---

Lord Renton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness do her best to ensure that Afghan women are no longer obliged to hide their lovely faces?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, wearing the burqa or, indeed, wearing any other clothing that is deemed appropriate in some Islamic countries is a matter for those Islamic countries and a matter for the women living in them. Surely, the question here is that real choice should be available to women. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that it is unacceptable for young women to be beaten for inadvertently revealing a small part of their face or an ankle. It is to be regretted that all too often we have seen such events depicted on our television screens. In countries where such apparel is deemed to be a question of respect, we must look at those cultural norms and hope that it is a matter of choice for the future.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister further on this issue. As she has pointed out, we do not know yet whether any women will be included in the interim administration for Afghanistan. Can the noble Baroness give an assurance that when the entirely male Council of Chiefs—I am not good at pronouncing the Afghan language, so I shall not attempt to say the Afghan word—meets to confirm that interim administration, which I understand it will do, some consideration will be given to the position of women in any future government? Furthermore, will Mr Robert Cooper, who, we understand, is to look after this matter for Her Majesty's Government, press the Afghan administration to bear in mind the interests of women when the council's views are taken into consideration?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can only reiterate to the noble Baroness that we pressed for women to form a part of the Afghan delegation to Bonn. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness some assurance of the seriousness with which Her Majesty's

4 Dec 2001 : Column 705

Government take the issue. The framework establishes that the interim authority will be set up for six months. Furthermore, there will be a supreme court and a 21-member special independent commission set up to elect a transitional government, along with a multinational force to secure Kabul.

I cannot answer specifically the question put by the noble Baroness as regards whether, as a matter of course, those arrangements will include women. I am bound to say that I think that that would be an unusual specification. When looking at other areas of the world, I am also bound to say that certain other governments might look to the inclusion of at least a few more women in their administrations. However, I can tell the noble Baroness that we have pressed for women's voices to be heard. Lastly, I hope that the noble Baroness will take some assurance from the fact that a conference will be held tomorrow in Brussels. That conference will report back to a round table made up of international representatives at the end of the week.

House of Lords Reform

3 p.m.

Earl Ferrers asked Her Majesty's Government:

Why the Statement on House of Lords reform, which was made in the House of Lords on Wednesday 7th November (HL Deb, col. 205), was different from that which was made in the House of Commons.

The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, with a Statement of such direct interest to both Houses in their capacities as Houses of Parliament, it was not appropriate to make a Statement in one House repeated verbatim in the other. The two Statements covered generally the same ground but drew particular attention in one House to matters that might have been of less concern in the other. Our proposals are, of course, set out in the White Paper.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his, as always, courteous reply. Does he not think that, where matters of constitutional importance are concerned, it is desirable that Statements should be the same in both Houses? It would at least stop people ferreting around and trying to find out what are the differences and why. For instance, does the noble and learned Lord realise that when the Statement was made by the Lord President of the Council in another place, he praised for the part that he has played in the reform of the House of Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor? Such eulogy was missing in the Statement given to your Lordships. Was that omission by mistake or on purpose?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferret—Lord Ferrers. As he and your Lordships know, I always try to pitch my

4 Dec 2001 : Column 706

answers to the intellectual calibre of the audience. In this serene House, self-evidently, no eulogy to the Lord Chancellor would be, or could be, required.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, given the reaction with which the Statement was greeted in another place—namely, that some 130 Labour MPs immediately rushed off to sign an Early Day Motion voicing their protest at the White Paper—does the noble and learned Lord now consider, perhaps with his colleague, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that it might have been better to resolve the differences within the Labour Party by sending the issue to a Joint Committee of both Houses?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, looking back on it, it might have been better if my Statement had been given to the Commons. Then there would not have been any difficulty or misunderstanding which might have led MPs to sign the EDM.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that the real drawback is that there are no inconsistencies between the Statements made in the two Houses? If there had been, that might have given rise to the possibility that there were still some open minds in the Government and that these terrible proposals might have been changed before they arrived in your Lordships' House.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the White Paper is very green. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in terms that we wished to have consultations. Any offering by way of improvement—if such could be imagined—to the Government's present thinking will be gratefully received.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, when will the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House be in a position to announce a timetable so that those of us facing expulsion from Parliament can plan for the future?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot give a timetable in the context of the euthanasia to which the noble Lord is looking forward. However, responding to a number of requests from your Lordships, we hope to have a two-day debate on the White Paper very soon after our return from the Christmas Recess. I know that it is galling for the noble Lord—he has courteously written to me in the past about these matters—but I am very much in your Lordships' hands. I do not know when the ultimate stage of stage 2 will be arrived at.

Business

3.4 p.m.

Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on Local Government Finance (England) 2002-2003.

4 Dec 2001 : Column 707

National Heritage Bill [HL]

Report received.

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill

3.5 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

Clause 89 [Fingerprinting of terrorist suspects]:

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 152A:

Page 47, line 30, after first Xof" insert Xterrorist"

The noble Lord said: It is wonderful to have such power to empty seats. This group of amendments raises a very important point about which we have made criticisms throughout the Bill's passage so far—that is, the wide scope and nature of what is supposed to be emergency legislation for dealing with terrorist and security matters.

Some amendments in the group are brought forward with the names of noble Lords of my party on top, some with the names of noble Lords of the Liberal Democrats on top, and some stand in single-member party names. There is no collusion in terms of our approach to this issue; we have a common concern about matters.

It has to be admitted that we have a problem. In promoting themselves and in funding their operations, terrorist organisations almost certainly commit all kinds of crime. But not all kinds of crime are necessarily terrorist related. So there is a dilemma. Nevertheless, we feel strongly that the Bill should be restricted, if it can be, to the emergency nature of the legislation which we are rushing through—that is, to dealing with terrorist matters.

To give an illustration, the first part of Clause 89 deals with the fingerprinting of terrorist suspects. But, as one goes further through the clause, one finds Xor for purposes related", which means that the powers can be used much more widely for normal criminal activity. As I have observed, crime is always with us. It does not seem proper that the normal criminal aspects of the life of our communities should be dealt with through these emergency procedures.

All the amendments in this large group are devoted to the same purpose. I do not intend to bore the Committee by going through them one by one because the wording is similar every case. None the less, they raise a small but important point. I beg to move.

---