Lords Sitting of 4 November 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Lord Crickhowell
The Right Honourable Roger Nicholas Edwards, having been created Baron Crickhowell, of Pont Esgob in the Black Mountains and the County of Powys, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Gibson-Watt and the Lord Peyton of Yeovil.

Lord St. John of Fawsley
The Right Honourable Norman Antony Francis St. John-Stevas, having been created Baron St. John of Fawsley, of Preston Capes in the County of Northamptonshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Home of the Hirsel and the Lord Charteris of Amisfield.
The Earl of Harrowby The Earl of Harrowby—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Several Lords Several Lords —Took the Oath.

EC Resources and Spending
2.56 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to ensure that no charge shall fall on the Exchequer in respect of any amount by which the European Community's budget for 1988 as established by a qualified majority of members of the Council of Ministers exceeds the Community's own resources as determined unanimously by the Council decision (85/257/EC Euratom) of 7th May 1985 at 1·4 per cent., being the maximum rate applied to the uniform basis for assessing value added tax as defined therein.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the Government will do their utmost to ensure that the Community does not adopt a budget in excess of the present own resources ceiling unless and until the Council has decided unanimously to raise the ceiling. The Community cannot in any event spend money which it does not have.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and thoroughly endorse those sentiments. However, I should like to ask him whether he is aware that the figures given yesterday
984
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of the British net contribution after all receipts to European funds was some £1,400 million—a very large sum of money indeed and £400 million more than was envisaged in January? Will the Minister offer the utmost resistance to any increase in that contribution, which only goes towards the useless cost of food mountains, wine mountain—lakes—and so on?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that I shall not attempt to scale any wine mountain, but I shall pass on his comments. Of course, we have commitments to the European Community and we shall abide by those commitments. We shall do our utmost to ensure that the rest of the Community does so as well.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, why did the Minister say that the Community cannot spend money that it does not have when it has already done so?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I should like to assure the noble Baroness that in fact the Community can only spend money that it has to spend. But we must ensure that it sets a legally binding budget and that it lives within that budget.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in connection with this problem, which the Minister himself has called serious, can he say whether the Government will inquire into why, so often, the will of the European Parliament seems to be totally ignored and flouted by the Council of Ministers, as it has been in this particular instance? Is he prepared to consider that point and take it on board for discussions with his colleagues?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, clearly, there are accepted procedures for agreeing the budget in Europe. Within them Parliament as well as the Council of Ministers have their allotted roles. It is up to us to ensure that those procedures are adhered to and that the budgets are set legally.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as the Minister willingly concedes, the common agricultural policy is crucial in the context of what is now being discussed. Is he aware that the Government have given an undertaking that they will make firm proposals on the reform of the CAP? Will he be good enough to tell us the stage which work on that reform has reached and when representation will be made?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, that is an entirely different question. If the noble Lord cares to put down a Question I will see that the information is made available.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is not the common agricultural policy and the money involved there crucial to the whole issue in the Question?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords, it is an integral part of it. But I was asked specifically about the own resources ceiling, which is a very definite and clear part of the issue. I should be only too happy to answer the other question.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this item does not appear anywhere on the agenda for the ministerial council meetings in November? Is he not leaving it a little late; or perhaps the Prime Minister's office should make representations to the Foreign Office for the correct organisation of these meetings?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords. We have to put this in the right structure. The agreement as regards the financing of the European Community is clear. It must live within its own resources budget and that is predicated on 1·4 per cent. of VAT. If there is any change from that, it is up to the Commission to introduce it.

Radiation in the Environment: Health Risks
3.5 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking following confirmation of leukaemia among children at more than double the average rate at Aldermaston and Burghfield and the publication of Sir Richard Doll's report, which states that similar findings at Sellafield make it likely that high childhood cancer rates in such areas are linked to nuclear weapon and reprocessing plants.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the independent Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment was established in 1985 to advise government on possible health effects of radiation in the environment. It has already produced one report on Sellafield and is expected to report next year on Aldermaston. The Government have commissioned parallel research recommended in the Black Report and are supporting other research.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. He will be aware not only that there have been other reports since the original one by Sir Douglas Black back in 1964 but that these reports have differed from each other. I think he will also agree with me that even people reading the same report have come to quite opposite conclusions as to what the situation really is. Is the noble Lord aware that I am very glad to hear that the Government are pursuing the matter? Does he agree in the meantime that the question of living near nuclear reactors is open to serious doubt, if no more than that?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, knowing his views, I am not surprised that the noble Lord has made a quantum leap in this direction. While the Government are aware that some studies completed recently report a higher than average incidence of
986
leukaemia in young people in areas close to Sellafield and Aldermaston, we do not know the causes. Therefore further studies are under way to help identify possible causes.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, bearing in mind that parents of children in these areas must be worried sick and absolutely terrified by Questions on the Order Paper like this one, if there are any assurances to be given to parents will the Minister see that they are given?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. I wish to goodness we could put quad erat demonstrandum at the bottom of this Question. Unfortunately we are now in a position where we might better use the Scottish legal verdict of not proven. But so far as reassurance to parents is concerned, I take the noble Lord's point.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that there are clusters of leukaemia dissociated from nuclear power all over the country; that the largest cluster in Scotland is around Inverness, which does not have a nuclear power station anywhere near it; and that in Cornwall, where the natural radiation dosage is far in excess of anything that would be authorised for a nuclear power station, there appears to be no cluster of leukaemia at all?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. I am aware that there are clusters in this country totally unconnected with anything to do with nuclear power.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, do the Government accept the conclusions of Sir Richard Doll's study? May I ask the noble Lord what is the nature of any compensation for any cases of leukaemia arising directly from government policy and what medical intervention is proposed for children in these areas in order to allay natural fears?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the disease we are talking about is leukaemia and the normal treatment for leukaemia would be appropriate in this case as in any other. As to whether we totally accept Sir Richard Doll's report, it recommends further study and it is the further study that we are carrying out.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, will the Government take steps to publicise the cluster effect in statistical analysis referred to by my noble friend a moment ago and warn the public against drawing the kind of false conclusions that have been drawn by the noble Lord opposite?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the point by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, is freely available in the published information. Whether we should do more than that I shall of course consider.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, while it is quite right to warn the public against reaching false conclusions, it is equally right to warn them against being satisfied with false reassurances?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not think that I have given false reassurances. I have said twice now that this matter is unproven.

Typing in Ministries: Postal Delays
3.11 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether letters for typing in some ministries are sent by second-class mail to typing pools in the country, and if so what justification there is for the delay so caused and whether this places an extra workload on civil servants in producing drafts suitable for a distant pool typist.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the provision of typing services in the Civil Service is a matter for individual departments to organise to meet their operational needs. Most typing facilities are located close to users. Where less costly distant pools exist, the usual methods of sending non-urgent work to them are by direct van service or by electronic means. The geographical location of typing services does not affect the workload for authors of drafts.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but does he not agree that there is considerable delay in government departments in producing any paper and that if it is possible to cut that down it should be done?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, our first objective should be to produce less paper. The systems which are now introduced within the Civil Service and which provide for outstations for typing pools—which are not to be confused with wine lakes!—are to ensure that the cost is some 40 per cent. lower than the cost of letters produced in central London locations. Often it is done by transferring the information by electronic means or by overnight van service. Delays are kept to the minimum and we shall ensure that they continue to be kept down.

Vaccine: Measles, Mumps and Rubella
3.12 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when the new triple vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella will be introduced.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, our intention is to add this combined vaccination to the childhood immunisation programme in approximately a year's time. It will be administered in place of and at the same time as the present vaccination against measles in the second year of life. The exact date will be announced as soon as possible.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but do the Government have plans for the elimination of the annual epidemic of measles? Do they recognise that that requires an inoculation rate of over 90 per cent., which has already been achieved in Sweden and the United States?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the present uptake for measles vaccine is 68 per cent. in England and Wales. We are making every effort to increase the uptake. I am aware of the situation in Sweden and the United States with the triple vaccine. We hope that it will be repeated here.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that during a debate on child health services on 28th October in your Lordships' House the same recommendation was made by Professor Graham of Great Ormond Street Hospital?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I remember that.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I also remember it. The figures given by the Minister showed the relatively low uptake of vaccination against pertussis compared with vaccination against measles. The problem has existed with successive governments. Bearing that in mind, in a year's time when the new triple vaccine is available will there be a major publicity campaign to persuade the public to take the triple vaccine, which will therefore greatly increase the take-up of vaccine against whooping cough?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I expect there will be. At the moment all district health authorities have medical officers responsible for immunisation purposes. I shall bring this matter to their attention in a speech that I am due to deliver to them next week.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the Government adopt the UNICEF objective of having every child in the world immunised against measles? Will they do everything they can to achieve that?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, clearly the noble Lord listened to the wireless this morning when the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, spoke. We are obviously extremely keen that as soon as possible this disease should no longer exist in the world. One of the ways in which we shall achieve its elimination in this country is to increase the uptake of immunisation.

Working of the House: Group Report
3.14 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw)The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw) rose to move, That this House takes note of the report by the group on the working of the House (HL Paper 9).
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, at the beginning of the last Session of Parliament I

989
announced that I proposed to set up an informal group drawn from all sides of your Lordships' House to examine the working of the House and to suggest improvements in the conduct of business. This followed a particularly arduous Session in which many felt that the pressure of business had tested our procedures to the full. The group presented me with its report in the final days of the last Parliament.
The document the group has produced not only reviews thoroughly all our procedures but is a mine of statistical and other information which will be a lasting source of information to anyone with an interest in parliamentary affairs. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking all in the group for their excellent work.
I understand that the convener of the group, my noble friend Lord Aberdare, proposes to say something in his speech, which follows mine, on the way in which the group set about its task and on its principal conclusions. At this stage of the debate I should like only to draw the House's attention to what, from my reading of the group's report and my knowledge both of this House and of another place. I consider to be the real question before the House not only this afternoon but every time it sits. It is this. Do we value our present ability to regulate our own affairs without a Speaker? Do we prefer not to go down the path of the 19th century House of Commons and so not resort to elaborate and inhibiting procedural rules? Can we, in other words, continue to enjoy that rare privilege of more or less unrestricted freedom of debate without exercising a collective determination to observe those few rules and conventions which we at present possess? Rarely is the House faced with a question so easy to answer in theory but so hard to live up to in practice.
Before I conclude I should like to indicate briefly how best I think we could proceed to take account of the report's findings. The debate this afternoon gives the House as a whole the opportunity of considering and commenting upon the recommendations contained in the report. When I have had an opportunity to consider what has been said in the debate I propose to lay the report before the Procedure Committee. The Procedure Committee will also have before it a paper from me, written in the light of this afternoon's debate, inviting it to consider what changes, if any, should be made to the procedural advice offered to Peers in the Companion to the Standing Orders.
The report of the Procedure Committee, embodying its recommendations, will then of course be laid before the House for approval in the usual way. This course of action follows exactly what was done in 1971 when a similar exercise was conducted. I am pleased and grateful that I have the support of the leaders of all parties in proposing that we follow the same course in connection with the present report. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report by the group on the working of the House (HL Paper 9)—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
3.20 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I know that all the members of the group that has been responsible for the report would like me to say straight away how very grateful we are to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for his kind words about us. Unfortunately one of our very valued members, the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn Davies, is unable to be here. She is in bed with a bad back and wishes to apologise to the House. I know that your Lordships will be very sorry that she is not here.
I was also glad to hear the noble Viscount refer to me as the convener of the group; I was indeed the convener and not the chairman. As your Lordships are accustomed to do, we conducted our affairs on the basis of self-regulation. We are all equally responsible for the report.
Let me pass on one or two of the words of thanks from the noble Viscount to others. First, let me thank our clerks, who served us extremely well. Many of our discussions ranged very widely; indeed, it was not unknown for us to change our minds between one meeting and another. They have very skilfully distilled the essence of our deliberations into the report. Most importantly, I thank all noble Lords who took the trouble to reply to our questionnaire. We received well over 200 replies. Most of them came from noble Lords who attend fairly frequently. However, all were of extreme interest. They were an immense help to us in compiling the report and most of our recommendations are based on the replies.
In general we are of the opinion that, despite the increased numbers in the House and the pressure of business, the House has not lost its traditional character. It has successfully adapted its procedures to meet changed circumstances. We do not think that external pressure should force us to make any fundamental change to our tried procedures. Our recommendations seek to continue the process of gradual change. We rejected early on any question of a Speaker with controlling powers. That suggestion found hardly any support among the vast majority of noble Lords replying to the questionnaire. We therefore re-emphasise the importance of self-regulation and the need for all Members of the House to be fully aware of the Standing Orders and of the normal practices in the Companion to the Standing Orders.
We concluded that in many cases where there had been an abuse of normal practice, it occurred because of ignorance. A major recommendation in the report is that the Brief Guide to the procedure and practice of the House should be revised. A first shot at revising it is included as an annex to the report.
We also suggest that there should be an annual report from the Procedure Committee to draw special attention to breaches of normal procedure. We hope that that report will act as a continuous survey of our working and may avoid the need from time to time for appointing a special body such as ours.
I am not in any danger this afternoon of seeing red figures on the digital clock. However, I hope to set a good example and I shall not speak for very long. The whole purpose of the debate, as the Leader of the

991
House explained, is to listen to the views of your Lordships concerning the report. However, I should like to comment briefly on four important subjects in the report. They are Starred Questions, Statements, the stages of legislation and the length of speeches.
The first matter is that of Starred Questions. Opinion expressed in answer to our questionnaire was fairly evenly divided on the subject. Some noble Lords felt that Question Time was becoming somewhat unruly and that further regulation was required. Others felt that Question Time was one of the more lively interesting parts of the day's proceedings and that a certain amount of latitude was permissible. We are of the latter opinion. We see no need to change the present practice, which works reasonably well if the rules are adhered to. In particular, it provides a very good example of self-regulation at work. It is becoming quite normal to hear interruptions from the Back Benches on both sides of the House when someone asking a supplementary question fails to put it into interrogative form or is clearly making a statement rather than seeking information.
We suggest only that the Leader of the House or his deputy, hopefully with support from the Opposition Front Bench, should not hesitate to intervene when any one Question is unreasonably long. Discreet Back Bench protest, especially when it comes from all sides of the House, makes the task of interpreting the wishes of the House much easier.
In order to allow more Peers to initiate Questions, we suggest that no one noble Lord should have more than two Questions on the Order Paper at any one time, rather than the present number of three. On the other hand, we suggest that the present rule on supplementary questions—namely, that only one point should be covered in a supplementary question—should be slightly relaxed to allow not more than two points in any one supplementary question. That seems to us to be both more realistic and easier to enforce.
Turning to Statements and Private Notice Questions, they pose what is undoubtedly the most difficult problem of all and one on which opinion was most divided, particularly between the Front Benches and the Back Benches. There is general agreement that Statements—and I include in that category Answers to Private Notice Questions in another place, which are now repeated in the form of Statements—are a most irritating interruption in the main business of the day. However, there are those who consider that in many instances their political importance outweighs any inconvenience they may cause. The difficulty is that what one Peer may consider to be important does not necessarily appear so to another.
There is strong support for the view that ministerial Statements made in another place should not, save in very exceptional circumstances, be repeated orally in this House. Rather, they should be printed in Hansard. As your Lordships will be aware, that has already been done in some cases and particularly, for example, in the case of certain Statements on meetings of EC Ministers. Those who have put that view forward argue first that the Minister repeating the Statement in this House is in
992
a very difficult position in answering supplementary questions, in that he cannot be expected to commit a senior Minister in another place on matters of policy or politics. Secondly, it is felt that such proceedings make no impact outside this Chamber. The television cameras are not permitted to cover repeated Statements and any press interest is naturally concentrated on the responsible Minister in another place. Thirdly, there is almost inevitably a tendency for repeated Statements to degenerate into mini-debates in total disregard of the rules of order.
Our recommendation is that ministerial Statements made in another place should rarely be repeated in this House and that supplementary questions on them should be limited to 20 minutes. That reflects the majority opinion of those replying to the questionnaire.
So far as Private Notice Questions are concerned, we recommend that there should be no change in the Leader's responsibility for deciding whether or not to accept a Private Notice Question originating in this House but that the system of repeating Answers to Private Notice Questions originating in another place in the form of a Statement should be discontinued.
With regard to legislation, we recognise the extremely important part played by this House in the legislative process. We are most anxious not to restrict the proper consideration of Bills in any way. For that reason, we feel unable to accept the suggestion that amendments at Report stage should he restricted to the same degree as they are at present on Third Reading.
We draw attention to the existing rules governing the Report stage and the Third Reading which tend to be ignored from time to time and we recommend that they should be strictly adhered to. We further recommend that concluding speeches at the final stage of a Bill, that is either at the Third Reading or on the Motion that the Bill do now pass, should be relevant to the Bill in its final form and should not be a further opportunity to regret what is not included in the Bill.
The length of speeches is the last matter I should like to deal with. This subject has caused concern to the House for a great many years. In 1576 Queen Elizabeth told Lord Keeper Bacon to stop speaking. In 1887 and 1890 Bills were introduced seeking to impose time limits—one hour for privy councillors and 15 minutes for the rest—and proposing that the Clerk ring a bell if these were exceeded. In 1965 the House agreed to the Motion of Lord Egremont that speeches should be shorter, and in 1972 we put in the digital clocks.
There is no doubt at all that most of your Lordships prefer short speeches—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Chairman of Committees:—particularly from others. There is no doubt also that our limited time debates have been a considerable success. There are those who advocate the wider use of time limits, but we prefer to continue with exhortation and an appeal to self-interest on the grounds that a long speech is almost invariably counter-productive. However, we have suggested somewhat more

993
restricted guidelines of 20 minutes for those opening or winding up debates and 15 minutes for other speakers. We hope that the process of self-regulation will reinforce these guidelines and that discreet murmurings might draw the attention of the speaker if he exceeds them.
To reinforce this process we also suggest that the figures on the digital clocks should show in red after 15 minutes. Even though the speaker may pay no attention to the change of colour, others who are not so carried away by his oratory might bring it to his notice. May I say, my Lords, that my masculine adjective of course embraces the female although in my experience they offend much less frequently, if ever.
Finally, I noticed with great interest in The Times yesterday that several elderly Chinese revolutionaries have been transferred,
"to the Central Advisory Commission, a body of elder statesmen whose size and possibly influence will have been boosted by its new members".
It seems that China, in her wisdom, is creating life Peers and a sort of House of Lords. I hope that the noble Viscount might consider having our report translated into Chinese for their benefit. I have said enough, and I leave it to your Lordships to make short speeches and to enjoy a good introspective debate.
3.33 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the opening speeches of the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, have set an example which we must all follow as from today. I am bound to say that it is interesting that this debate follows the 1971 report when the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, was chairman. I had assumed that he chaired the inquiry that has led to this debate but it may be just because his name begins with an "A" that it appears first in the report. It is a very well written report. It is one with which I almost wholly agree.
It is interesting to make comparisons with the 1971 report. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, took part in the debate at that time. The chief difference is that only a dozen Peers spoke in that debate whereas today there are 27 speakers. I think your Lordships have done extraordinarily well to have kept our procedure most of the time in an orderly fashion.
The main point brought out and to which I have referred previously is the importance of the role of the Leader and of the Leader of the Opposition. I remember, when I was Leader of the House, that I could always rely on support. I recall Lord Swinton, when he saw me in trouble, getting up and saying, "We must listen to the noble Lord the Leader of the House and desist." I do not think he knew what the trouble was. The fact is that there is general support for order in the House, and that is absolutely crucial.
I say again that the Government place a very heavy burden both on their Lords in Waiting and junior Ministers who sometimes have to cope with a fractious situation without the authority of the Leader or the Chief Whip whose presence can smooth the proceedings.
994
This House runs largely on good manners rather than rules. It is important we should remember that. When I was first in the House I did not know Lord Salisbury. I was a member of the Labour Party and I thought he was probably a right-wing reactionary. But he was a man of such good manners and charm that he was an example to us all. I hope we will bear this in mind.
One of the differences between ourselves and the Commons is that we normally give way when a noble Lord wants to interrupt. Obviously if one is in the middle of a sentence one will not give way. Nor will one do so if the noble Lord has tried six times already to intervene. But the general custom is that we do give way in this House. That is an example of the importance of our good manners.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, listed a number of points and mentioned Question Time. Once again restraint is called for. I agree that we do not want significantly to alter our rules in that respect.
I turn now to the passage on Public Bill Committees. I was one of those who served on the Public Bill Committee on the Pilotage Bill. I thought, on balance, that it was a success. So, I believe, did other noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne. I would be sorry if we abandoned the attempt, although there is a good deal to be said for choosing a less controversial Bill. The Government failed to realise just how controversial it was going to be. If they had asked, they would have found out. There is a need to provide more time for a noble Lord to slip out of the Committee Room and to return for a vote. Therefore, I favour meeting in the morning. It imposes a real strain if we meet in the afternoon when other business is going on. It is a worthwhile activity and I hope that the Government will continue the experiment with a suitable Bill this Session.
I turn to the question of ad hoc committees on which there has been some discussion. I speak now as Chairman of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology in succession to the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield. We take up a great deal of the time of the clerks; so do the European Committees. It would be useful to pick ad hoc subjects. We had a very good one a few years ago on trade and employment. I hope that some procedure can be devised with perhaps some of the chairmen of committees selecting a suitable subject rather than it being adopted as the result of a random move by one individual. I remember that the first of these committees was the child of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and very successful it was. The Leaders no doubt will consult on this, and I ask them to consider some procedure. I repeat the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, that there should be more support for committees. I could have brought into the Chamber a cartload of paper on space, a subject on which I chair a sub-committee. We have one clerk and one adviser, who lives in Manchester. For half the time the clerk does not have a secretary. That is intolerable when we have to produce reports such as that on civil science under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, which the Government admit have influenced their decisions. We do not need a great deal of help. But something more, even if not up to the level of the Commons—at least an additional

