tanzania we have played a part in not tackling the root problems of poverty but rather selling devices which will be of no real use to the people of those countries.

The Statement made reference to the WTO Doha round. I particularly welcome what the Leader of the House said today about the emphasis that will be placed upon trade. Does he agree that the best way in which to help African countries pull themselves out of this systemic and endemic policy is by encouraging fair and free trade with African countries?

My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said in his concluding remarks; that is the way forward. We are trying to offer not simply financial assistance, but also technical and resource assistance, in which we have significant expertise fortunately, to build an appropriate infrastructure whereby our colleague countries in Africa can develop investment and fair trade themselves. It is 6 billion dollars a year so it is a substantial figure. We shall have to work in partnership with the African countries, recognising a number of matters. First, that they are sovereign nations; secondly, that we are entitled, in all decency and with all due thought, to wish their co-operation. A nation which is providing assistance is entitled morally to say that these are conditions for the assistance. It is not a case of punitive sanctions or punishment; it is a case of a co-operative venture. After all, NePAD stands for a new development and the "P" is for "partnership".

My Lords, in relation to the contribution by the United Kingdom to the plan for Africa, can the Minister say whether what I understood to be the incremental element in the British contribution comes from a rearrangement of the spending plans of the Department for International Development, from a reserve within that department, or from outside that department altogether and thus from the contingency reserve of the Treasury?

My Lords, I can answer the noble Lord with the assistance, I say readily, of my noble friend Lady Amos who was present at the summit—and I like that benefit. In 1997 the aid budget to which the noble Lord referred was £332 million. It is rising to £632 million. By the year 2006 it will be £1 billion. So it is not simply a case of rearranging the cheques; it is a significant advance.

My Lords, does the Leader of the House agree that the Statement is intended not just to update Members of Parliament in both Houses but is also a Statement to the rest of the world as to how the Prime Minister saw the summit? If he agrees that that is the point of the Statement, on reflection does he consider that it might have been better for the Prime Minister to have included a serious attack on Mr Mugabe and other African leaders who have failed to follow the excellent standards that NePAD wishes? Indeed, the noble and learned Lord said that an impartial judiciary is an essential to any government. That is certainly not the case in Zimbabwe and a good many other African countries. The Statement gives the impression that the whole of Africa will benefit, whether or not the countries comply with the good governance criteria. Does the Minister feel, therefore, that it might have been better to have set out that position a little more clearly?

My Lords, no. I know that one of the unfortunate aspects of this procedure is that the Statement is not available to many noble Lords ahead of time or indeed at all. But I remind the noble Earl that copies of all the documents agreed at the summit have been placed in the House Libraries. In the nature of things, particularly as we have other important business today, this is simply a summary of what was agreed. One of the documents in the Library is the G8 Africa Action Plan.

I take up the noble Earl's point. The New Partnership for Africa's Development offers something different. African leaders have personally directed its creation and implementation. They have formally undertaken to hold each other accountable for its achievement. They have emphasised good governance and human rights as necessary preconditions for Africa's recovery. That deals fairly and squarely with the noble Earl's question as to whether or not they receive the money for not doing anything. It is clearly present in paragraph 4 of the action plan, which states:

"this will lead us to focus our efforts on countries that demonstrate a political and financial commitment to good governance and the rule of law, investing in their people, and pursuing policies that spur economic growth and alleviate poverty".

Many would think that that was particularly directed at, among others, Mr Mugabe and Zimbabwe, and I would be one of them.

My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that there will be a wide welcome for the emphasis on education in the Africa plan? Does he agree that while the goal of universal primary education is of course a totally worthy one and deserves every support, educational aid needs a wider concept? Education and good governance will be extremely important in making a success of the partnership plan. Does he also agree that the ultimate test will be that the educational element should be an increasing element and should be seen in the widest possible context?

My Lords, I totally agree. The original aim to which the noble Lord referred is a noble one, though it is rather distressing to call it a noble ambition that children should be able to look to the certainty of primary education. However, the noble Lord is quite right; it must be assistance by way of education and good governance and we must remind ourselves that we are living in an IT age where primary education will form a less important component.

