| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I never want the House to take too much heart from anything I say from the Dispatch Box. There is a danger of getting the issue out of proportion. The question is how much taxpayers should subsidise foreign students and whether we believe that there will be a continuing expansion in the strength of UK educational exports. Yes, we do.
Furthermore, I would be disappointed if within a month's time we did not announce the next phase of the Prime Minister's initiative on going further in partnership with higher education, further education and business both to attract more students and also to look at how we can promote exports of education through other means rather than simply the direct import of students into the country, important though that is.
15 Mar 2005 : Column 1209
Registration of Cancer Bill [HL]
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision about the registration of cancer and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Williamson of Horton.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill
Lord Grocott: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 53, Schedule 2, Clauses 54 and 55, Schedule 3, Clause 56, Schedule 4, Clauses 57 to 78, Schedule 5, Clauses 79 to 105, Schedule 6, Clauses 106 and 107, Schedule 7, Clauses 108 to 118, Schedules 8 and 9, Clauses 119 to 123, Clauses 142 to 146, Clause 124, Schedule 10, Clauses 125 to 141, Schedule 11, Clauses 147 to 154, Schedule 12, Clause 155, Schedule 13, Clause 156, Schedule 14, Clauses 157 and 158, Schedule 15, Clauses 159 to 166, Schedule 16,
15 Mar 2005 : Column 1210
Clauses 167 to 169, Schedules 17 and 18, Clauses 170 to 174.—(Lord Grocott.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (Amendment) Order 2005
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order be referred to a Grand Committee.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Extradition Act 2003 (Part 3 Designation) (Amendment) Order 2005
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order be referred to a Grand Committee.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2005
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order be referred to a Grand Committee.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) Regulations 2005
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft regulations be referred to a Grand Committee.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Code of Practice) Order 2005
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the fifth Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order be referred to a Grand Committee.—(Baroness Amos.)
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is there any reason why these Motions should not be moved en bloc?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I understand that the Procedure Committee has to consider the issue and
15 Mar 2005 : Column 1211
then put a proposal to the House. It will be considered at the next Procedure Committee meeting. I would very much like to move them en bloc.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Constitutional Reform Bill [HL]
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The page and line references are to Bill 18, the Bill as first printed for the Commons.]
The text of all the amendments can be found at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldbills/035/05035.1-4.html and subsequent pages.
1 Clause 2, leave out Clause 2
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
In moving the Motion on Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 264, 265 and 593. The latter three amendments are entirely consequential on Amendment No. 1.
Your Lordships will recall spending—
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Would the noble and learned Lord be prepared to speak now to both the first and second line of amendments; in other words, to deal now with the issue of "Lord" and "lawyer"? Although they are in some senses distinct, in others they are intimately connected.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is a very sensible idea. I am more than happy with that suggestion.
Your Lordships have spent much time considering both the issue of "Lord", if I may call it that, and the issue of "lawyer". I urge noble Lords to reconsider your earlier position; to listen afresh to the arguments that we debated in some detail previously; to note and to listen to the other place and the arguments that were advanced to and fro there; and to note as well the overwhelming support in the other place for removing Clause 2 of the Bill and the restriction that the office holder must be a lawyer who is also in the other place.
In the year since the Bill was first introduced in this place, a huge amount of progress has been made. The concordat, which we debated at length while the Bill was
15 Mar 2005 : Column 1212
passing through this House, has been referred to as an "historic" agreement, and I would agree. We have agreed in this place to significant reforms in setting up an independent Judicial Appointments Commission, a new United Kingdom Supreme Court and a fundamentally reformed office of Lord Chancellor. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for his acceptance on behalf of those opposite of, as he described it, the "new architecture of the office of Lord Chancellor". We have also accepted on this side of the House that the office of Lord Chancellor should remain, albeit with "the new architecture"—to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.