995
researcher who could do some of the reading and identify matters which have to be looked at—might be considered.
There is an enormous quantity of paper and nowhere to store it. Many Peers do not have an office; some have no desk. This presents a great problem. I believe that the Library could do more in this connection, but the Library itself is short of resources. I understand that a proposal it made for a third research member has been consistently turned down. If you compare what happens in the American Senate, where every senator has 30 assistants, where there is a library of Congress and an office of technology assessment, we really do treat ourselves very badly.
I mention one other example of modern organisation. It would be awfully nice and would speed up proceedings if the lifts could go a little faster. I timed a lift in another building this morning. It went up to the eleventh floor in 30 seconds. Here, it takes over two minutes or longer to go from the ground floor to the second floor, allowing time for the lift to arrive. That is material to the working of the House.
I hope there will be some consideration of extra support for committees. I need not go into the conclusions of the group about amendments on Third Reading. Indeed, the noble Lords have described procedure on the length of speeches. I remember on a previous occasion the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, I believe, suggesting that we have ejector seats in the House of Lords, for those who speak for too long. I do not think we need go that far. I would however urge all noble Lords to read the report which is as good an introduction to the procedures and customs of this House as any I have seen. By and large, I am a conservative with regard to our procedures and I think the group have reached the right conclusion.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, this is an excellent report. I rise to give it the fullest support and to extend my compliments to those who contributed to it. One had only to read the list of names of those taking part to see that it would be an excellent report. I am glad to see that the group has resisted the temptation which all committees of this kind fall into when asked to look into procedures, of suggesting a great variety of changes. It has considered everything most carefully. The report gives a great deal of background information and reaches the conclusion that there should be no change in our fundamental procedures. We welcome that completely—a feeling, shared, I hope, by every one of your Lordships. It follows that if we accept that view, as I am sure we do, there arises no question of selection of amendments, which would be wholly inconsistent with such an attitude.
The group was asked to look at improvements in the conduct of business. That does not necessarily mean at all costs finding time-saving ideas—certainly not at the cost of the quality or our work or the usefulness of our function. I am therefore delighted that the group has recommended that the Report
996
stage should not be further limited, as the noble Lord has just reminded us.
I daresay that those of your Lordships who, like myself, have had the experience of being responsible for the management of a number of Bills and dealing with opposition and proposed amendments to them will reach the conclusion I have formed—that the Committee stage is somewhat of a trawl. It is not an attempt to have precisely worded amendments accepted by the Government. It is an attempt to find out what is in the Government's mind and to discover those areas where Ministers might be willing to be a little flexible. It follows that you need full facility and full freedom at the Report stage to take advantage of everything that the Government and, indeed, all Members have said during the Committee stage so as to be able at that point to put down a precisely worded amendment and, if necessary, to press the Government on it.
There is one area where I am wholly in disagreement with the recommendations; that is, on paragraph 78, which recommends that Statements should be offered to opposition parties with the presumption that they will not be delivered orally but will be printed in Hansard. I oppose that on two simple grounds. First, it is a severe diminution of the rights of an opposition party in your Lordships' House and, secondly, it is clearly a limitation and a diminution of the rights of your Lordships' House. In this House, we work in a complementary fashion to the other place, but we nevertheless have the responsibility of looking at all Bills. We do not say that Bills we do not like or do not want to discuss in great depth will simply appear under their names in Hansard, or anything like that. We discuss everything on the basis that legislation has to go through both Houses—all legislation, with one obvious and minor exception.
I feel exactly the same with regard to Statements. There are Statements of a kind wholly within the realm of the other place and of practically no interest to this place relating to matters where we have, by consent, no major responsibility. Of course, such Statements do not need to be repeated. It is for the Opposition parties to be consulted but not on the basis that there is an understanding that only in the rarest cases will they ask for a Statement or a PNQ to be repeated.
Instead of the presumption that Statements are not to be delivered orally, I prefer no presumption at all—no presumption that they will be taken and no presumption that they will be refused. Each case should be decided by the usual channels on the merits of the issue that is being considered.
There are, however, three time-savers—one minor and two major—which I am pleased to see and which I support. The minor one concerns maiden speeches. I wholly share the view that it is not necessary, in terms of courtesy and welcome to the maiden speaker, to have more than one following speaker congratulating him or her. It is for that reason, not out of discourtesy nor because I have not looked at the list of speakers that I make no comment whatever on any speakers who are to follow. I take the view that the recommendation is a good one. By the time a maiden speaker has been congratulated for the fifth,

997
sixth and seventh time, all attempts at sincerity are lost and the practice means nothing except a slight waste of time in your Lordships' House. Therefore, I hope that the recommendation will be followed.
I put one recommendation for saving time to the Leader of the House. We are in trouble every summer and that is followed every autumn by the Leader of the House saying: "I will arrange business so that this never happens again." He means it with the greatest sincerity but he is always wrong because we are always in trouble. This does not refer only to the present Leader of your Lordships' House: it has always been the case since I joined this House in 1970.
What suggestion can I make to overcome this difficulty? It is very simple. The Government in arranging their legislative programme should provide for a contingency allowance. The Government know what programme they can reasonably accommodate and appear to go for that, but it is always the case that the Government have to respond to some activity which requires new legislation which they did not anticipate at the start of the business year. That takes up additional time. The only way in which to deal with it is to provide an allowance—what I might call a contingency allowance—because that provides for what one cannot foresee.
Yesterday we were discussing the Autumn Statement and budgeted expenditure. In the statement this time there was the largest ever contingency allowance. That used not to be the case. I remember the difficulty I personally had as Chief Secretary in getting my colleagues to accept the necessity for a contingency allowance. It is now part of the normal procedure and under this Government it has increased and increased until we have a record figure now. I hope that the Government and the Leader of the House, who perhaps has a major responsibility in this matter, will give some thought to that suggestion.
As regards the Public Bill Committee, the figures show that no greater time was spent on the Committee stage than would have been spent had the Committee stage taken place in the Chamber. The Report stage was no longer than it would otherwise have been. The evidence of the report is that time was saved in the Chamber; perhaps two days. If you think that the Report stage went on a fraction longer than it might otherwise have done and the time saved was perhaps only one-and-a-half days, it was still a useful saving. The report concludes that this procedure should be used only when there is great pressure on the time of the Chamber.
That is an excellent conclusion. I can therefore see no reason why those who are more friendly disposed to this kind of procedure or less friendly disposed to it need not unite on that proposition. There is obviously no need to take business away from the Floor of the House when there is time available in the Chamber and it should be used only to relieve pressure on the time of the Chamber. I conclude as I started by thanking the Committee for a most excellent report.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive such an early intrusion into its counsels but mindful of the need to be non-controversial, and with my experience in another place in business management and the usual channels, the temptation presented by a debate on this report was irresistible. I was delighted when the noble Lords, Lord Denham and Lord Ponsonby, agreed to act as sponsors for my introduction into this place because I had what my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick assures me is a noble prial of Chief Whips. If anybody does not play brag then I apologise to their Lordships.
As I am speaking of Chief Whips perhaps I may say that I regret the untimely death of my great friend and former parliamentary colleague John Silkin, because in all probability he would have been a fount of great wisdom for this House.
I would not presume to comment in detail on the report except to say that I very much appreciated the depth of the study and the statistical detail which was contained in it. However, having been a Chief Whip in another place for some 10 years, I felt that I had some justification for speaking on the aspect of the usual channels. I believe it was the right honourable Enoch Powell who said that the whipping system is as necessary to Parliament as a sewerage system is to a modern city.
On entering another place in 1970 I was invited by my noble friend Lord Mellish to become a Junior Whip in opposition. The noble Lord taught me a most important lesson: the Government have to get their business. Whether the Government get their business easily or with great difficulty depends on a number of variables to which I need not refer here, but in the end, as long as they command a majority on the Floor of the House, they must get their business. I must confess that during the passage of the industrial relations legislation in the early 1970s I veered towards being an abolitionist of the House of Lords. In the other place I worked for two-thirds of my time in the usual channels. I saw how the system works and realised the importance of the House of Lords, how it is an infinitely subtle counterpart to the other place, both complementary and supplementary. I have now come to the same conclusion as a former Bristol colleague of mine, formerly the Member for Bristol, South-East and now the right honourable Member for Chesterfield. In a Fabian pamphlet written during the mid 1950s he came to the conclusion that a Labour Government actually need the House of Lords more than a Conservative Government.
The revising function of this Chamber is manifestly obvious and indeed helped me in the other place in Government during some difficult Report stages to resolve impasses by promising action at this end of the building and also to balance the load of legislation. I know that it may inconvenience noble Lords during the late spring and summer months but it is a very effective counter balance and enables the entire Government programme to be processed.
In addition to the report that is under discussion I read the report produced in 1971. In one respect I do not think that report was quite as diplomatic as the

999
present one. I was surprised to find in Chapter V paragraph 29(b) the recommendation that:
"good speakers should be more evenly spaced throughout the Debate and a conscious effort should be made to strengthen the weak part of long Debates".
I must confess that either that was wrong or things have improved greatly since my recent arrival because I have yet to hear in this Chamber anything other than what could be described as a good speech. The other point which I did not quite understand about this report and which I mention just in passing arises in paragraph 27. It refers to people being selected to speak:
"to whom the Whips have obligations".
I must say that when I used to run things we used to try to get it the other way round.
Self-regulation is very much open to abuse. In the 1971 report there is a reference to abuse. It refers to abuse even by a tiny minority and mentions two Peers who had taken 25 places for Starred Questions. Those places ultimately had to be shared out when some were withdrawn. That is an abuse of the system. Abuse is also mentioned in the current document under discussion by your Lordships. Paragraph 45 states:
"Some members ask many more Questions than others, and a few usually have their full ration of three on the Order Paper".
It continues,
"eight Lords asked over 30 per cent. of the total, and one Lord asked 37 Questions".
Self-regulation depends on self-restraint and I would not presume to advise your Lordships on how to deal with it. Elaborate procedural structures do not protect. I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, will recall the beginning of the Committee stage of the European Accession Bill when points of order ran on for something like 14 hours. When Members in the other place were a trifle recalcitrant—a slightly strong word perhaps, but it will do—I would say if some of them were abusing the system, "Don't you understand that if everybody behaved as you are doing the whole thing would collapse?"
That was for individuals, but there were one or two organised cases of abuse when during what has become known as the winter of discontent the Opposition organised—in fact admitted in the end concerting—several applications every day for emergency debates under Standing Order No. 9. I am glad to say that this was dealt with by the help of my noble friend Lord Molloy, who one day applied for an emergency debate on the abuse of the emergency debate procedure! With his assistance the Opposition chucked it.
I must not weary the House. I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to serve my country and my party in Parliament. I hope to continue to do so. The whole system works on self-restraint and I could do no better than to summarise the way in which the committee concludes its report, that the rights of us all depend on everybody respecting other people's rights.
I thank noble Lords for their considerate hearing.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for all of your Lordships when I say how much I have enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe. He fascinated us with his account of certain aspects of his distinguished past career. Indeed, for one moment I thought that we were going to be favoured with some interesting revelations. The whole speech was delivered in a delightful way. I am sure that I speak again for all of your Lordships in saying that a noble Lord who has managed the Labour Party in another place for a great many years has nothing to fear from any problems in your Lordships' House. We look forward very much to hearing him speak to us frequently.
The report of what one might call the eminent persons' group takes the line that our procedure, subject to certain detailed changes, is pretty good and that the principle of self-regulation is pretty good but that its weakness is in respect of enforcement. I want to say a word about that.
If noble Lords are to maintain our rules and enforce them, as manifestly they are sometimes not enforced, particularly at Question Time, it is necessary that there should be on the Government Front Bench a member of the Government concerned to act on behalf of the Leader of the House. We all appreciate that the advantage in having the Deputy Prime Minister as Leader of the House carries with it the disadvantage that obviously his attendance must be limited by his other duties. I suggest that his deputy—and I suggest that he should have deputies—should be present throughout at any rate most debates in order to help to secure that the House enforces its own rules.
It is very difficult for the Minister in charge of a Bill or debate, who in the nature of things is trying to carry things on and achieve good will, also to assume the role of adviser on discipline. There is a separate function on behalf of the Leader of the House which it seems to me should be performed by some fairly senior Minister regularly on the Bench throughout our debates. With respect, I commend that suggestion to my noble friend the Leader of the House.
I find myself in complete agreement—an unusual experience for me—with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in his comments on the business of Statements. It seems to me that Statements should be made to Parliament, not just to another place. If the House is to remain relevant to the problems of the day, it is entitled to demand, and should secure, the making of all major Statements by the Government to it. I know, because I have suffered from it, how tiresome it is when a debate in which one is interested, and when one is sitting there clutching one's speech, is interrupted by one Statement or two Statements. It is exasperating.
I wonder whether the eminent persons have considered the weakening in status and position of the House if, as the committee recommends, only very major and occasional Statements are repeated here. This would surely to some extent downgrade the position of the House. It would certainly, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said, cause the

