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

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Motion has been agreed after the usual discussions, and I think that it explains itself.

Your Lordships will have seen that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has tabled two amendments. Perhaps it may be convenient, when I sit down and the Question on my Motion has been put, for the noble Lord, Lord Elton—I have spoken to him about it—to move the first of his amendments and to speak to them both. After your Lordships have made contributions, I shall do my best to reply to the points made. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, will then come to a conclusion on what he wishes to do about his amendments. Finally, we will decide the main Question. I beg to move.

Moved, That it is expedient that a Select Committee of 11 Lords be appointed to consider the future arrangements for the Speakership of the House in the light of the Government's announcement that it is intended to reform the office of Lord Chancellor, and to make recommendations; and that the committee shall report by the end of the Session.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, after "Chancellor" insert "and any undertakings given by the Government as to the future allocation of places in the Cabinet to Members of the House of Lords".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the first amendment, I shall, as the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House suggested, speak also to the second. Your Lordships will realise that the Motions deal with separate, distinct points, so the way in which we deal with them at the end of the debate may be different.

The issues to which I ask your Lordships to give some thought concern this House and the Government. By that, I mean the whole House and all future governments, as well as the present one—not just the one that we happen to have at the moment. The need for the Motion arises from the decision of the Government to reform the office of our present Speaker, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. By virtue of his office as Lord Chancellor, our present Speaker has a seat in Cabinet, as well as one on the Woolsack. He is one of the distinguished voices linking the House directly with the top echelon of government. The strength of that link is important to the House as a whole and is also important to any government in office.

At present, we are richly endowed with voices: we have no fewer than four. It was not always so, nor will it always be so in the future. When there is suitable talent waiting hungrily for preferment in another place, no government will be over-keen to award Cabinet seats to Peers. In the past, as my noble friend Lord Carrington pointed out before the Motion was drafted, we have often been reduced to the bare minimum number of such voices. That number has for long been two: one for the Leader of the House for the time being and the other for the Lord Chancellor for the time being, who is, ex officio, our Speaker. That is no accident. It is because of the duties that they perform that both our Leader and our Speaker have had to be members of the Cabinet. Again, it is because of the duties that they perform that they have both had to be Members of this House.

We understand—not by way of a White Paper—that the Government's intention is that the greater part of our Speaker's responsibilities in his role as Lord Chancellor and of any successor in his office will be taken away from this House. If, for instance, the judiciary is to be separated from Parliament and, specifically, from the House of Lords, there will be no obvious call for the head of the judiciary to sit in either House. There will be no more reason for a Minister of justice to sit in this House than for a Home Secretary or any other Secretary of State. Be it whispered in his august absence, if the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs were to fall ill or, even less imaginable, if he were to be overtaken in brilliance and usefulness by someone in another place, that person could and, indeed, would take over the job without joining this House in order to do so.

The office of Speaker and the functions of Lord Chancellor are combined in one person. It is our Lord Chancellor's powers, not his person, that secure a Cabinet seat for our Speaker. Separate the office of Speaker from the powers of the Lord Chancellor and, no matter what happens to those powers or to whom they may be given, our Speaker's claim to that seat is gone, and the barest minimum representation of the House in Cabinet will be reduced to one.

No one who has sat in a Cabinet Committee as a Peer, as I have sometimes done, let alone in Cabinet itself, as my noble friend Lord Waddington has often done—he was about to put his name to my Motion, but, apparently, that is not how such Motions are attributed—can be under any illusion that it is a very hard job to make the rest of that committee or Cabinet understand or care how this House works, what it can and cannot be persuaded to accept, or to accord some of your Lordships' opinions the value—even, dare I say it, sometimes the political value—that they deserve.

With no second voice to back him up and bear him out, the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House could not be even half as effective in Cabinet as he now appears to be to all of us. I say that with no disrespect to him. It is a fact of committee life. We are not concerned only with today's Leader of the House; these provisions will affect all our Leaders to come, even those less able than himself. The word "even" was slipped in by mistake; there was no intention to be pejorative in that remark. The Government—all governments—would lose by that, and so would this House, in all the Sessions to come.

Some of your Lordships still think that choosing some way—any way—of appointing a Speaker to do what any Chairman or Deputy Chairman can already do in this House and, perhaps, to dress up in fancy clothes and process on state occasions, is a freestanding decision; it is not. Once we acquiesce, without any compensating gain, in the separation of these two roles, we acquiesce in the downgrading of our Speaker and of this House. The Select Committee that we are about to appoint ought not to proceed without a clear statement of its freedom to consider the implications of this and to make recommendations in that light.

I have spoken of the powers, duties and privileges of the Lord Chancellor, and that brings me to my second amendment about which I can speak much more briefly because I believe that the point is already better taken. I hope that I have already shown that we cannot really come to a conclusion about what or who to replace our present Speaker with until we know how many, and which, of the powers, duties and privileges now vested in the holder of the combined office of Speaker and Lord Chancellor will remain with our Speaker when the Lord Chancellor has gone, or has been stripped of his power.

I had thought that this would be information readily available, but I gather that the task of the Government informing themselves of what those duties, privileges and powers actually are has proved greater than they expected. There appears still to be some doubt as to what they are and some difficulty, therefore, in deciding what to do with them. I do not wish to tease the Government about this—that is not true; I do wish to but I shall refrain from so doing—but I suggest that surely at the least our committee must be given the full list of duties, privileges and powers before it is asked to come to a conclusion.

If, as is rumoured, that list runs to over a thousand in primary legislation and thousands more in secondary legislation, it may well not be ready before the end of the Session. My second amendment, therefore, seeks to delete the requirement to report before the end of the Session and to substitute it with a bar to reporting before the complete list of powers, duties and privileges has been published and considered.

My first amendment touches on the efficiency of parliamentary government and the power and authority of this House. The second addresses the need to ensure that the Select Committee is fully informed on the matter about which it is instructed to advise us before it gives that advice, which seems a pretty simple request. I await the advice of your Lordships on both matters, and I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, after "Chancellor" insert "and any undertakings given by the Government as to the future allocation of places in the Cabinet to Members of the House of Lords".—(Lord Elton.)

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to the amendment moved by my noble friend, which I support. For some years, the Government seem to have devoted much effort to changing the working methods of the House of Commons, which has had the effect of greatly reducing its effectiveness. They have certainly succeeded to the extent that, as a result of government guillotines on all Bills, those Bills are coming over here after totally inadequate consideration in the other place.

Anyone who doubts this should look at the Criminal Justice Bill where, as was pointed out by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden at Second Reading, four new clauses and two schedules received no examination at all in the other place. Let us consider the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill, which received virtually no scrutiny in the Commons. As a consequence, we are left to do the work which should have been done elsewhere and we are told by Mr Hain that that is nothing to our credit, but is just an example of our filibustering habits.

I hope that, from time to time, the Leader of the House makes the point in Cabinet that we are performing an ever more important role, not least because of the dismal changes made in the Commons, and that it would be a sad and a bad thing—and inconsistent with what the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House has said; he has spoken of his determination to see a renewal and invigoration of this place—if, having lost the Lord Chancellor—

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I understand what he is saying, but I cannot make the connection between his arguments and the amendment that we are now discussing.

My Lords, perhaps I may say that the noble Lord lacks patience. I have not spoken for very long and what that connection is will soon be made apparent to him.

It would be a very bad thing if, having lost the Lord Chancellor as a sturdy advocate of this place in Cabinet, we were to finish up with there being only one Member of this House in Cabinet; that is, the Leader of the House. This place would be seriously weakened vis-à-vis the Commons, and it is small wonder that my noble friend Lord Carrington expressed his concerns about this in his remarks on 25th June (at col. 298 of the Official Report). Given his wealth of experience, we should take heed of his wise words.

Of course I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, will remain in this place when his role changes. He has nowhere else to go. But there is no reason to think that a Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will always, or even normally, sit in the Lords. So we are entitled to some assurance from the Government that this House will not be left with only one Cabinet Minister.

Certainly the Select Committee, when considering what arrangements should be made for the Speakership of this place, should have regard to this important matter, which is the point of the amendment. With the Motion amended as suggested, the Select Committee would be able to report that, in its view, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, should continue to sit on the Woolsack until appropriate assurances are given by the Government.

My Lords, first, perhaps I may welcome the proposal in the Motion in the name of the Lord President of the Council that the Speakership Select Committee should consist of 11 Peers. This will allow the Committee of Selection to consider nominations for three Cross-Bench Peers. Noble Lords will be aware that the Cross Benches have been arguing for some time that their numbers are not always fairly or proportionately represented on Select and other Committees of your Lordships' House.

The split of 4:4:2:2, or a 3:3:2:2 split, are still the default choices of the parties. But these no longer reflect the size of the Cross-Bench group and the increasing contribution to the work of this House made from these Benches or from the Bishops' Bench. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the move to form this committee of 11 members, split 3:3:2:3, is a sound one. It is right for this topic and sets a standard that should be considered and adopted on future occasions to enable the contributions that can be made from these Benches to be spread more equitably across the commitments of this House as a whole.

Turning to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I share the concern that lies behind his first amendment. The major changes that have been made, and may continue to be made, in the functions and roles of the upper House can amount in sum to diminishing the standing and ethos of the House of Lords.

Whatever the political and legal arguments that favour a supreme court, the loss of the Law Lords as a part of this House would be highly symbolic. If the many changes made to, or in prospect for, the House are not to lead to a permanent degradation of its position as an authoritative and respected part of the legislature, of Parliament and of the nation, key features need to be identified and retained.

I share the view that for the House and Government to function in the interests of the Queen's subjects there need to be routes for the exchange of information and ideas. So I support the first amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elton.

As to his second amendment, I take it as self-evident that the Select Committee should, as part of its remit, consider the points about the Lord Chancellor raised by the amendment. Their bearing, or their non-bearing, on the issue of a Speaker and the roles and responsibilities that go with that post should not be ignored in arriving at recommendations.

The other point in the amendment is that the time to report is no longer explicit, but is it not more important to have this major issue studied thoroughly and to get any changes right rather than to hurry it and fail to give it the consideration that it rightly deserves? We are contemplating a major change to longstanding arrangements that have stood the test of time and served the House well.

It might be that the approach that would find favour is to give the Select Committee the requirement to make a progress report to the House by the end of the Session and to estimate, if by then it is realised that it is necessary to carry out further work, how long before its complete report will become available. After three months it should be in a far better position than the House is in at the moment to judge the scope and scale of its task. I hope that the Lord President will not feel that timetable is more important than substance and will be minded to agree this modification to his approach for the Select Committee.

I remind the House that the estimate made for undertaking the Leader's Group review of working practices took more than twice as long to complete than had been originally envisaged by the Leader—and that was a far less complex task than the Speakership Select Committee is about to embark upon. The list of issues to be studied is already long and will no doubt grow as the work progresses. I wish the Select Committee well in its endeavours.

My Lords, I wish to raise a point raised to me by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who has immense experience. He wanted to raise the point when the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred to the matter originally but he did not get to his feet.

The noble Lord tells me that it is not true that the Lord Chancellor is invariably a member of the Cabinet. When Viscount Simon, the grandfather of my noble friend, was Lord Chancellor, he was neither a member of the wartime Cabinet nor, after the coalition broke up, a member of the Churchill Cabinet thereafter. I thought it worth bringing this to your Lordships' attention.

My Lords, this issue is an example of the real back-of-the-envelope, cannot-think-of-anything-else-to-do syndrome, where the word "modernisation" flashed before the Prime Minster's eyes as he dashed from Iraq to Europe to somewhere else. There was no greater example of the lack of thought given to constitutional reform than the half-baked reform of your Lordships' House and the total failure to address the West Lothian question.

The brutal and licentious soldiery has a word which I would not dream of allowing to pass my lips in the House. It is a word which is used for thought or absence of thought. The Government, I suggest, use the word "modernisation" in exactly the way that the brutal and licentious soldiery use the word that I would not dream of allowing to pass my lips.

I beg the noble and learned Lord, please take a grip, agree with what my noble friend Lord Elton says and give this half-baked idea—as it seems to me at first sight—further consideration. It is unnecessary and there has been no pressure to introduce it. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can tell us how many delegations have been banging on his door and saying, "Please, reform the Speakership of the House of Lords". Not very many, I suggest.

The noble and learned Lord said that it is unfair that he or other Ministers should say which Peers should speak. In all the 30 or so years that I have been in your Lordships' House, the late Lord Shackleton, Lord Shepherd, Lord Carrington—who is not late—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, and his predecessors have all shown integrity and justice and regard for the interests of the House. There is no need for the Government now to come over all coy and introduce change for change's sake.

How many judges do the Government want to sack because they feel that the method of appointment has been wrong? Is the Bench of Judges rotten? Is it full of corruption and nepotism, with people putting fines into their own back pockets or Swiss bank accounts? Of course it is not. The Bench of Judges at the moment is of as high a standard—or so my judicial friends tell me—as it has been for 100 years. So, if it is, what on earth is wrong with the method of appointment? How many will be asked to leave because they will not be up to scratch when the supreme court is established? Could it be that when they speak on criminal matters the Government find it embarrassing to listen to views to which they are not well pleased to adhere? Is that one of the reasons they do not wish to have them in your Lordships' Chamber? The system works perfectly well. So, if we are to change it, let us give the issue proper thought and consideration.

I always know when the Government believe someone is talking right because their members start giggling between each other—and they have just started now.

After that diatribe, I welcome the support that I shall give to my noble friend Lord Elton.

My Lords, we laughed because we thought the noble Earl had made a good joke. We laughed in appreciation of his sense of humour. If that was misplaced, I owe him an apology, but that was the sense we had on these Benches.

The noble Earl having provoked me into intervening, perhaps I may very briefly make a comment. I do not understand—I bow to the experience of noble Lords who have been around a lot longer than I have and who have been in the House for many years longer—how any government can give an undertaking as to the future composition of their Cabinet. No government in history could have possibly done that. It seems to me that the first amendment is not on the mark in that respect.

As regards the second amendment, given that it refers to the office of Lord Chancellor and not to the way in which we conduct our arrangements in this House, it is a recipe for endless discussions dealing with the hundreds of years of history associated with the Lord Chancellor. The amendment appears calculated to delay matters indefinitely. I hope that the House will not be impressed by either of the amendments.

In any case, I suggest, very gently, that if we were dealing with these matters in another place—and I know that we are not—every speech, with the exception of that of my noble friend Lord Acton, and possibly mine, would have been out of order.

My Lords, in that case I shall try to speak very briefly and mainly to the point, even in the high view of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.

Let me make one point that I know will appeal—because I know him well—to the noble and learned Lord the Lord President. The most concerning point arising out of these proposed reforms—which I am sure all noble Lords will agree we should consider extremely carefully—is how we will preserve the independence of the judiciary. In the past that has been done—and done magnificently—by successive Lords Chancellor of each political party. No one has done that better, as I know from talks with the senior judiciary, than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg.

That will continue to be the position until we know what will be the form of any proposed independent commission on the judiciary and. crucially, which Minister will be responsible for appointing judges on the recommendation of the commission and what the criteria will be for the appointment both of the commission and the judiciary. Until that time, the Lord Chancellor carries that same responsibility. It is at least possible that some will, in time, want to explore whether a Lord Chancellor, who may not and probably should not be a Minister in the Cabinet, should still carry that responsibility.

The Lord President has spoken about reforming the role of the Lord Chancellor. We do not know what that reformed role will be. We know that his present role is complex and will have to be examined carefully before we know what the reformed role should be. I suggest to all colleagues in the House that on this crucial topic, we should not decide whether the Lord Chancellor should cease to be our Speaker until we know what responsibility he may continue to carry in the future for the independence of the judiciary and how that fits with his objective participation in the affairs of this House. That is why I passionately support the second amendment raised by my noble friend Lord Elton.

My Lords, I pay tribute to the Lord President. He has inherited a situation that he did not create which has been quite uniquely criticised by three former Cabinet Secretaries as a disgraceful example of public administration. He has been very open to listening to views of Members of your Lordships' House and now presents a Motion which is the outcome of some of the representations made to him.

I do not know what attitude the noble and learned Lord proposes to take to the amendments to his Motion, but I urge him, in the spirit in which he has launched on the recovery programme to try to get this back on a sensible basis, to look at them very sympathetically. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that the amendment does not actually ask the Government to come up with an answer for the Select Committee about how many members of the Cabinet shall sit in your Lordships' House. It suggests that the committee should be able to consider any representations that the Government may wish to make, although they may not make any. The committee may be able to make some helpful suggestions on this point.

I have a personal memory of this, because my own arrival in the Cabinet was postponed. The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, had it in mind to appoint me to a certain post in the Cabinet, at which moment those Members of your Lordships' House then present on the Government Benches deputed to the Prime Minister and said it was outrageous that their Lordships were under-represented, and I was invited to stand down while the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, was promoted to that position. It was felt strongly at that time—and I therefore had to accept that it must have been a wise decision taken by a very intelligent Prime Minister—that your Lordships' House should be properly represented.

Having sat in the Cabinet, as I did for a number of years, and having come to your Lordships' House, I entirely accept the point which I think even the noble and learned Lord the Lord President has admitted at times—that there is a fairly stupefying ignorance in the Commons and among many Cabinet Ministers about the procedures, performance and significance of your Lordships' House. I certainly think that if there was any suggestion that the representation from this House should ever be reduced to one, that would make the position of the occupant of the post of Lord President—the Leader of the House—extremely difficult.

This is the most gentle of amendments which refers to considering any representations that might be made. It is a serious point, and I should have thought a listening government would be quite happy to hear the views of the committee. Those views will not be binding—the only suggestion the committee has to make is how that particular problem could be addressed.

My Lords, I speak in support of my noble friend Lord Dubs. I had regarded myself as very open-minded on the Speakership until I heard the speeches from noble Lords opposite. I echo entirely the views of my noble friend. I am amazed that the two amendments are in order, but if the Clerks have allowed them to be put down, they must be. However, the speeches have not, in my judgment, been remotely in order. I entirely agree with my noble friend that if we had anybody resembling a Speaker, he or she would have been on their feet long before now, merely asking noble Lords to speak about the subject before them and not decide to have a major debate on a government policy which we are in no position yet to debate. I have no intention of responding to or criticising any of the speeches because that would be to add to the possibility that they were remotely within the scope of what we should be debating.

Secondly, I regard this as simply a delaying tactic to prevent the committee doing the quite minor technical job—

Oh.

My Lords, I notice the shaking of heads, but we have been asked to consider matters such as the independence of the judiciary, the composition of the Cabinet—I have a list of all the topics that have been raised. This is not a debate about those subjects. I would be very interested to have a debate on the Government's policy when they are ready to bring it before us, and many of us will take part. But this is about the setting up of a fairly simple committee. The one good bit about this is the recognition that we have an enormous number of Cross-Benchers and that, for once, there will be three on the committee instead of two. That is the only plus that I can see in the contributions.

Can we, for once, talk about what is before us? I think the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that the system works perfectly well. I do not know where he has been for the past two or three years, but the system is working badly and is getting worse. We are breaking all our rules of self-government and self-regulation, and we have been doing it for far too long. That is one of the reasons why we are considering these matters. Would noble Lords be good enough to talk about the subject before us, for once, and not use this occasion as a basis for talking about everything else under the sun that concerns them. I certainly think we should reject both of the amendments on the grounds that they are not helpful in any way whatever with regard to our making some progress. When the time comes, we might well get around to debating the substantive issue when, eventually, the Government put forward their proposals and we can look at them in detail.

My Lords, I am sure that many of your Lordships will, in spite of your reservations, want to wish the work and outcome of this committee well. I am grateful that the House is proceeding along the proper course. That will go some way towards reassuring those inside this House, in another place and in the country generally about the somewhat amateurish way—if I may put it so—that the announcement was made about the Lord Chancellorship at the time of the reshuffle. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord President on the way in which he has handled the matter since then.

There are wide-ranging constitutional and symbolic implications in the proposal to abolish the Lord Chancellorship. I do not naturally think, à la "Yes, Prime Minister", that nothing must ever be done for the first time. I hope all these issues have a full and proper airing in the deliberations of the Select Committee, and I am sure they will.

I sense a certain amount of resurgent frustration being expressed in this debate which goes back to the way in which things were handled originally. We are, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has said, beginning to have a debate prematurely. This is a matter of process, and I think the process should be allowed to go forward.

With regard to the amendments, I follow the view of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, that the first has some sense to it. However, I think that it would tie the hands of the Select Committee unduly and would not predispose it in any particular direction. My verdict, using my Scottish blood, is "not proven", which is a nice dodge in Scottish law.

The second amendment is implicit in any committee's work in looking at the future of the Lord Chancellorship. It will be recalled that when the Joint Committee was set up last year to take further the reform of your Lordships' House, my friend and colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, spoke for these Benches in voicing our disappointment that there was no Bishop on it. If I may say so, that resentment still stands. On this Select Committee, however, these Benches are content to register our support for what is before us in principle without predisposing either what the Select Committee comes up with or indeed the proper debate that needs to take place at a future date, with the hope that we may be able to offer assistance in the usual way to the work of that committee.

The assistance would be in two areas, the first of which would obviously be the ecclesiastical implications. I am interested to hear this gathering list of the Lord Chancellor's responsibilities, which includes patronage of 500 livings and 12 canonries—over which I doubt many noble Lords will want to lose much sleep. However, the list is quite long. I am guessing that the work of this committee will be quite onerous as the list will grow ever longer and all these issues will need to be examined, not in this debate but in the work of the committee. There are also wider implications to do with the constitution of this country. It is in that area that I hope that all Members of your Lordships' House will find ways of feeding their views into the committee's work.

I wish the Select Committee well. It feels a little like handling on the floor of a General Synod a motion about the future of the world. However, I hope that the committee comes up with some good proposals which we can then debate in the proper way.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, may have thought he was being helpful, but he has inadvertently put his finger on precisely what is the problem with this whole debate: we have not yet had a proper debate about the Government's announcement. We have had two Statements in which Back-Benchers were limited to only 20 minutes. This is the first opportunity that anyone has had to say anything outside the normal time limits. It is entirely appropriate for noble Lords on all sides of the House to wish to offer advice to the Select Committee when it is set up.

Having said that, when we debated this issue last week, I said that I greatly welcomed the decision by the noble and learned Lord the Lord President of the Council that there would be a Select Committee to debate this issue. That is infinitely preferable to setting up either a Leader's Group or a sub-committee of the Procedure Committee. That is the reason why we now have this Motion before us.

It is also a sign of the real concerns which many Members of this House have about the future role of the Speaker that so many have chosen to speak today, with perhaps even more to follow, and that two amendments have been tabled by my noble friend Lord Elton. I hope very much that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House will be able to give some comfort to my noble friend so that he will not need to press those amendments.

On the question of reporting back, I thought that my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon made a most important point. The Select Committee will be unable to come to a conclusion about all these matters until it has seen a full list of the duties and responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor. One cannot decide what the future role of the Speaker is unless one knows what the Speaker is supposed to do and what the Government intend to do with all the remaining roles of the Lord Chancellor. I therefore hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to tell us when that list will be available and whether or not, when the Lord Chancellor comes to make his statements on the appointments commission and the future of the Lord Chancellor's role vis-à-vis the judiciary, a Statement will be made to this House.

Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can also confirm that much of this problem could have been solved if the Government had come forward right at the very beginning with a fully thought-through White Paper that could have been debated before being sent to a Select Committee.

My Lords—

My Lords—

Cross-Bench!

My Lords, I do not think that we have had a contribution from the Liberal Democrats, or if we did, I missed it.

My Lords, we have made clear from these Benches that we are entirely in favour of the principle of the changes which the Government are proposing to make; indeed, we suggest they do not go far enough in respect of the creation of a ministry of justice. At the same time, however, we have also made clear that we are deeply unhappy with the way in which the changes have been introduced. I therefore have some understanding of why the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has chosen to table his amendments and why they have received support from Members of the House.

Of those in favour of the amendments, the speech I found the most impressive, not unexpectedly, was that of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon. I think he makes the entirely legitimate point that these reforms should include consideration of whether someone who is a Member of your Lordships' House is given a special responsibility to act as guardian of the independence of the judiciary. That matter certainly needs to be considered at some stage. However, I do not think that it needs to be considered as part of the responsibilities of this Select Committee. It seems to me that even if it is appropriate, as it may well be, to create the role of guardian of the judiciary, there is absolutely no reason why the person performing that role should also be required to preside for half an hour a day over the sittings of your Lordships' House.

My Lords, is not that man called the Lord Chancellor, and does he not do it rather well already?

My Lords, that is entirely different. The Lord Chancellor has undoubtedly acted, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, said, in an outstanding role as the protector of the independence of the judiciary. However, I think that his role as Speaker of your Lordships' House is one that scarcely taxed his abilities. Indeed, I suspect that he may himself have regarded it as not the most important of his functions. I therefore believe that that is an issue for another time.

On the first amendment, I understand that it is plainly desirable that the Cabinet should understand the workings of the House of Lords. It is of course true that many Ministers are Members of the House of Lords and will continue to be Ministers. I should also point out, first, as is already recognised, that the Government cannot bind any future government with any undertakings they give on this occasion. Secondly, it is also fair to point out that the role of Lord Chancellor has not always been a strongly political one. While some holders of that office such as the late Lord Hailsham had been very distinguished politicians with a previous history of sitting in the Cabinet in other posts, others such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, have come with very little political experience and are widely believed to have played very little part in Cabinet outside matters of direct concern to their own department. So I do not think that what is proposed here will necessarily lead to a result that has not already happened.

On the second amendment, I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, who made a very clear and very sensible speech. This proposal is, I think, necessarily implicit in the role of the Select Committee. I assume that it is not beyond the capacity of the Lord Chancellor's Department, as it was—or DCAFF, as I suppose we are now to call it—to produce a list of those functions in time for the first or at any rate the second sitting of the Select Committee.

So while we on these Benches have sympathy with the motives behind the amendments, we do not believe that they are necessary and we would not support them.

My Lords, in a speech that was wholly in order and totally to the point, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, pointed out how intricately intertwined are all the various proposals that stem from the Government's desire to revise the various roles of the Lord Chancellor. I must confess that I fail to understand the urgency of changing the Speakership of the House which renders it necessary to come first. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is too busy to attend the House as regularly as his predecessor, no doubt leave of absence can more readily be given. However, to take that aspect on its own and sort it out without knowing where the Government are going on any of the other points is madness.

I accept that some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and other noble Lords relate to other functions of the Lord Chancellor. Until we know what the Government propose to do about those functions, we cannot know how they should be intertwined with the function not merely of sitting on the Woolsack, but of the representation of this House and so forth.

It is highly desirable that the Select Committee should not proceed too speedily. Not only should it wait until we have a list of the various things that the Lord Chancellor does; we should also have some idea of what the Government intend to do about those functions. Therefore, in its substance, I very much support the second amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elton.

I venture to suggest that the matter might not be as urgent as is suggested. Although the Motion in the name of the Lord President requires that the committee shall report at the end of the Session, it in no way has to be a final report. If the committee considers that it needs to investigate and know about the other functions, it can produce an interim report. The substance of the matter must be that we should not decide on the Speakership on its own until we know where the Government are going on the Lord Chancellor's other functions.

My Lords, when one rises in your Lordships' House, it is not unusual to say, "I shall be brief", only for the opposite to happen, but I shall be. I want to reinforce the points made by the noble and gallant Lord the Convenor of the Cross Benches and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth.

We are talking about the role of the Speakership of the House. The present Speaker of the House is the Lord Chancellor, and I cannot conceive how we can talk about that role until we know what are the other roles of the Lord Chancellor in this context.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will be rather pleased that I intend to focus wholly on the proposal in front of us. However, I did detect what seemed to me a rather ugly undertone in remarks made by some noble Lords suggesting that they would have liked a Speaker on the Woolsack who would have prevented this debate taking place.

My Lords, I do not like the use of the word ugly, but being acerbic myself I never mind about the language. However, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, should not be in any doubt: I would like to have a Speaker who asks noble Lords to speak to the subject before us. That seems entirely reasonable.

My Lords, that is what I am doing. The Motion says that the Select Committee should be set up in the light of the Government's announcement, and I quote the carefully chosen words of the Lord President,

"to reform the office of Lord Chancellor".

It does not talk of abolishing the office of Lord Chancellor. Therefore, the only relevance of having a committee on the Speakership of this House in that context is to consider whether the Lord Chancellor will be able to continue to perform the functions of Speaker.

The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made a good point when he said that we should consider the burden involved. I put down a Written Question to the Leader of the House to ask how many minutes in every hour that the Woolsack is occupied it is occupied by the Lord Chancellor. That seems to me quite relevant in trying to discover how much of a burden being Speaker is on the Lord Chancellor.

Meanwhile, it is probably unnecessary to have an inquiry that goes any wider than the question of whether, while the office of Lord Chancellor exists, the Lord Chancellor will be able to continue to fulfil the functions of the Speaker. I suspect that the bigger and wider agenda is part of the general aim to disarm this House, just as the other place has been disarmed, and to have an end to the self-regulation of this House. I hope that that will not be part of the remit of the Select Committee.

My Lords—

My Lords—

Ackner!

My Lords, my timid and deferential observations will be very short. I back the first amendment for the reasons given by the noble and gallant Lord the Convenor. With regard to the second amendment, which, from my point of view is much more important, the Government have apparently decided not to set up a ministry of justice.

In a Written Question filed three days ago, I asked which of the Lord Chancellor's functions relative to the administration of justice—especially criminal justice—will be transferred to the Home Office or to the new Department of Environmental Affairs.

Constitutional Affairs.

Constitutional Affairs, my Lords. That is of considerable importance, because there is a strong feeling, which was voiced very quietly by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, in an admirable article three days ago in The Times supplement on the law, that one of the purposes—if not the main purpose of this legislation—is excessively to increase the powers of the Home Secretary. That is why we wish to know which of the Lord Chancellor's powers of a judicial or judicial and administrative type the Government propose to invest in either of those two departments. The second amendment really focuses very wisely on that point.

My Lords, I am most grateful to your Lordships, not least, for the generous remarks of the noble Lord, Lord King. I shall focus on the Motion, which I know your Lordships will have read carefully. It is not, to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, my Motion. It was agreed in a meeting between the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, the Convenor, and myself. I have been as open to views on the form of the Motion as anyone could reasonably expect.

It was also agreed that, unusually and without setting any precedent, because of the nature of this particular committee—I repeat, without setting any precedent—it would be appropriate that Cross-Bench representation should be three rather than the usual two.

That Motion having been agreed—although not by your Lordships, of course—I come to the two questions that arise distinctly from the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I am most grateful to him for giving me advance notice of them and for our private discussion about the troubles caused to him in putting down those amendments.

First, there is the question of the representation—if I may put it that way—of this House in the Cabinet. Your Lordships may not appreciate that, since the Government came into office in 1997, the Prime Minister has specifically invited the Chief Whip—formerly the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and now the noble Lord. Lord Grocott—to attend every Cabinet meeting. On every occasion, they are asked by the Prime Minister whether they would like to contribute anything about the workings of this House or the relationship of business management in both Houses. Therefore, at the moment, your Lordships have three Cabinet Ministers and the invariable attendance of the Chief Whip at every Cabinet. We have not had three Cabinet Ministers from the House of Lords since 1989. As the noble Lord, Lord Acton, indicated—with the benefit of information from the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale—Viscount Simon, who was Lord Chancellor for five years, was not a member of the Cabinet at all.

I know that noble Lords wished to raise this matter but I am reasonably confident that no noble Lord expects me to give any undertakings about which Cabinet Ministers should come from the Lords. I do not believe that any Prime Minister would feel able to give those undertakings. I am grateful for the assent that I see being expressed by the noble Lord, Lord King. I do not believe that the Prime Minister under whom he served, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, would have looked happily on his being asked to give such an undertaking.

I believe that noble Lords recognise—this is very important—that this must properly and inevitably be a matter for the Prime Minister of the day. However—this is meant to be helpful—on its present terms of reference, the Select Committee is amply entitled to consider the matter. Noble Lords with views about that will make them known; a number of noble Lords already have done so, including the noble Lords, Lord Carrington, Lord Trefgarne and Lord Waddington, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. Any noble Lord can give oral evidence, written evidence or a combination of the two to the committee.

Incidentally, I should say that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and I have already made it plain that we are very willing and eager to give evidence if the committee would like to hear from us. The committee can attend to the point that lies behind the first amendment and it can express views on that. In due time, we shall obviously have a full debate on the committee's recommendations.

There is also the question of,

"the present powers, duties and privileges of the Lord Chancellor".

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alexander—I believe that we always have agreed on this—on the necessity for judicial independence. That is the purpose of the intended reforms. It is easy for me to say that. We must be judged in practice on the delivered outcome. I agree entirely with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said; that is, that judicial independence is not an additional option but a fundamental basis of the society in which we wish to conduct ourselves.

Noble Lords will know, because it has been said on a number of occasions, that consultation papers on judicial appointments and the question of the supreme court will be out quite soon: this month. The Lord Chancellor has already said—this may not have been picked up by all noble Lords—that he will publish a consultation document in September setting out the issues to be addressed in relation to the Lord Chancellor's roles that do not relate to the speakership, his functions as departmental Minister or his judicial capacity.

I can set out at least 11 categories. I shall be as brief as I can but I know that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and other noble Lords are concerned about this matter. The 11 categories to be considered appeared to us to be: Speakership of the House of Lords; judicial appointments, conduct arid discipline in England and Wales; judicial appointments, conduct and discipline in Northern Ireland; ministerial responsibilities in relation to courts and tribunals; legal and constitutional affairs in England and Wales; ministerial responsibilities in relation to courts and legal affairs in Northern Ireland; ministerial responsibilities in relation to the national archives—that is not perhaps something that immediately springs to mind when one considers the duties of the Lord Chancellor; ministerial responsibilities in relation to the Land Registry; and responsibilities in relation to the Great Seal. The next category relates to the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, to whom I was grateful, as always, for his measured contribution; it involves ecclesiastical patronage and other ecclesiastical functions—"boggle" and "mind" perhaps come to mind there. The other categories are: visitatorial jurisdiction—that is not an adjective that I had previously encountered; academic responsibilities and those and relating to royal peculiars; and, finally, non-judicial appointments, such as school governors.

Those are significant categories. I simply set them out to indicate that I have. I hope, responded as fully and promptly as I can to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, which, as I said, we discussed privately when he told me of his concerns. All of those matters—the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, was quite right—are within the remit of the committee on the present terms of reference. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has done us a disservice. He raised the questions and I hope that I have been able to give the undertakings and reassurances that noble Lords reasonably wished. That being so, I invite the noble Lord not to press the amendments.

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he deal with the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe; namely, that this could be a preliminary or interim report rather than a final report?

My Lords, that is a matter for the committee in the usual way, and that is the conventional role of all committees. It appears that the end of the Session is not unduly taxing in terms of the timetable. I am sure that noble Lords will be content with the representation on the committee, form their own judgment and report back to the House, as I indicated on Wednesday last week. We shall then have a full debate on the substantive issues and not, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, on process, about which I thought there was general agreement.

My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord King in complimenting the Leader of the House on the way in which he managed the affair since it went off the rails and I thank him for the way in which he handled today's debate. I also thank those who supported me in this debate and join them in wishing the committee well.

The only moment of sadness for me was when it appeared that I had totally failed to make myself clear to the noble Lord, Lord Peston. His claim that the debate has been out of order rested on his total failure to grasp the significance of the fact that the Speakership and the Chancellorship at present are unified in one person and that that is our way into the Cabinet for one person. The committee must consider that. I see that I have yet to convince the noble Lord but he would not want me to spend more time on that matter; nor, I assume, would other noble Lords.

The noble Lord suggested that the object of the debate is to delay—if I could have his attention. I know that there are other more interesting people to listen to around him but at the moment I believe that I have the Floor.

The noble Lord suggested that the object behind all of this was delay. He picked up on a few of the soundbites that had been used long ago in the debate on the abolition of the hereditary Peers. The dramatis personae are quite different in this regard and so are the issues. This is not a party political issue, nor is it an issue between one sort of Peer and another; it is an issue about the welfare of this House. I do not apologise for taking up the time of noble Lords because I can think of no better steer to the committee than the speeches that have been made. I am most grateful to noble Lords for them.

The second of my two amendments, which received the most support in the corridors, as it were, before the debate and which was warmly supported in this debate, was answered by the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and which was endorsed by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House. In fact, the report that the committee is required to make before the end of the Session can perfectly well be an interim report. The second amendment is therefore unnecessary and I shall not proceed with it.

The first amendment touches on the matter on which I was unable to convince the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who vigorously nods his head. Perhaps I failed to convince other noble Lords. The arguments in favour of it—I see three heads nodding opposite—were so strongly put by many noble Lords, notably so by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon, that the point has been adequately made. While I know that there is an anti-climax when one has sat through a debate in the hope of a refreshing visit to the Lobby, we can rest on the assurances that have been given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Railways and Transport Safety Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 3, line 23, at end insert "not later than twelve months following an accident"

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and seek what further comfort my noble friend may be able to give us. Potters Bar is the latest in a series of accidents where no solution has yet been found. In the very well respected Modern Railways, under the heading "Informed Sources" by Roger Ford, there is the headline

"Potters Bar—criminal investigations frustrate search for truth".

That is exactly why the Government are setting up the railway accident investigation branch, which we have all welcomed. It is worth recording that the process being undertaken at the moment is led by British Transport Police, for whom the accident is a potential crime. As I believe I said at Report, 70 or so people in the Network Rail contractors have had notices of possible intended prosecution served on them, which does not help in getting to the cause of the problem.

The Health and Safety Executive is in the queue, as the accident is a potential breach of the Health and Safety at Work Regulations. Only when that is dealt with does the Railway Inspectorate become involved. To some extent it is overseen by an investigation board, none of whose members have any first-hand experience of working railways. As Mr. Ford concludes,

"The final HSE report will not be published until after the conclusion of any legal proceedings, or after they have been ruled out".

We still do not know the cause of the accident. We have not been told but perhaps the HSE knows, but it is not going to say for fear of legal proceedings. It is very important that not only is maximum support given to an independent accident investigation branch to conclude its report quickly into the causes of the accident, but that the department recognises that if anything has to be changed in the light of experience following the accident, it should be encouraged to take place with maximum speed.

My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has set out exactly why we are setting up the railway accident investigation branch. Its purpose is to improve the safety of railways and prevent railway accidents and incidents. It will improve safety by reporting quickly. That is exactly the point that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, makes.

What we are proposing is in conformity with the European Safety Directive. That states that reports would normally be published within 12 months. It states,

"the investigating body shall make public the final report in the shortest possible time and normally not later than 12 months after the date of the occurrence".

That is what the RAIB will do. But the directive does not say—and we are not proposing—that it must be forced to publish a report before it is ready. Surely, it is better to get a full and detailed report after 13 months than a hurried and incomplete report before 12 months has lapsed. The decision on the report should be for the chief inspector of rail accidents to make. As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that criminal proceedings brought by the police or Health and Safety Executive might be a harrier to publication of an RAIB report, the Government are firmly of the view that safety lessons and reports can still be published.

Clause 7(6) provides for the chief inspector to be able to publish even if criminal or civil proceedings are brought or are likely in connection with the accident. Similarly, the law of contempt of court will still apply to the RAIB, but in deciding when to publish a final report the chief inspector must always balance the public interest in publishing in order to share safety lessons against the public interest in people being brought to account for criminal behaviour and their right to a fair trial. It is perfectly legitimate for her to come down in favour of publishing.

The RAIB cannot prevent any person from inferring whatever they want from a report, but the Bill makes it very clear in Clause 7(5) that the RAIB itself,

"(a) shall not consider or determine blame or liability, but (b) may determine and report on the cause of an accident or incident whether or not blame or liability is likely to be inferred from the determination or report".

Pending the final report, it will be possible for the RAIB to publish an interim report, which sounds familiar from our last debate, to ensure that urgent safety lessons are promulgated. The Bill already makes provision for such reports in Clause 9(3). The existing AAIB and MAIB can and do publish interim reports and the RAIB should be able to do so as well.

Finally, I want to say to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that, if it becomes apparent that the publication of RAIB reports is being materially delayed, the Government will take the necessary action to ensure that the RAIB will be able to achieve its purpose and duties.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that statement. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 33, line 35, after "vessel" insert "or on a vessel with a crew of three or less"

My Lords, I am forced to say that the Government accept that there is a degree of irrationality and inconsistency in the way that the Bill provides a medical defence for fishermen but does not do so for other professional seamen in similar circumstances.

I do not believe that we would introduce the fishing vessel exemption now, nor can we agree to its removal at this stage—although we will look at it for the future. The exemption is long-standing and could not be removed without extensive consultation with the industry, something that has not taken place. The extension of the medical defence to other on-duty professional mariners is neither necessary nor welcome. It would set entirely the wrong precedent, not only for the shipping offence, but also for aviation and road offences. And it would go against our drive to improve transport safety.

My Lords, I am glad that the Minister and I are in agreement on the principles involved. I am grateful for his reassurance that the Government will look again at the matter in the future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 35, leave out lines 19 to 44 and insert—

My Lords, I informed the Minister of what I was doing when 1 tabled Amendment No. 9. In his immediate reply, he informed me in turn that his parliamentary draftsmen were working furiously in order to get the necessary amendments on the Order Paper for today's debate. All that is necessary for me to do at this point is to thank the Minister for the drive that he put behind the move once it got under way. In particular, I thank his staff and his draftsmen for tabling the amendments.

Although this is merely the legislative part of the procedure, and a great deal of work will have to be carried out by the police and others to make it effective, it would not happen if the legislative process had not been undertaken. I am grateful to the Minister for ensuring that that part of the process has happened and that this provision will be on the statute book. I hope, therefore, that the relevant authorities, such as the police and medical services will, where required, be put into motion to bring a greater degree of safety, especially in relation to drugs and driving on our roads.

My Lords, I echo my noble friend Lord McIntosh in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, on his perseverance and on seeing this provision home in such a satisfactory way. I believe that I was the one who suggested to the noble Lord in the first place that he should attempt effectively to wrap his Private Member's Bill into this piece of legislation. That is exactly what he has done. All credit to him for effectively getting a Private Member's Bill turned into a government Bill; it is a remarkable undertaking and he should be congratulated.

Congratulations are also due to my noble friend for listening at every stage of the debate and for coming forward with the amendments in this way. As this is the only contribution I intend to make on Third Reading, I thank him for the way that he has handled the rest of the proceedings, particularly in relation to the powers of the British Transport Police and the other matters we considered earlier. The way my noble friend has handled the Bill has been fantastic.

My Lords, I echo the comments of my noble friend Lord Faulkner on how the Minister has handled the Bill. I am pleased with all the amendments in this group, but I would like to place on the record my thanks for Amendment No. 5. I thank the Minister for meeting me with representatives of the Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Transport Safety and the Association of Chief Police Officers. He said that he would table a government amendment on the matter and he has done so; and they are very happy with it. I am grateful to him and fully support the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 36, line 36, leave out "(and the definition of -drug" shall be disregarded)"

moved Amendments Nos. 5 and 6:

Page 42, leave out lines 13 to 31 and insert—

moved Amendment No. 7:

My Lords, I support the amendment. I hope that in his reply the Minister will say that, following assurances which I believe were given at earlier stages of the Bill, whatever means the Health and Safety Executive has used to assess the charges on the railway industry—I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group—this measure will not widen the scope of the activities and issues for which they make a charge. In other words, if the HSE does not make a charge for prosecution at present, it would not do so in future, even if the mechanism for charging were different.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned train operating companies, but I believe that the provision applies to anyone with a licence, which would include Network Rail as well. It is extraordinary that, in those circumstances, such organisations would have to pay for their own prosecution. That seems to be all wrong. Therefore, I trust that my noble friend will say that this provision is outwith the scope of any proposal for charging which the Health and Safety Executive may put forward.

My Lords, consideration of prosecution is one of a range of options open to Health and Safety Executive inspectors as part of their enforcement activities. Their responses to breaches of health and safety law are governed by the HSC's enforcement policy statement. Therefore, there is no question of the cost of prosecution being a consideration; the HSE must act objectively in accordance with its policy statement.

Work on gathering evidence to inform the decision as to whether or not to take a prosecution, as a routine enforcement activity of the Health and Safety Executive, is subject to the current charging regime and should properly be included under the railway levy. But that should not in any way distort the HSE's decision on whether or not to prosecute or, indeed, on the cost of gathering evidence.

My Lords, I consider that reply to be slightly unsatisfactory. I realise that at this juncture there is nothing further that your Lordships' House may do. As the Bill will not be going back to another place, this matter cannot be raised again. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I ask that serious thought be given to the implications of the Metropolitan Police case.

My Lords, I can certainly give the noble Lord that assurance. I believe he knows from the public prints that serious consideration is being given to that issue.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would like to make a Statement about the humanitarian situation and reconstruction in Iraq.

I was in Iraq last week, in both Basra and Baghdad. I met representatives of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the United Nations, the military, Iraqi administrators, non-governmental organisations and UK civilian staff. I also visited a prison and water treatment plant in Basra and the British Office in Baghdad.

Progress has been made in Basra. Days after the end of the conflict, British troops took off their flak jackets and helmets and talked with civilians. That set the tone for a progressive return to normal life, with the military presence now relatively unobtrusive. Life has regained an air of normality: people are out in the streets; the markets sell fruit and vegetables; cars are on the streets; and shops and restaurants are open.

Quick impact projects, implemented by British forces, together with the United Nations, NGOs and local authorities, have made a visible difference. Basic services, including water and electricity, have been restored to pre-war levels. The prison has been rehabilitated. The courthouse has been refurbished and cases are now being heard. Work is under way to clean the city of solid waste and other health hazards. Medical services are functioning, albeit with localised shortages of specialist drugs and oxygen.

The House will want to pay tribute to UK forces for their significant contribution, often working in difficult and, at times, dangerous circumstances, as the deaths of the six Royal Military Police in Maysan last week all too clearly demonstrated.

The expectations of ordinary Iraqis are very high. The south suffered particular neglect under Saddam's regime and was starved of investment for years. We need to do better than just restore services to their pre-war levels. People expect more, and deserve more.

The situation in Baghdad is more difficult. Threats to security remain a significant obstacle to progress. Regrettably, attacks against the US military by ex-Ba'athists and criminals appear to have become more organised, as has sabotage of newly-restored infrastructure. And there are worrying signs of threats to international personnel and Iraqis working with the coalition, which could undermine the developing links between the Coalition Provisional Authority and Iraqi ministries. Worries over personal safety keep many Iraqis in their homes, rather than at work or school, and impact particularly on women and girls. Cuts in electricity and water supplies also disrupt everyday life. We are working to address those issues.

Some progress has been made on security. Thirty thousand Iraqi police officers have reported back to duty; a legal system is beginning to be re-established to control criminality; and the CPA has decided to pay stipends to ex-soldiers, which should help. But we are working to put in place the conditions for Iraq to be seen, by its own citizens, to be policing itself rather than being controlled by coalition forces. We attach a very high priority to the effective reform of the security sector.

Rapid and visible progress towards fully representative and democratic government is central to the future of Iraq. Iraqis must regain political control of their country as quickly as possible. While Iraqi-controlled local authorities are already working in a number of provincial towns, the process of establishing an Iraqi-led governing council is much more complex. That has to be done quickly, but it also has to be done right. The governing council needs to be representative, involving all the main parties and religious and ethnic groups, as well as providing for the efficient and effective involvement of women. The CPA is making progress on developing consensus among Iraqi representatives on the way forward. And, importantly, the United Nations is closely involved in this process.

Much has been made of the shortcomings in the CPA. That criticism has, in many cases, been overstated but clearly things could improve, and the CPA's leadership, with UK support, is working hard to improve the authority's performance. That includes establishing better communications between headquarters and the regions and, even more vitally, between the CPA and the Iraqi people. It is essential that the people understand what the CPA is doing, and why; and that the CPA can understand their wishes.

Almost 100 secondees to the CPA, from a wide range of UK government departments, are now in partnership with Iraqi ministries, our US colleagues and the humanitarian agencies, helping to get the Iraqi civil administration back up and running. The Department for International Development now has 27 advisers in Iraq, including the CPA's recently appointed director of operations.

We are also making a substantial financial contribution to humanitarian agencies working on the ground. Our total financial commitment now stands at £154 million, mostly channelled through organisations with the capacity and expertise to mount humanitarian operations quickly and effectively. I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses details of the reconstruction work that has been undertaken so far by the agencies which we have been funding.

We are also working to support the longer-term reconstruction of Iraq. Much of the finance for this will come from Iraq's own oil revenues, initially through the Development Fund for Iraq, and subsequently through Iraq's own budget. But the international community also has an important role to play. In New York last week, informal meetings including Iraqi representatives began preparations for a donors' conference which is expected to take place in October, and agreed details of the assessment that the World Bank, IMF and United Nations will carry out during the intervening months. DfID will consider how best we can contribute to this longer-term reconstruction effort in the light of this work.

Years of sanctions and mismanagement by the Saddam regime have left the Iraqi economy very weak. Even before the conflict only about half the Iraqi workforce was in full-time employment. Iraq's oil wealth, and its relatively well educated population, should enable it to grow rapidly once security has stabilised and a representative government is in place that can take long-term economic policy decisions.

Humanitarian agencies, with our support, returned to Iraq quickly after the conflict ended, and have helped the country recover from the conflict and the looting that followed it. Their ability to do this was strengthened by good preparatory work, in part financed by DIM, and supported by the Armed Forces. But continued threats to security, particularly in Baghdad, remain a very significant constraint. The coalition is working urgently to address this in order to build on the progress achieved so far, and make real, lasting and visible improvements to the lives of the Iraqi people.

My Lords, your Lordships will be very grateful to the Secretary of State for making this Statement today. I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Rawlings, who usually deals with international development business, cannot be here.

Inevitably, our minds are still filled with sorrow at the murder in Maysan-al-Kabir of the six brave young solders whose bodies now return to their homeland. All of us want to be sure that their lives were given in a good and purposeful cause—the rebuilding of Iraq as a land of peace and order after the horrors of the past. That said, would the Secretary of State agree that the reports of recent progress in re-establishing the rule of law and security have been worrying? Does she agree that preparations—despite assurances—have clearly fallen far short of what is needed? We were told as far back as January that preparations to meet the post-conflict situation were going to be "as good as they can be".

It is true that there has been no major humanitarian crisis of the kind widely predicted by some experts. Neither has there been a refugee crisis nor, so far, a massive spate of revenge killings. However, it is also clear that the coalition provisional administration is facing many other problems of law-keeping, civil security and the laying of foundations of good governance by the Iraqi people themselves. Following her recent visit, can the Secretary of State tell us more about the role that her own department is playing in reconstructing the civil administration? What about basic services, power and water supplies and law enforcement training? Twenty-seven advisers do not sound a vast amount in such a huge country. Does the administration plan to keep the 18 regions of the country as they were before—14 of which were set up by the British in 1917–1921—thus avoiding dominance by any one sect or group? That is a very important principle on which to proceed.

Can the Secretary of State tell the House where the main expenditure of this £154 million has gone so far? Have the UN agencies, which received the bulk of it, spent the money effectively? If all of it is being disbursed—an eventual figure of 100 billion dollars is mentioned—is the guiding strategy in place for it to go to the right priorities? How is it intended to get from where we are currently to making the civil and public services in Iraq fully operative again? How does the noble Baroness propose to deal with members of the Ba'athist party? Not every member of that party can be dismissed; otherwise there would be no administration at all. Obviously, one has to concentrate on the real killers and top criminals. But how will that be done, and is progress being made?

Is the Secretary of State satisfied about adequate communication and open lines between our forces and the civilian groups which will eventually have to run things in Iraq? Does she feel that links between our superb forces and the American authorities are close enough? Everyone is inclined to agree that abruptly disbanding the Iraqi army was a mistake. Was our advice on this listened to and what steps are being taken to rectify the situation? Can we also play a stronger advisory role with our American friends in avoiding measures which increase local hostility, given our huge experience going back to 1917? Have we stressed the vital importance—as we did all those years ago—of respecting local customs and observing, as occupying power, the principle of usufruct?

Iraq is not Afghanistan. Does the Secretary of State agree that although there is much rural poverty Iraq is potentially a rich country with vast oil and mineral resources? It has a well-educated population with many very experienced women able to play a leading part. Indeed, the Iraqi people have some experience of running a democracy under a constitutional monarchy up to 1958. Has she studied current plans for distributing the ownership of the oil wealth of Iraq much more widely to the people? This would reduce the danger of corruption in state hands and help the seven million pensioners in Iraq.

The task of rebuilding Iraq as a force for good and peace in the region is not impossible. It is all the more frustrating that so far—I admit that these are early days—the problems are proving so intractable and the lack of preparation in meeting them so evident. We hope that what we have heard today will help carry things forward with our American allies and other coalition countries more steadily and in greater security. Our Armed Forces have performed brilliantly in war and peace. But the Secretary of State will be the first to agree that we must not let them carry an increasing burden for restoring the country to civil order which others should now be prepared and ready—more than ready—to shoulder.

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for making this Statement today. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, regarding the military policemen who were lost in Iraq. We express our great sympathy to their families and friends.

The Secretary of State notes the welcome progress in Iraq and refers to difficulties and shortcomings, but I wonder what she makes of the view of those who do not yet see such steady progress. Thus, UNICEF stated last week that,

"the security situation in Baghdad and across the country is deteriorating".

It noted also that,

"the sharp reduction in the availability of electricity and water in most of Baghdad is exacerbating the frustration of the city inhabitants."

UN agencies and NGOs are experiencing attacks on their facilities and vehicles. The humanitarian community is concerned about the potential for civil unrest should the current situation continue.

Clearly, the situation in Iraq is very volatile. The key problem is lack of security. Some areas seem to have become more settled, while others which appeared settled now have problems. For example, Oxfam speaks of a worrying rise in violent crimes in Nassiriyah, which had previously seemed settled. Can the noble Baroness comment on whether the strategy of searching houses and removing small arms is seen as effective, or is it, indeed, causing widespread disquiet? What other measures are being taken to tackle that, and who is implementing them? Does the noble Baroness agree that we are now in a vicious cycle? Violence prevents reconstruction; no reconstruction breeds more discontent; and so on.

I know the Secretary of State is reluctant to put any timetable on this issue, but perhaps I may push her on it a little. Surely, the Government's planning has some kind of timetable. Will she indicate when she thinks Iraq will be sufficiently settled to enable it to elect interim authorities in Baghdad and Basra?

With the mounting casualty toll among authority troops, does she sense any changes in strategy by the Americans? If so, what are they?

Lack of security is holding up the restoration of basic infrastructure in the cities—water supplies, electricity, functioning hospitals, and so on. There is a high incidence of diarrhoeal disease, particularly among children, in Iraq.

Even food, which had seemed to be widely available, now appears to be in short supply. Oxfam reports that many families are surviving on bread and milk because the monthly food rations have stopped. Food prices have risen hugely. The price of a kilo of meat has doubled in recent weeks. Obviously, it is welcome that the Marsh Arabs, who were deprived, are now getting food aid, but the overall picture is surely a cause for concern.

There are reports of increased violence against women and girls. There are reports of threats made to Iraqi women and girls for not wearing clothing that is deemed modest. A UN worker has thus been threatened. The UN has also reported that in some cases girls in Basra not wearing headscarves have not been allowed into school. What strategies are being followed to address those problems?

The Secretary of State may remember that when we questioned her on Iraq last week I quoted a senior British official saying of the US-led administration that it was,

"the single most chaotic organisation I have ever worked for".

Does she know whether that official—perhaps she can say whether she met him in Iraq—sees anything coming down the track that would make him change his mind?

There seems to be some realisation among the Americans that although the war may have been prepared for, the peace was not. I note that R Duncan Hunter, the Republican chair of the House Armed Services Committee, stated:

"Occupation takes a lot of folks, probably takes a lot more folks than winning the war".

Will the noble Baroness comment on that shift?

It is clear that the humanitarian situation in Iraq remains very serious. As the UN put it the other day,

"the high levels of vulnerability and dependence on government services that existed before the conflict have increased further".

As the Government seek to stabilise things in Iraq so that there can be a transition to Iraqi rule, can the noble Baroness assure us that, unlike in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Kosovo, aid money will not come from the DfID budget, thus depriving other areas of the world?

Obviously, we welcome any progress that is being made. Clearly, the situation is volatile and the coalition partners will need to be engaged for a long time. Can the noble Baroness shed any light on what plans were worked out for post-war Iraq? Does she now feel that some of the assumptions made before the war have since proved untenable? If so, what is being done to learn those lessons?

My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for their comments on the Statement. I agree that we must pay tribute to our troops in Iraq. I met a number of them. They have done, and continue to do, a magnificent job.

I turn to the specific points. Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness raised the issue of preparations, a subject on which I was also questioned by the International Development Select Committee earlier this week. I must say that I do not agree that our preparations have fallen short of what was needed. As to the different kind of scenarios for which we planned, we should be very pleased that those with respect to a wholesale movement of refugees being internally displaced did not happen.

What we could not plan for was the widespread looting that happened immediately after the conflict ended. I saw for myself the impact of the precision bombing in Basra and Baghdad. There is very little left that resembles what we would think of as a post-war situation. But what I found even more distressing were the many buildings which had been looted and then fired from inside, which means that Iraqi ministries cannot now function. They do not have the records, although some Iraqi workers took home discs and files of information. The looting has done considerable damage.

That has been followed by deliberate sabotage. There are miles of electricity cable. It is very difficult to have security along the entire length of that cable. Once an electricity supply is damaged, it has a knock-on effect, in particular on water because the water pumps cannot work. The coalition forces and the CPA are doing everything they can to get the situation back up and running. We are well aware that there are forces out there who do not want the coalition to succeed. There are rumours going around Iraq about what has happened to Saddam Hussein, which are leading to a fear culture among the people of Iraq. We have to deal with that as a matter of some urgency. We must find Saddam Hussein and his sons and we have to make sure that the constant threats being made to security are dealt with.

With respect to the CPA itself and the questions which have been asked with respect to its administration, I was very encouraged indeed by what I saw in Baghdad. The administration is functioning much more effectively. A relationship is developing between the CPA and the Iraqi ministries it is shadowing. A draft budget has been developed, not only for the CPA but also for those ministries. DfID staff are very much involved in making sure that that draft budget feeds down into Basra and other areas. They are giving support in areas that will eventually lead to greater revenue collection, such as customs; in giving advice on law enforcement and on security sector reform; and in giving support on basic administration across the whole range of issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked whether it was the intention to keep the administrative regions of the country. That is a decision for the Iraqis. Once the governing council is up and running that will lead into a constitutional process, and Iraqis themselves will make decisions about what they would like to see with respect to the structure that is put in place. We very much see this as being something for Iraqis to decide.

The noble Lord asked about specific areas in which money had been spent by the Department for International Development. The figures have now been placed in the Library. We have spent £8·5 million on health and nutrition, £4 million on water and sanitation, £33·6 million on food, £1·5 million on agriculture, £7 million on power and fuel, and so it goes on. Of that money, UNICEF has been granted £3·19 million to re-establish immunisation services and £3·2 million to deal with water and sanitation. The United Nations Development Programme has been given £7 million to restore electricity supplies. A considerable amount— £16·5 million—has been given to the International Committee of the Red Cross, and £15·5 million to the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Society. The UN agencies have a long track record of working in Iraq, particularly on the oil for food programme, but also in other areas. We are very satisfied with the work that they have been doing to restore basic services to Iraq.

Regarding the Ba'athists, the strategy has been clear. The top three layers in any ministry—that is the minister, the deputy minister and the director general—have been removed. Those who have been in senior positions in the party hierarchy have also been removed. However, exemptions can be asked for if any individuals occupy a particular position where it is considered that a service will be unable to be run if that individual were to be removed. That exemption would be considered.

The army are now receiving stipends. It is right that we move immediately to reforming the security sector. We need a police service that is not violent and repressive but sees its role as being to police the community. We also need a revamped Iraqi army and we are involved in developing training for that, as are our Armed Forces. I agree with the noble Lord that we need to respect local services and customs. I also agree that Iraq is a rich country with a well-educated population. That is why Iraqis are so keen to take control of their own situation. I do not agree with the noble Lord that the problems are intractable. We have seen difficult situations in other countries—Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan, for example— but I feel that there are successes we should be proud of. There is no doubt that the security situation remains extremely difficult, not only for coalition forces, but for Iraqis themselves. We have to deal with it and we have to be seen to be dealing with it.