Looking back at the debates we have had on this issue, it seems to me that there is also agreement that the purely ministerial nature of the Lord Chancellor's role in the concordat does not lead inexorably to the conclusion that he or she could fulfil that role only by being a Member of this place. Accountability can be provided in either House for those functions. I think that we are also agreed that the use of the word "Lord" in the title of "Lord Chancellor" need not be confined to a Member of this place. We discussed previously the example of the Lord Privy Seal who could be in the other place, albeit described as a Lord.
The agreement in this place goes further. The special roles of the Lord Chancellor, on which we all agree in terms of the rule of law and judicial independence, will require a special person. The holder of that office will need to be strong and independent, with sound judgment and wide experience.
Our differences come down to two issues: whether statutory provisions requiring the Lord Chancellor to be a Member of this place and an experienced lawyer—which is dealt with in the next group—will help or hinder the appointment of the best person for the job in terms of fulfilling that special role. Our argument, which I believe is right, is that such provision can only hinder our efforts to ensure that the best person for the job is appointed to fulfil the role.
I shall set out the many reasons that have led me to the conclusion that the amendment from the other place to remove Clause 2 should be accepted and that we should also remove the requirement for "lawyer" in Clause 3.
The main reasons put forward in support of what was Clause 2 of the Bill have involved references to making sure that the Lord Chancellor is not in the "hurly-burly" or "political fray" of the other place, or is not—to use another phase used in the debate—"climbing the greasy pole". I believe that the assumption that that will be achieved by preventing the Lord Chancellor from being a Member of the other place is fundamentally wrong.
I say in parenthesis that this place in 2005 feels very different from how it felt in 1997. I have no idea how different it feels to those who have been here since a very long time before that. I draw attention to one example. Would it have been normal 30 or 40 years ago to have the political debates that are currently criss-crossing the Dispatch Box, in the widespread belief—accurate or not I know not—that a general election is coming? Would a Member of the Conservative Front Bench put down a
15 Mar 2005 : Column 1213
Question, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, did yesterday, on whether the Front Bench on this side of the House were going to purloin the Conservatives' policy on providing council tax relief for old-age pensioners?
I would respectfully suggest that this place has changed fundamentally. The way that this place now operates is based on coalitions between the three parties. Although they are changing coalitions, this is essentially a much more political place than it was five, 10 or 20 years ago.
The other aspect of the argument assumes that all Members of this place are older, towards the end of their careers, not looking for political advancement and very experienced, and that all Members of the other place necessarily are not in that position. That is clearly not the case and does a disservice to your Lordships' House and to Members of the other place.
I cannot understand why Members of this place think that all Members of the other place are so unsuitable for the office and that there should be an absolute statutory bar to exclude all of them unless they are willing to resign their seat and come to this House as though that were the only appropriate solution. What is so wrong with elected representatives that—leaving aside Clause 3 for a moment, which is the lawyer one—any person who becomes a Member of this place should be eligible for an office while an elected representative should not be?
We all know that Secretaries of State in the other place also exercise functions that require impartial decisions to be made on their merits. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister exercises quasi-judicial functions under the Town and Country Planning Act in determining planning appeals, yet I hear no one questioning whether he and his predecessors who have fulfilled that important role in planning are fit to carry out that work because they are Members of the other place.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has responsibility for decisions made on awarding benefits—a responsibility that is vital to ensure that those in need get the benefits to which they are entitled. Yet I hear no one question whether the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions should be a Member of this place rather than the other place. Some would argue, although I am not one of them, that the Attorney-General should be a Member of the other place, despite the nature of his role as the ultimate source of legal advice to the Government.
To describe a Lord Chancellor from the other place as a "political appointee" is to forget that all Lord Chancellors have been political appointees in a similar sense. On the whole, the system has served us well. It is also to forget that many Members of this place are political appointees of one kind or another.
As for the other place being a "hurly-burly" of activity, I wonder, as I said earlier, whether your Lordships have reconsidered that, given the attention that proceedings in this place have had in recent months and the changes that have occurred in recent years.
15 Mar 2005 : Column 1214
The office of Lord Chancellor has evolved over time. For example, we have escaped the tyranny of having to have a Bishop as Lord Chancellor. It continues to evolve.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |