§ Bill, pro forma, read 1a.
§ ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
§ The Queen's Speech reported by The LORD CHANCELLOR.
§ 3.56 p.m.
§ Lord CAMOYSMy Lords, I beg to move, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
My Lords, my principal duty and privilege today is to thank Her Majesty for the gracious Address, and in so doing I should like to offer on my own behalf, and on behalf of all Members of your Lordships' House, felicitations on Her Majesty's planned visits overseas, very shortly to Denmark—with which country we share so much in common—and later to Tanzania, Malawi, Botswana and Zambia where Her Majesty will also attend the meeting of the Heads of State of Commonwealth countries. It must surely be our confident hope that the remarkable success of Her Majesty's recent visit to Eastern Arabia, which I know is recognised by all Members of your Lordships' House, will be repeated in Denmark and in the continent of Africa at this important moment in that continent's history.
Perhaps I may also add that I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House continue to be impressed that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is taking such a great interest not only in industry but also in those activities which contribute so much to this country's invisible earnings. The interest of His 11 Royal Highness in developing countries will also be a source of inspiration to many, both here and abroad.
As your Lordships can see, it is with deeply felt trepidation and diffidence that I have risen to move the humble Address. Diffidence, because I am acutely aware that the breadth of my experience is considerably narrower than those who have stood in this place before me. Trepidation, because while on sound advice studying Hansard for suitable precedents I soon realised that many of the experiences retold from this position took place while I was still in short trousers and, unlike many of my predecessors, those are the only clothes to which I shall refer. Apprehensive as I am, I very much wish to thank the noble Lords the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip for the honour which they have bestowed on me in asking me to move the humble Address this afternoon.
The gracious Speech contains many stimulating items and I suppose also some that might be unpalatable, at least initially, to some Members of your Lordships' House. However, even in my short experience as a Member of the House, I have learned to be confident that such items will be discussed fully and with the greatest skill and courtesy. I am particularly pleased that the gracious Speech concentrates on the task of improving the health of our economic and social life by restoring incentives and by improving productivity. Thereby, new jobs should be created in an expanding economy, hopefully free of the highly destructive rates of inflation from which we have suffered, and also unemployment.
I have little doubt that every Member of both Houses of Parliament shares the objectives referred to in the gracious Speech of securing a basis for investment, productivity and increased employment in all parts of the United Kingdom. Some of us may differ as to the means, hut very few of us as to the ends. In spite, no doubt, of perfectly sincere efforts, in spite of all the wealth of talent and natural resources in this land, the statistics demonstrate only too clearly that we are a long way behind many fellow members of the European Economic Community, both in terms of output and income per head and in terms of our rate of 12 inflation. Without a much more prosperous economy, in my humble opinion we shall make no progress towards the many laudable ends which we all share.
In my opinion at the centre of the nation's task is the need sharply to reduce inflation, to raise productivity and profits and thus increase new investment, new employment and, therefore, real living standards. I am quite convinced that, in order to increase productivity, it is essential to provide more incentive. Currently, due to the very high marginal rates of direct taxation at the bottom and top of the income scale, it scarcely pays a man or woman to do better in his or her job, by working harder or making a possibly risky investment decision. That state of affairs can be illustrated by many symptoms. First, the fact that over 8,000 of our brightest engineers have emigrated to earn better rewards abroad while, paradoxically, foreigners working here—whether for British or foreign-owned businesses—receive more favourable tax treatment than our own resident citizens.
Secondly, in the world of business it is far too often that one sees men and women, even at the lower and middle ranges of remuneration, either refusing promotion or declining the opportunity for further training. For them the extra effort is not made worthwhile. Instead, they may till their garden even better or in some cases enter the untaxed economy. Thirdly, in my experience the main concern of bright young executives aged, say, between 25 and 40, when negotiating for a new job, is that of their pension rights, as that is the only real incentive which they can identify. Fourthly, as a banker I am privileged to meet the proprietors and managers of many small and medium-sized private companies. In more and more cases the full potential of those companies is not being realised, either because the proprietors see no point in taking new risks or because they see little point in going public, with all the consequences of capital transfer tax, or because when they should sell for sound structural reasons, they are unwilling to give up the advantages, which need not be spelled out here, of owning and running a private business.
Further, in almost every case when I suggest to a businessman—whether he be 13 in a large or small company—that he should purchase another company his first question is, "But how many employees will I be taking on?" I suggest that the combination of very high marginal rates of taxation, the lack of incentives for making productive investment instead of investment (dare I say it?) in works of art and other chattels that can only bring capital gains, and the unintentional effects of the employment legislation, suffocate our true potential and contribute to the appallingly high level of unemployment.
The mention of measures to reduce the burden of direct taxation and to restrict the claims of the public sector on the nation's resources are therefore most welcome. Of equal importance is the priority to be given in economic policy to controlling inflation through the pursuit of firm monetary and fiscal policies. If I read it correctly, the gracious Speech indicates only a start in direct tax cutting. This is hardly surprising against the background of the alarming forecasts, both for inflation and the public sector borrowing requirement. The most damaging and unpredictable tax of the 1970s has been that of inflation. Early success in reducing inflation, followed by substantial real reductions in direct taxation, hopefully, from 1980 onwards, would be a very worthwhile goal. On the other hand, I fear that immediate sharp tax cuts could soon be reversed by inflation.
The gracious Speech refers to a review of sterling's relation to the European Monetary System. In my humble opinion, this is very appropriate and, hopefully, it will coincide with a full review of sterling's international role, and of the scope for liberalising exchange control. Against the main background of the economic policy set out in the gracious Speech, it is only to be expected that mention should be made of measures to reduce Government spending and to improve efficiency in the machinery of government.
Although I am, personally, slightly suspicious of the wisdom of creating special fiscal or other arrangements for small businesses alone, as I believe that the whole of the private sector needs to be encouraged and to do better, anybody, like myself, who has recently established a new business will welcome the mention in the gracious Speech of measures to 14 encourage small businesses. I am aware that by tradition I should not be controversial, and I hope that I shall not be so in referring to the mention of measures concerning trade unions. I am aware, as are many of your Lordships, that many leaders of trade unions are themselves very concerned about certain aspects of the movement. In this country we have from time to time had examples of one section of the community, be it big business or landed barons, getting temporarily out of balance with the rest. More often than not, changes in the balance have evolved from constructive and honest discussions, and on the occasions when it was necessary appropriate legislation was passed. There is therefore nothing sinister, surprising or alarming in the mention of measures to legislate on certain aspects of the union movement. As a businessman, I am also aware of tendencies in industry towards restrictive practices and monopolies. It seems to me, therefore, very appropriate that the gracious Speech couples its mention of trade union matters with a review of competition and fair pricing.
The gracious Speech also mentions measures to improve respect for the rule of law, to increase home ownership, to raise the quality of education and to make better use of the resources devoted to the National Health Service and the care of those in real need. Each of these is a highly complex subject and one where I can make no significant contribution, but I can and do say as I near middle age, with, on the one hand, four small children and, on the other, some elderly relations, that I know how very deeply concerned most people—whatever their politics, whatever their economic circumstances or age—are on these subjects. Like your Lordships they will welcome the mention of these measures.
The gracious Speech also mentions that steps are to be taken to improve the quality and administration of justice. I believe that there is broad agreement that there are far too many people in our prisons, and such steps will surely please your Lordships.
Next to the measures relating to the economy, the other measure in the gracious Speech which is very close to my own heart is that which relates to our national heritage. In my humble opinion, 15 Members of your Lordships' House sitting opposite deserve considerable credit for all the work which they have done to encourage the arts and to preserve our heritage. In spite of those efforts—whose effects were, let us face it, severely inhibited by the combination of inflation and current tax arrangements—our heritage remains in danger. This is a most serious matter as it not only endangers our very roots—which, once they wither cannot properly be revived—but it also damages the prospects for our tourist industry, of which our heritage forms one of the two unique selling points. From my own recent experience, I know that awareness of and concern for our heritage is now shared by an infinitely greater number of our citizens than was the case even 10 years ago. Included among them are most of our schoolchildren over the age of 10. Many of them come from fairly humble backgrounds and, in my opinion, they will not forgive this generation if it oversees the dispersal or destruction of their heritage. I therefore welcome the mention of measures relating to the national heritage.