When the noble Lord speaks of education and good governance he is quite right. But I can think of a number of western countries where non-corrupt good governance is of fairly recent origin.

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord's repetition of the Statement is enormously welcome among those who work in NGOs and civil society organisations. I chair the board of Christian Aid. I am sure that there will be huge welcome for what has been said about Africa in particular.

I know that in Africa there will be many who would have liked a higher level of commitment of resources to the problems. But most people will welcome the Statement for what it represents in terms of engagement with the issues. I want to stress that and to ask a question with regard to the Middle East. I know that that is a fractious issue at the moment, but the Statement, even in its brevity, seems to commit the G8 to engagement with the issues, including the United States' leadership. That surely is the most significant part.

Would the noble and learned Lord like to comment on the fact that for millions of Palestinian people—who have lived with poverty, oppression and the denial of their rights, as they see it, for a long time—it is difficult to connect with a policy which seems to have been framed in terms of "who we will not talk with" rather than in terms of addressing how we might resolve some of those issues?

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right in both approaches. Engagement with the issues is critical. We are fortunate in this country that, because of our history over the past century, we have a knowledge of those parts of the world that we were formerly engaged with in a non-co-operative sense. We have the historical traditions which enable us to offer real engagement with the issues. This is not a party political point at all. I believe that we in this country should rejoice that it is significantly as a result of our initiatives that we shall be engaged in the tasks which have been mentioned.

It is true that many Palestinians feel that they have been left behind and left out. I reiterate what the Prime Minister said and what the meeting at Seville agreed on. There are the two ambitions for the state of Israel and the state of Palestine. Our Government's efforts are entirely devoted to trying to assist both objectives to become realities. But I cannot pretend for a moment—it would be idle to do so—that there is any solution immediately on the horizon.

My Lords, the summit has obviously gone extremely well so far as concerns Africa. The Prime Minister and the Government deserve a great deal of credit for that.

I turn to Bosnia. Did the Government—the Prime Minister—get any indication from the United States at the summit that it would take this somewhat abrupt position in the Security Council? Did we have any indication at all, for example, that the Americans were claiming total immunity for their people from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court? Did we have any indication that they are prepared to bring UN peacekeeping operations to a standstill in order to assert that immunity? If they did give such indication I should be interested to hear about it; if they did not, I am afraid that I should also be interested to hear about that.

My Lords, we knew, obviously—it has been not least a matter of public record—of the United States' serious reservations about the International Criminal Court. If I remember rightly, there were proposals—how far they got I am not entirely certain—that legislation should be introduced. Certainly, at least two senators and several congressmen were interested in introducing legislation into the United States' Congress which would have fairly dramatic consequences for the ICC. What has happened is that the United Nations' mission in Bosnia and Herzegovnia has been rolled over—not for very long; it was a 72 hours extension, until 3rd July. I can assure my noble friend Lord Richard and the House that we are urgently trying to look for a solution that meets all our needs.

The United States has been making a contribution in Bosnia. Of the 18,000 SFOR troops, 2,500 are US troops. The noble Lord is quite right, there is a difference of view, of emphasis and of nuance in our respective approaches to the International Criminal Court. The British Government believe that those concerns are not properly founded for the reasons given, among others, by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams.

I personally suggest respectfully to my American friends—some of whom are lawyers—that they have mistaken what the statute means. But we have made our position perfectly plain. We have signed and ratified. We had an interesting debate in the Chamber. A large number of states have now ratified. But I stress that the statute allows complementarity, and, indeed, insists upon it.

moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 2, line 32, leave out "five" and insert "six"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to change the balance in the make-up of the Judicial Appointments Commission from a majority of lay people to a majority of the judiciary. There will be, I understand—I have done this count several times because there was a certain amount of confusion in Committee-13 people on the commission. It is to be chaired by the Lord Chief Justice. I am assured that barristers and solicitors are not to be considered part of the judiciary. I see the noble Lord, Lord Desai, disagrees with my numbers.