Regarding the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, I agree that the key problem is security. I have made that clear. We saw Saddam Hussein release 75,000 prisoners towards the end of last year, so sabotage plus crime from those criminal elements is having an extraordinary impact. Regarding the timetable, I cannot agree with the noble Baroness. It is important for Iraqis to also help set the timetable. We need to make clear that we want to see Iraqis taking control and that that is a process that we are seeking to support. We are not there to occupy Iraq for the long term; we need to communicate that. I agree with the noble Baroness about the need to make sure that those messages are communicated.

Regarding food, 760,000 tonnes of food were distributed by the end of June, reaching around 95 per cent of intended recipients. I shall look at the figures set out by the noble Baroness, but certainly my view from being in Iraq is that the food distribution pipelines were working quite well. Women to whom I spoke were concerned about the increase in violence towards women and girls. We are trying to ensure that women are actively engaged in the political process.

My Lords, what arrangements have been made by the Coalition Provisional Authority to broadcast to the Iraqi people, whether by radio or by television, information about current issues and also about the policies of the CPA? If those arrangements have been made, what is their effect?

My Lords, I discussed that area in some detail, because it is one in which we undoubtedly need to do better. There is now television and some radio. The UN are thinking about establishing a radio station. More and more newspapers are available and the coalition is putting out information, particularly to the newspapers, but also through television and radio channels. But we need to do more with respect to communicating who is responsible for the difficulties that we are seeing in terms of getting back electricity and water, and also communicating some of the significant successes that we have seen, particularly in the south where the security situation has improved enormously, and it has been possible to get basic services up and running again.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her Statement. I am sure that others in the House, like myself, are reassured by the firm grip that she has on the situation, and her eye for detail as well as on the general policy.

Will my noble friend reassure us on two points? First, she spoke about the importance of civil police and it was good to hear that that was a priority. However, stability will also require a convincing system of justice administered by the Iraqis themselves. That will be highly expensive to develop. Can we hear more about the resources and arrangements being made to develop an Iraqi-based system of justice?

Secondly, regarding the political regeneration of Iraq—that of course is intimately related to social and economic reconstruction and rehabilitation—does she agree that there is a case for the authority for that process to be as widely based internationally as possible? Those of us who continue to argue for a key role for the UN are not making an ideological point in favour of that organisation, but a practical political point—that if the process is to have acceptability and credibility, not only in Iraq but in the wider world, the wider the degree of international authority for what is being done, the better.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those questions. Regarding the administration of justice, we are very conscious of the need to take a holistic approach. Courts are being refurbished in Basra and Baghdad; in Basra I met two judges who are already sitting. There is a police station, a prison and a courthouse next to each other, all of which have been refurbished. That means that the justice system can begin to operate effectively again. We are doing the same in Baghdad, where we are working with our Iraqi counterparts to help to rebuild the capacity of the courts and the prisons. It is a priority for us and we are working with Walt Slocombe, who is directing this on behalf of the Coalition Provisional Authority.

Regarding the role of the UN, I agree with my noble friend that the United Nations has to have a key role in the process. I met Sergio de Mello, who is closely involved in discussions with Iraqis, and Paul Bremmer and John Sawers, who is our personal representative to the CPA. They are discussing these issues with respect to the development of the governing council and the next steps for the constitutional process. The UN is also considering what role it can play in the medium term in putting in place the processes that will allow elections to take place in Iraq. So the UN is playing a key role, but I must also make clear that it has stated that there are limits to its resources and to the support that it can give in other areas. It sees security sector reform as a key area in which it can give support—that is most important—but it does not want to take over the whole process.

My Lords, Iraq is rich in cultural and archaeological heritage. However, in the short term, many smaller sites are being looted by criminal elements that have been set free and by people after artefacts that they can sell to feed their families. Is money being provided from her budget or from other budgets to pay for guards for those archaeological sites? Without such guards, those sites will he looted and a long-term, sustainable area of the economy will be lost for ever.

My Lords, steps were taken in advance of the conflict to try to ensure that historic and cultural sites were secured. The Ministry of Defence consulted widely with the archaeological community to ensure that. We have been informed that there are guards at the Baghdad museum and that looting is now under control. I recognise the noble Lord's point about some of the smaller sites; I shall get back to him about that, because I cannot say absolutely that every small site has now been provided with security.

More than 40,000 manuscripts and 400 artefacts stolen from the museum have been retrieved. Noble Lords will know that specialists from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the British Museum and elsewhere have gone out to help the Iraqis in that area. One good thing is that a number of items that were thought to have been looted have been returned—or found, because they were found to have been put away for security and safety.

My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the security situation, which is obviously serious. The opposition guerrilla war that is now being fought appears to be well organised. Against that background and given that it is obviously an irresistible requirement, if we are to have a general recovery programme, that that security situation is met, how much progress is being made in bringing other forces to bear? She may have heard the remarks of General McCaffrey, who fought in the previous Gulf War, who expected that American forces would need to be there for a decade. That is a daunting prospect and would certainly require the support of many other countries.

In connection with what is really going on and the media reports, what is happening in the north? We have heard about Baghdad and Basra, but does the noble Baroness have anything to say about what is happening in the Kurdish region?

My Lords, other forces are going to participate. For example, as the noble Lord may be aware, the Italians will be joining British forces in the southern region quite soon. A number of countries are now contributing to the coalition effort in a range of ways. I am happy to write to the noble Lord when that information becomes somewhat firmer, especially with respect to possible troop contributions.

With respect to the situation in northern Iraq, we have of course always supported the territorial integrity of Iraq; we have made that absolutely clear. We have welcomed the formation of interim councils in Kirkuk and Mosul, which comprise representation from all ethnic communities. The Kurds are now able to travel freely around Iraq and many of those living in the Kurdish-administered area in the north have for the first time been able to visit friends and family in areas formerly controlled by the Saddam Hussein regime. I am pleased to tell noble Lords that Kurdish officials are able to share their experience of government with their counterparts in Baghdad and other regions for the first time. So there is contact and communication, and we of course hope that that will improve.

My Lords, first, I apologise for not being present for the Statement. I was unfortunately delayed and did not make it. Three weeks ago, I spent three days in Iraq as chairman of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. We went to Basra, but I spent a day approximately 100 kilometres north of Basra, in al Amara. We walked about both Basra city and al Amara freely; there was a small contingent with us. People came up to us to say, "Thank you", and, "We are glad you are here". I did not feel personally threatened at all; the atmosphere was relaxed. Our troops are doing a magnificent job out there in a social and civilian sense as well as in their key role.

What came through to me from talking with the young women officers—and, indeed, with some of the men—was concern about the role of women in society. Iraq has traditionally been not a fundamentalist state but a secular country, so the role of women is somewhat different from that in the rest of the Middle East. Their concern was that the view seemed to be gradually creeping in that women should not hold good positions in Iraq. In fact, people of that country saw it themselves, that was not just a Western point of view. Knowing that my noble friend has that issue at heart, perhaps she will comment on it, because it is of concern to a number of us.

My Lords, first, I endorse my noble friend's comments about the situation and the ability to walk around in some parts of the country. Basra was bustling when I was there, which I had not expected. Although the security situation is no doubt difficult, it is important for us to have a balanced view.

My noble friend expressed concern about what is happening to women. She is quite right. I met a group of women representatives of different women's organisations when I was in Baghdad. They were very concerned. They said that it was not so much that anyone was telling women that they had to wear particular clothing, but that a fear was emerging that was leading to women staying at home, not going out, fearful that they would need to cover up. Of course, concern about security does not help that situation.

The other issue raised with me was that there was a perception of increased violence against women—in the home but also in public. We are very concerned about that. We shall have to try to move from what we are hearing anecdotally to obtain some more concrete information and to consider what we can do.

We are working hard to ensure that women are an integral part of the political process. Women have been meeting on a regular basis. A representative from our Women's Unit is in Baghdad, working as part of the Coalition Provisional Authority with women's organisations. There is talk of a small conference later this month, which will lead into a bigger conference that the United Nations, UNIFEM, is hosting in Baghdad in August. At the meetings held with political parties in Baghdad, we have tried to ensure that women are included. I was pleased that at the most recent meetings, at least one woman was present.

My Lords, it is nice to hear of the progress being made. However, against the backdrop of the recent murders of British soldiers and the continuing violence against American soldiers, it seems to me that the Statement is rather optimistic. Would the Minister confirm that there is no complacency about the problems that lie ahead of us?

My Lords, there is absolutely no complacency. I was trying very hard to strike a balance in the Statement and show the very real concern that I, the Government and the CPA have about the security situation. I was also trying to give noble Lords a sense of the progress that has been made. I feel that some of what we are seeing is very negative. I want noble Lords to have a more balanced picture. This in no way indicates that we are complacent, or that there is not a very serious recognition on the part of the coalition that a great deal more needs to be done.

We have to deal with the perception beginning to emerge among the Iraqi people that things were perhaps better before. Everybody I met is absolutely delighted that Saddam Hussein is gone. However, if basic services are not up and running and there is no water and electricity and day-to-day life is becoming a real drudge, people begin to ask questions such as, "Were we perhaps better off before?". That is because we all crave order and discipline in our lives.

I would like to assure noble Lords that I and other members of the Government will continue to be seized of the situation. As regards resources, we need to provide not only money but also expertise; that is, people who have experience of working in developing countries and experience in implementing programmes on the ground. As I said, security sector reform will be an absolute priority for us.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.

My Lords, may I take the opportunity to inform the House that I shall be undertaking a ministerial visit to Belfast on Tuesday, 8th July? Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

How many children they estimate to be living with parents who misuse drugs, and what account they will take of the recent report Hidden Harm from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

My Lords, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs estimates that some 90,000 to 130,000 children are living with a problem drug user. The council's report recognises some of the good work being undertaken to tackle drug problems and to protect vulnerable children, but also that more needs to be done. The Government have already increased by 23 per cent this year the pooled budgets available to drug action teams, which has improved access to treatment services for pregnant women and parents. The Department of Health is working with other departments on what further action is required.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. Is he aware that under these dreadful circumstances it is often the grandparents who end up taking care of the children? What kind of support, financial or otherwise, can grandparents expect to receive, and how are they made aware of their rights?

My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to say that grandparents are a major source of support for young children in these circumstances. Around 50 per cent of the children whose parents were included in the advisory council's report were living elsewhere with family members or friends. Grandparents comprised the main family members looking after those children. The report highlights examples of local schemes that help the children of drug users and provide support for families, including grandparents. I am sure that, in her capacity as chair of the National Treatment Agency, my noble friend will encourage an extension of such schemes.

The Government will be taking forward improved support for all friend and family carers of children in these circumstances through its "Choice Protects" review, which was announced last year.

My Lords, what is being done about the barriers to parents with drug problems seeking treatment? For example, parents fear that their children may be taken away from them and there is a lack of residential mother and baby units for drug treatment and rehabilitation.

My Lords, clearly, some parents in these circumstances will be worried about the removal of their children, but social services do have a responsibility to protect children. We are aware that support is required and, as I said in my earlier Answer, the Government are putting a lot more money into the pooled budgets of drug action teams which will improve access to treatment services for parents with drug problems.

My Lords, my noble friend said that the Government are expanding the facilities for dealing with parents with drug problems. Can he tell us how many residential rehabilitation centres are in operation around the country which have facilities for mothers and children? Does he not agree that this is an area to which the Government should give priority?

My Lords, I cannot give the exact numbers, but the Government are putting more money into treatment services at all levels; that is, from the primary level up to tier 4 services. However, I shall be happy to write to my noble friend with details of the exact number of centres.

My Lords, if the parents are injecting drug users, is enough help being provided as regards hepatitis B and C? What counselling services are available if those parents test positive, and even if they are not positive, how are they counselled before they are tested?

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness will appreciate that she has strayed a little wide of the terms of this particular Question. I shall have to write to her with a detailed response on that issue.