My Lords, it has been said many times before that legislation alone cannot restore the prosperity of this country. I agree with that. The right climate must be created to restore a sense of purpose in the individual and in the family, to bring about, through conciliation, co-operation and civilised behaviour, increased efficiency and productivity and the greater prosperity which will enable us to do more for those in need. I welcome the contents of the gracious Speech and I commend it to your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move the Motion for a humble Address to Her Majesty.
§ Moved, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
§ "Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Lord Camoys.)
§ 4.11 p.m.
§ The Earl of ONSLOWMy Lords, I beg to second my noble friend's Motion 16 for a humble Address in reply to Her Majesty's gracious Speech. My Lords, it is right that the noble Lord, Lord Camoys, is privileged to move this Motion because when he was at school in an Eton jacket his Holiness Pope Pius XII, recognising his budding intellectuality, granted him private audience.
When I telephoned Her Majesty's Life Guards to ask them to array me in scarlet the officer concerned said, "But, Michael, you are not allowed to wear a scarlet tunic as you have not passed out of the riding school". I told him that I had no need for a horse upon which to address your Lordships. I have since discovered that it is not against Standing Orders so to do.
My Lords, no country can develop its social or economic life without being secure from outside interference. Therefore, I am particularly pleased that the first policy statement in the gracious Speech is a promise to further strengthen our defences and to review the nuclear deterrent. I have seen the Berlin Wall with its guard dogs, its policemen in towers, one married so he can be trusted to shoot his bachelor companion in the back if he tries to escape. I have seen the Berlin Wall with its raked sands and its minefields, and I do not like it or the regime which imposes it.
My Lords, I do not like spending money on arms or on training people to kill and maim others because there are better things to do in a peaceful society; but I dislike the threat of modern Russian imperialism more, with its commissars and its asylums where they dope dissidents. Obviously, we can only defend ourselves in partnership and alliance with others, and this the gracious Speech rightly acknowledges. When the economy is really right, we will be able to contribute more. Marshal Foy said, "The British infantry are the finest in the world. Thank God there are so few of them!". Deservedly, therefore, the gracious Speech promises to look after our soldiers, sailors, and airmen.
My Lords, when Talleyrand became Foreign Minister of Directory France he is reputed to have rubbed his hands together murmuring, "Une fortune immense, une fortune immense". I am fully aware that my noble friend Lord 17 Carrington does not have Talleyrand's opaque attitude to the money of others, but I mention Talleyrand because, apart from that opacity, he was Europe's finest Foreign Minister. He was dedicated to the concept of the concert of Europe, the balance of power, and a liberal Franco-English Alliance.
My noble friend Lord Carrington will need the finesse and the internationalist dedication of the ci-devant Bishop of Autun. He will need them in Europe, rightly the priority, where relationships have been soured. He will need them to help Mr. Walker with the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy; he will need them to help Sir Geoffrey Howe with the EMS, where Lord Camoys has pointed to some of the difficulties. Above all, he will need that finesse, patience, and tact in Rhodesia where he has to balance many conflicting interests, all it seems represented by people who make, and make loudly, rash commitments with which they get stuck when it could be in their interests to change their minds. The paragraphs in the gracious Speech which refer one after the other to the Commonwealth, the United Nations and then Rhodesia, all point to these clashing commitments.
Perhaps this comes rather oddly from me, but I suggest that the best thing we could do to further our interests—which are a prosperous, peaceful, economically active, multiracial Rhodesia—is to shut up, keep quiet, and allow my noble friend Lord Carrington to exercise his Talleyrandian talents with circumspection in the light of the gracious Speech and the Government's known commitments. If he succeeds, he will justifiably earn our praise; if he fails, then it is probable that the hour is past midnight.
The gracious Speech also points out that Her Majesty's new advisers will co-operate in endeavours for a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East, and will strive to restore peace and security and promote economic welfare in Northern Ireland. To achieve these aims requires the patience of Job, considering mankind's capacity for idiocy and ill-temper when it decides to squabble. Happily on occasions—but perhaps rare occasions—that idiocy is matched and overawed by mankind's genius for creativity and artistic merit. All we can do is to hope and pray for the 18 patience of Job and a possible lowering of the idiocy threshold.
My Lords, I am delighted by the statement in the gracious Speech that links together agriculture, food processing and the distributive industries. Their interests, I would suggest, are identical. I would add two further important sectors of the community whose interests equally coincide. Those are the workers in those industries and the consumers of the products of those industries. A prosperous food industry making reasonable profits, paying good wages, supplying the products that the public are happy to buy at a reasonable price, is something we should all strive for. There is a danger of the interests of the consumers, the agricultural workers and the farmers being shown as different. This is one of the reasons why the CAP must be reformed. When so doing, it is important to try to understand the difficulties of others such as the social problems of the Roussillon area, and the over-dependence of Herr Ertl on the secondary farm vote in Germany.
My Lords, how pleased one is to see the undoubted problems of the diversity of Wales and Scotland dealt with by an all-party consultation which, with skill and integrity, will produce an agreement acceptable to all, rather than the mish-mash that went before. My noble friend Lord Camoys has spoken with feeling and experience of the national heritage. The Minister who is now responsible is surely one of the most articulate and sensitive Members of either House, which gives hope to us all.
My noble friend Lord Camoys has commented on the economic aspects of the gracious Speech from his experience and knowledge of the City. He has spoken about the need to reduce direct taxation and the difficulties of so doing. I would suggest to your Lordships that, if the top rate of taxation is to come down, several things that have developed with a high rate of taxation must also go. At the appropriate moment, life insurance and mortgage relief above the standard rate of income tax should go. One of the sadnesses of this world is not only the bureaucratic jungle in which we live, but also the waste of extremely skilled manpower—people paid very high salaries and engaged only in advising the talented and rich who wish to avoid tax. If these 19 people's skills can be redirected towards the creation of wealth as opposed to what is, in fact, an extension of Government spending, then we shall all benefit.
Corporation tax is levied more effectively in Germany and with fewer exemptions than in this country. It is arguable that the taxes of big companies should be tightened up, and that the privileges of the big company should go to make way for the small industry and the private individual. If tax avoidance is reduced and real taxes gathered in, then there will be scope for the reduction of personal taxes. The fall in the profits of big companies in recent years of course makes this much more complicated. Reasonable taxes on good profits make sense. Slightly bogus taxes on no profits makes none.
The clearer and more permanent the nationality laws of this country, the securer and happier will be our present black and brown co-citizens. We must not forget that, historically, this country has benefited from influxes of alien cultures, be they Huguenot silk merchants, Flemish weavers or Ugandan Asians, who, if we run out of food late at night, have the foresight and energy to keep their shops open so that the improvident English can restock their larders.
It is to the credit of our authorities that they have not used Section 2 of the 1911 Official Secrets Act in a way which it was obviously possible to do. It is with great relief that I see that it is to be repealed; let us hope that the measure which replaces it will allow a considerably greater amount of open government. When the new law is drafted, please let us beware of Whitehall's passion for secrecy.
It is good to see the gracious Speech being sufficiently sensitive to have realised the implications of the European Court's judgment in the Sunday Times thalidomide case and its promise to act quickly on the law of contempt. I hope that it will be an excellent Bill and that it will come first to your Lordships' House.
This Government have a competent and thoroughbred air about them and that in turn gives us hope and confidence. Let us pray that that hope and confidence is merited. The country deserves it. I 20 would draw your Lordships' attention to King's Regulations 1909, which laid down:
Field officers must not wear spurs when entering captive balloons".I suggest that that be amended and brought up to date to read:Middle-aged retired lieutenants of Life Guards should not wear spurs when addressing your Lordships' House".I thank your Lordships enormously for the privilege and honour you have shown me in allowing me to second this Motion. I am very sensible of that honour. My Lords, I beg to second the Motion.
§ 4.23 p.m.
§ Lord PEARTMy Lords—
§ Lord MACKIE of BENSHIEMy Lords, I notice—
§ Lord PEARTI hope there will be no misunderstanding with the Liberals about this, my Lords. My task is to move that this debate be adjourned until tomorrow, and it is for me to express some congratulations. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, got it wrong on this occasion, since he gets most things right.
It was a delight to hear both the last speech and the previous one. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, was a member of the Life Guards and served for a long time in Arabia, but how respendent he looks today in his uniform. I congratulate him, and perhaps I should also congratulate him for being able still to get into his uniform; I know I could not get into mine, and I am sure many other noble Lords have the same problem. The noble Earl made a delightful speech; I really mean that.
I have been a great friend of the noble Earl, and I have known his great interest in agriculture. I am therefore glad he stressed that as well as the international aspects of the CAP and its effect on our economy. I was pleased to read a perceptive article in the Guardian on why Britain should support Muzarawa. I know that the noble Earl visited Rhodesia recently and was there when the elections took place. The article in the 21 Guardian is well worth quoting in part; this is what the noble Earl said:
There were even persistent reports of terrorists urging people to vote and auxiliaries urging them not to. All of this does not invalidate the fact that hundreds of thousands of blacks went willingly, excitedly and keenly to vote".He went on:I know of no English woman who would walk 20 kilometres to vote carrying a baby on her back and a kettle on her head. She had to sit for hours waiting in the polling station, patiently breast-feeding her baby, voting and then returning".I thought that was some lovely prose. It shows that the noble Earl, sometimes behind a front, has a deep perception of philosophy and it is clear that he is idealistic. I congratulate him today for what he said. His speech was quite different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Camoys, but, then, they are different personalities, although they both went to the same school, Eton. What a marvellous comprehensive school for the rich! There is no problem at Eton of a dull child, or indeed a brilliant child, and as an ex-schoolmaster I appreciate that. So beware when we discuss the gracious Speech in terms of education.I will not follow in detail what Lord Camoys said. I recognise his great love of the national heritage; he has on previous occasions made a distinctive contribution to our debates. He is right. He would not expect me to argue about the economics and philosophy behind the gracious Speech. I detect a whiff of reaction here and there, but we shall deal with that when we come to it. We may be a small Opposition but, my goodness, we will be a good one. I was once a long time in opposition and I am aware how different it is from being a Minister with responsibility.
Having paid tribute to both our colleagues, I wish to welcome to the Front Bench opposite the noble Lord, Lord Soames, who is taking on my job. I once followed him when he was in agriculture and I believe he was a fine Minister of Agriculture. Like all agricultural Ministers we had rows with the farmers, but, in the end, generally they got to like us. Lord Soames went further afield, and I am glad to say it was a Labour Government who appointed him; he became our Ambassador and a Commissioner. He was outstanding as a Commissioner in Europe, as I know well from my visits to 22 Brussels to negotiate agriculture on behalf of this country. We are lucky to have Christopher Soames back with us and I am glad he has been appointed by his Government to be Leader.
I enjoyed being Leader of your Lordships' House and I had the support of all parties. The previous Leader was so kind to me when I first came here, having come from another place and not knowing what was to happen. The noble Lord has had experience of the other place but has come direct from another occupation. I wish him well and I know he will do well. I trust he will have as much happiness in his job as I enjoyed when I was there. My Lords, I beg to move hat this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.
§ Moved, That the debate be adjourned until tomorrow.—(Lord Pears.)
§ 4.28 p.m.
§ Lord BYERSMy Lords, I rise to support the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peart, and I wish from these Benches to add our congratulations to the mover and seconder who have been entrusted with the special task of moving and seconding the Loyal Address. They acquitted themselves in accordance with the highest traditions of this House and we are grateful to them for that. We particularly appreciated the emphasis which both of them laid on our membership of the European Community, and I particularly appreciated the references by the noble Lord, Lord Camoys, to the need for helping small businesses which can create more employment for our people.
A change of Government enables us to welcome the new office-holders and thank those who have given up. I can say that because we on these Benches are a regular fixture in your Lordships' House; we do not have to move our offices and rooms when there is a change of Government. I have always hoped we would but it never seems to happen in that way. We wish to extend our congratulations to the new Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Soames. We wish him well in the task that he has assumed. We know that he will uphold the tradition of this House; and by that I mean the tradition by which this House keeps its own order. We hope that the occasions when he as Leader feels compelled to exert his own authority will be very few indeed, for 23 this House, unlike another place, is capable of keeping its own order.
We should like to express our very sincere thanks to the former Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Peart, who upon coming from another place immediately upheld the highest standards of this House with a patience and a sense of humour which was very much appreciated in the last two or three years.
My Lords, it is quite like old times to have the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, back on the Woolsack. If only for geographical reasons, the Liberal Party, sitting on these benches, have a very close relationship with all Lord Chancellors. In the case of the present Lord Chancellor we are the first, but by no means the only, noble Lords to hear his asides. I intend to check with the Clerk of the Parliaments to see whether these asides cannot be recorded from a distance of two or three yards; they are well worth hearing again and again.
Before I conclude, I wish to say on personal grounds how much I shall miss the previous Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. Not only has he rendered remarkable service to the House in the past five years, but in particular his leadership of the parliamentary delegation to Washington for the bicentennial celebrations was quite outstanding. Those of us, from different parts of the House, who were there, recognised how much he was appreciated by all the Americans whom we had the good fortune to meet, and I believe that the House owes him a very strong sense of gratitude for that.
We shall look forward to seeing what the new Administration can do to change the climate in which we can improve the nation's economic growth and prosperity. I hope that the incoming Government will recognise that there are in British politics more issues on which we can agree than on which we can disagree, and we from these Benches will do our best to stimulate consensus where we believe it to be in the national interest. However, having said that, we cannot help but reflect that once again we have a Government representing only one-third—33.3 per cent.—of those electors entitled to vote; and that, despite our having won 4½ million votes, we have 24 secured only 11 seats. By no stretch of the imagination can that be called true democracy. What I would say to noble Lords is this: one day a militant Left-wing movement will take advantage of the weakness in our electoral system which would gain them the Government of the day with a very small percentage of the national vote; and to that day I look forward with considerable worry and concern. My Lords, I beg to support the Motion.
§ 4.33 p.m.
§ The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Lord Soames)My Lords, it is a great honour for me to have the duty as Leader of the House of following the noble Lord, Lord Peart, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in congratulating the mover and seconder on their fine speeches. I should also like to say that it is a great personal pleasure, as well as a political pleasure, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Peart, on these Benches. As I believe was pointed out by a well-known commentator on the air the other day, when the history of these times is written, the noble Lord will find himself more closely associated with my party than he may think today, since he shares a particular distinction with one of the greatest Tories.
Only two people in history have served as Leader of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The noble Lord is one; the other was Disraeli. As the noble Lord, Lord Byers, pointed out, the noble Lord had the unenviable task of becoming Leader of this House immediately after his arrival from another place and in the middle of what was a most difficult Session. I know that all sides of the House agree that in no time at all he had won the affection both of his political friends and of his political opponents. He and I have been associated in various ways over more years than either of us would care to number—as he said, he took over from me once in another place—and it is a particular pleasure for me to welcome him to the Opposition Benches on this occasion. I hope that he will be generous and remember what it was like to be both a new boy in the House and a beginner as Leader of the House.