My Lords, I am sorry, I thought that Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 had to be withdrawn before the noble Lord could move Amendment No. 5. Is the noble Lord moving Amendment No. 5?

My Lords, as I understand it, I am moving Amendment No. 5.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is quite right. We disposed of the other amendments earlier.

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord. For a moment I thought that I had lost it—it would not be for the first time—at the Dispatch Box in your Lordships' House.

I go back to my argument. There are to be 13 people on the commission. Without going into the detail again, six will be from the judiciary and seven will be lay people, albeit including a barrister and a solicitor.

Our last debate, I believe, strengthened my case. In that debate all noble Lords, including the Government, agreed that for the past 30 years the most solid and most clearly independent rock in the democratic governance of Northern Ireland has been the judiciary.

That debate decided the relative position, selection and so on of the High Court judges, who, I understand, can also be judges of appeal. It is vitally important that we do everything we can to defend the independence of the judiciary. It is clear that in relation to appointments that is so. A quick reading of the "Duties of Commission" on page 30 of the Bill shows that those duties are legal and to a large extent technical. To place those duties on a commission which is a lay commission—the majority of its members lay, with guidance by a minority of judiciary—is illogical.

I move the amendment because the whole logic of the two short debates that have already taken place today is that the judiciary is the finest independent body in the Province. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said in Committee that lay people would bring serious, interesting and good advice to the commission. I entirely agree. But that lay advice and intelligence should not form a majority.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I do not know whether he has misunderstood, but he referred to page 30. He will of course know that that refers to the Law Commission, not to the Judicial Appointments Commission.

My Lords, I accept that. I beg to move.

My Lords, I support the amendment. It is even more important than it was about an hour ago, as we have now ensured that the appointment of High Court judges, the very core of the judicial process in Northern Ireland, will be a matter for the commission. It is therefore inappropriate that we should legislate to provide that the majority within the commission will be members of the laity.

There has been a tradition for senior judicial appointments in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Government are not going to take us through Report by pulling in a little bit of what happens in Scotland; including another little bit of what happens in England and Wales; but discarding a little bit of what has traditionally happened in Northern Ireland, while adhering to other arguments pertaining to different factors. In Committee, I discovered little consistency in or justification for the arguments used by the Government for aspects of the Bill.

I must ask a question that I shall consistently ask today and until I receive an answer: does consideration of such external pressures mean that we cannot have a majority of those who are best qualified—some might say, those who alone are qualified—to make a judgment on the appointment of High Court judges and others in Northern Ireland? The change that we seek is not huge; we ask only for one further judicially qualified person to be substituted for one lay person. That is a reasonable request. It would restore the previous balance, albeit under a different form, for appointing High Court judges.

Perhaps I put too fine a point on it when asking the question about external pressures; perhaps I should press the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal and the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, on what pressures and considerations feature in consultation with either the judiciary or members of the government in the Irish Republic.

If there were a majority of judicial members on the commission, I should have a great deal more confidence in its professionalism and integrity, which can be, and over 30 very difficult years has been, measured. I support the amendment. If one deputy county court judge were added to the judicial members, that would satisfy most of us that matters were being deal with in a transparent manner.

My Lords, without voicing the slightest criticism, of course, I am slightly surprised that Amendment No. 5 has not been grouped with Amendment No. 6. The arguments for the one are inextricably linked with those for the other. I therefore propose to make a speech that may be out of order; I shall now be told that it is.

My Lords, I understand that Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are grouped together.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. They are not grouped on my list—out of date, as usual. It is most reassuring that, in spite of myself, I am in order.

I remain unhappy about the Judicial Appointments Commission. I need not repeat that we have a highly respected judiciary. It is therefore worthwhile asking ourselves how that judiciary has been appointed throughout 30 or more years of supreme test. It is probable that the high regard in which the judiciary is held, on the basis of its record, arises at least in part from how it has been selected and appointed.