My Lords, can the Minister tell me how the educational needs of children whose parents are drug addicts are met? So far as I can recall, very often those children do not get to school.

My Lords, the Department for Education and Skills issued a government consultation draft entitled "Drugs: Guidance for Schools", which emphasised the importance of having a designated member of staff responsible for co-ordinating the school's response to drugs. It is also a key requirement of the national healthy schools standard to have a designated drug education co-ordinator. Moreover, training is available to support teachers in this particular role.

Ultimately, there is also the potential for social services to intervene. When a carer needs support and services for a child, in particular when problems are being encountered that centre on going to school, the carer can approach social services and sometimes voluntary organisations can help in this area.

My Lords, can the Minister indicate how uniform are local authorities in meeting the needs of children within the families being discussed?

My Lords, I do not think that I can paint a national picture on this area by area, but we know that a growing number of local support services are being put in place for relatives as carers of children in the circumstances of this Question. A number of local authorities come to mind which have particularly strong support arrangements: Plymouth has had a support service since 1999; there are dedicated workers in Hampshire and Wandsworth, which are also using family group conferences to help families make the best decisions for those children who cannot remain with their birth parents.

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that this is largely a problem to be tackled locally? When the noble Lord writes to his noble friend with the details of those schemes which have central government support, can he make them more intelligible by revealing the location of those schemes? I do not mean that he should list them individually, but can he set out what criteria are used to ensure that these resources are put within reach of the people who need them?

My Lords, the Government provide general guidance, but it is for local authorities to provide the responses because they have statutory responsibility in these areas. Of course their work is inspected under the various inspectorates. However, I shall take heed of the points made by the noble Lord in my response.

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the invaluable support provided to many children's homes, foster carer groups and schools catering for such children's complex needs by way of appropriately trained mental health professionals? Can he tell us what progress is being made towards making available that kind of highly skilled consultation to parents and carers working with these children?

My Lords, believe it or not, we do not collect in Richmond House all the details of these consultations but, from my previous involvement in other work, I can say to the noble Earl that much is being done to expand the development of child and adolescent mental health services. As I recollect, the Government are putting into that area a 10 per cent increase over three years. I am sure that that will produce many of the kinds of services to which the noble Earl has referred.

of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether, in light of the results of the current archaeological excavations on the Pilckem Ridge battlefield, they will encourage the Government of Belgium to revise their plans for the extension of the A19 motorway across the Ypres Salient.

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government continue to take a close interest in these proposals. However, the Belgian authorities are experienced and sensitive in dealing with the issues raised by such a project, including both the selection of the route and the handling of any remains discovered during the course of civil engineering work. They also have a good record of co-operation with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in dealing with war graves. The commission is watching developments carefully and is confident that it will be consulted at each stage by the relevant authorities.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. He will recall that he answered a similar Question which I tabled on this subject on 2Ist January last year when plans for the proposed road first came to public attention. Is he aware that the excavations carried out by a joint Belgian-British team under the direction of the Flemish authorities have been extraordinarily successful? They have unearthed a wealth of artefacts which have produced a unique picture of what life in the World War One trenches was like. Taking that into account, and in view of the fact that two bodies of soldiers, one French and one British, have already been found as a result of those excavations—and it is certain that many thousands more lie in the path of the proposed Al9 road if it were built—will he do his best to persuade the Belgian authorities that they should re-route the road?

My Lords, I am aware that the archaeology in this area has been very successful. I pay warm tribute to the All-Party Parliamentary War Graves and Battlefield Heritage Group—of which my noble friend is chairman and the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, is vice-chairman—for the pressure it successfully applied to get the archaeology started and for the pressure it continues to apply to the relative authorities in this area. Any decision making will be for the Flemish regional government in consultation with the Belgian national government. The British Government will consider what role to play should it be necessary to do so.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his remarks about the all-party war graves body. Can he assure the House that he will take the same attitude with regard to France? We are talking about Belgium at the moment but there will be many instances of roadbuilding and other developments in France where we will need the same kind of assistance from the Government.

My Lords, I can give the noble Lord that reassurance. I am happy to say that, as we understand it, the latest French proposal to build a third airport for Paris in the area of the Somme—an issue raised previously by my noble friend—is, I choose my words carefully, in abeyance.

My Lords, is the Minister considering a review of archaeological practices in regard to excavations on sites containing the remains of British service personnel? Further—although this may go a little wide of Belgium—is a review taking place in regard to HMS "Sussex" and whether proper practice has been followed? The remains of British service personnel will be recovered from that site if proper excavation techniques are undertaken. It is slightly worrying that a salvage operation is taking place in an area where lie the bodies of British service personnel.

My Lords, some might say that the noble Lord's question goes slightly wide of the original Question. I shall not say that. I shall write to the noble Lord.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that military historians will be hoping that important features on the Ypres battlefields can be preserved, as will the families of those who were engaged in the fierce fighting on this vital part of the British front in World War One?

My Lords, the noble Lord is right to raise the issue of the historical importance of the dreadful amount of killing that occurred on this battlefield. In 1915, as I understand it, 200,000 men of Kitchener's volunteer army were killed within 14 days. With this patch of land continuing to lie between the two sides, in 1917 in an offensive lasting 100 days—the figures are staggering—400,000 to 450,000 British soldiers were killed. The noble Lord can rest assured that the historical aspects of the issue will be kept well in mind.

My Lords, I declare an interest as honorary parliamentary adviser over many years to the Royal British Legion and as one, doubtless of a great many noble Lords, for whose kinsmen of an earlier generation the Pilckem Ridge battlefield was their final resting place. Is my noble friend aware that this issue is of considerable concern to the ex-service community as a whole? Is any ministerial visit to the excavations in prospect—I speak having recently been there—to see their scale of importance? And can the Government consider supporting efforts to make them a world heritage site?

My Lords, I do not know whether a ministerial visit is forthcoming. If the noble Lord is inviting me, I shall of course accept. As to the second part of his question, we are aware that a proposal is currently being considered by the Flemish regional government to apply to UNESCO to have all the Great War battlefields in Belgium—not only this one—listed as world heritage sites. I cannot commit the British Government so far as the noble Lord's proposal is concerned, but I dare say that we will be sympathetic.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that understanding the topography of a battlefield can be essential to historians in understanding what took place there? Does he further agree that although that interest can never be paramount, neither is it negligible? To assess it, it is necessary to weigh it against any loss of money and time in preserving the record. Does he agree that t o outweigh the loss of 2,000 lives the saving would have to be considerable?

My Lords, I agree with all the sentiments that I am asked to agree to by the noble Earl. He is absolutely right. As someone who lives between Market Bosworth battlefield and Naseby battlefield, I certainly agree with him.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What progress they have made with the other occupying powers and the United Nations in establishing a stable and democratic government in Iraq.

My Lords, the shared aim of the coalition and the United Nations is to facilitate a representative Iraqi Government based on the rule of law as soon as possible. The coalition has organised two conferences—the first in Nasariyah, the second in Baghdad—and, with the UN, is intensively consulting a broad range of Iraqis on ideas to move the political process forward. These include establishing a governing council and a constitutional convention. We hope that these will be in place soon.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does she accept that there is growing unease that the brilliant military campaign which destroyed the dictatorship was not matched by a realistic plan for the future and that that has created a dangerous situation? But we are where we are. We cannot pull out. We are condemned to succeed. In that context, does the Minister accept that, even if we and other countries were willing, we could not solve the problem simply by piling in more troops? Following on from what she said in her Answer, can she say when Iraqis of substance in their community and communities will take charge of key civilian agencies and ministries in that country?

My Lords, I accept that there is a good deal of comment about there being unease. However, it is unrealistic to expect the coalition to put right in two months what has gone wrong over the previous 30 years. It is not only a case of what happened during the conflict but of not having the institutions in the country over a very long period. The noble Lord asked how we are moving forward. The governing council, which it is hoped will be in place during the course of July, will have, we hope, advisory powers while working with the coalition and the United Nations, and powers to appoint Ministers, to oversee the running of ministries and to set up commissions to review the cross-cutting issues such as justice reform and education. That is on the governing council side.

We hope that later in the month—probably towards the end of July—there will be a constitutional convention comprising 100 to 200 Iraqis, which will be charged with drafting a new constitution. Its members will be chosen from a wide range of groups in Iraq—Sunnis, Shias, Kurds, Christians—and we wish to ensure that women will also participate. So there will be two big staging posts, we hope, this month—first, slightly earlier, the governing council; and then, by the end of the month, we hope to have in place the constitutional convention.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is a difficult issue between choosing Iraqis who will participate in this process and Iraqis choosing for themselves the people who will participate in this process? It is a difficult issue, to which there is probably no completely satisfactory answer. But in these circumstances, does my noble friend agree that this is exactly why maximum global international authority for what is going on is essential so that it cannot be said that this is manipulation by the occupying powers?

My Lords, I agree that it is enormously important to have the broadest possible base. The noble Lord puts it very well: who does the choosing? That is why there was the first conference in Nasariyah and then the one in Baghdad. That is why there has been a women's meeting, with some 40 women drawn together to have their say about this. But I think that what the noble Lord is getting at is the role of the United Nations. I am happy to tell him that Mr. Sergio Vieira de Mello has indicated to John Sawers, the United Kingdom's representative, that he is very supportive of the coalition's plans and that our plans have broad support among Iraqis. That is a very important point. Kofi Annan's representative staff have been involved in the recent consultations, and he believes that they are going well. It is very important that Iraqi people feel that they have real ownership of this process.

My Lords, given the importance of education in the establishment of civilised values, although I know these are early days, can the Government say whether the United States is yet involving USIS in Iraq'? What plans do the Government have, in due course, for the British Council to return to the admirable role that it undertook in Mosul, Baghdad and Basra where, even at the present time, a Shia majority in the country could respond to British Council initiatives?

My Lords, of course education is an enormously important part of the process with regard to education of young children and cultural activities. We believe that about 90 per cent of Iraqi children have been able to return to school. But there is a real problem about education aids: the books used are written from a Ba'athist perspective and we do not wish to see their continued use in schools. So there is an enormous amount of groundwork to be done.

The noble Lord asks what further plans there are for the return of the British Council. Security on the ground would have to improve greatly before that could happen. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has returned from Iraq and my noble friend the Secretary of State for International Development has also recently returned. From their reports, it is clear that it is still very early days. I agree with the noble Lord that we must set our sights on the future, and those are the sort of things that we want to aim for, but there is a little more groundwork to be done first.

My Lords—

My Lords, I am sorry, but we have overrun the time.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the national DNA database complies with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998.

My Lords, it fully complies with the Act. The chief scientist of the Forensic Science Service is the custodian of the national DNA database under a memorandum of understanding with the Association of Chief Police Officers. DNA samples are collected from suspects and the personal data derived from them are loaded by the FSS on to the database. As an executive agency of the Home Office, processing of personal data by the FSS is within the Home Office notification to the Information Commissioner.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Will she accept that I have no wish to underplay in any way the importance of DNA evidence as a potent weapon against crime? That said, is it really possible to square the fifth data principle, that:

"Personal data … shall not be kept for longer than is necessary"

with the proposition, as I understand it, advanced by the Home Secretary, that the police should have the power to take and retain indefinitely DNA samples from anybody who has been arrested and not just, as currently, those charged with an offence?

My Lords, we would say that it is. Noble Lords will know that there is a balance to he struck: they will also be aware that it has been possible for us to identify the perpetrators of crimes committed many years ago with the benefit of DNA samples taken recently. For example, a person was stopped for shoplifting a very small amount; the DNA sample indicated that, 25 years previously, he had been responsible for a series of sexual assaults. We believe it is critical evidence which is of great use to the public.

My Lords, I was present at the Police Foundation lecture last week in memory of my noble friend John Harris, Lord Harris of Greenwich, at which the Home Secretary stated that there were now over 2 million DNA profiles on the database. Does that figure actually represent people convicted of a criminal offence?

My Lords, the noble Lord will know that the data are collected from those who have been charged and those who have been convicted, and I cannot tell him how many people fall into either category. It is only very recently that we have been able to retain samples taken from those who have not been convicted but who have been charged and prosecuted in relation to offences. It is true to say, however, that data collected in that way has been used to identify subsequent offences which have led to successful definitive convictions.

My Lords, what is the position in relation to those who have been arrested but later not charged?