1001
Opposition some unnecessary disadvantage—I am not against that on principle—and is perhaps a point worth mentioning. We should also be giving the Government a certain disadvantage, because it is quite useful for them to hear in this House the reaction of noble Lords on both sides, particularly as your Lordships' House is packed increasingly with ex-Ministers who have some experience generally of the matters covered by Statements. I hope very much that we shall continue the present policy on Statements.
The alternative offered by the group is to have a report of the Statement in Hansard. I do not value that very highly. We do not receive Hansard until the next day. In any event, one can get such a report much better from Hansard of another place, which will include the interruptions and comments that were made when the Statement was given. I sincerely hope that your Lordships will hesitate very much before agreeing to the proposal to cut down on Statements. I quite agree that some Statements of a purely technical or minor nature can probably be dealt with in that way, as they have been in the past. However, as to the substantial change suggested by the committee, I for one am very much against it. as I hope your Lordships will be.
I have one comment on the reference in the report to time limited debates. I am not an enthusiast for these, for two reasons. One is that the more important and interesting the subject the greater the number of speakers who put down their names and the shorter the time per speech. Per contra, if one selects a thoroughly dull subject that interests no one, one has a large ration of time. That seems to be a reversal of what one should aim at doing.
It also has one great disadvantage. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred, quite rightly, to the proper policy in the House of giving way when one is challenged by another noble Lord. If, as happened the other day in a time limited short debate, one has only six minutes, one cannot possibly afford to give way to a noble Lord opposite because half one's time will be swallowed up in such an interruption. If one cannot give way, it is on the whole difficult to refer to previous speeches. It would be unfair to criticise the speech of another noble Lord and then fail to give way to him. There is therefore the risk of turning a so-called debate into something that ceases to be a debate but becomes an essay reading society in which each noble Lord produces a speech with complete disregard for what has been said before, to be followed by noble Lords doing precisely the same to the speeches of the preceding speakers.
The only other two points I wish to make are these. The first is on Starred Questions. The point is made—and it is a good one—that no noble Lord should have more than two Questions on the Order Paper at any one time. I support that. However, I wish that your Lordships would consider being much firmer on the rule against the reading of supplementary questions. If a noble Lord has written out his supplementary question—and we have all seen it happen—before he has even heard the Answer from the Minister it is an abuse of the practice of the House. I very much hope that whoever is in charge of
1002
the House when such an abuse occurs in future will be quite firm in dealing with it.
My remaining point concerns time. I am heretical about the dinner hour. In the House of Commons, many years before the time of any of us, there used to be what was called the "Speaker's chop". That was abolished. The other place sits through the dinner hour, although I have sometimes observed that those who organise its debates arrange for those Members of another place who are, shall we say, less exciting speakers to be called during that period. But it seems absurd, as has happened in the last few weeks, that we should rise a little after seven for an hour and then come back in order to continue for another hour-and-a-half making all noble Lords who are conscientiously attending go home much later than they need. I take the point about the strain on Ministers and Opposition Front Bench spokesmen but they all have supporters and seconders and they can—as they do in another place for many hours—perfectly well sustain the burden of debate for a fairly limited time. It seems a pity that we should all adjourn so much later simply because we keep this old-fashioned dinner hour.
The other point was rather driven home to me by our proceedings today. When we have introductions—and today we had two—surely it is possible, as has happened, for us to sit not at 2.30 but at two o'clock so that the main proceedings of the day do not start later than necessary. If I were not subject to the same feelings as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, on keeping one's speech short, I would deploy a number of arguments. However, I hope that I have deployed enough to suggest that there is much to discuss which I hope the Procedure Committee will discuss and to which your Lordships' House will give most careful attention. There are few things so important to the efficient working of this House—a matter about which some of us care a great deal—than getting its procedure right. It is worth taking quite a lot of trouble to do so.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, this is the second time that I have had the honour to represent the Cross-Benches on the group dealing with the working of the House. The last debate was 16 years ago. As a group we felt that 16 years was rather a long time. We have therefore suggested that this should be looked at regularly, annually, not with the thought that one will get changes every year, but that perhaps every five years the Leader might say, "Now is a suitable time." We should not let quite such a long time pass as before.
I thought that it would be useful to check what happened in the debate on the report in 1971. Perhaps I may digress for a moment. I could not find the 1971 report at my home. Therefore at 6 o'clock last night I rang up the Printed Paper Office and asked, "Could you find this for me? I do not know the date but it was some time around July and if it were possible to get it for this morning that would be a great advantage to me." Believe it or not, my Lords, not only did the Printed Paper Office find the document but it was on my table with the post this morning. I therefore pay tribute to the Printed Paper Office and to the Post Office. It really is remarkable.