That system is operated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. If they do not know—for it is the fact—everyone will doubtless assume that the Lord Chancellor exercises enormous care in selection and in consultation with the people who are most likely to know whether a potential judge, a candidate for the judiciary, will make a good job of it. Those people have experience of the candidates through working with them, having them appear before them and being their colleagues. They are consulted on the basis of their relevant experience. In the context of public confidence in Northern Ireland, that system has the advantage of operating not only away from the battlefield but above the battle. That is no small advantage.

So the question is, "Why change?". If we are up against our old friend, perception, I contend that perception looks both ways. I do not know why the advantages that I have identified are thought to be outweighed by an untried and—I judge—unwanted innovation. Within the innovation, there is a built-in cause for anxiety. By what criterion is a lay member of the commission expected to discern the relative merits of a candidate for the judicial Bench? No matter how diligent that lay member was—in this country, people are very diligent, when appointed to such offices—he could, in practice, not know anything that could bear on the question of the merit of a candidate. Yet, the clause demands that candidates should be appointed solely on merit. How is a layperson to discern the merits or demerits of a particular candidate? I am not counting barristers or solicitors, who come from within the profession; they are dealt with as a separate category by the clause.

It is foreseeable that the inclusion of any lay members in the commission—let alone five—will conduce to a lack of confidence, rather than add to public confidence in the system. I say that because the public are clever enough to know that a lay member cannot, for the reasons that I gave, discern much in the way of merit. The public will assume that those members will, probably, have had regard to factors other than merit, notwithstanding the fact that the clause says that any appointment must be made solely on merit.

Lay members cannot assess the merit of a potential judge, any more than they could judge the merit of a potential surgeon. There are not many of us in the Chamber who would wish to see our potential surgeons selected because they reflect the community and chosen, in part, by the laity. Will it not be assumed that the lay members have been influenced by something else? People in Northern Ireland have too much experience of such "something elses", and it is a mistake to allow them to taint a hitherto unblemished system, particularly such a vitally important one.

Those are my misgivings about the commission as it is to be set up. If we are to have lay members, there should be four, not five. The judicial members should be not five, but six.

My Lords, I support what my noble friends have said about the amendment. I did not have the pleasure and the privilege of being present at the first day of Grand Committee. I was in attendance upon the American ambassador, who was going about his lawful occasions.

I missed this debate in Committee, but I have, of course, read it. In moving the amendment, my noble friend Lord Glentoran quoted the review and its suggestion as to what the commission should consist of. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, will recall that the review recommended four or five lay members. When the noble Baroness replied to my noble friend, she sensibly recounted how the commission would be made up and added some detail about the judicial members. She concluded that analysis with the following words:

"We think we have the balance right".

Now, because I was not present in Grand Committee, I cannot know whether the charm with which the noble Baroness made that remark and subsequent remarks enabled her to skate over some slightly thin ice in the logic of her argument. On the basis of my experience with her on other occasions in Grand Committee and today, I would have no difficulty in believing that that charm was exercised. However, after she said those words, she did not adduce any further argument as to why the balance was right and why five lay members were better than four, a contingent suggestion made by the review.

The noble Baroness did speak about why lay members were useful on such a commission, and she concluded that part of the analysis with the following words:

"The five lay members may add something of real value".— [Official Report, 11/6/02; col. CWH 23.]

I agree that, in logic, it is possible that a fifth member would add 25 per cent—or more—to the value of the work done by the other four, but the noble Baroness's concluding statement does not, of itself, reinforce her earlier remark about having the balance right. I hope that the noble Baroness will fill out her argument as to why the balance is right. I diffidently suggest that she did not do that in Grand Committee.

My Lords, I find the argument somewhat strange. As far as I can see, there will be the Lord Chief Justice and five commissioners nominated by the Lord Chief Justice. There will also be a barrister and a solicitor. From the trade union of lawyers and judges, there will be seven people, plus the Lord Chief Justice. There are five lay members, so my arithmetic tells me that things are stacked eight to five against lay members.

