asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, no. That is why we will be significantly extending the rights of disabled workers and job applicants in 2004, when we will also be giving improved rights to disabled customers to help them get access to goods and services.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and welcome the Chancellor's recent decision to increase the budget of the Disability Rights Commission by 14 per cent, just as I share the deep concern expressed by her Secretary of State on 10th July that,

"disabled people are still seven times more likely than other people to be out of work, levels of awareness and understanding of disability are too low and barriers to inclusion too high".

This being so—and recalling our manifesto commitments—precisely what improvements do the Government envisage in the civil and employment rights of disabled people in the months and years immediately ahead?

My Lords, my noble friend is right to congratulate the Disability Rights Commission on an impressive record of achievement over the past one or two years. Approximately 145,000 calls have been handled, together with 4,500 cases. The record of the DRC has been impressive. However, as I believe my noble friend has acknowledged, so has the Government's record. Not only have we extended hugely levels of financial support to disabled people through disabled person's tax credits, we have also introduced work opportunities through the New Deal for disabled people, through activities offering support in the intermediate labour markets and, above all, in the changes proposed for 2004 to remove the small firms exemption. Across a whole array of financial support, civil rights, pension opportunities and employment prospects, the Government have made sound progress.

My Lords, does the Minister believe that either a law should be enacted or at least an obligation put on local authorities to ensure that all new buildings are accessible to disabled people? Furthermore, is she as horrified as I am to learn that in Portcullis House the round door knobs are extremely difficult for disabled people to open?

My Lords, I understand that since Part M of the building regulations was introduced, all new residential buildings have had to be accessible to disabled people. However, if there is a particular aspect of Portcullis House which the noble Baroness would like me to follow up, then I shall be happy to do so.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the process by which we deal with disability legislation—that is, it tends to be a rather piecemeal approach—is one that means that, no matter how much progress we make, we always refer back to the issues? Is there not an arguable case for introducing a comprehensive piece of legislation stating that disabled people shall be conferred rights across the board as opposed to chasing backwards and forwards between departments, trying to ensure that the disabled have a slightly better deal?

My Lords, the original Disability Discrimination Act 1995, warmly supported and welcomed by noble Lords, had within it plenty of headspace to allow for subsequent developments that have been brought forward through regulations. I am sure that noble Lords would agree that progress should not be measured only by another piece of primary legislation. I do not seek to anticipate the Queen's Speech, but solid progress can and is being made through secondary legislation, which is both quicker and simpler. As I said in an earlier response, the Government's record on this is impressive.

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench that the Labour Government have a good record on disability. They have achieved many fine things of which they can be very proud. But the record is not good enough, given that vast numbers of disabled people suffer discrimination every day of their lives. That can be stopped only by comprehensive legislation. Either the Government will agree that we need to introduce a comprehensive Bill—in which case, why have they not brought one forward or promised it for the next Session of Parliament?— or they disagree with the need for a Bill—in which case, why did they promise to bring forward comprehensive legislation in the last manifesto?

My Lords, my noble friend knows as well as I do what was promised in the last manifesto from the Labour Government; namely, that we are now committed,

"to extending basic rights and opportunities, as indicated in our response to the Disability Rights Taskforce".

That is precisely what we have done. As my noble friend will know, commencing in 2004, there will be some 7 million new jobs, 600,000 disabled workers and 1.2 million firms will be brought within the DDA, either by primary legislation or through secondary legislation as we seek to abolish the small firms' exemption. That is only one example of many of the ways in which the Government are meeting their manifesto commitments. Beyond that, however, my noble friend knows perfectly well that no Minister can comment at this stage on what may or may not be in the Queen's Speech.

My Lords, when will the Government's consultation document on the transport recommendations of the DRT be published? The document was supposed to be issued a year ago. What is the justification for such a huge delay?

My Lords, part of the difficulty with regard to transportation is that some of the issues are what might be termed as "home grown". The noble Lord is right to press me on those; they affect our trains, taxis, minicabs and so forth. However, some of the more intransigent issues are associated with shipping and aviation which require action on an international basis. On those matters we are still seeking consultation.

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that primary legislation is required to outlaw continuing discrimination in housing, transport and the built environment? Otherwise there will still be gaping holes in the civil rights legislation.

My Lords, quite a lot has already been done in regard to transport. From 2005, for example, all new buses must be available and readily accessible for disabled people, and for people with small children, heavy luggage and so on. We shall see also a further extension of our remit on trains. My noble friend is right. If we were to carry out a major extension of disability rights into, for example, the relationship between tenants and landlord, it would require primary legislation. I am not yet persuaded that that would be necessarily the right way to go. It would certainly have to follow extensive consultation.

My Lords, has the Minister made any progress with the situation at St John's Church Smith Square?

My Lords, I was delighted to be a supper guest of the trustees, chairman—I am trying to get the titles right but I know I shall get them wrong—and the senior executives of St John's Smith Square. They were anxious to expedite the issues that the noble Baroness wisely raised in the House. She has altered minds.

My Lords, in the context of legislation, is my noble friend aware—I am sure that she is—of the proposals that are circulating for an equality Act and a single equality commission to deal with issues of race, gender, disability and sexual orientation? If such proposals exist, will she bear in mind that problems for the disabled relate not only to attitude but to physical problems of access to employment, buildings and transport? Will the Government bear in mind that distinction when considering such proposals.

My Lords, that is a very real point. Clearly there are strong views. Were we to have six commissions, this would be a foolish way to proceed. We would need to integrate them because they would be dealing with common issues. But equally, as my noble friend said, we must not overlook the distinct differences for disabled people in regard to access and so on which cannot be read across into, for example, EOC issues and CRE issues. The proposals are very much under discussion—there has not been a done deal—and it is extremely important that, whatever happens, the proud record, identified by my noble friend Lord Morris, of the newly-established DRC is not lost through rapid legislative change.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the retirement age for hospital doctors is 65. Flexibility in the system already allows for their employment after the age of 70, after which they may continue to be employed subject to the needs of the service and quality assurance. General practitioners, as self-employed, independent contractors, are removed from the medical list at the age of 70, although they can continue to practise beyond that.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Is she aware that as the NHS seeks to boost its numbers and to recruit doctors from overseas, many doctors at home, who are fully fit, efficient and meet the requisite clinical standards, are not aware of the options she has described? Will she take every step to ensure that they are made aware of the opportunities open to them to continue in employment in the NHS beyond the age of 65?

My Lords, my noble friend is right, we are anxious to make as much use as possible of the excellent skills of doctors approaching retirement age. The NHS is trying very hard to become a good employer. The flexible retirement initiative was launched in July 2000. It was designed specifically to enable staff to work more flexibly towards and beyond retirement. That could include extended part-time working, exchanging a senior role for a junior role, working over the winter, and so on. These and other options are set out in the publication, Improving Working Lives for Doctors, which has been sent to no fewer than 10,000 doctors.

My Lords, is it not the case, as the Audit Commission confirmed, that we have a potential retirement time-bomb on our hands in regard to general practitioners? Is the giving of options sufficient? Is not it absolutely vital that the department fashions some real financial incentives to ensure that general practitioners stay in post, particularly single practitioners in London?

My Lords, it is true that the Audit Commission drew attention to a shortage of GPs. One of the practical options being put in place is the "golden hello" for new GPs and for retaining GPs coming back. An extra £5,000 will be added to that to create an incentive for GPs to work in inner-city areas.

My Lords, more and more GPs are retiring early for all kinds of reasons—inflexibility of work, too much pressure, and so on. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made a very important point. Does the Minister agree that we need a comprehensive approach to keep doctors in work? They are highly qualified and we need them, both before and after the current retirement age.

My Lords, the noble Baroness's point in regard to a comprehensive package is very important. That is why Improving Working Lives for Doctors is such an important document. It sets out a clear range of options for people approaching retirement. There is a myth about doctors retiring early in the sense that the retirement age for doctors has remained constant at 62 years for the past seven years. But we want all doctors to work to their fulfillment. As part of our drive to retain GPs we have launched the delayed retirement scheme under which GPs over 60 can delay their retirement and receive an additional £2,000 a year up to £10,000. That package was closely and successfully negotiated with the BMA.

My Lords, would it help the noble Baroness to know that I knew a surgeon and family doctor who performed his last operation at the age of 78? He was my father.

My Lords, this House is not the place to argue for early retirement under any circumstances. I take the noble Lord's point: there are some magnificent doctors aged over 70 who are still practising. The problem of capacity has to be addressed. An appraisal system for GPs will be introduced this year which is identical to that for hospital doctors. We are addressing competence through appraisal and through revalidation.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a particular problem will be created in certain deprived areas where primary care has been kept afloat for the past 30 or 40 years by doctors trained in South Asia who are almost simultaneously coming up to retirement age? What packages are being designed to retain doctors in deprived inner-city areas?

My Lords, we are conscious that there is a problem in regard to the retirement of doctors in single practices. As my noble friend says, that relates particularly to Asian doctors. I mentioned the "golden hello" payment and additional payments to doctors. We are spending £55 million on improving premises. In London, where there is a particular problem, we are looking at the potential introduction of doctors from overseas in a pilot scheme across London, which may well help the situation.

My Lords, enlarging on the noble Baroness's replies to the very relevant questions of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and that of noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, does she accept that at the root of a great deal of disaffection on the part of doctors—whether GPs or hospital doctors—and their wish to get out of service as soon as they can, is their complete frustration with NHS and hospital bureaucracy and with the endless reorganisation in the health service? These affect their working lives and remove a great deal of pleasure and fulfilment, making them want to leave the service.

Yes, my Lords, it a real problem, and the Government have addressed it. Two reports have addressed bureaucracy: one in June 2001 and one in March this year. Clearly, doctors feel very strongly about it. A number of measures have been set out to reduce red tape which have the potential to unlock 10.3 million appointments. They will address issues such as repeat prescriptions and requests for non-medical information. We hope that these will be followed up as quickly as possible.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the number of failed asylum seekers removed from the United Kingdom has increased year on year from 6,990 in 1998 to some 9,185 excluding dependants in 2001. The number removed in the financial year 2001–02 including dependants was 11,515. The target in the Spending Review 2002 PSA is the same as that in the Spending Review 2000 PSA:

"enforcing the immigration laws more effectively by removing a greater proportion of failed asylum seekers".

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he tell the House precisely how many bogus asylum seekers will be deported in the next 12 months?

My Lords, the House would be amazed if I could give an accurate figure. It will depend on a number of factors. First, there must be a safe place to which people can be removed; so the country from which they have fled has to be normalised. We hope that Afghanistan will increasingly move into that category. Secondly, there must be effective documentation so that, when a person is removed by means of a charter flight—a method of travel that is increasingly used—he or she is accepted on arrival. Thirdly, we must be able to identify the failed asylum seekers, which is why we are increasing contact management and building up a detention estate.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, in the midst of all our other preoccupations about immigration and asylum policy, the objective which is perhaps most important is that every single asylum seeker who should have asylum in this country is accorded it with the minimum of delay? Will not history judge us by our record in that respect?

My Lords, I agree that one of the standards by which we shall be judged is the care and humanity that we apply to those making genuine asylum claims. There is good progress. As to new asylum claims, the vast majority of initial decisions are now given within two months. But history will judge us also by how we manage the challenge—faced by many countries—of large numbers of people seeking to use asylum routes for understandable, but not acceptable, economic migration.

My Lords, does that mean that the targets referred to by the Minister are not realistic in the circumstances?

My Lords, the original target—which remains the current target—of removing some 30,000 failed asylum seekers a year is right. If one looks at the rate of acceptance in asylum cases, as a proportion of those applying, over time we should be seeking to remove about 30,000 a year. But we shall arrive at that point only when the other measures are in place—when it is safe to do so, when there is documentation, when transportation means are in place, and when we have the strength and ability to identify and detain failed asylum seekers. The commitment is there. The debate is about how rapidly we can arrive at it.

My Lords, it is reported that yesterday the Home Secretary made a decision that asylum seekers will no longer be allowed to apply for work after they have been in this country for six months. Is that not a mean and unfortunate decision—made at the behest of the French Interior Minister, M. Sarkozy, who is one of the more hard-line right-wing populists in European government? The increase in the speed of decision-making that the Government have been able to bring about is very welcome; but there will always be some asylum seekers whose cases are complex and difficult and in regard to whom a decision will take considerably longer. Is it not good for those people that they should be allowed the experience of working here, good for the country, and good in terms of staying in contact with asylum seekers, so that, whatever the end decision, we know where they are?

My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord's original suggestion is right. The employment concession was introduced in 1986 when asylum claims were rocketing upwards and the backlog of claims on which the Government could give initial decisions was becoming lengthy. The decision to withdraw it has been taken because of our success in reducing the backlog. New applicants now have their claims dealt with in far less than six months. Therefore, the employment concession is no longer necessary. A person who is accepted for asylum or granted exceptional leave to remain is entitled to work in this country.

My Lords, in evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee in March 2001, the Government's target for removal of failed asylum seekers, as the Minister said, was given as 30,000 for 2001–02, rising in 2002–03 to 33,000. Does the Minister agree that the current rate for the first quarter of 2002 of approximately 1,000 a month is most disappointing? Since the Minister still adheres to the target of 30,000, can he give any indication as to when that can be achieved?

My Lords, I should be in danger of repeating myself. I have said why I believe that the target is still appropriate as a goal. If one looks at the ratio of non-accepted cases, over time we should get to that level. It will depend on how rapidly we can get return agreements with the countries concerned; on increasing the number of detentions; and on managing more tightly the detection of people who have been rejected for asylum. I am confident that we are making good progress, but it will no doubt take several years to get there.

My Lords, will my noble friend remind the House where we are in discussions with our partners in the European Union on agreeing and implementing a common asylum policy, and on making it possible for people to claim asylum in the first safe country in which they arrive?

My Lords, essentially the Dublin agreement was based on the expectation that asylum claims should be processed in the first country in which asylum seekers arrive; therefore, that should be the point at which asylum cases are heard. For reasons with which I shall not bore the House, that arrangement has not worked as well as Members on these Benches or the other side had hoped. That is why we are negotiating Dublin 2. Active discussions are taking place within the European Union to seek to increase intergovernmental co-operation to get to grips with this issue.

My Lords, can the noble Lord—

My Lords—

My Lords, I think that it is time for the next Question.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government are aware of the need to take action to combat alcohol misuse among young people. This issue will be examined as part of the Government's alcohol harm reduction strategy. The department monitors the consumption of alcopops and other drinks by young people on an annual basis.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does she agree that the majority of parents wish to encourage their teenage children to drink in moderation and safely, and that the existence of alcopops—designed to appear like lemonade; sweet, syrupy, and perhaps seductive to children—undermines the intention of parents, encourages young children to drink to excess, and therefore weakens the Government's whole policy?

My Lords, I recognise that there have been concerns about alcopops for some time and I have every sympathy for parents who are struggling with the issue in relation to their children. However, we should recognise that teenage drinking levels have been increasing over the past decade and are not actually linked to alcopops. I think that the most effective action that we can take is to ensure that young people have all the available information on the harm that alcohol can cause, and have and enforce the laws that we need to stop the underage purchasing of alcohol.

My Lords, although we may not be described as young persons, I wonder whether alcopops are sold in the House.

My Lords, I am very pleased to say that I have no idea.

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, not so very long ago, a presentation was made by the doctors and young patients at a Liverpool hospital which outlined a very alarming increase in underage drinking particularly in that area, for which they laid the blame at the feet of manufacturers making and marketing what are known as alcopops? The industry, quite naturally, has always denied that alcopops are aimed specifically at children. However, it has lately been noticeable that they have changed and toned down the labelling and packaging of alcopops. Is it not revealing that a company such as Cadbury Schweppes—which has a very high moral attitude in the manufacturing and marketing of its products—will have nothing whatever to do with them?

Yes, my Lords, that is extremely interesting. The advertising of alcopops, like that of alcohol generally, is bound by the general rules for advertising and the specific rules relating to alcohol. We are grateful for the efforts of the Portman Group in promoting responsible advertising. The fact is that we have received very few complaints about alcohol advertising overall, which I think indicates that some responsibility is being exercised. I also do not think that young people are influenced entirely by advertising. There is a cultural issue here. We have to address that, and it is very difficult.

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the national alcohol strategy will be out for consultation this summer? Does she agree that the issue of young people's drinking, including alcopops, is a matter for interdepartmental awareness and action involving the departments responsible for education, health, social services and sales? Can she also confirm that the Government will develop an interdepartmental approach to the issue?

My Lords, the strategy is out for consultation and will include a very strong element of intelligence about young people's drinking. We also have an interdepartmental policy in terms of the work being done by the Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Health to promote health standards in schools. They will use the extra money that we are allocating to provide information on substance misuse, in the most effective way possible, to both schools and the community.

My Lords, in 1997, the Government established a ministerial group on alcopops. How many times has this group met? What advice has it given on the availability of alcopops and the consequent effect on alcohol consumption?

My Lords, I have no information on the group, but I should be pleased to write to the noble Lord to give him the available information.

My Lords, has the Minister taken note of the experience in Scotland, where the alcohol strategy has been out for some time, and where particular emphasis is placed on trying to discourage drinking among young people? Could not England and Wales learn from the experience of Scotland?

My Lords, we are on track to deliver the alcohol strategy by 2004. This week the Prime Minister announced that the Cabinet Office strategy unit would look specifically at the question of the harm done by alcohol and will report in April 2003. I am sure that there are always things that we can learn from Scotland.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m., my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement being made in another place on Northern Ireland.

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

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who first proposed this method of proceeding. I hope that it allows the flexibility that your Lordships would wish so that all views may reasonably be heard. It does give us the advantage of flexibility. If I may, I shall trespass on your Lordships' time for just a moment or two.

On 21st May, we debated the package of recommendations of the group that I chaired on the working practices of this House. On that day, the House agreed without a vote that the report should be remitted to the Procedure Committee with the instruction to that committee to make recommendations on how to implement each proposal. I am very grateful to those who served on the Procedure Committee. Our debates were lengthy and full. I am grateful to support the report which has been produced.

I should like, if I may, to mention one or two other matters. I would suggest to your Lordships that this is a very appropriate time for us to be putting our minds to these questions. In the past year, we have agreed to and introduced a code of conduct which is more transparent and more rigorous than that to be discovered at the other end of the building. We have agreed that it is critically important that the Opposition and Cross-Benchers should be properly resourced in this House. The Chancellor has been extremely generous in agreeing that the Conservative Front-Bench allocation should increase from about £227,000 per year to rather more than £390,000 per year; the Liberal Democrat allocation from about £68,000 to £195,000; and the Cross-Bencher allocation from £21,000 to £35,000—the latter, and the latter alone, to be backdated to April 2001. That is important because, as I have said in this Chamber before, I believe that we do need properly resourced and funded opposition. We lacked it when we were in opposition, but we have not held that against anyone. I hope that your Lordships think that that is a proper and indeed a generous approach.

We have acquired Millbank House and Fielden House. Consequently, we are in sight of being able to provide proper accommodation and desk space for all Members. Of course, we have now also introduced the free first-class postage.

Our fundamental work, I would suggest, is to scrutinise the executive as effectively as we can and to revise legislation as scrupulously as we can. I repeat, if I may, what I offered to the House when we discussed the group report on 21st May. It is intended to be a package. Some of the amendments today will undoubtedly, if carried, destroy the balance of the package and its fundamental integrity. I beg to move.

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

The matters we are to discuss today are entirely unsuitable for discussing after 11 p.m. They engage the interests of a large number of Members of this House. I am sure that we shall all do our best to be expeditious and not to tire one another with long speeches. However, there will be a Statement and some "ponging" and "pinging" on the Education Bill.

Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the 5th Report from the Select Committee on Procedure of the House, together with any amendments relating thereto, has been committed to adjourn consideration of the report and amendments not later than 11 p.m. on Wednesday 24th July, whether or not the Committee has completed its consideration.—(Lord Lucas.)

My Lords, I advise the House not to accept the amendment. It is quite without precedent. We do not impose timetables on ourselves, nor ought we to begin to do so. This apparently innocuous small infant is capable of becoming a giant which will try to rule us. We do not want guillotines in this House as far as I am aware. This is an attempt to cut off debate at eleven o'clock tonight. It is, after all, only 10 minutes past three.

There has been no consultation about the matter at all. The Procedure Committee has not been asked for its view. If we were to approach eleven o'clock tonight, would your Lordships really want to resume on another day, which might not be consecutive? It might even be Friday of this week or Wednesday of next week. It is not a good idea and I invite your Lordships not to support it.

My Lords, I am not unsympathetic to the view taken by the noble and learned Lord on the proposal of my noble friend. However, I hope that he will not mind my reminding him that when we moved that the Leader's Group report he referred to the Procedure Committee the noble and learned Lord himself imposed a guillotine of a sort when he instructed, or sought to instruct—the House agreed with him—that the committee should report by 8th July. As I shall say in a few moments, I felt that that was a wholly inappropriate restraint upon the committee's deliberations.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the 5th Report of the Procedure Committee.

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

I should like to make a few observations which will help me shorten my remarks when we discuss the amendments in a little while.

I was a member of the Procedure Committee which prepared the report which is now before the Committee. Although I accept that the report broadly reflects the view of the committee, I take a different opinion on at least some of the issues and will in due course propose certain amendments for the Committee's consideration.

I start with the observation that it was a great pity that the committee was asked to complete its work so quickly. My noble friend Lord Denham indicated at the time how unusual, not to say unprecedented, it was for the committee to be so constrained. The proceedings of the committee which led to this report were rushed to say the least. It was hardly ever possible for our hard working Clerk to provide documentation in a timely manner. Although, no doubt, our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, did his best, we were often faced with the need to consider verbal amendments of an important kind. I caused some irritation by repeatedly intervening for clarification of what was being discussed or considered. I apologise to colleagues if that was so. Again, no doubt as a result of pressures of time, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, was not always able to guide us through the intricacies of the various proposals and counter proposals as clearly as I am certain he would have wished.

Another issue, which is reflected in the amendments which I shall move later, was the question of resources. The plain fact is that it is clear that no consideration of any sort had been given to the likely cost of the enhanced facilities which these proposals will require. We were simply told that whatever additional resources were required would be found because the parliamentary budget is apparently not cash limited. I believe that that is a wholly inappropriate approach to the process of modernisation and I hope that the Committee will in due course agree. I emphasise that I intend no criticism of the staff and others involved. There was simply not time to consider these matters properly. That, of course, includes the officials of this Chamber.

There was also some suggestion that some of the points contained in the Leader's Group report, which we are considering, were not matters for the Procedure Committee. I take the view that the whole of the Leader's Group report, not just part of it, was referred to the Procedure Committee by the Chamber. I believe that the Chamber has the right and the authority to direct the Procedure Committee as it pleases. For the committee simply to refuse to consider matters on the ground that they are for some other Select Committee is just wrong. I hope that that doctrine will not be advanced again. The truth is that the Procedure Committee has often considered matters which may or may not have fallen precisely within its terms of reference when directed to do so by the Chamber. That must surely be the correct way to proceed.

I believe that this package, which we have repeatedly been urged to take as a package both in the Chamber and in the committee, has the effect of facilitating the passage of government business. Although a few of the detailed proposals may not be directly so intended, that is the effect of the package of proposals. I use the word "effect" advisedly. I am, of course, aware that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal has protested that that was not his intention. But again I say that that is the effect of the measures now before us.

It is, I believe, of overwhelming importance that in formulating the procedures and protections available in this Chamber we are careful never to undermine the capacity of minority groups to express their view and to have their position considered. In the end the only pressure that a single voice or perhaps a small group of like-minded noble Lords can bring is one of delay. We are in this Chamber an adjunct to the democratic processes of the other place. We have a right, indeed, a duty, to revise, to amend and to have the other place think again. That means that it must be possible for even just one noble Lord to keep a Minister from his dinner or his bed at least for a while.

Of course, ultimately the Chamber will decide. There are procedures already in place to prevent abuse of that right. However, the package now before us in my view further erodes the power of Back-Benchers and especially minority groups of Back-Benchers. I confess that I should have much preferred our procedures to be left as they are. However, we now have a package before us. I shall therefore seek the Committee's agreement to certain amendments which I believe remove the worst of the proposals now before us and perhaps go a little way to ensuring that the rights of Back-Benchers are not unacceptably eroded.

Before I turn to the amendments I make two final points. I have said that I see the effect of these proposals being to facilitate the passage of government business. I fear greatly that if we are to move to a situation where the Chamber is expected to finish business at a certain time or within a certain period, it will not be long before business managers think in terms of a guillotine. Nothing has more undermined the capacity of the other place to consider, amend and revise legislation than the draconian use of the guillotine procedure which has become so prevalent in recent times.

I, of course, recognise that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal has disclaimed any such intention, but we have to look to the time when other Ministers will occupy the Government Benches who may feel less constrained. I believe with complete conviction that if we were to move to a guillotine procedure in this Chamber the capacity of Parliament—that is both Houses taken together—to hold the Government to account and to have them explain and justify their actions and their proposals would be almost completely eroded.

I turn to my final point. These proposals have emerged from a Leader's Group and the Procedure Committee. In truth it is the so-called "usual channels" that bring the proposals before the Chamber. Even the Procedure Committee consists principally of distinguished denizens of the usual channels. When noble Lords such as myself seek to offer a different view, we are very soon seen off.

I accept that for routine matters the usual channels serve a good purpose, but for matters of principle particularly affecting the Back Benches they are unsatisfactory. My fears were underlined during the Procedure Committee deliberations when the Lord Privy Seal sought to defend a particular proposal by claiming that the rights of Back-Benchers would be protected by, as he put it, the lock of the usual channels. At that moment I became resolved to challenge the conclusions of the Procedure Committee report now before your Lordships. I support the Motion before the House.

I too served on the Procedure Committee. I found it an uneddifying experience. The report is a fair summary of the Procedure Committee's debate, but we were not shown it before—

Order!

I am confused about what procedure we are following. Has the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, moved his amendment, or did he make a Second Reading speech, and are we being asked to listen to another?

This is not a Second Reading speech, but a comment on the question before the House about the Procedure Committee. I think it is helpful for the House—

The Motion before the House is that the House resolves itself into a Committee.

In that case I shall reserve my remarks for later.

Perhaps I should call Amendment No. 1.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Paragraph 2, page 3, line 8, leave out "At the end of the trial period the House should review how the new practices have worked and decide whether they should be continued." and insert "We recommend that a further report of the Procedure Committee on the new working practices be made to the House near the end of the trial period. This report should review how the new practices have worked and recommend whether or not they should be continued."

I am sorry, but on a point of order, the Chairman of Committees said a moment ago that the Motion before the House was that the House resolved itself into a Committee. Surely the fact that a noble Lord is sitting in the Committee Chair shows that the House is already in Committee. Can the noble Lord explain?

I apologise. The Motion before the House was in fact that the report be agreed to, and we are now on the amendment.

My remarks are not addressed to a particular amendment; they concern the Procedure Committee.

The Motion before the House is that the report be now received. The normal procedure is to move to the first amendment, which I understood has been called. I am sure that that is the convenient way to proceed.

During the Procedure Committee's deliberations there was considerable discussion of how we should proceed at the end of the trial period. It has been agreed that the proposals before your Lordships in the Procedure Committee report, however they may be amended during today's discussion, should be implemented for a trial period only, with further consideration being given to them in clue course. The point I put to your Lordships is how the outcome of that trial should be assessed, considered and decided on at the end of the two-year period.

Some of us held the view that the Procedure Committee should be asked to consider the matter on the basis of the two years' experience and make a further report to your Lordships. I am certain that that is the right way to proceed. The alternative, which is proposed in the report and with which I disagree, is that the matter should be decided by the House.

I fear greatly that if we leave it to be decided by the House, as proposed, the matter will not be adequately considered because the House will not have the proper information before it and it may be agreed or disagreed to without the benefit of proper advice and consideration. The correct procedure is for the matter to go back to the Procedure Committee after the two-year trial, for the committee to consider it again and then report to your Lordships. That is the effect of my amendment. I beg to move.

I oppose the amendment because it is inconsistent with Amendment No. 2, which I wish to support.

I support the amendment. Before speaking to it I wish to make a comment about the Procedure Committee because I found it an unedifying experience. The report is a fair summary of what was discussed, but we did not see it before it was published and it was not agreed by the committee.

As the Leader of the House said, we were presented with a package. It seemed to me on many occasions that it was a package created by wise men and that comments on it from Back-Benchers were an unwelcome irritant.

When we discussed the report, many of the amendments were not written down and there was no order for them; some were oral, some were made on the spot. It was therefore difficult to follow at times exactly what the Procedure Committee was doing. Some of the amendments were passed over and we had to return to clauses to deal with the amendments that were written down. Some of the evidence presented to us, in particular, the paper presented by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, was not given the attention it merited. It was given scant regard.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne about the sources, to which we shall come in a moment. The Leader of the House repeated today that this was a package. But he himself moved an amendment to alter what the working group had said. This amendment seeks to replace what it said and to undo the effect of the noble and learned Lord's amendment.

On this experience, I believe working groups chaired by the Leader of the House to be bad and divisive. It has signed up noble Lords to something that pits the Front Benches against the Back Benches. Although it was probably right for my noble friend Lord Strathclyde to take part in the working group, I hope that he will look at another with a great deal more circumspection.

The Leader of the House was right in the way he described the role of the House when he introduced this debate a moment ago. But while much of the report is welcome, some of its recommendations will weaken the House's role.

I turn to Amendment No. 1. What concerns me is when the trial period is going to begin. As the report states, the proposals are to be phased in over time as resources allow. There will therefore be no precise time to start the two-year period. I strongly agree with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne that the House will have great difficulty in assessing how the trial period has worked unless a committee such as the Procedure Committee has investigated it and asked questions. One of the advantages of the Procedure Committee looking at the working group's proposals was that we began to ask questions that had not been asked before. The more we asked them, the more the package started to unravel and the more faults were found.

The House would be doing itself a great disservice if it allowed the trial period to end without having a report before it in order to assess what had happened during the trial period.

Before the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, sits down, he said earlier that he did not see the text of the report before it was published. The end of the report states that the committee resolved that the report, as amended, be the report of the committee. He did not vote against that. Therefore, did he not read it; did he not have it in front of him; or was he not there?

I was certainly there. The noble Lord is kind, but I do not have to answer before I sit down because this is Committee stage. What happened was that we reached the end of the last day and the Chairman of Committees said that he would prepare the report and have it published because we had, in any case, overrun our time. We did not see the final version of the report, and I did not see it until it was printed. In fact, I do not believe that any members of the Procedure Committee saw it.

With due respect, I believe that the noble Earl's memory does not serve him well. I specifically showed the final draft to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, as well as to some other members of the committee.

I do not know whether or not the memory of my noble friend Lord Caithness is at fault, but I was a member of the Procedure Committee and I did not see the report until it was published.

The points that my noble friend Lord Caithness made are important. In certain areas of the House I detect an irritation that this issue has been raised. If noble Lords look carefully at the report of the Leader's Group or, indeed, at the report of the Procedure Committee, which we are considering today, they will see that the issue is confusing and contains complicated matters.

The portrayal given by my noble friend Lord Caithness of how the Procedure Committee operated was fairly accurate. I have been in your Lordships' House for quite a long time and have sat on all-party groups, Back-Bench groups, Procedure Committees and Committees of the Whole House. I have to tell noble Lords that taking part in this Procedure Committee was one of the most unhappy experiences that I have had during the 16 or 17 years that I have been in this House. That does not mean that all the things proposed in the Leader's Group report and all the things that the Procedure Committee discussed were bad or wrong. This House must evolve; of course it must, and we must change our practices.

However, as we started to go through the issues of this package, it became perfectly clear that many of them had not been considered in huge detail or been thought through. Indeed, over the past week or so since the report was published—I may be very slow; I probably am—I have thought of a number of other things that we did not discuss or consider which we should have done. I asked myself, "How does that work? How will that knock on?" These issues are important. I do not believe that individually any of them are particularly earth-shattering. I do not believe that any one of the measures in the report will change the House overwhelmingly or destroy the work that has gone before. However, I believe that, as a package, it will change the way that the House conducts itself. That will not necessarily be for the bad but it will change it.

I am clear that the report of the Procedure Committee before noble Lords today does not give the full flavour of what the Committee is being asked to consider. The reason that your Lordships sent the report of the Leader's Group to the Procedure Committee was so that we, the Procedure Committee, could give Members of the Committee guidance on how to make a decision today.

I am clear that we, the Procedure Committee, have failed noble Lords in that duty in that the guidance given in the report before the Committee today is simply not adequate. The Committee is not in possession of enough information or facts to make an adequate decision. If the Committee were to make a decision today, undoubtedly it would be one that stored up possible problems for the future. I suspect that that is perhaps because we set about the task rather too quickly and, if I may say so, rather like a bull in a china shop. We did not pick off the issues and discuss them at length as we should have done. The last meeting of the committee took place at 48 hours' notice, when one or two members were unable to be present. In my view, that is not the way for a committee of this importance to conduct itself.

Therefore, I believe that Amendment No. 1 in the name of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne is helpful. If Members of the Committee decide today, as I believe they should, that what is before them is not wholly adequate but, at the same time, is not the worst thing on earth, and if they decide that they wish to proceed and see how the proposals work—I am not sure that I would consider that to be wise but Members of the Committee may decide that that is what they wish to do—an insurance policy and check are needed. My noble friend Lord Caithness is right with regard to the trial period. I am not clear when it should start or finish, and Members of the Committee need to be clear about that before coming to a decision. However, assuming that Members of the Committee decide to proceed with the two-year trial period, the obvious insurance policy and check that noble Lords will decide upon at the end of that period will be to say to the Procedure Committee, "Would you have a look at this in rather greater depth, in rather more detail and in a rather calmer atmosphere than was the case two years ago? Could you report back to the House and advise it as best you can on whether this should be adopted as there are question marks over it?" However, the report is not all bad, and Amendment No. 1 may at least go some way to solving some of the problems that lie within it.

With regard to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is right. We had before us a draft report. The issue and various alterations were discussed and agreed to in principle. The Chairman of Committees took away the report to redraft it. Unless he sent it to one or two members specifically for approval, the committee as a whole did not see it before it emerged. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, obviously did his best to encapsulate in wording the feeling of the Procedure Committee. But the wording before this Committee was not seen by the whole committee before it was published. That is the answer to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.

I turn to the amendment. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House to enlighten us as to the version which appears as his proposal concerning what will happen after the two Sessions of trial period. I suggested that all those changes should be subject to a sunset clause so that they had positively to be re-enacted if they were to happen. The Committee will not be surprised to hear that I did not get very far with that suggestion.

The Leader of the House has undertaken that, in their own time, the Government will bring the matter back before the House. However, supposing that we do not adopt the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, I want to ask the Leader of the House what he contemplates will happen. Does he contemplate putting forward a Motion with perhaps one or two alterations to the practice and then it being open to people to table Motions to change other practices; or does he anticipate a general debate and then, if it emerges that some changes are considered desirable, that the Procedure Committee should implement them? I believe that we need to be clear about that before we decide whether or not the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is necessary.

It would not be satisfactory if the Government simply brought the matter hack to us after two Sessions saying, "It's working well, except that I think it should be 6.45 p.m. instead of 7.15 p.m.", and if no one else was in a position to lay before the House alternative specific proposals. Therefore, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will enlighten us before we have to decide whether or not to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne.

I hope that it is in order for a Back-Bench Peer who is not a hereditary Peer to take part in this afternoon's proceedings. Some Members of the Committee may recall that, when we last looked at the Leader's Group report, I made a number of disobliging remarks about the Procedure Committee, to put it in the simplest terms possible. I believed that it was an idiotic idea to give this report for consideration to that committee, which I considered to be a useless committee. That managed to offend several people. I know that, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was offended by my remarks, as he told me so.

I do not recall the noble Lord making the remarks. I was not in the least offended.

The noble Lord was present when I said that we should not remit the matter, and he told me the following day that he was upset by my remarks.

What troubles me is that we have heard four members of the Procedure Committee agree with me that they do not care at all for the Procedure Committee. They served on it and they thought, to put it in common parlance, that it was a stitch up. But have they not noticed their own contradiction—that, having said that, they now want the Procedure Committee to do more? The idea is preposterous.

I am addressing only the first amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. However, to save time—noble Lords will be aware how economical I am—my remarks will apply to several of the other amendments. It is absolutely barmy, if I may use that word as parliamentary language, for Peers to say that they dislike intensely the way in which the Procedure Committee has carried on and then propose that the same Procedure Committee, rather than your Lordships, should in a couple of years' time decide whether we have made progress. In due course, the committee members will become great experts on cost, efficiency and such matters.

I hope that we shall throw out all the amendments—and it would be a good idea to do that forthwith, because there is rather more serious business for your Lordships to address today. I hope that at least we can deal with these matters with some dispatch and not be taken in with the idea that we will waste any time with the Procedure Committee.

Perhaps I may respond to the quite appropriate personal remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I can assure him that I do not mind at all what he said.

The matter should go back to the Procedure Committee, not because that is the perfect body for everything—it is not, as I hope my remarks have already indicated—but because, provided it is not unduly constrained by time, as it was on this occasion, in my view wholly inappropriately, it would at least have the capacity to take evidence, to receive information and to receive the advice of the Officials of the House on all the detailed matters that will cause your Lordships to reach a final decision on this trial when it is complete in two Sessions' time. It would be preferable to do it that way, rather than to put it to the House as a whole. One has only to imagine how it would be done. Is the House to consider all the detailed implications of the trial, which by that stage we shall have completed over a two-year period? I believe that that would be impracticable.

Like the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, I look forward to hearing how, if my amendment is not agreed to, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal intends to proceed with this matter.

As a non-member of this august committee, I do not pretend that I can ever be as rude as my noble friend Lord Peston—

Try, try!

But I shall try. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who told us that he would have preferred no changes at all to be made, that it would have been simpler and more sensible if he had moved one amendment to delete everything, so that we could have a vote or go home. It occurred to me to move an amendment of that kind, but I did not want to be provocative.

Having read this amendment with very great interest, I believe that it is rather rude to the Leader of the House. We are told in paragraph 2 that at the end of the trial period the House itself, not even the usual channels, should review how the new practices have worked and decide whether they should be continued. That is quite straightforward and quite simple. I look forward to hearing my noble and learned friend's reply. I am sure he will be able to tell us that that is precisely what he intends to do, in which case I shall have no need to say anything else.

Irrespective of the views held by noble Lords on the Procedure Committee, it is worth remarking that we are today debating a report of the Procedure Committee, which was used as a filter to put flesh on the bones of the report of the Leader's Group. Because we are debating it today in the form of a report of the Procedure Committee, I, like my noble friends, believe that it is perfectly reasonable to expect that in two and a half years' time we should revisit the subject by way of a filter, whether in the form of a Procedure Committee or some other committee of the House. If as a whole House we were to review the activities that flow from this report, we would get into a terrible muddle.

I intervene briefly to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Some of the matters that we are discussing may be seen as essentially housekeeping matters. However, in so far as some of the proposals embodied in this report affect the relationship between Parliament and the executive, we are considering a very important matter, and I hope that we can discuss it at that level.

Secondly, I believe that it would be appropriate for a committee of the House, though not necessarily the Procedure Committee—it is not necessary today to decide which—to conduct a review of the practices, once in place. That body should assess the practices on the basis of one clear criterion, which should also be the criterion that we employ today in considering the recommendations and the amendments before us; namely, whether they strengthen Parliament in calling the Government to account. That should be the primary criterion used to inform the House, and I hope that we may debate the matter at that level.

Of all the amendments that we are considering today, this is the only one that I find in the least compelling. If we have a Procedure Committee, why do we not use the wretched thing? As noble Lords and my noble friends in particular have said, some detailed matters require a certain amount of expertise. Therefore, the Procedure Committee is the right body to form an initial view of whether, after the end of two Sessions, this experiment has worked.

Accepting this amendment would do very little harm and could do a great deal of good. I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House will think very carefully about whether he can accept what is in practice a very minor amendment but one that could be of great benefit to your Lordships' House.

I am very grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I shall confine myself to the two important themes enunciated by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth.

I endorse entirely the wording and the spirit of the single criterion that he specified, which are very similar to those that I have used on many occasions in this House: not least, our scrutiny of secondary legislation; Europe-derived legislation; and the necessity, to which I referred earlier and now repeat, that Opposition parties and Cross-Benchers should be properly resourced and equipped to do their work. After all, the Government in the nature of things will not be able to scrutinise themselves. I believe that if the Norton criterion is put to the report of the Leader's Group and to the report of the Procedure Committee in its present form, it will pass. I am quite happy to be judged by that question alone.

The noble Viscount asked what should be done at the end of the trial period. I remind your Lordships—the noble Lords, Lord Barnett and Lord Peston, are quite right—that this came from page 1, paragraph 4 of the original report, which is in bold for a specific purpose: its importance is recognised. Your Lordships will remember that this was not a committee of placemen, nor a committee with a government majority. The noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde, Lord Waddington and Lord Roper, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, served on the committee. It was a unanimous report. Paragraph 4 of the report states:

"Acceptance may be more readily forthcoming if the package is endorsed on the basis that it is for a trial period of two Sessions".

Then there is the citation by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett:

"And the House itself would have to approve any continuation thereafter".

Nothing could be plainer than that.

The noble Viscount's question was: what should be the procedure at that stage? It is a perfectly legitimate question. I anticipate that I would suggest that we have as wide a debate as possible with the opportunity for Members of the House, who, after all are the people who matter here—this is a House matter essentially—to say whether or not they found the changes acceptable. Nothing could be fairer and more transparent than that.

I advise Members of the Committee not to bind themselves today inevitably to returning to the Procedure Committee. That occurred to me long before my noble friend Lord Peston pointed out the slight internal inconsistency of members reviling in vigorous terms—not of course in words of asperity, but getting close to it—the quality of the Procedure Committee but of insisting almost simultaneously that the Procedure Committee was the beast which should be entrusted with this work.

My advice to the Committee is to see how we get on after the two-year period. We can then discuss among ourselves what we want to do. But let us keep the situation flexible and at least try to make changes work to the benefit of the House.

Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can answer one simple question. I have no desire to at tack the Procedure Committee. I would not dream of entering on to the ground of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who was so uncivil about it. On the whole I agree with what the Leader of the House has just said. There is little point after what has been said in our sending the matter back to the Procedure Committee. It might then use all its ingenuity to make things even more complicated than they are now.

My question for the noble and learned Lord is: exactly what does "pre-legislative scrutiny" amount to? Are they just weasel words to cover up a shortening of procedures? Or do they mean—something which I would personally very much welcome—a pre-legislative examination of every Bill, which could then be thrown back in the event that it sinned through being incomprehensible either in whole or in part—I should like that to be regarded as a vice fatal to a Bill—or was the product of the bad habit of incorporating three, four or five Bills in one cover under one title, which would similarly be regarded as an offence? If that kind of provision was covered by "pre-legislative" scrutiny, I would be very much in favour of it. If there was some other hidden reason, I would be less keen.

I am always happy to oblige the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. His questions about pre-legislative scrutiny attach themselves appropriately to subsequent groups of amendments. I can perhaps more helpfully reply at that stage.

I have no faith in trial periods; I have no faith in trial periods ever coming to an end. I am glad that this one is to be limited to two years. But at the end of the two years its success or failure should be discussed by the Procedure Committee whose job it is to make recommendations to the House on such matters. After that the trial period should be considered by the House; it should not be allowed to continue, possibly by default, on account of unfortunate timing of a discussion in this House such as the last day before the holidays when many noble Lords may already have left. It is important that this issue is given proper consideration with plenty of time allowed. I do not have any faith in that happening unless it goes back to the Procedure Committee.

I share the concerns that have been expressed. However, the noble and learned Lord said—I hope that I understood him correctly—that he did not rule out the possibility of this matter returning to the Procedure Committee at the end of the trial. That is highly desirable. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Paragraph 3, page 3, line 14, leave out from "so." to end of line 16 and insert "The Procedure Committee recommends that none of the proposals in this report should come into operation until detailed estimates of their cost and the availability of the financial, human and accommodation resources needed to give effect to them have been presented to the Procedure Committee and the other relevant committees or sub committees of the House. The House itself should, as always, take the final decisions on how such resources should be allocated."

I made it perfectly clear to my colleagues on the committee that, like a number of noble Lords who spoke on the previous amendment, I was dismayed by the way in which our business was conducted. I must make it equally clear to the House, which may otherwise be under the impression that the report before us provides reliable guidance based on a full and adequate examination of the issues, that it does not.

On 21st May the Procedure Committee was asked,

"to consider the practical implementation of the [working] group's recommendations".

We got off to a bad start with a paper before us that told us that two of the most significant recommendations—pre-legislative scrutiny and September sittings—did not concern the procedures of the House. They were a matter for the Government or the "usual channels", with the implication that we need not spend much time on them. Far worse was the fact that at no stage in our inquiry did we receive a single paper dealing with costs, resources, staff, options or the practical consequences of the various proposals before us.

In a paper to the committee which commented on the first draft, I wrote:

"I believe that the House will think it incredible that paragraph 3 about 'heavy burdens', prompted substantially by comments that I made to the Committee about the experience of the Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Bill, has not led to an assessment of those burdens or any analysis by the Committee of the manner in which they will be handled".

We were told, as my noble friend Lord Caithness informed the House, that it was the practice "to find the resources" to make possible what the House wanted.

There are two objections to that remarkable revelation about the way in which the business of Parliament is conducted. Experience tells us that even if resources are provided they may be inadequate or their arrival may be long delayed. Certainly, that has been the case with the European sub-committees which have had to struggle on for long periods with too few research assistants.

More important is an objection of principle, raised with vigour by my noble friend Lord Caithness during our proceedings. He argued that it was wholly wrong that we should take decisions that might have substantial cost implications without any examination of the costs or the way in which they were to be met. If I had attempted to run the business of the National Rivers Authority in that manner, the department and the National Audit Office would have assailed me, and the Public Accounts Committee would have torn me in little shreds. If any commercial company ran its business in the same way it would not survive for more than a few weeks.

Whatever may have been the practice in the past, it seems to me shocking that Parliament should still operate in that way. For that reason, I shall certainly vote for the amendments standing in the names of my noble friends Lord Trefgarne and Lord Caithness and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy.

I must make it clear that there are a good many proposals that I can support. Because some of us dug in our heels and pressed our points, and because the Leader of the House sensibly accepted amendments—I thank him for his wise and pragmatic approach on several issues—there are sensible suggestions that I can accept. For example, with two exceptions, the carry-over proposal is close to a form that would be acceptable and would avoid the damaging consequences that many of my noble friends have identified as being inherent. The exceptions are: any satisfactory assurance that pre-legislative scrutiny should normally (certainly with important Bills) involve both Houses; and the time limit proposed by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. I think that we should insist on those points when individual carry-over Motions are moved.

I want to deal with two particular issues where the examination of practicalities and resource implications has been disastrously inadequate. The first concerns the proposals about which my noble friend Lord Peyton asked a question: the proposals for pre-legislative scrutiny. The second concerns the proposal that we should rise in mid-July and sit regularly in September.

I am totally in favour of pre-legislative scrutiny. However, I am also a member at present on the Joint Committee on scrutiny of the Communications Bill and, with my colleagues on that committee, I have been learning some practical lessons about what is involved. I cannot think of any task in which I have been involved which has involved such a heavy workload. The quantity and complexity of the evidence—written, oral and the 500 submissions received on our website—has been immense. If the burdens have been heavy for the committee members, and in particular for our admirable chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, they have been even heavier for our Clerks, special advisers, officials who have managed our website, the Hansard Society and the many others in the very large team which has made our work possible. Our own Lords Clerk had to be appointed at short notice and it was unhelpful that he was given a new job and replaced before our work was anything like completed.

The penultimate sentence of the report that we are debating contains a statement that is incapable of fulfilment. It states:

"It will therefore be essential for the business managers to plan the legislative timetable in order to ensure that Ministers, Opposition spokesmen and other members of the House are not faced with conflicting demands for their time and presence".

On every occasion on which the Procedure Committee met, I had to leave well before the end of the meeting in order to attend the joint scrutiny committee and make it quorate. Tonight I shall have to leave this debate for exactly the same reason; and I apologise to the House for that fact. When the time comes to vote in this Chamber, the Joint Committee will have to adjourn. Because we have arranged to meet upstairs, it will not be entirely disruptive. But when witness sessions are being held in Portcullis House the consequences can be quite serious. On one occasion we sat from six in the evening until 10.15 and kept some of our witnesses, the heads of great companies, waiting for lengthy periods while Members of the other place voted in Divisions in which the government majority was never less than 200. Because of the distance to Portcullis House each Division involves an adjournment of at least 20 minutes.

On this occasion, the problems have been just about overcome. But if several Joint Committees are meeting at the same time on important Bills they will be very great indeed. And do not imagine that Committee stages will be shorter than in the past. Because of the weight of evidence provided and the many questions identified, I am confident that the Committee stages are likely to be longer. I do not believe that we should leave it to ad hoc future arrangements for these formidable resource and business management problems to be resolved. The report of the Joint Committee on the communications Bill which will be published next Wednesday morning will contain some tough words about the things that the departments got wrong on this occasion and will suggest some essential ground rules for the future. We should not support the recommendation of the Procedure Committee until we have much more satisfactory guarantees that the resource and business management arrangements will be dealt with adequately and proper ground rules are in place. Here are further reasons for voting for the amendments.

My general prejudice against September sittings on a regular basis arises from reasons well set out by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in the May debate, and I need not repeat them. Paragraph 27 of the committee report recommends that the House can reach this decision early in future Sessions. If no amendments had been tabled for today, under the procedure which has been adopted the House would not have been given an opportunity to express a view about the question at present. It is for that reason that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and I have tabled amendments to remove paragraphs 27 and 28. Surely it is desirable that the House should have the opportunity to decide on the general issue this evening. The first draft of the report included a recommendation that the House should always rise by the middle of July and return at the beginning of September. The sentence was deleted but the House should be clear that that is what the business managers have in mind.

Unfortunately, there has been no examination of some pretty fundamental questions. Because we follow the other place in dealing with many important Bills, that is our most busy time. It is also the prime time for pre-legislative scrutiny. Surely we need to consider pretty carefully the consequences of suddenly postponing all that activity for a month and a half. It is also a very busy time for the European Union Committee and its sub-committees. At my request, the European Union Committee is now considering the impact on our consideration of European business.

At present if pre-legislative scrutiny is completed by the end of July, the Government have three months to consider the recommendations and redraft the Bill. If the scrutiny committees have to continue their work in the autumn, it is hard to see how the final Bills could be introduced before the year end. Are governments really going to be content with such long delays to their legislative programme? I doubt it. None of these subjects was considered by the Procedure Committee. We received no information about the impact on the staff of the House or about the impact on the maintenance programme, except that in the last hour of our deliberations the Clerk to the Parliaments suddenly slipped in the information that at least six months' notice would have to be given so that contractors could plan their programmes.

The report states that whether Grand Committee sittings are to be held in September when the House is not sitting is largely a matter of business management. I do not agree. In addition to the points identified as requiring resolution, we must insist on information about costs, resources and staff. My suggestion in the committee that it would be necessary to bring back quite large numbers of staff, including those in the Clerks' department, messengers and security staff and to make substantial changes to the arrangements made for visitors was not challenged. Until there has been proper consideration of all these issues, I do not think that the House should contemplate so fundamental a change in our practices. For that reason, I shall support the amendments. I hope that many others will do so. As I have explained, I shall have to be absent for much of the remainder of the proceedings. However, I shall support other amendments. If my noble friend Lord Trefgarne moves amendments about September sittings, I hope that I shall be back so that I can support the amendments which stand in my name.

My Lords, I thought that we were debating one amendment. The remarks we have just heard were debating them all. It indicates to me that were we to have the horrible elected House we should have to have a Speaker to decide which matters were out of order. I thought that we were debating one amendment. If noble Lords want to speak to all the amendments, I shall be happy. We can have one debate, one vote and call it a day. But the noble Lord spoke about every single amendment on the Marshalled List.

My Lords, perhaps I may reply to the challenge which has been thrown at me. I responded to those issues which were affected by resources. We are dealing with one amendment. Every single point I made is covered by that amendment. I intend to make only one speech today. For the reasons I have explained I cannot be present in the House again. If the noble Lord wants me to make more detailed speeches on the other amendments, I shall come back and do so. But I think that he is being discourteous and unreasonable.

I wanted only to make a brief speech agreeing with some of what the noble Lord said and some of what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said—for different reasons. The plain fact is that I do not like this paragraph of the report either, for one simple reason. We are told that we will do all that and phase it,

"as resources become available".

This is the second Chamber of Parliament. We should decide what resources are available to us, not the usual channels, not the Procedure Committee, but this House. That is what we are talking about. To that extent, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. I do so reluctantly, because I disagree with just about everything else that he said and is doing in this debate, because he wants to kill it—I know that.

But the plain fact is that there should have been and should be in the near future the preparation of a budget. That is crucial. I speak as a former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and someone who had a little to do with the Treasury. I object to the form of words used in the report because we are asking the Treasury for money. We tell them what money we need, what resources we want to spend. We should not be asking it favours. As I said, this is the second Chamber of Parliament. That is what I do not like about that phrase.