My Lords, your Lordships will know that it is being proposed that those samples will be retained so that they can be used in due course should they be necessary in relation to comparative samples. That proposal will have to be debated. When this matter came before the House, there was a question in relation to where the balance between public good and personal privacy should be struck. We have said very clearly that this is an implement which can be used to free people as well as to identify the perpetrators of wrongdoing. Those who have committed no offence need fear nothing from the retention.

My Lords, is it not true that there is overwhelming support for such a policy in the country, particularly in areas where there is crime?

My Lords, it is certainly true that the public are very anxious that those who can properly be identified as the perpetrators of crime should be so identified. Indeed, there is a very interesting document that I am very happy to put into the Library produced by the Forensic Science Service called Case Closed: 50 years of DNA—a gallery of cases involving DNA profiling, which demonstrates the utility of this procedure.

My Lords, is it not fair to remind the House that the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill contained a provision that retrospectively legalised the 50,000 or so illegal retentions of fingerprints and DNA samples? At the time, a great many of your Lordships felt that that was an improper way to proceed, but none the less, it became law. Can the Minister assure the House that, given public anxiety about these databases and that piece of history, the present collection and retention of DNA samples and fingerprints is strictly in accordance with the current law?

My Lords, I can certainly assure noble Lords that that is the position. Of course we are, as we have already said, going to debate more fully the issue of whether we should now be able to retain all the samples so obtained. However, I can certainly assure your Lordships that everything we have is in accordance with the rules and has been applied quite properly.

My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the national DNA database is in fact open to Interpol, Europol and other European criminal investigative organisations, and indeed, outside Europe, to American law enforcement agencies? What safeguards are there, particularly in relation to the unconvicted on the database?

My Lords, requests for a search of the national DNA database are channelled through the Interpol London Persons Desk. Those are processed only where it is clear that the request is in the interests of the prevention and detection of crime, national security or the data subject. Only a one-off speculative search of the database is made and information fed back via Interpol. A risk assessment on the dissemination of this information is then made, and the risk assessment will consider the justification and proportionality of the disclosure of the information. That does not tend to pose a problem with our other partners, the EEA countries, where similar DPA and human rights principles apply. All proper safeguards are put in place to ensure that this information is used properly and in accordance with the criteria that I have just outlined.

moved Amendment No. 8:

After Clause 106, insert the following new clause—

moved Amendment No. 10:

After Clause 108, insert the following new clause—

My Lords, may I from memory—thank God not quite from painful memory—confirm that what my noble friend says about danger is true?

My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment. Indeed, I supported the noble Baroness both in Committee and at Report stage. The Minister has tried to be helpful in his answers. He understands the issues and problems in relation to the Ridgeway and other national trails. Indeed, it was the Government who invented the name and concept of national trails; previously we had only the name Ridgeway and the names of various other routes.

I declare an interest as I have done previously. I walk the Ridgeway most weekends. There is a voluntary code on the Ridgeway that bans cars and motorbikes at weekends. On Sunday morning, however, I was passed by 43 motorbikes all in a row. That represents a big safety problem as none of the motorbikes that passed me, all of which were off-roaders, were licensed. If they are not licensed, presumably they are not insured. If there were an accident, there would therefore be a problem. The people operating those vehicles do not think they are on a road. They say, "We can be here because it is a road", but they have met none of the requirements necessary to be on the road.

It is a problem within government. Although the Department for Transport, the Countryside Agency and the local authorities understand the problem, they are not moving at the same speed and sometimes not in exactly the same direction. Various local authorities are attempting to designate specific areas, but the attempts are not joined up. There may be local authority restrictions in some areas, but those could end a mile or so down the Ridgeway. The restrictions are therefore unenforceable. We do not want the problem solved on some parts of the Ridgeway but not on others. That would not work; it would bring chaos. The churning up of these ancient routes would accelerate.

I recognise that the Minister has tried to be helpful. However, there is a time problem between his former department, the Department for Transport, and the Countryside Agency. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will press her amendment. The amendment would give the department time to make progress with the Countryside Agency. The problem is that it has not had time to make sufficient progress in reaching a workable relationship with the agency. When the Bill returns to another place, as it will have to do because of our amendments, the department may be able to offer a satisfactory result. Perhaps the Government will offer their own amendment or accept the noble Baroness's amendment. The Minister has been as helpful as he can but there is a logjam in the department. I believe that the amendment will enable the department to think again, to make some progress and to come back to Parliament with a solution. I strongly support it.

My Lords, I stayed in the debate only when I heard the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. I simply wish to endorse what my noble friend has said from the Front Bench. I walk along the same Ridgeway, although a few miles further along, as my noble friend. I endorse that there is not only a nuisance but a considerable danger arising from this situation. I put in the Minister's mind the thought that if these 40 motorcycles were unlicensed, can he be confident that they did not cross any of the roads which intersect the Ridgeway? If so, what would happen to the safety of other people involved in an accident with an uninsured motorcycle?

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. Indeed, I put my name to similar amendments at previous stages of the Bill. The purpose of this amendment is similar to that of earlier amendments about pedestrians and cyclists. These proposals deal with the right of pedestrians and cyclists not to be subjected to nuisance or danger certainly in some parts of the country road and trail network.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, talked about 4X4s on the Ridgeway. I believe there were 43 of them. Of course, those drivers are not worried about pedestrians or cyclists are they? They are in their nice little tin boxes, uninsured and probably untaxed. They frighten people off.

It is pleasing to be told by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, that pedestrians and cyclists are segregated on the highways. Sometimes they are, especially in towns. However, there are many roads in this country where there is no segregation for cyclists or pedestrians and walking on them is severely dangerous. It is perfectly reasonable that, occasionally, on such important paths as national trails, pedestrians and cyclists should have the right to enjoy them unimpeded by the nuisance and, most importantly, the danger. There is the added fear that, should they get hurt, they are unlikely to receive compensation, even if they could catch the person responsible because such people would not be insured and there would be no record of who they were.

The amendment is a good one. The problem has been around for many years. This seems the ideal opportunity to finally force the various departments involved to come up with a workable arrangement. I support the amendment.

My Lords, both the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, have acknowledged that we take this issue very seriously. As they know, I have facilitated meetings between them and Alun Michael, the Minister for Rural Affairs. I agree very strongly with all that they say about the condition of the Ridgeway in particular. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has shown me photographs. I happen to walk on Hampstead Heath rather than the Ridgeway, so I do not experience those problems personally. However, I have no doubt that this is an issue involving danger as well as amenity, so I do not criticise the amendment in that way.

I have serious problems, however, with the amendment. It is technically deficient, but, much more importantly, I believe it to be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Section 22 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 already provides for the Secretary of State to make traffic regulation orders in relation to special areas of the countryside—including long distance routes--in the interests of conserving or enhancing their natural beauty, and affording better opportunities to enjoy their amenities for recreation or study. If the proposed amendment were agreed, it would override to an uncertain extent the existing provisions of Section 22 in relation to long-distance routes.

When the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, decides what to do about the amendment, I invite her to consider the extent to which the Section 22 powers could be used and to join me in urging that they should be used for this purpose. However, there is a profound difference between the Section 22 powers and what is proposed in the amendment. When a traffic regulation order is proposed under Section 22 powers, the procedures allow an opportunity for objections and, if necessary, a public inquiry before an independent inspector. We have a very serious problem with the proposed new clause because it would require the Secretary of State to make an order without any opportunity for objections or debate. I am sorry to say that we believe it to be incompatible with the ECHR.

As I said, the amendment is also technically deficient because it contains no definition of a national trail. It affords no opportunity for objections to be made to the proposed traffic regulation order, and it fails to recognise the existence of Section 22 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. It would extinguish long-standing public vehicular rights without any opportunity for objections to be heard. We believe that it is important for all sides to have an opportunity to put their views before a decision is taken on any traffic regulation order. Procedures should not be curtailed simply because they are inconvenient from the point of view of the desired end, even when I, and my colleagues in the Government, agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, about the desired end.

We are talking about the Ridgeway in particular. The Government accept that its western section is infested with recreational vehicular use which results in damage to the surface and causes annoyance, inconvenience and danger to pedestrian users. The Countryside Agency, in partnership with the local highway authorities, is addressing those problems.

The Countryside Agency is drawing up a business plan for the Ridgeway which envisages a strategy of selective use of traffic regulation orders in combination with repairs to those parts that have been damaged. Funding for that work will be provided by the agency. If local authorities indicate that they are not prepared to make the required traffic regulation orders, the Secretary of State can exercise his powers to do so under the provisions of Section 22 of the 1984 Act. I am sure that there will be contact between the Minister for Rural Affairs and the Countryside Agency on that point.

We are prepared to look again at the traffic regulation order procedures to see if they can be simplified as part of our reform of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. We would welcome any suggestions that noble Lords may have about changes, but they must recognise that people have a right to be heard if their interests may be affected by a traffic regulation order.

This is not the last opportunity for this matter to be debated. It is well known that the Department for Transport is working on proposals for wider traffic management regulation, which will be taken forward at the earliest opportunity, subject to the normal pressures on the legislative programme. Legislation on banning non-essential vehicles from national trails would fit much more naturally there than in this Bill, which I am sure your Lordships are anxious to see.

We should give the Countryside Agency's management plan for the Ridgeway a chance before rushing to legislate, especially as there are already appropriate powers on the statute book. Also, the amendment as drafted—although it cannot be undrafted or redrafted at this stage of consideration in the House—is profoundly defective in respect of flouting, although flouting implies intention, so perhaps I should say conflict with the ECHR.

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I accept the notion that the amendment is not entirely satisfactorily drafted. However, if the amendment were agreed today the Government would have the opportunity of redrafting it in another place and it could be returned to us in a style that would please everybody, including the Minister.

My Lords, that is a very dangerous argument—that this House should pass a measure that contains elements we know to be unsatisfactory and in conflict with the ECHR. We should have enough pride in our proceedings to send a Bill back to the House of Commons which is correct. I believe that those who have a respect for the relationship between the two Houses and a respect for the European convention—however strongly they feel about the issue, as do I—should not agree to this amendment.

My Lords, is the Minister seriously claiming that it is a fundamental human right to be able to drive a four-wheel drive vehicle along a bridleway for fun—not to get to one's place of business, but simply for fun? I find that hard to believe.

My Lords, I am not suggesting that for a moment. I am saying that when one extinguishes long-standing vehicular rights—because nobody has disputed that those rights are long-standing—there has to be an opportunity to object and the possibility of appeal to an independent tribunal. I would have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, of all people—because he is a libertarian—would agree with that proposition.

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have supported me in this amendment—not only today, but in previous stages of the Bill. I am gratified to hear from the Minister that he supports the intention behind the amendment even if he is not able to support the amendment itself. That means that we do not have to spend any more time on the substance but can concentrate on the procedure.

We are in this situation because our rights of way law is outdated. We have a law that allows vehicular use on those routes. Three years ago, noble Lords tried hard to get changes to the law when the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill was going through your Lordships' House. The Government resisted at that point, so I find it difficult to accept that the amendment is premature and that we should wait for further legislation in the future. Noble Lords have been patient on the matter. More to the point, the people who live and use the routes have been very patient, even though they are being endangered.

I make no claim to he an expert on human rights legislation or on the procedures of the House. I admit that the amendment does not contain requirements for public consultation, inquiries and so on, but, if the Government were minded to accept to accept it, they could build such things into guidance—they need not be in the Bill—or they could accept the principle and, as the noble Viscount suggested, move an amendment that was more suitable in their eyes, when the Bill reached another place.

I will not accept lectures from anyone on my commitment to human rights or to consultation. My record in Suffolk bears testament to that. However, there are clear examples here of how people's lives are being endangered, besides the question of the recreation and amenity of people who wish to use the routes. I am not happy, therefore, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

moved Amendment No. 11:

After Clause 108, insert the following new clause—

My Lords, I am relieved that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, chose not to argue the case for the amendment because I have great difficulty with it as drafted. I do not believe that it meets his own concerns. He asked me for an assurance that when the issue of traffic regulation orders is considered, those issues should be taken into account. I can certainly give him that assurance.

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 12:

After Schedule 6, insert the following new schedule—

moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 75, line 8, at end insert—

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.