It could be argued that there should be no lay members, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, suggested. That is a different argument, which could, perhaps, be made in the context of another Bill or another devolved administration. However, in this context, it is possible to suggest that, good as the judiciary has been in the past 30 years, it would still be better to have a judiciary that was not only meritorious but acceptable to the community.

I shall cite the example of what happens in England. We might think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his predecessors, in their infinite wisdom, always appointed the best people. However, those people are, largely, men—white men—probably from Oxbridge. They may be meritorious, but there is little regard for other elements. It is not said that women or people who have not been to Oxbridge or people from the ethnic minorities do not have merit; it just so happens that our beautiful, neutral, impartial system ends up getting only Oxbridge people. It happens in every system.

In Northern Ireland, more than anywhere else, a system that was—from one point of view—above the battle, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, said, was—from another point of view—part of the battle. We must let bygones be bygones, and it is for that reason that I suggest that there is no conflict between selecting people on merit and having a lay element to tell the specialists that, in considering two people of merit, we should think of other factors. It is easy for a closed trade union of specialists to select only their own clones. Perhaps we ought to change; perhaps the current balance—eight to five —is not all that bad.

My Lords, I never like to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai. He is unique—particularly so today, as he appears to be supporting the Government's position from the Back Benches. I am also reluctant ever to take the part of the lawyers against the laymen. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, is right: the lawyers are a difficult closed shop. Frequently, they are highly dangerous people. We suffer far too much with them. However, even with the—I almost said prejudices, but they are not—feelings borne of experience that I have, when called upon to decide whether I would trust members of the judiciary and the legal profession or the nominees of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, particularly thinking of who they may well be in a couple of years' time, I have to come down on the side of the lawyers. It hurts me to say so and I hope that it does not set a precedent for me, but that is the way I feel.

My Lords, independent persons in Northern Ireland are an endangered species. I have served on various boards and commissions in Northern Ireland with them. At present, I serve on a new one called the Northern Ireland Policing Board and we have nine so-called "independent" members. They were recently involved in the appointment of a new chief constable in Northern Ireland, but they had no experience and therefore had to be trained. These independent members spent many weeks undergoing training on how to appoint a chief constable.

They then proceeded with the selection of a chief constable and what happened was absolute chaos. First, people involved in the appointment leaked the events to the press, in particular the Irish Times in Dublin. Secondly, the appointment was seen to he biased. Thirdly, one of the candidates threatened to take a case for religious discrimination. I have to say that my experience of independent members of the new Northern Ireland Policing Board is not very good. On Saturday morning, one so-called "independent" member actually took part in a BBC Radio Ulster programme on behalf of the SDLP. So much for his independence.

I should like to return to the system w.e had previously in devolved Northern Ireland pre-1972 whereby the Lord Chancellor appointed those judges, not the people who present themselves under the facade of being independent.

My Lords, I rise to say that not for the first time in this House I find myself provoked in a gentle way by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. I rise to speak for myself, but I believe that it is also the case with other colleagues on these Back Benches. If we disagreed with the Government, we would speak. As we do not disagree with the Government, we see no point in wasting the time of the House.

My Lords, I did not attend the Grand Committee. I have an excuse for that, but I shall not weary your Lordships with it. However, I have carefully read Hansard and I have seen the arguments portrayed. In my efforts to be a realist, I do not resist the existence of laymen on the commission—that is the flavour of the year in which we live and it would be foolish to try to put things back where they were—but I just do not understand why there is a majority of lay people.

I can well understand that there are one or two lay people in order to make what occurs transparent to those who are not members of the judiciary—and that serves a most useful purpose—but why the majority? The search is for the greatest merits in the candidate. I do not suppose that the lay people will have any chance of seeing the QC, who is likely to be one of the proposals, in action in court if he be a Recorder or some other temporary judicial person. They will have no specific experience of him. In the small profession in Ireland, it is easy to lose a good reputation and what is a person's reputation is his stock in trade. That will be known to other members of the profession, but the lay person will not know. Certainly not all five will know—it may be only one or two.

I do not understand what is the function of the majority. Obviously something underlies it, but it is a little like—

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way because I believe that he is labouring under a misapprehension. There are six judicial members and we include among them the one lay magistrate. Of course he will sit in a judicial capacity as a lay magistrate. We then have a solicitor and a barrister, both of whom noble Lords will know are conversant with the law. There are then five lay members. So in fact, one could say in terms of lawyers versus non-lawyers, using the football analogy, that we have them eight:five.

My Lords, I am not quite sure of the purpose of the interruption, particularly as the Opposition were called to recognise the limitations in the second stage of the Bill. A number of questions were preceded by the phrase, "Before the noble Baroness sits down", a formula which I thought was frequently used but which is not apparently available on Report. That is news to me.

In any event, the intervention by the noble Baroness does not bear upon the amendment. The reason for the amendment is to translate a majority on the judicial side. They are now a minority of one; the lay people succeed by an extra one. It is a little like saying to the passengers on a liner, "You know nothing about the technical side of this ship, but you take over the engine room. Those who do know about it will go up to the cabins which you occupied".

I should like the noble Baroness to explain to the House exactly what is the function of the lay people, except to see that the system is fair; that the decision appears on the face of it to be sound and reasonable; and to ask any questions which they may believe have not been asked by the lawyers who have expressed their views. I hope that we will be told why the particular numbers were hit upon. There must be some explanation, but, as has been pointed out already. to say, "I think we have just got the balance right", is a conclusion and not an argument.

My Lords, in supporting the amendment I shall quote from the views of the SDLP and Sinn Fein when they were discussing this very issue:

"The SDLP would prefer to see more lay members than judicial members because the danger in the system that we are reconstructing is that the judiciary will have too much influence, power and control in the appointment of judges. As politicians, we in the SDLP believe that that is too much power to give to that body".

Sinn Fein warmly supports that view and states:

"One can reasonably anticipate a corporate approach to the appointments process. There is a very real possibility of little or no change and another lost opportunity".

I have quoted that only to demonstrate what could happen if we do not foresee the dangers in this part of the Bill.

My Lords, I hope that I will be able better to satisfy noble Lords in relation to this issue. As I said in Grand Committee, the review struck a careful balance in its recommendations. During the consultation exercise, some argued that the lay involvement went too far—as some noble Lords have argued today—while others argued that the involvement did not go far enough. I do not hesitate to repeat what I said on the previous occasion: I believe that the provisions set out in the Bill have the balance about right.

On a number of occasions I have been asked to explain the purpose of the lay members and what they add to the process. Not least I have been asked that by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, who, with his customary charm, complimented me on my charm. Perhaps we should have a mutual admiration society in that regard.

I could not put it better than to echo the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, a few moments ago. He set out the basis on which the lay members add something. However, I should say—in particular to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew—that, unlike surgeons, judges operate in the court to which lay people become subject. Judges are to be seen, to be commented on and they have imposed on them a charge to communicate with the public the rightness of their judicial office.

Noble Lords know that, over a period of years, concerns have been expressed that, although many judges are sufficiently erudite in considering judgments, they do not always communicate their thinking to the public at large in the way that perhaps one would best like to see such statements delivered. So, when choosing between two excellent candidates, both of whom may have the advantage of a first class brain, an ability to define the law and to express themselves with precision in judicial terms, sometimes it is helpful to choose the candidate with the greater humanity. That can be judged as easily by a lay member as by a judicial member.

One must look at the question of confidence, not only in relation to Northern Ireland but more widely. Our judges must win the confidence of the public. People must be confident that judges are not too remote, that they understand the ordinary cares of the everyday man. The public must be confident that judges will speak simply and in a straightforward manner, using the plain language that is necessary. Noble Lords will know already that the greatest lawyers do use plain rather than convoluted language. All those factors can be judged with precision by a lay member. Courtesy can be so judged, as can integrity.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. It sounds as though the function of the commission is to promote the High Court judge to the Court of Appeal. Therefore, people come to watch him and find that he may not enunciate what he wishes to do with a characteristic clarity or has some other error. But we are not promoting judges up the judicial ladder; we are dealing with the appointment of someone who is not a judge to the position of a High Court judge.

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has it exactly right, but he or she has to demonstrate that they are able to communicate in a plain and easily understandable way. The noble and learned Lord has acknowledged the fact that it is now very much accepted that lay people will form part of the assessment process for many different bodies in many different areas of appointment. Indeed, when we consider disciplinary matters, lay members also participate in those. The reason why the "fashion"—as the noble and learned Lord put it—has changed is because it has been demonstrated that there is merit in including those who do not share the specialisation of a particular area. It is important to include that input in a determination.

Perhaps I may return to the numbers. The numbers are fairly balanced. As I remarked earlier, one will have six judicial members, in which I include the lay magistrate. That is because the lay magistrate performs a judicial role. When a lay magistrate serves on the Judicial Appointments Commission, he or she sits in a judicial capacity as a judicial officer and cannot be viewed as a "lay" person, in terms of being outwith the judicial process.

One has two members of the profession, both of whom will be legally trained. One can suppose that, in the ordinary way, they would be excellent representatives of the two sides of the profession. Lastly, there are five members who could properly be described as "lay", having no legal or other appropriate training. The number of five lay members was chosen rather than four better to provide the reflectiveness required. Such reflection of the community at large is easier to achieve with the larger number. As I have pointed out already, we believe that the balance is eight 'to five and not, as has been suggested, either equal or including a smaller number of lawyers.

We believe that the lay members will bring a valuable perspective and alternative skills to this difficult process, in particular in the situation of Northern Ireland. It is important that the public is confident about what is transpiring, as well as being confident that the balance it wishes to see struck is being maintained.

I turn now to Amendment No. 7. Noble Lords seek here to stipulate that a deputy county court judge shall be one of the judicial members of the commission. Again, as I pointed out in Committee, this would go against the review, which recommended one judicial member from each tier of the judiciary, carefully balancing the number of legal representatives against the number of lay representatives. Noble Lords will know that a deputy county court judge does not form a separate tier of the judiciary. For that reason, I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.

I should tell noble Lords that the people currently making up the "lay persons" sitting on judicial interviews are departmental officials or retired officials. That participation of a lay element in the judicial process, in the choosing of our judiciary, is already in place in our system. We are not seeking to put in place anything terribly new here. However, we are seeking to comply with what is now taken as good practice and to follow as closely as we can the recommendations of the review.

My Lords, the noble Baroness states that there is nothing particularly new about the concept of lay persons in this role. What is rather different here is that it will not be a Minister in a department nominating officials to serve as lay persons, but gentlemen 'with a long history—in at least one case—of involvement in terrorism.

My Lords, on that point, I cannot add any thing beyond the comments I have made today and previously in Grand Committee. To recite the arguments again would not take us any further.

As I have said, we think that we have the balance about right. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, wishes to speak.

My Lords, the Minister says that they have got the balance right., but the review body put forward the suggestion that if you took the smaller figure, four, you would have four lay members, two members of the professional bodies and six judicial members. The commission would have been equally split and the Lord Chief Justice. sitting as chairman, would have the deciding vote. By moving to five lay members, that deciding vote of the Lord Chief Justice has been taken away. Those who are non-judicial—a phrase which appears in the clause and the schedule—would be in the minority in the group.

My Lords, five was chosen because it was felt that that number would better reflect the breadth of view needed through the lay membership. We do not accept that there will be the straight vote indicated by the noble Lord in his summation of how it will fall out. Of course greater weight should properly be given to the views of those with the widest knowledge of these subjects. It is likely that that will rest heavily with the Lord Chief Justice. Ultimately, his recommendation will determine who is appointed. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it is highly unlikely that the Lord Chief Justice will exercise his judgment in a capricious or ill thought-out way. The commission will thicken his understanding and bring perceptions and information that he should properly take into account before making his determination, but it would be wrong if I allowed the House to proceed on the premise that there would in some way be a straight vote.