I hope that my noble friend—I beg his pardon: I mean my noble and learned friend; I know that the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, likes us to be correct in these matters—can tell me that he does not intend to slow down any implementation of the report's recommendations simply because the Treasury does not allow him the money. He must tell the Treasury: we decide. We should not allow it to tell us what resources are available, especially when one considers how little we spend in this House in comparison with another place and with most other Parliaments around the world.

So, for the reasons that I have explained, I support the amendment. I do not wish to delay matters, so I shall say only that I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to assure me that he will not delay implementation for the reasons implied in the report.

If the introduction of the any part of the Procedure Committee's recommendation is to be phased, surely the trial period must also be phased.

Perhaps I may form a bizarre and unusual partnership with the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in support of his final point. He may recall that when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was a member of the House of Commons Commission, deciding how much the House of Commons could spend. I endeavoured to subject the commission to cash limits, but found that I was unable to do so from the Treasury. Some years later, when I was Leader of the House of Commons and my role was reversed, I took some pleasure in imposing the same conclusion. I think that my right honourable friend John Major was then Chancellor, but whoever it was, what the noble Lord said is absolutely right.

That is a serious point. We cannot allow the Treasury to dictate to us the pace at which we implement the recommendations. Even so, one would have hoped that the matter had been thought through rather more fully than it has been, because there is every risk that our achievement will be inhibited by lack of preparation.

I rise to speak briefly because I am probably the only Member of the House who is not totally committed to the idea that we should have another committee to consider the procedures of this House. The extraordinary way in which the matter has developed leads one to wonder why some members of the committee did not either issue a minority report or leave the committee.

They are not allowed to.

Well, there are ways to get around that, as the noble Lord has been here long enough to know. I shall happily discuss with him how that can be done to make some protest.

I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 2—I say that so that there is no grave misunderstanding. First, I fundamentally object to the amendment for a similar reason to the two previous speakers. There is not a complete, clear, logical analogy with the Welsh water board. As someone who has been involved in several companies, I think that that is a dangerous idea. I find the idea that measures that we believe are essential to good governance and our legislative efficiency—if that is what we decide—should be constrained for the lack of a budget or the need to keep within a budget, is deeply offensive to our whole system.

We are talking not of billions of pounds but of what the Treasury from time to time describes as candle ends and paperclips. The amendment is fundamentally wrong. The House must decide what it believes is the necessary way of working that enables it to produce the best possible contribution to legislation. When it arrives at the conclusion, the means must be made available. We are not talking of vast sums, but even if we were, we would have to stand on that principle.

Perhaps I may bring the House to face the realities of the situation. The Public Accounts Committee frequently commented on expenditure of public money, and it was right to do so. Sometimes, the Public Accounts Commission, which looks after the finances of the National Audit Office, made approaches to the House of Commons Commission about its need for money for certain things. As far as it could, the House of Commons Commission implemented its decisions, but it was certainly leaned on by the Government.

The same thing will happen here. My noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will, rightly, strongly advance all the arguments and make the case on the assumptions that we have discussed, but there will be a reaction from the Treasury, and I fear that there will be compromise. Do not think that we need only to pass a Motion to get some money and we will get it. What we can do is use our best endeavours to try to get as much as we can. It will be phased. The best solution that we can arrive at is the phasing that we expect in due course.

The phasing needs to be in our hands and cannot be made logical if we do not know what the different items on the list cost. So we need a procedure such as that suggested by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. I add that not all of the necessary resources are financial. My noble friend mentioned human resources. We are a large part of those human resources. I have already had to resolve a conflict between whether I should attend debate on a Bill in which I had an interest in Grand Committee or on another Bill in which I had an interest on the Floor of the House.

Having been a Minister in four departments and answerable for a fifth, I frequently find that I have strong views on legislation passing through your Lordships' House. If we are to have a multiplication of debate under the proposed Grand Committee scheme, it will be a question not so much of bi-location as tri-location or quinque-location if one is to discharge one's duties to the House. That must be taken into account before the recommendations are put into effect. I therefore support my noble friend's amendment.

I rise briefly to add to a commonsense approach. Having served on the Libraries and Computers Committee a short while ago, I know perfectly well that resources are limited. When I said, "Do we not run things? Cannot we decide?", I was told, "No, you are more of a user group". In other words, matters are determined outside and we are constrained by pre-set budgets.

I am sure that all of that can be organised over a period of years behind the scenes, through all sorts of channels about which I do not know, but we need an element of common sense. We cannot just ask for money and expect to get it. That is the reality.

On the question of our splitting our resources and time, I suspect that we shall have to consider other voting patterns. I refer to the business of trying to get here from meetings in Portcullis House to vote and back again. I have been in various committee meetings there. Suddenly, everyone gets up and off, and a meeting that may be quite important is completely disrupted. Members of the public are trying democratically to lobby their democratically elected Members, but those Members are on the telephone, on the pager or voting and are not there to be lobbied. We need to consider how to handle that.

I support the amendment not only for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell but because it is a key amendment. If it were to be agreed, it would give time for consideration of the merits of the other amendments to which my noble friend referred—I shall not refer to them, and I shall limit my speech to this amendment. I agree with the amendments that he mentioned, to which I shall come later.

Acceptance of the amendment would be an effective resolution of our difficulties. Our difficulties are complex. On any showing, it will be difficult to achieve a wholly intelligible and comprehensive result today. Further time is needed, and the amendment would provide it.

I shall reinforce the comments just made by my noble friend Lord Elton. We are talking of resources, and, like the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. I should like to have seen a budget. However, we are not talking only of resources financial; we are talking also of resources human. That involves a large number of people, including Members of your Lordships' House, Clerks, Hansard writers and Doorkeepers. There are tremendous human resource implications.

There is another thing that bothers me, about which I must ask the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House. Lines 14 to 16 of the fifth report, which the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne would change, read as follows:

"It seems to us unlikely that all the Group's recommendations can be implemented immediately. We"—

the committee—

"recommend that with effect from next session (2002–03) implementation should be phased, as resources become available".

In paragraph 2, the report discusses a trial period of two parliamentary Sessions. I must be hypothetical for a moment: what will happen if something is delayed for 15 months? Will that mean that there will be only nine months of trial? Does the two-Session period start at the end of the 15-month period? The noble and learned Lord should tell us about that. We may have a very short trial period for some of the recommendations. I hope that the noble and learned Lord can tell us that it will all be done quickly, but the matter worries me.

I do not want to get to my feet any more than I need, so I must also say now that I am concerned about this afternoon's procedure. I want to raise a short point regarding paragraph 12 of the report. However, as we are restricted to talking about amendments and as no amendments to paragraph 12 have been tabled, I am not sure when I can bring the matter up. Can the noble and learned Lord help me on that?

The noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Geddes, have reminded us that it is not just a question of financial resources but of human resources. There is a third element, to which the amendment draws our attention: accommodation resources. That is an important factor, and no amount of money from the Treasury will remedy the accommodation deficit in the short term.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Geddes. He raised again the point that my noble friend Lord Mancroft and I raised about the first amendment and to which we did not get a reply.

I put my name to the amendment for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Crickhowell mentioned. It is a matter of principle whether we should allow the report to go through when we have no idea of the resource implications. That is a major defect in our proceedings. As other noble Lords said, there are also questions of human and financial resources, but we have no idea what will be needed fully to implement the report.

Like my noble friend, I have served on a pre-legislative committee. It was on the Freedom of Information Bill. The committee was hurried; we were short of time in which to do the job properly. If we want proper pre-legislative scrutiny, we must be properly staffed, and we must be given adequate time. That is not happening at the moment, and we have no idea of what is needed to remedy that defect.

I do not have a particularly suspicious mind, but, having listened to most of the contributions this afternoon. I wonder how many were intended to be constructive and how many were intended to delay things. I would like to live long enough to see the recommendations implemented.

I have a precise question for the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House. The report says:

"We recommend that with effect from next session…implementation should be phased".

Who decides on the phasing? Who decides on the priorities? Is it the Procedure Committee? Is it the usual channels? Is it the House as a whole? Is it the noble and learned Lord?

I shall say just a word because I know that everyone is anxious not to speak more than once in the debate. This is my twopennyworth.

There is undoubtedly a general mood abroad that we should drag our practices out of the 19th century and into the 21st. Some Members, to judge by their practice, upbringing and general demeanour, would prefer, for legitimate reasons, to make as little change as possible. I understand that. I have no quibble with those who hold that view. However, when the Leader's Group was set up, we charged the best people available, on the basis of experience, with investigating the changes that could be made. They did so and made their recommendations.

I supported the Leader's Group out of respect, first, for my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House and, secondly, for those in the group. Then, we had an interesting debate here, in which my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Denham, played a major part. He confronted the House with the consequences of accepting that report. At the end of that debate, we decided that the Procedure Committee—a committee of experienced people from all parts of the House—should examine the matter. After debate—and some division—the committee put before the House what my noble and learned friend described as a package, a description that I accept.

Some aspects of the report meet my concerns, and some do not. However, ultimately, I must decide whether I support the democratic process in which I have been involved—delegated democracy—and whether I agree, in general, with the report. Some Members want to make changes: where the report says "six", they want "five" and where it says "may", they want "shall". They want to know how long the changes will take and when the process will start. To them, those may be important matters; to me, the issue is whether we want to see the House do something about its procedures, regardless of whether the amendments are pressed.

Having been here for 19 years, I have some experience. I have served at various levels. At times, Members who believe that they are doing the House and the country good are, in fact, being selfish. I sat here many nights, well past midnight, and found that Members on both sides of the House were dead beat. They were still here simply because the procedure said that any amendments that were put down would be dealt with, unless they were withdrawn. We crucify ourselves by sticking to established procedures. Of course, we can discuss the amendments relating to times; people will have a view about working on Thursday mornings and finishing at 7 p.m. Some of the things may not be to my liking. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and others have said that the point of the changes was to aid the Government. We should wait and see. My noble and learned friend the Leader of the House and my noble friend the Chief Whip may feel that they have got an easement of their burden, but "It ain't necessarily so". We do not know how it will pan out.

I am prepared to trust my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House and his committee, which includes the usual channels. They are made of flesh and blood. They are not automatons, sent here simply to do somebody else's bidding. They have families and personal priorities too. Above all, however, as Members of the House, we ought to try to do things in such a way as is to the aid and comfort of all of us.

I very much hope that this amendment will not be accepted; and that the other amendments, which, undoubtedly, are designed to be helpful, will be withdrawn at the appropriate time. The House—which means the Leader, the usual channels, and the Procedure Committee—should proceed as best it can.

Reference has been made to the fact that we need to be careful about money. I merely reflect upon the experience in the other place. They have not just spent hundreds of thousands of pounds; they have spent millions of pounds in efforts to make their task as legislators easier. The noble Lords, Lord Sheldon and Lord Barnett, and others, can tell us that there are checks and balances involved and that you do not always get what you want, but you could have fooled me. One has but to compare the easement of conditions in the other place with the purgatory that has arisen here just because some of us wish to make our lot just a little easier.

We must recognise that thousands, perhaps millions, of people outside this Chamber will not readily understand the reaction to this opportunity, which has been provided by the Leader, the other party leaders, as well as the usual channels. It is an opportunity for us to do something to make our job as parliamentarians a little easier. Therefore, I do not think that we ought to look this gift horse in the mouth. I very much hope that that will also prove to be the attitude of all noble Lords.

Perhaps I may make a very simple observation at this point. If the Procedure Committee had been able to tell us what the costs of such changes would be as regards both human resources and money, there probably would not be a problem. However, the problem is that the committee has not been able to do so. I cannot imagine any situation in private life in which one would embark upon a course of action, which clearly will be expensive in many ways, without having an idea of the eventual cost. It seems to me to be practical common sense that we ought to have that information before we make any Final decision.

I am not disputing the recommendations of the Procedure Committee, or the fact that we need change. However, it seems to me to be quite extraordinarily irresponsible for this Chamber to be prepared to make such a move when we have been told by members of the Procedure Committee that they do not yet know what it will cost, and that they are going to tootle along and see what happens. That does not seem to me to be a common-sense approach.

Perhaps I may deal with the noble Baroness's general observation. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, we are not analogous to running a public company. We do not attempt to run our business exactly replicating the directors of Enron or of WorldCom; we are doing something infinitely more important. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, rightly said, we are attempting to discharge our duties as a House of Parliament.

The noble Baroness, and many other speakers, asked about the costs involved in these changes. The answer is that we cannot say because, by its very nature, the process is incremental; and, indeed, is intended to be incremental. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, persuaded a large majority of noble Lords of his view—I am offering no comment of my own—that a significant injustice might well have been done to two dead members of the Royal Air Force. That was the noble Lord's view. Assisted by other noble Lords who were of the same view, the noble Lord persuaded your Lordships that a committee should be set up to investigate the fatalities in the Chinook crash on the Mull of Kintyre. I am taking no position as to who was right, or who was wrong. Did any noble Lords think that they should challenge the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on how much such a procedure would cost? Indeed, due to the nature of things, how could he have answered? It would have been quite impossible for him to do so.

Time and again, we have said that we hope to reform this Chamber gradually and incrementally. There is a hope expressed in the recommendations of the Leader's Group that, eventually, virtually all major government Bills will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. All those in the Leader's Group knew perfectly well that that would be a matter of years, not months. Unless I know which Bill will have pre-legislative scrutiny—whether by the House of Commons, the House of Lords, or by both Houses—how can I conceivably cost it? We know that there will be significant savings, because the cost of staff overtime will decline if we finish business at about 10 o'clock at night; and that applies also to the cost of transport, and so on.

I echo what my noble friend Lord Graham said. At the end of the day, it comes down to this fundamental question: do we wish to improve our practices to make our true work achievable? If that is so, we need to go forward incrementally. I accept the challenge put forward, but it is not possible to cost such reforms. The noble Baroness and I both participated to our mutual benefit in the Grand Committee proceedings on the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, but I could not possibly have costed that process before we knew how many days that committee would sit.

As the noble Lords, Lord Geddes and Lord Elton, along with other speakers, have said, we are not simply talking about cash resources; we are talking about accommodation. That is why, when your Lordships were all engaged on a beach somewhere last August, my noble friend Lord Carter and I obtained authority to buy Fielden House for quite a significant sum. We did so because we believed that we would need that accommodation resource. It will take a little while for it to be refurbished, and the final plans have yet to be completed.

We need to take a view on such matters. Are we going to bring about reform in this Chamber? I accept that we need resource by way of training the Committee Clerks, who are admirable in quality, extremely diligent, and very often overworked. But we already set up committees without costings. I can give other examples, but I fear that I would be straining noble Lords' patience.

I am sorry to put it quite so plainly, but, at the end of the day, we must decide whether we want these changes to take place. Thereafter, incrementally—patiently sometimes—we will have to will the resource. I shall give noble Lords but one example. The Liberal Democrats, the noble and gallant Lord the Cross-Bench Convenor, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, all put forward their bids and the resource has been obtained. I do not say that by way of self-congratulation; I say that because I think that it was a worthy, moral purpose to bring about. We can do it if we want to. But if we want to clad ourselves again with the carapace of the past centuries, we are all in the wrong place.

Will the noble and learned Lord be kind enough to tell us how any Members of your Lordships' House can broach a subject in this Committee that is not actually the subject of an amendment?

There are two points at issue. First, I wish that they would not do so; and, secondly, if they do, your Lordships' ingenuity knows no bounds.

I have considered the noble Lord's point about questions being too long and answers too lengthy. I believe that to be a general view, of which the Procedure Committee took note. I am sure that those who are guilty in that respect—that is, of course, anyone but oneself—will pay due regard to those comments.

With the Committee's permission, I shall bring to an end the debate at least on this amendment. Surely it is common ground that these proposals will cost something. It is common ground that they will be introduced over a year or so. Similarly, it is common ground that no doubt the Treasury will provide the funds being sought. I seek only to ask noble Lords to inquire what it is that we are asking for.

This may be an appropriate moment to take the Statement. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.

My Lords, before I repeat the Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I have been given quite recently some information that your Lordships will wish to know. There has been an attack with explosives on the property of our colleague, the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. At this stage—I am giving the details, obviously, as soon as I am able—the Army advises me that the Continuity IRA has telephoned a local newspaper claiming responsibility. A recognised codeword was used. I mention this because your Lordships obviously would wish to know and, more fundamentally, we would wish to send a message of unswerving solidarity to a parliamentary colleague.

Hear, hear!

My Lords, I turn now to the Statement, which is as follows:

"With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about Northern Ireland.

"After the meeting which he and the Taoiseach had with the parties at Hillsborough on 4th July, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said that we would reflect on what had been said about continuing levels of violence in Northern Ireland and consider what could be done to restore confidence in the political process.

"As my right honourable friend said, there can be no acceptable or tolerable level of violence. The principles of democracy and non-violence, which were laid down by the international body under Senator Mitchell in 1996 and formed the basis on which the political negotiations took place, are as relevant now as they were then. As a signal of shared purpose in eradicating violence, I have today written to all the parties asking them to reaffirm their total and absolute commitment to these principles.

"In recent weeks, and in particular over last weekend, we have seen serious disturbances which have brought violence to the streets of Belfast and elsewhere, culminating in the appalling murder of Gerard Lawlor by so-called loyalists early on Monday morning. A young man barely in his teens when the peace talks started, and not out of them when his life was so cruelly taken. This was not an isolated incident. Over the previous 72 hours there had been five attempted murders, one shooting, two sectarian arson attacks and four serious public order incidents. These disgraceful events benefit no one and have been a source of anguish to victims and all those who live in the areas concerned.

"I said recently that we would oppose by all means those wedded to violence. The security forces are bearing down on the paramilitaries to deny them the freedom to operate; to prevent murders, shootings, pipe and petrol bomb attacks. More than 250 additional police officers and soldiers have been brought in to dominate the interfaces in north Belfast. They are stopping and checking the movement of individuals and vehicles in order to prevent armed gangs entering and leaving the area. Known paramilitaries are being kept under close surveillance.

"This means that more police and Army resources are now deployed in north Belfast than at any point since the beginning of the cease-fires, while routine patrolling elsewhere by the Army has been dramatically reduced. The PSNI is pursuing a variety of proactive and reactive methods to disrupt paramilitary movement in the area.

"Since violence flared in Belfast at the beginning of May, the police have made a number of arrests for terrorist and public order offences, ranging from riotous behaviour to possession of petrol bombs. Since 4th May, in north and east Belfast, 21 loyalists have been arrested, with 15 charged. Over the same period, 12 republicans have been arrested and all were charged.

"The police are determined that the perpetrators of the violence should be brought to book and will pursue them by every means available to them. I share that aim. I have therefore asked my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General to lead an examination of police powers, bail arrangements and the scope for additional criminal offences. He will also examine whether there are any changes in the criminal law that could be made to facilitate successful prosecutions for acts of terrorism, violence and organised crime.

"All of this would complement the Proceeds of Crime Bill which we hope will receive Royal Assent today and which will give us a powerful weapon to hit paramilitary finances and the greed of individuals.

"But security measures alone will not solve this problem. That is why I also said recently that we would work in partnership with those who wanted to engage in local dialogue. Following the meeting at Hillsborough, I met several of the political parties and encouraged closer and more systematic dialogue at local level.

"In the light of recent events, at my request, my honourable friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, the Parliamentary Secretary, has now initiated further urgent discussions with local representatives, including those with links to paramilitary organisations, in an effort to develop the kind of partnership structures at local level which will help prevent such disturbances in future. We are willing to spend as long as it takes with those who want to work in partnership with us and with each other. Those who do not want to do so should face the full force of the law.

"I cannot emphasise too strongly that it is essential that things should now calm down and that we should have a settled summer. It would be intolerable for the political progress on which the future well-being of Northern Ireland depends to be held to ransom by the murderous activities of paramilitaries on either side. It would be equally intolerable if the progress valued by the many were to become hostage to the few who are committed to violence.

"People want us to face up to this honestly. It would, I believe, help us and the public to have more transparent information about the involvement of paramilitary groups in such activities and the general pattern of paramilitary activity in the community.

"In a related area—the involvement of paramilitaries in racketeering and organised crime—I have already asked Professor Ron Goldstock to assist me in assessing the scale of the problem.

"I can see a case for doing something similar, to shine a light on levels of paramilitary violence in the community, both loyalist and republican, and to supplement the judgments I make about the cease-fires. I will consult widely about this idea and how it might best be done, and make my views known after the summer break.

"It is now four and a half years since the second IRA cease-fire. The cease-fires have made a huge contribution to reducing the appalling human cost of the conflict. This is the 30th anniversary of the worst year of the Troubles, when 470 people lost their lives. Even 10 years ago, the figure was nearly 100. Last year it was 17. So far this year, six people have lost their lives. We should never forget in the midst of all our problems just how far we have come. But six is still too many. Of course things are a lot better than they were. But that is not the only test. The real test is whether they are as good as people have a right to expect.

"They expect it of all paramilitaries and all parties. But there is a particular responsibility on any party participating in the government of Northern Ireland. It must appreciate that operating jointly in government, as the agreement requires, calls for a measure of responsibility and trust. Trust depends on confidence that the transition from violence to democracy continues apace, has not stalled and will be completed without delay.

"The recent statement by the IRA acknowledging the grief and pain of the relatives of those who died at the hands of the IRA and reaffirming its commitment to the peace process was a welcome step in the right direction.

"We also have to acknowledge, though, that more than four years after the agreement was concluded, welcome as it is, it is simply not enough for paramilitary organisations on cease-fires to have brought an end to their terrorist campaigns.

"Confidence in the process requires confidence that there will never again be a return to those dark days; in particular, that preparations are not going on under the surface for a resumption of a terrorist campaign; and that paramilitary organisation will be stood down altogether as soon as possible. Whatever their real intentions—and in the case of the IRA I share my right honourable friend's assessment that it has never been further from a return to its campaign—nothing could be more damaging than the sense that options were being kept open in that way.

"The judgments I make about the cease-fires have to be made in the round, taking into account all relevant factors, including those which the statute obliges me to take into account. That is what I will continue to do. But with the passage of time it is right that these judgments should become increasingly rigorous. In reviewing the cease-tires, I will give particular weight to any substantiated information that a paramilitary organisation is engaged in training, targeting, acquisition or development of arms or weapons, or any similar preparations for a terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland or elsewhere. I say to the House—lest there be any doubt on the matter—that I will not hesitate to use the powers Parliament has given me if the circumstances require it.

"There is also still a threat from organisations, both loyalist and republican, which are not on cease-fire. The Irish authorities have already had some notable successes against dissident republicans. Separately and together, we will counter those who cling to violence with all the resources at our disposal.

"I have made it absolutely clear that violence is unacceptable and pledged once again to do all in our power to achieve its elimination. I will not pretend to the House that it is within the Government's power to solve all these problems on our own or by security measures alone.

"That is why we must keep in mind the enormous benefits which the political agreement has brought and will continue to bring as we complete its implementation. These include government of Northern Ireland by the people of Northern Ireland, with locally elected representatives in a cross-community administration.

"The stability of those institutions is not a concession to paramilitaries. On the contrary, it provides a platform for putting their activities in the past, where they belong. The steps I have announced today are most definitely not intended to threaten the democratic institutions, but to buttress democracy against violence. We should never forget how much we have to lose. It is essential that the political representatives on all sides who have done so much to create and sustain the agreement should, by reaffirming and observing their commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, ensure its continuation.

"I have set out the measures in response to the violence in Northern Ireland. But the success of the peace process will require courage, patience and endurance from everyone involved. It will be a long haul. But that could not be otherwise in what is an historic attempt to end what is at heart an ancient conflict".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement. Perhaps, with your Lordships' indulgence, I may be allowed to join with the noble and learned Lord in expressing sympathy to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, as regards whatever happened this afternoon. The noble Viscount has been outstanding in his courage throughout the past 30 years. He deserves our best wishes.

For those of us who are familiar with the affairs of Northern Ireland, it is not difficult to see why the Government were forced to make this Statement. Over recent months there has been an alarming deterioration in confidence in the agreement on the part of the people of Northern Ireland. Many would say that the Government have completely lost their way and that in many areas the rule of law no longer applies.

While many of the institutions established under the agreement are working well—the Executive and the Assembly, for example—the agreement has failed to deliver in one key area. Despite the fact that all those who signed up to the Belfast agreement pledged to pursue their objective by exclusively peaceful and democratic means, paramilitary violence in Northern Ireland remains a daily fact of life for too many people. The violence is obviously on a lower scale than it was, say, 10 years ago, although in certain parts of Belfast it is very similar. Mothers are afraid to let their children into the streets. Families wonder whether the one who has gone shopping will come back; the fear is permanently present if someone is late. That is happening today in many parts of the Province.

Over the past four years we have seen a number of breaches of cease-fires to which the Government have simply turned a blind eye. In recent months the breaches have become even more blatant. There has been the violence in and around the Short Strand area of east Belfast, clearly orchestrated by republican and loyalist paramilitaries. There have the events at Castlereagh—almost certainly the work of the IRA. We have had evidence of the renewed targeting of politicians and military installations. There have been the revelations of IRA involvement with the narco-terrorist group, FARC, and, as is thought likely, with the testing of new weapons in Colombia. In parts of Belfast, beatings, shootings and mutilations take place on a daily basis. Racketeering, intimidation and smuggling are big business, raking in millions for paramilitary gang bosses. Surely all of this is a far cry from the prospect of the complete end to violence offered by the Belfast agreement.

Will the noble and learned Lord please define for the House what will in future constitute a breach of the cease-fire? Four years on, there is little sign that we are much closer to what the agreement describes as,

"the complete disarmament of all paramilitary organisations",

or to what the Prime Minister said would be,

"the progressive disbandment of paramilitary structures".

Do the Government accept that PIRA is better armed today and a technically more sophisticated force than it has ever been? It is these failings that have created a deep crisis of confidence in the peace agreement, particularly among moderate unionists, many of whom, it should be remembered, were reluctantly persuaded to support the agreement, and such factors as the release of terrorist prisoners, on the basis that it offered an end to violence and after hearing the Prime Minister's pledges.

Unless confidence is restored, we shall face—indeed, I believe we are facing—a real crisis and the possible collapse of the political institutions before we even reach next May's elections. I do not believe that the Statement will do anything to help that situation.

I welcome some parts of the Statement, but I regret that it contains very little of substance. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal will forgive me for reminding him that we have been here before. When the Prime Minister defined the cease-fire during the referendum campaign on the agreement in May 1998, he said that a "complete and unequivocal cease-fire" meant,

"an end to bombings, killings and beatings, claimed or unclaimed; an end to targeting and procurement of weapons; progressive abandonment and dismantling of paramilitary structures actively directing and promoting violence".

I shall not say that he repeated it verbatim, but I heard him almost repeat that statement about an hour ago in another place.

The Prime Minister went on to say that the tests against which the cease-fires would be judged would become "more rigorous over time". Yet the very reverse appears to have happened. The tests have become less rigorous, indeed they are almost non-existent.

So will the noble and learned Lord give an assurance that, following today's Statement, there will be no more fudges and no more blind eyes? Furthermore, will he confirm that the Government will not tolerate any further breaches of the cease-fires; and that, unlike in the past four years, when many breaches have taken place, the Government will act?

The noble and learned Lord said that the Government would use the powers that Parliament had given them should the circumstances so require. Can he assure the House that, in the event of IRA breaches, the Government will not hesitate to use their powers under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to table a Motion before the Assembly seeking the exclusion of Sinn Fein from the Executive? That is not a very strong threat, particularly if it is likely that the SDLP would not support such a Motion. It would be valueless in that situation.

Regarding those paramilitaries without political representation in the Executive or the Assembly, republican dissidents and the loyalist groups, will the noble and learned Lord undertake to consult with the Dublin Government and those in the United States Administration to see what further effective penalties can be imposed so that specifying an organisation has some real rather than merely symbolic meaning?>

Will the noble and learned Lord state clearly that any party in breach of the agreement or linked to a paramilitary group not maintaining a complete and unequivocal cease-fire will not be allowed to sit in the Executive following next May's elections?

I welcome what the noble and learned Lord said about the need to tackle the appalling street violence in Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland. Only this week we saw another sickening murder—of a young Catholic, Gerard Lawlor, which I am sure we all deeply regret. However, it was one of many attacks on both Protestants and Catholics. Any initiatives to deal with this will have our support.

Does the noble and learned Lord not agree, however, that the most effective counter to violence is a well-motivated and full-strength police force? Does he therefore share my alarm at the current strength of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which is already below the levels envisaged by Patten in infinitely more favourable security circumstances? Will he now give a categorical assurance that police numbers will not be allowed to fall any further, and that in the foreseeable future there can be no question of phasing out the full-time reserve who are literally indispensable?

The Conservative Party continues to support the Belfast agreement. We desperately want it to succeed. However, the situation is now critical. The Government have a short window of opportunity to rebuild confidence and restore momentum in the political process. I urge them to grasp it. I seriously fear the consequences if they do not do so.

My Lords. I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement by his right honourable friend in another place. I should like first to say that we on these Benches unequivocally condemn the murder of Gerard Lawlor and extend our sympathies to his family. Similarly, we would associate ourselves with the sentiments expressed about the explosion on the property of the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough.

We absolutely agree that there are no acceptable levels of violence, and accordingly welcome the steps that have been announced today by the Government. We particularly underline the need to promote further local dialogue and partnerships. The most effective way of dealing with terrorism and general mayhem is for the local communities to come together to make clear that they will dissociate themselves from it and do all they can to stop it.

I have two questions for the Lord Privy Seal. First, how will the Secretary of State aim to progress his intention to supplement the judgments he makes about the cease-fires? Will he be introducing some facility for the objective independent assessment of paramilitary activity in relation to the cease-fires? We particularly welcomed that part of the Statement which said that he sought to supplement the judgments he made about the cease-fires, and that he was willing to consult widely on the idea of how it might best be done and make his views known after the Summer Recess.

We think that that is an important way forward. So often in Northern Ireland, it has been necessary to bring in both internal and external assessors to make objective statements about situations which were otherwise contentious. It helps to take some of the contention out of debate. We would welcome that if the Secretary of State were so minded.

Secondly, does the noble and learned Lord agree that political party leaderships should redouble their efforts to influence the paramilitaries on both sides of the community? Very often in this House—I have no reason to disagree with it—it is invariably assumed that Sinn Fein can exercise great influence over the IRA. Rarely, however, is it assumed that the various Unionist parties have the capacity effectively to constrain the dissident loyalist paramilitaries. Does the Minister agree, given the greater degree of violence exhibited by the loyalist groups recently, that much greater efforts should be made by the elected Unionist leaderships to lessen these recent outbreaks of violence which are becoming a regular feature in the Short Strand area among many others?

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken.

I shall, if I may, respond immediately to the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. The step of asking Professor Goldstock was a very imaginative one; a subtle step where subtlety is required. Professor Goldstock is of course internationally known as an expert on organised crime. As my right honourable friend said, he sees a case for shining a light on levels of paramilitary violence, which is, I think, what was endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Smith. My right honourable friend is certainly perfectly open-minded. He is happy to consult widely and wants to come to an informed conclusion in about the timescale that the noble Lord mentioned.

I think that the noble Lord is absolutely right on party political leadership. There has been very significant—allegedly loyalist—violence. It is not simply elected politicians who have a duty; of course, there are community leaders. I have to say that, on the information available to me, some community leaders from both sides have been trying to calm tempers. One needs to bear in mind also, I think, that some crime is deeply and desperately anti-social but is not necessarily politically based or motivated. Organised gangs may pretend to have a political motive and motivation, but what really drives them is the thought of vast amounts of cash. It is an extremely attractive proposition to them, if they can get away with it.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked about the Secretary of State's powers under the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Of course, the Secretary of State has certain statutory obligations in Section 30(7) of that Act. If he is minded to come to a conclusion that would require his serving a notice on the Presiding Officer requiring a motion to be moved for the removal from office of a Minister or junior Minister, he has particularly to take into account whether the Minister, junior Minister or relevant political party,

"is committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means to achieve his or its objectives…has ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or of preparation for violence…is directing or promoting acts of violence by other persons…is co-operating…with any Commission of the kind referred to in",

the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997.

The Secretary of State is resolute. He intends to use those powers if they seem to be appropriate. He is bound, of course, by those statutory considerations. However, it is useful, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, said, for his judgment to be supplemented by the sort of material that has been described.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, put the proposition that the Provisional IRA is better armed today and more sophisticated than ever before. I personally would not be in a position to comment on that. I know that various views are held, and they may be rightly held. My proposition, however, is that there has been the maintenance, by and large, of an effective cease-fire. The numbers that I spoke of in the Statement are not used for forensic or political advantage. However, the decline from 470 to six—six too many, this year—is something that has been worth an enormous struggle and great patience.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, quoted the Prime Minister's words, with which of course I entirely agree. He is quite right that the Prime Minister has spoken them on a number of occasions. I think that the noble Lord is right in saying that we can not have fudges or blind eyes. The law has to apply to all.

As for the question on Dublin and the United States administration, I can happily reconfirm that relations between the White House, Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland in Dublin have never been more co-operative. It is heartening indeed to see the successes that the republic's forces have achieved in their fight against terrorists. It may be necessary to remind ourselves that the powers that obtain in the Republic of Ireland in relation to the seizure of assets have historically been much more vigorous and draconian than anything that we have had, which is why the Secretary of State made reference to the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which is to receive Royal Assent today.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked me about the judgment that the Secretary of State might come to following the May elections for the Assembly in Belfast. I repeat that he will discharge his statutory duty on the grounds set out in Section 30(7).

As regards Patten and the police force, I agree entirely with the noble Lord that a fully equipped and supported police force is essential. It is a great cause of regret that although the Roman Catholic Church has encouraged its members to join the police force, Sinn Fein has not. I believe that on previous occasions the noble Lord asked why Sinn Fein has not done so. I have no answer to that save that I agree with him. I refer to the review by the oversight commissioner announced on 30th April. The commissioner can report on any aspect of the new policing arrangements.

I believe that I have answered the questions that were asked. I am particularly grateful that both noble Lords who spoke endorsed what all your Lordships feel about the cowardly attack on a good parliamentarian who serves on the police board and discharges his duty admirably.

My Lords, I, too, endorse what has been said by noble Lords in respect of the cowardly attack on the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. I condemn all killings and all violence whether that violence emanates from loyalists or from republicans in Northern Ireland. It is a scourge on our community. Does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal accept that we must be more specific in the analysis of the problem if we are to tackle it in an effective way? Does he agree that loyalist violence—although I condemn it totally—emanates largely from independent action by thugs who are set about with sectarianism and whose main objective is to kill a member of the Roman Catholic community? That particular violence could be dealt with much more effectively if Sinn Fein was willing to promote among its supporters support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland. That lack of support and the inability of the police service to operate without fear of attack on its members inhibit the war against loyalist terrorism which could be controlled. There is comparatively little support for that kind of terrorism.

The failure of Sinn Fein members of the Executive to condemn the attempted murder of a young Roman Catholic police officer a few weeks ago is tantamount to support for that crime. It is by that attitude that Adams and McGuinness stand condemned. Do the Government recognise that through their inactivity in regard to implementing promises that were made four years ago they are hanging a millstone around the neck of David Trimble? He cannot be expected to carry alone the burden of the Belfast agreement. Will the Government stop ignoring the small infringements which mount up to the extent that we are now reaching a point where perhaps the whole edifice of democracy could crumble around our heads?

My Lords, not for the first time I am grateful for the robust way in which the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, has spoken. I absolutely agree that loyalists or republicans who are breaking the law need to be condemned in the robust way that the noble Lord did.

There is undoubtedly an overlap between alleged political activity on the streets, which is criminal, and simply destructive crime. The noble Lord is right to say that a good deal of that crime constitutes independent action by thugs—to use his word—motivated by sectarianism. I believe that most of us consider that poor Mr Lawlor was murdered simply because he was a Roman Catholic. That is how it appears.

The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, is right to say that any attack on a serving police officer ought to be condemned by everyone in the community, whatever their political views, and by those with no political views. I repeat that it is a source of regret to Her Majesty's Government that Sinn Fein will not encourage those who support it at the ballot box to support the police directly by joining them or less directly through general support in the community.

My Lords, I hope that I may direct the noble and learned Lord's mind to the words which appeared early in the Statement concerning the activity of the security forces along the interfaces between the communities. Is that not a token, in an oblique way, of the situation in Northern Ireland's great cities, Belfast and Londonderry, and of the existence of no-go areas which are as surely a fact now as they were 30 years ago when physical barriers existed? The security forces operate along the interfaces. Will the noble and learned Lord assure us that there are no parts of those two great cities which are not regularly policed by the Police Service of Northern Ireland? For, by all accounts, it is within those areas where gangs of terrorists and members of terrorist armies maintain their form of order and their laws to protect their criminal activities involving drugs, protection rackets and other such things which finance their armies. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that those forces have the power so to intimidate witnesses that although it is widely known who committed the atrocity at Omagh it has proved impossible to bring them to justice because Sinn Fein/IRA is protecting them?

My Lords, the noble Lord has made that final point on other occasions outside the Chamber as well as inside it. I do not know whether the noble Lord is correct. I suspect that there is undoubtedly intimidation of witnesses. However, I cannot attribute that to Sinn Fein on any material that I have.

The noble Lord mentioned the reference to "interfaces" in the Statement. However, that takes into account geography, social facts and history. There are distinct communities in the areas referred to. There is no question of no-go areas. The action that was taken was remarkably robust. Over 250 additional police officers and soldiers have been brought in "to dominate the interfaces". They are stopping and checking vehicles and individuals in an attempt to strike at exactly the vice the noble Lord described; namely, the operations of armed gangs. However, I reiterate my earlier comment: it is a mistake for us always to think that armed criminal gangs are motivated by any form of politics. They are motivated by greed and may use sectarianism as some sort of despicable cover for what is actually straightforward criminal activity.

My Lords, my noble and learned friend referred to the situation at the interfaces. I seek more detail on the situation in north Belfast. He referred to an additional 250 members of the security forces who have been brought in. Is my noble and learned friend satisfied that the security forces have adequate personnel in that area to deal with the violence which seems to be occurring on a nightly basis?

Furthermore, is there any evidence of political links with the loyalists or republicans involved in the violence in north Belfast; is the Real IRA or some other republican group involved? It would be helpful if the Government knew.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dubs. Ultimately, these decisions are rightly operational decisions for the Chief Constable, who is, and remains, the chief security adviser to the Secretary of State. His judgment has been that these officers and soldiers are required in that particular area. I repeat: it is not simply the stopping of vehicles; it is actually keeping surveillance on known paramilitaries.

My noble friend asked about evidence. We know there was a published claim by a particular paramilitary organisation for the cruel murder of Gerald Lawlor. Evidence is hard to come by; intelligence is different. Unfortunately, the latter is not always available for use in court under our present system.

My Lords, I would like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether there is a sense of urgency about what is happening; it certainly does not come through in the Statement. We are told that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will,

"lead an examination of police powers, bail arrangements and the scope for additional criminal offences".

He will also examine other things. We are told that the Secretary of State has already asked Professor Ron Goldstock to assist in assessing the scale of the problem. The Secretary of State says that he sees,

"a case for doing something similar, to shine a light on levels of paramilitary violence in the community",

and to supplement judgments made about cease-fires,

"I will consult widely about…how it might best be done, and make my views known after the summer break".

That does not give one a great sense of confidence that the matter is being tackled with the sense of urgency that everyone in this House would want, particularly in light of the closeness to home of the attack on the property of the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough.

My Lords, I take the noble Baroness's point, which I will try to divide into two parts. There is suspicion in Northern Ireland—so far as I am aware—that the true facts about paramilitary activity may not always he fully disclosed. In some circumstances, as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, pointed out, witnesses are intimidated and cases are not brought to court, so that the public feels—legitimately, I believe—that if there is no prosecution and court case no proper information is being disclosed. That is what my right honourable friend is talking about; he wants to shine a light on it.

It seems to me that he is wise to cast the net wide, as he did with Professor Goldstock on organised criminal activity, and he wants some assistance, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, said, to supplement his judgment about what is actually going on, as opposed to successful convictions, for instance. Unfortunately, while a good deal of criminal activity does not go undetected as to its commission, it is not successfully prosecuted for various reasons.