Then I look to his doughty lieutenant in Government—or perhaps I should say 25 his doughty Captain of the Gentlemenat-Arms—whose ability and generosity of spirit are so widely admired. She has much experience both in Government and on the Opposition Benches. But, before she trips me up with her great knowledge, I would ask her to call to mind the proverb,
The taller they come the harder they fall",and to remember that this Leader is 6 feet 4 inches and he falls very heavy.Turning now to the speeches of the mover and seconder of the humble Address, it is a great pleasure for me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Camoys, on his able and wide-ranging speech. Since he took his seat in the House in, I believe, 1976, the noble Lord has already impressed many Members of the House as a valuable addition to your Lordships' counsels. He is already—and perhaps the noble Lord will not mind my referring to his relative youth—a distinguished and experienced merchant banker, but one whose interests happily range wider than purely financial and monetary affairs. As one who was brought up in, and now cherishes, one of the great houses of England, he has always shown—and indeed brought to our attention once more in his speech today—a great appreciation of the importance of the nation's heritage.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has been a Member of this House for a little longer and has acquired a reputation for his forthright views on a number of subjects. He has on this occasion made a speech which was almost a model of restraint, and I am delighted to see him resplendent in the uniform of the Life Guards. As the noble Earl pointed out, during his service in the Household Cavalry he had the pleasure of serving in the Arabian Peninsula, and he has just come back from Rhodesia. So the noble Earl seems to have a partiality for hot spots. Indeed, a story that I heard—I do not know whether it has a true ring to it—was that, following his attendance at a Press conference, he was later taken to a big game park, and it was rather lucky that he escaped alive from the big game park.
Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that I do not intend to go into the subject of Rhodesia which has been raised today, because I am sure that it will be one of the features of the debate on the gracious Speech.
26 I know that the House will not expect me to make any very detailed comments on the timetable for the legislative programme so soon after the formation of the Government. The gracious Speech has, I think all would agree, given a clear overall picture of the Government's aims in specific areas, many of which will be debated in the coming days. There will be some Bills of weight and interest which will be introduced into this House, though I cannot yet detail them. Your Lordships will know that there are difficulties at the very beginning of a new Parliament in setting the legislative ball rolling, but I can assure the House that I am well aware of the need to get suitable legislation introduced into this House as early as possible in this new Parliament. This Session will be a long one, and I hope that this will help us to overcome the problem of congestion, which I know has occurred in this House towards the end of some Sessions in the past, inevitably. I shall certainly do all I can to try to ensure that the flow of legislation through this Chamber is as well balanced as possible, although I think noble Lords accept that it is inevitable that the House will usually be busier towards the end of a Session than at the beginning.
Apart from the Government's legislative programme, the work of the House will of course continue in other spheres. Perhaps most prominent among them is the European Communities Committee, which has been so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale. Ever since it was first appointed in 1974, the Committee has maintained a reputation—which I must say, looking at it from different angles, I have much admired—for reports which have combined mastery of the detail with sound and constructive criticism of the Community's draft legislation.
There are several debates outstanding on reports made by the Committee in the last Parliament. First and foremost, there will be a debate on their report on this year's Annual Review of Farm Prices, and this will be followed by others on Community shipping policy, on textiles and on Community action in the cultural sector. As one who has for long attached high importance to Britain's role in the European Community, I am delighted to find myself now serving as Leader of a Chamber which, while constantly mindful 27 of our national interests, has in general from early days, in all quarters of the House, consistently supported the European idea and encouraged successive Governments to be mindful of the European dimension in their policies.
In conclusion, I am conscious that the Leader of this House is not only the leader of his own Party but also has the duty to act as a leader for the whole House, and to work for the interests of the House as a whole. It is this blend of the partisan and civilised and, in non-political matters, co-operative relations which is such a distinct and precious feature of the House, and which has so impressed the public, I think, since radio coverage of our debates began. The House has been fortunate in having distinguished Leaders who have managed to personify these qualities in the past, and I should like to take this first opportunity to assure your Lordships that I will do my very best to continue this desirable and necessary tradition. This will, I am sure, be a long and successful Parliament, and in your Lordships' House, in the many debates to come, we can do no better, so far as our speeches are concerned, than to follow the admirable examples which have been set us today by the mover and seconder of the Motion for a humble Address.
§ Lord MACKIE of BENSHIEMy Lords, I must apologise for upsetting the orderly procedure of this House, but my concern was for your Lordships' safety. I should like to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether it is in order, or whether it is to be a precedent for the Government, to carry swords while addressing this House.
§ Lord SOAMESMy Lords, it is all right on this occasion.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly until tomorrow.