1003
On the whole our report is the responsibility of your Lordships. Your Lordships' answers to the questionnaire were, as last time, very full and very valuable. Noble Lords will find that we have mainly followed and adopted what they wanted.
I shall touch on only three issues. The first concerns who keeps order. As you all know there is no such thing in this House as a point of order. Your Lordships can say "Order, order" but noble Lords cannot appeal on rules as a point of order. It is very important to remember this because sometimes, in particular for those who have been in another place, the temptation is to think that they can exploit in just that way. I know that I, and I am sure all members of the group, rejoiced in having the idea of the equivalent of a Speaker almost unanimously turned down. But there is a corollary to that. We must know the rules. On the last occasion we suggested a brief guide. This time we thought that the brief guide should be revised with more emphasis on drawing attention to the rules and how noble Lords can help in keeping under control those who are transgressing customs. However, I should also say: do not let us overdo it, my Lords. There is a temptation with one or two speakers for us to intervene too easily. We must therefore be careful to keep the right balance.
My second point was on the abuse of Question Time. That takes two forms: there are too many supplementaries, or questions wide of the mark. I do not think that we put it clearly in our report but I know we felt that very often it is for the Ministers themselves to keep control. If somebody asks three or four supplementary questions all that Ministers have to do is answer only two. If a question is wide of the mark they merely say, "That is wide of the mark." I have noticed recently that that has become a more usual practice. I feel quite clear and confident that the whole House would support Ministers if they gave such answers to those questions which are outside the rules.
The third issue concerns how to avoid long speeches. Sixteen years ago we suggested the clock. The clock has been of some help but not altogether effective. I do not think we shall ever find the total solution but we have suggested, as noble Lords will know, the idea that after 15 minutes there should be a red light. We did not think that to have a bell ringing would be appropriate. We had a good deal of discussion on whether we should use a red light after 10 or 12 minutes but we came to the conclusion that 15 minutes was the right answer. I hope that noble Lords will support us in this matter and that we are now going into what I would call not the red light district but the red light era!
I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on the question of Statements. This is a very difficult and delicate matter. I can remember that 20 or 30 years ago there were very few Statements in this House and we were rather unhappy about that. Then the clock swung the other way. There are almost too many Statements in this House. We felt that that was really the case, so we represented that they should become much more rare. But perhaps we went too far; I do not know. Undoubtedly the House and the Procedure Committee will consider what has been
1004
said by both the noble Lords, Lord Diamond and Lord Boyd-Carpenter. There are many Statements that are not necessary for us to repeat, but there is the odd one more often than we think which should be allowed. That must be a matter of good sense and judgment.
As I believe I am the only other speaker from the group today, I should like to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said and confirm our great thanks to Mr. Wheeler-Booth and his assistants. Without their work and their study on all the statistics which they produced for us the report would not have been nearly as valuable as I hope it is and it would certainly have made duller reading.
Lastly I recall that the report, this time and the previous time, has been unanimous. There was no dissension on any point. That is perhaps a tribute to our wisdom, but it is certainly due to the good sense and humour of those with whom I worked and whom I count among my friends, perhaps before but certainly now.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking the group for the report, which is quite excellent. Its substance is to recommend the existing constitution and, with a few marginal amendments, to reject the idea of a Speaker. I am sure that that is right.
A parliamentary debating chamber like ours, in which each noble Lord has an equal responsibility for keeping order, is not only unusual but is probably unique in the whole world. It must surely be the ultimate refinement of democratic working and therefore in my judgment it is an institution to be preserved at all costs. It is to me gratifying—and I think perhaps it may be a matter of universal gratification—that today this debate takes place against a background of all-party approval of the House of Lords as our second Chamber of Government: certainly once lost it could never be re-created by rational legislation. It is the product of our history and our temperament. Each noble Lord is an integral part of the House and of equal value and authority within it, and each has equal responsibility, as the Writ says, "to be personally present to treat and give his counsel to the Crown."
Hereditary Peers, whose forebears have worked and embellished these traditions, stand equally with life Peers. We all have equal rights to be heard and equal responsibilities to keep order for ourselves and for the House. This is the message which this report delivers and by its recommendations seeks to strengthen and to clarify.
In most parliamentary chambers order is maintained by a Speaker clothed with authority. In such chambers—and the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, will well know this—there is sometimes an advantage to be gained by stretching the rules of order to make a political point. Without disrespect to right honourable and honourable members in another place, I would say that such tactics are not unknown there. It is therefore understandable, especially for those of us who have come up from another place, to be tempted to take advantage of this freedom to advance our cause, even at the expense of breaching

1005
our rules of order. It takes time to understand that such action is not only a breach of the rules of order but also likely to be counter-productive because it will offend rather than influence the House.
Our system of order comes under strain particularly, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, at Question Time, either through unawareness by the noble Lord concerned or through over-enthusiasm which takes him out of order. Then he fails to respond to the murmurs of, "Order, order", from other noble Lords. As the offence continues, there is a tendency for a shouting match to develop, which is not conducive to the dignity of the House. If my noble friend the Leader is present he intervenes and the offender accepts his guidance, but it is not in the best interests of the House for the Leader always to be long stop for breaches of order. He is not in charge of the House, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said. We are all equally responsible and it is most unfortunate if the Leader gets into a magisterial role.
Each Peer has an equal responsibility for keeping order, so there is a role for individual Peers to call attention to the offender. I was glad to see that this point is commended in the report in paragraph 16(b), with the further refinement, which I think is very important—and I say this particularly to the Front Bench opposite—that some interventions can best be made by a Peer on the same side as the offender. This avoids any indication of partisanship in the intervention. I hope this may be accepted as part of our conventions.
In this connection I should like to pay a special tribute to the Clerk of the Parliaments and his colleagues for accepting the duties since 1983 of advising Peers on the drafting of parliamentary Questions and Motions on the Order Paper. Acceptance of this advice has not always been easy. That our Order Paper is now free from parliamentary solecisms is a tribute to the wisdom and diplomacy of the Clerks.
The report makes further helpful recommendations with regard to the limit of Question Time, the length of speeches on debate and clocks turning red at 15 minutes to indicate stop—there is no suggestion of a system of endorsement, with perhaps suspension after three times, but perhaps that will come later!
I welcome the announcement of my noble friend the Leader to send the report, with the debate and his comments, to the Procedure Committee for detailed consideration with a view to amendment of the Companion. In particular I commend the Brief Guide, to which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, referred, in Annex C of the report. Not all Peers are familiar with the 230 pages of the Companion but all might feel inclined to read this succinct summary for the benefit of themselves and the House. All Peers should be given a copy of it.
I conclude with the thought about the role of the House in the government of our country. This House has changed significantly in the 21 years since I arrived here. No doubt it will continue to change. In my judgment the three major factors for change have
1006
been undoubtedly, first, the television screen. This has shown the working of the House to the nation. Our people like what they have seen; they trust and respect it. It would now be politically impossible, in my judgment, either to ignore or to abolish the House of Lords.
Secondly, life Peers increase in number; in the working House, as it is defined in the report, they now exceed hereditary Peers by 217 to 163. This no doubt loses us something, but it strengthens the professional element in the House, which is another important factor. The third factor is the increased number of Cross-Bench and independent Peers. They now amount to 143, which is enough to win any vote, as my noble friend the Leader knows too well.
The tradition that the House of Lords avoids conflict with the Commons continues to be observed with meticulous care, but amendments of government Bills are permitted within this convention. At the end of the day this can and does have an important influence on Government legislation. In the past eight years of Conservative government this Government have been defeated 107 times. A number of those defeats have been reversed but a number of others have been accepted. This demonstrates that there is no automatic Conservative majority and that the collective voice of the Cross-Bench Peers can be decisive on one side or the other on any important issue.
It is evident that the influence of the House of Lords has grown in the overall government of our country, primarily as a moderating influence on government policy and as a stabilising factor for our country. This increased influence will continue in future governments of both parties. I believe it is seen as a benefit to our country. The strength and quality of this influence is as much a product of the form of debate in this House as it is of our political convictions and intellect. This underlines the wisdom of reviewing the working of this House and the value of the report that we have received.
4.31 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, in paying tribute to the Clerk of the Parliaments and all his staff and at the same time to all those who serve us here possibly under the auspices of Black Rod or in the Library. There was an aspect of the noble Lord's speech towards the end which I will not go into now. It raises difficult questions as to how far there is or is not a built-in majority here, but I shall not pursue that this afternoon.
The late Lord Salisbury—who, along with the late Lord Addison, did more than anyone to mould the House as we know it—once said in my hearing (he may have said it more than once) that this is a House of Parliament and not a club. But of course he did more than anyone to make sure that it was a club, possibly the best club in the world but certainly the most unsnobbish club in the world. I remember when I first came here that Lord Addison could collect barely a dozen Labour Peers. The way they were treated by Lord Salisbury made sure that this place would be at once a House of Parliament and a club in the best sense in both cases.