So there is a sense of urgency; that is illustrated by the fact that the Secretary of State was adamant that he wished to make the Statement before the House of Commons rose for the Summer Recess. There is no doubt that the security forces, with the Chief Constable—our chief adviser—are extremely rigorous in what they are attempting to do.

That is not easy, because most successful police work depends on the freely given, undivided consent and support of the population. That is not universally to be found in these areas.

My Lords, will my noble and learned friend tell the House whether there is any intelligence to suggest that some of those engaged in the peace process from either or both traditions are using the paramilitaries who stand behind them to try to influence the outcome of next May's Assembly elections? Does he agree that none of us can allow the paramilitaries to thwart the will of the peoples of the island of Ireland, who expect their elected politicians to make the peace process work?

My Lords, I entirely accept what my noble friend said in his last proposition. One cannot use surrogates simply to pretend that one is a legitimate politician. I am not going to pretend to your Lordships that all is well—it would be foolish to try to do so. It plainly is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, described.

I will say—although I appreciate that it is scant comfort and I know perfectly well that I have not suffered at first hand—that the statement made by the IRA recently was extremely significant. Many will say that it was not sufficient. Many will say that they disagree with parts of it. But it is an extremely significant statement that bears re-reading and re-consideration. I say that with all humility, because I recognise that there are those in this House who have served as Secretaries of State and who have much more knowledge of Northern Ireland than I. But I would put forward that proposition.

It is not appropriate, wise, or indeed customary, for me to say anything about intelligence matters for the usual convention.

My Lords, I read the Statement this afternoon with a great deal of scepticism. It put me in mind of an old song, "Words are all I have to steal your heart away". The Statement talks about security forces bearing down on and denying freedom for paramilitaries to operate. Bearing in mind that this is my area, so I am aware of what is happening, perhaps I may ask whether there will be 250 extra police? I am asking that because coming up to 11th July we were informed by the PSNI that there had been stockpiling of weapons and that buses of groups of young men had been taken into the area for riots and were not stopped. So will these police be an extra benefit to that area? I would hope to see them on the streets.

My second question to the noble and learned Lord is about the research already referred to, the results of which will be available after the summer break. For many of us, that is probably too long. Will the research be acted on? We have seen so many pieces of research; I heard someone saying in the lunch hour that Northern Ireland is the most researched area here.

My Lords, the answer to the noble Baroness's first question is yes, these are 250 additional police officers and soldiers. I take her ironic—or perhaps not even ironic—comment about Northern Ireland being the most researched community in the world. The Secretary of State has not gone to the trouble of appointing an expert on organised crime or setting out his colours here simply to ignore the matter; he is treating it with great seriousness.

My Lords, I express my concern for my noble kinsman Lord Brookeborough, and I hope that for family reasons I may be allowed to include the Viscountess in those words. Those of us who put questions to Ministers after Statements sometimes ask for debates and are reasonably diverted to the business managers. Can the Minister give us any encouragement that when we return in October we might have a general stocktaking debate on Northern Ireland to concentrate during the intervening recess the minds of those of us who take these matters seriously?

My Lords, I will certainly give that suggestion every appropriate consideration and discuss it. I know that the noble Lord will smile with the business managers, but I do not control the business in this House. I will give it every proper consideration.

My Lords, I endorse my noble friend Lord Brooke's suggestion. Of course one wants to think about the Statement. One point in it gives me particular anxiety; that relating to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General having been asked to lead an examination of police powers, bail arrangements and scope for additional criminal offences and to see whether any changes can be made in the criminal law.

I understand that when any government comes under the pressure of events, there is a great urge—I would say, temptation—to do something of that character. I offer the thought that it nearly always comes back to haunt you. Things done in a hurry on that basis nearly always turn out to have more disadvantages than advantages. I suggest that what is needed here is not new laws or powers—they have been thought of carefully by successive governments over a long time—but to bring the police up to strength.

My Lords, I cannot disagree with any of those propositions. The Patten review will be reporting on the progress of the first year. There is the temptation to do things quickly just for the sake of doing things. The noble and learned Lord and I would both recognise the dangerous dogs syndrome. Perhaps I ought not to intrude into recent history. There are nevertheless some aspects that could be looked at quite promptly—for instance, how bail may be working, which it is perfectly helpful and useful to have a Law Officer do.

My Lords, will the Secretary of State at any stage consider the question of what might be called a payment on account by Sinn Fein/IRA—that is, a commitment to allow the return of the exiled families? I welcome the fact that he is going to shine a light. It is time that it was shone and I am delighted. However, most of the suggestions will not mean anything to the ordinary man and woman on the street in Northern Ireland. They need to be told that something real is going to happen.

My other point is that we are not looking solely at a collection of criminals operating because they want to make money. That applies to either side, loyalist or republican. Certainly, in the case of Sinn Fein/IRA, we are looking at paramilitaries who wish to continue to exert total political power. It is a political issue. Therefore it seems to me vital that the Secretary of State should without delay set in motion some kind of negotiation with Sinn Fein/IRA to require them to turn off the tap, as they were able to do when Clinton came and as they could do again. If they want to show real regret and a real wish to improve matters, let them do that. Let us forget the past and ask them to act on the future.

My Lords, I cannot dispute what the noble Baroness says. We have discussed it frequently and that is as it should be. There is pressure put on about the return of those who have been driven from their homes. The noble Baroness and I have been in recent correspondence at some length about it. I was not suggesting that some groups are not carrying out criminal activity because they want to fund their political purposes. I am suggesting that there is sometimes a tendency to overlook the fact that some people commit crimes of violence and greed because they are violent, greedy people and have no connection with politics. One has only to look at the drug-related crimes in Dublin, for instance. I have never heard anyone pretend that they are related to any political activity.

moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 3, line 25, at end insert "We also recommend that the Procedure Committee should be asked to make recommendations for protecting and promoting the interests of backbench members of the House when proposals are made for the membership of select joint domestic and pre-legislative scrutiny committees of the House."

I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will shortly be told that his amendment is not within the scope of this debate because it is not within the remit of the Procedure Committee to decide how members are chosen for committees. However, before he is rightly told that, perhaps I may say that I strongly agree with the general sentiments expressed in his Amendment No. 3, although not necessarily with the procedure for dealing with it expressed in the more detailed Amendment No. 4.

I believe that the time has come when we should look again at how people are chosen for the various committees. Too often one finds that it is a case of Buggins' turn or a case of, "Oh well, there should be so many members from this party, that party and the other". Incidentally, in relation to the latter, the Cross-Benchers are grossly under-counted, but I leave that small point to one side.

Many committees do not have much politics in them, and, as the noble Lord said, we should do much better if we looked for people who had real knowledge and a real interest in the topic rather than saying, "We must find two Tories, two Labour members, one Cross-Bencher and one Lib-Dem". I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House will say to us that he will take away that matter and consider how it should be dealt with.

The Procedure Committee is a very good example of a body that is badly composed and grossly insufficient in terms of Back-Bench members. First, it is far too big; and, secondly, it is grossly over-stuffed with party apparatchiks. Why the Procedure Committee needs to have the Leader of the House, the Lord Chancellor, the Chief Whip, the Deputy Leader—all from the government party—and, let us say, an almost equal number of Front-Benchers from the other parties beggars description. If it were slimmed down, first, it would be a better body and, secondly, Back-Benchers would receive better representation.

While I do not believe that the noble Lord's amendment can possibly be added to the Procedure Committee's report, I hope that we shall hear from the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House that he will take away the matter and see how it can be investigated.

I rise to say a word in support of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I take it that he tabled these amendments not with a view to dividing the Committee but with a view to obtaining a statement on the matter. I believe that he is right to do so.

The interests of Back-Benchers in this House must be protected. Very simply, we require my noble and learned friend the Lord Privy Seal and the Leaders of the Opposition parties to rise in a few moments to say that, when it comes to membership of committees, they are determined to see that the interests of Back-Benchers are protected. At least, I hope that that is what we are about to hear.

I want to build on that point by making two or three other remarks. One partly follows the earlier intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, on the subject of human resources. I am glad that he included we Back-Benchers in the set of people called "humans". The problem is that the approach that we appear to be following will undoubtedly involve more work for us. He is right to draw that to our attention.

It is not often recognised—I say this in a slightly irritated way—that noble Lords sometimes sit on committees because they are prestigious. However, they do not seem to realise that a commitment is involved; namely, if one sits on a committee, one is supposed to attend. One is not doing the House a favour by agreeing to be on a committee. If a Peer is on a committee, he has a duty to be there. Noble Lords who know which committee I chair may guess what my sub-text is here.

However, in relation to all these matters, including pre-legislative scrutiny and so on, I believe that if a Peer says that he wants to sit on a committee and if he is added to the list proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that must mean that he wants to do it and that he will attend and take part as and when required and not when it suits him for the odd hour when he can find the time. Therefore, there are two sides to this matter.

Incidentally, I cannot see that the usual channels will keep we trouble-makers off the Committee stage of Bills. It they were to do so, we should simply spend far more time making trouble at Report stage. Therefore, I do not believe that my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will be tempted to go down that route—in fact, quite the contrary. The correct strategy will be to get the trouble-makers on to a Committee as early as possible and see whether they talk themselves out.

I turn to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. Although it was raised earlier, I believe that we can debate it under this heading—that is, the fear of the guillotine. When we first come to this House, we are often asked what it is like. Certainly when I first came I said, "The amazing thing when compared with academic life is how courteous everyone is in debate. The other thing is that they self-regulate and it works. There is no Speaker. They have a set of rules in the Companion, to which they largely stick. In particular, when it comes to legislation, any Back-Bencher can put down an amendment and no one can stop him or her from insisting that it is debated". I considered all that to be marvellous.

In terms of the Companion, I have noticed recently, not least with regard to the Education Bill over the past couple of weeks, that we are drifting away from our standards. I believe that at some stage someone will have to remind Peers what the Companion says about how often one may speak and what one is supposed to do. However, that is incidental.

My main point is that I cannot see that I would ever vote for a guillotine and I know of no friends—I do not mean only political friends but friends in this House—who would do so. Therefore, unless something very strange happened to the composition of this House—again, I cannot see that happening in my lifetime—there is not the slightest possibility that a guillotine would be carried. Therefore, I hope that we can scotch that idea during this afternoon's deliberations, if not now.

I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is right to raise the matter as it provides an opportunity for some of us to say what we think. But I do not believe that the danger of the guillotine looms before us in any way whatever. If it does—to make my usual joke—I hope that someone will then tell the Government Chief Whip what trick he has to pull off to obtain a guillotine because he at least might be tempted. But I cannot think of any way that one could carry off a guillotine. I do not believe that it would be possible to get a respectable vote for a guillotine and not embarrass those proposing it. Therefore, I believe that the one aspect that we can set aside—I am using the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, as my basis for intervening—is the danger of a guillotine.

I spoke at length last time this matter was before your Lordships, and I can assure the Committee that I shall make only this one very brief intervention this afternoon. The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House knows that I have severe reservations as to how his package, even as amended by the Procedure Committee, might reflect on the traditional freedoms of your Lordships' House. The imposing of the ten o'clock limit, for example, could conceivably lead to a guillotine of some sort unless more time were made available.

When the noble and learned Lord comes to reply, having heard what noble Lords have said, I wonder whether he will make certain, by giving an absolute undertaking to the Committee, that nothing in this whole package will ever be used by Her Majesty's Government to create even a semblance of a guillotine on the Floor of this House or in any of its Committees. If he did that, I, for one, would feel very much happier.

I return briefly to the subject of the amendment. I, speaking particularly as a Cross-Bencher, support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I consider it to be a very good thing. I have noticed the possible danger of rotating expertise off a committee because the membership is due for rotation. I believe that we should be seeking expertise. With regard to the subject of guillotines, if we are all brief, we shall not need one.

I want to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, concerning the guillotine. In my time, I have guillotined a number of Bills. I have wiped my bloodied hands on my apron afterwards and have never felt much contrition. I suspect that when the proposals now before us are argued through and experienced, we should be very wise not to forswear the possible use at some stage of a more orderly use of time—I use the bromide prescription. I shall tell Members of the Committee why.

It is very modish to say that we are in favour of the pre-legislative consideration of Bills. That is not an entirely new prospect. It was tried in the 1980s in the other place. It was not a great success but nor was it a howling failure. However, what is now being proposed is the consideration of Bills—not only the odd Bill but all government Bills to all intents and purposes—not merely by the chosen Members of this House but by their acolytes, their research assistants and all those wishing to give evidence. Do noble Lords suppose that one can easily anticipate the amount of time that that will take? Do they suppose that the Members who are not privileged players in this drama will quietly accept the subsequent consideration of the Bill in its more conventional sense and will show a suitable reticence appropriate to their status? Not a bit of it. They will try to get in on the act by considering the Bill at its post-pre-legislative stage, and that will be a natural political process.

Those hard-nosed factors have persuaded the management down the road to be very reticent about the idea of pre-legislative scrutiny. I am delighted that that has been breached and that this matter is now to be tried seriously and pioneered in this Chamber. However, in addition to the consequential demand on financial and other resources mentioned by others in the debate, the exercise will, above all, create a great deal of demand in terms of time. That is why the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal, with his virginal innocence, would never dream of making heroic statements about guillotines. But it is all being done on a very generous expectation. I am reminded of the old adage about the menu with no prices—that after the feast, you may end up doing the reckoning by doing the washing in the kitchen.