My Lords—

My Lords, I remind the House that we are at Report stage and not in Committee.

To conclude, The review recommended "four or five"—it did not state "four"—and, in accordance with the review's recommendation, the Government have chosen five.

My Lords, I do not know whether it is out of order but the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, wanted to speak before the Minister sat down.

My Lords, I am grateful. My recent arrival in the House means that I am unpractised in its traditions, for which I apologise.

Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may take up a point that she has made. I believe that she has lumped together the judicial members of the panel with the barrister and solicitor and suggested almost that they were of equal status. Most noble Lords will agree that among the judiciary—I have not known a case where it has been otherwise—there has been an acceptance that the authority of our courts derives from the Crown. But that has not been the case with our barristers. I believe that, quite recently, two barristers refused to take silk because they were asked to take the oath. If that is the case, then among that stratum of the legal profession—there is no reason why it should not apply to solicitors—there is something which places political objectives and political aspirations above and beyond the judicial considerations. I raise the issue to alert the Minister to that particular point.

My Lords, the point that I thought I had made clearly—I am content to make it again—is that the barrister and solicitor are not lay members because they are legally qualified. As such, they do not fall into the definition of "lay". They have a separate category. For the avoidance of doubt, the review recommended four or five lay members and around five judicial members. We chose five lay members and six judicial members. We have faithfully maintained the balance recommended in the review and I hope that your Lordships will be content with that.

My Lords—

My Lords, I am sorry to intervene but the rules are clearly set out and we have not been following any of them. I know that this is a courteous House but the time has come when I must intervene. The rules in regard to debate on Report are fully set out in the Companion at paragraphs 6.121, 6.122 and 6.123 on pages 128 and 129. We had an extensive Grand Committee and no one can suggest that the issues have not been fully debated. We must abide by our rules on Report as a general courtesy to all Members of the House.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and noble and learned Lords who have taken part in this extensive debate. I start where I propose to end. In an almost arrogant way, I am quite convinced—if I come across as arrogant, I make my apologies—that the Opposition have clearly won the intellectual argument today. There is absolutely no justification or clear argument for why the balance of membership of the Judicial Appointments Commission should be as it is. The noble Baroness is a good friend of mine and she knows that I would never wish to be rude to her, but she has tried to fudge the numbers and to pretend, in Northern Ireland of all places, that a barrister and a solicitor are something to do with the judiciary.

The Government strongly opposed their joining in the independence clause at the beginning of the Bill. The Minister said in Grand Committee that they cannot be independent; that we cannot organise a system where we can see that they are independent. They are, quite rightly, not independent—and they never should be again in a community such as Northern Ireland. The various groups of people need barristers and solicitors who are prepared to work within the thinking, environment and political aspirations of the different communities. So to pretend that a barrister or solicitor in Northern Ireland is as independent as a member of the judiciary—especially when the suggestion is made by a member of the profession—I find slightly difficult.

Another issue which concerns me is again down to basic living in Northern Ireland. I believe in my heart of hearts that the Government are wrong. If we go ahead and allow a majority of lay people on the commission, the appointments process will boil down to political bargaining. It will be the "Your turn this time, my turn next time" syndrome. I accept that the merit principle is there—of course it is— but the Minister and other noble Lords have said that if there are two super candidates—although she did not say where they may come from politically—it is highly likely that they may well be the best two candidates available. But it is also highly likely that one will come from one community and the other from the other. It is also highly likely that everyone will know who is outstandingly the better of the two candidates. But that is not what will decide the appointment. The decision in Northern Ireland will be made through political bargaining within the lay majority of the commission.

That is the sadness of it. I do not say this with any pride. I see the Minister shaking her head, and I feel exactly the same way as she does. It is a sadness, but it is a reality. To be arrogant once again, it is very rare that I have been as positive from this Dispatch Box about things that happen or will happen in Northern Ireland. But on the occasions when I have been, I am afraid that I have been proved right. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

6 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 94; Not-Contents, 170.