1007
I do not know how noble Lords feel when they get elected or appointed to a club. They may, with the late Groucho Marx, say, "It can't be much of a club if they elect me", but that is a rather rare point of view. I suppose when most of us join a club of any kind we allow other people to manage it. We assume that it will be well run, and this has proved so in this noble place. Some people want to manage it themselves, and we applaud their efforts too, but for my part I belong to the category of people who are ready to accept things unless something is obviously wrong. When the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, invited suggestions I am afraid that I did not make any. I do not feel that he lost anything from my abstention. I think on the whole he has produced a satisfactory account of a satisfactory working arrangement.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was here for many years before I arrived, but I have been here 42 years and one has seen these great changes, some of them touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. Certainly the increase in Labour Peers has made a tremendous difference. When we were just a little handful we could be swept aside or ignored. The only reason we were not treated in that way was partly the wisdom of Lord Salisbury and also the calculation that the country would take a poor view of the House of Lords if we were.
At any rate that has been a big change, and there has been the increase in life Peers and independents. Whether the fact that people have been made life Peers has made much difference is arguable. I suppose people would say that many would not have accepted peerages if the peerages were going to be handed on to their children. That seems very doubtful. In the years after the war people were perfectly ready in my experience to accept peerages when they were going to be handed on.
I doubt whether many people would have refrained. We know that Sir Winston Churchill refrained, but he was a law unto himself. I understand that Robert Maxwell declined a peerage, but it is not clear in what circumstances he was offered one. My admired friend Sir Isaiah Berlin, I believe, has turned down a peerage, and so it is said did Mr. Jack Jones. Those are the only cases known to me, but I am not saying this is the main point concerning life peerages.
The most obvious result and benefit, I suppose, is that we should have far more Peers now, and we would soon be accumulating large numbers of Peers if it were not for the life peerage system, as it is today, the title dying with the Peer. That is the main factor with life peerages.
Then we have had the women. That was resisted for many years here. For 40 years after the House of Commons people were still fighting it. I remember one noble Lord fighting it to the death. The argument was that they would interrupt our slumbers or studies in the Library and would want to share the lavatory. There were all sorts of problems.
One of the most distinguished Peeresses to date told me that when she came into the House what struck her was that so many chairs in the Library were facing the wall. One wonders what is the point of that arrangement but it obviously was to allow
1008
people to sleep in peace. At any rate, that was one argument for keeping the House as it was.
One Peer in the House will not believe what I am about to say but I hope he will take my word for it. One of the leaders of that opposition was asked, when there were only four of them, what he made of these women Peers, who undoubtedly were doing so well. He just groaned, and said, "When I see that long neck bending over I wish I had my chopper and I would go chop, chop, chop". That is a true story. The antagonism to women is inconceivable looking back, and now we have 64 women, a much more powerful force in this House than women in the House of Commons. It is all to the good.
The House will be surprised to hear what I am saying now and may not take it very seriously, but even Roman Catholic Peers have improved their status. In doing some researches I looked up Vacher's for 1945. The House may or may not believe this but the Roman Catholic Peers were put in italics. In 1945 the Roman Catholic Peers were second-class citizens. I take it as second-class and not as a sort of superlative type of Peer. That has been altered since and they have gradually established themselves.
There have been these big changes, but nevertheless the question arises—and I believe that at least one distinguished Peer will argue against the report today, but almost everyone agrees—whether we want to be a self-governing body in a way which is unique in the world. I imagine that it would never have occurred to anybody to have invented this system unless we happened to have evolved it. It is an odd system. When I listened to the noble Viscount I had great sympathy for him. I have great admiration always but sympathy when he is getting a little restive and the House is getting a little restive at Question Time. I also, as they say in Latin, believe I have lived in Arcadia. It is much worse now for him. I will not say that the Members are more recalcitrant now, but there are far more people who want to go on talking.
The noble Viscount will be relieved to hear that this is no new problem. When the Earl of Chatham came here he did not get on too well in his second speech. He was supposed to have flouted the House. He and the Duke of Richmond were compelled to come to the House and promise that they would not carry the matter any further; in other words, that they would not fight a duel. If anyone thinks that unlikely in the 18th century, well, it was not as unlikely as all that. The Duke of Wellington fought one 60 years later with a Peer, but not as a result of something said in the House. That was how things were sorted out by the House.
Many years later I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, coping with Lord Stansgate. There came a moment when Lord Hailsham said, "If the noble Lord persists, I must point out that I have my remedy". Lord Stansgate said, "Well, if the noble and learned Lord has his remedy, he had better use it". Then the Motion was moved that the House no longer hear Lord Stansgate. I am bound to say he was very happy with the whole thing and bounced up again asking more questions soon afterwards.
At any rate there have been these problems over the years and the noble Viscount is handling them with great skill. But certainly our system, which is a

1009
peculiar one, depends on great sagacity on the part of the Leader, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Whips, and we are fortunate in those who are running our affairs today.
I applaud the conclusion. I think that the House should reflect on it from time to time. We should remember that it is unique and that it requires exceptional wisdom on the part of those who are running the House and great good will on the part of Members. We are Members of the House and the club. I suppose that when one joins a club one does not expect that all the members will love each other. However, they respect each other and in this House that mutual respect is the secret of our success.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I should like to take up the recollection of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, as regards the then noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, moving that Lord Stansgate be no longer heard. I remember that occasion well and Lord Stansgate was very downcast. He was a miserable man on this Bench below the gangway and deserted by his own Front Bench. That is not a sight that I should like to see again. I have never heard that Motion moved to good effect and I should like to regard it as the nuclear weapon which should be in reserve but never used.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord to say that I was also present on that occasion. It was my impression that Lord Stansgate was determined that the Motion should be moved against him.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, that may be so, but afterwards he was an extremely miserable and lonely old man. Of course he bounced back again but that is what one would have expected of him.
I am warmly in agreement with the whole tone and tenor of the report and with all its recommendations, with the possible exception of one. I have one or two glosses and I am afraid that will make my speech both short and dull.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, say that this House is the ultimate refinement of democratic working. I recalled at once the words of Lord Stonham, who used to describe this House as the most democratic chamber in the world. Lord Stonham came into the House not kicking and screaming but not as a great admirer. He was eventually one of its most devoted Members. "Democratic" is not a bad word to describe this House, paradoxical though it may seem, because its proceedings are governed by the Members of the House. I am sure that it was that feeling which informed both the Leader of the House and the group when the Leader asked it to undertake this task.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, has quite properly lauded Lord Addison and Lord Salisbury, who were Leaders after the war. The House owes a great debt to all Leaders of the House and of the Opposition since that date. The noble Viscount who now leads the House is a notable continuation of that succession. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, agrees that the Leader of the House, though one of us, is primus inter pares; that is to say,
1010
he is a special person in a special position and for that matter so is the Leader of the Opposition.
There was one recent occasion on which I heard the Leader of the Opposition not exactly barracked but not welcomed when he rose to his feet. On that occasion I was rather ashamed. I believe that the respect due to the Leader of the Opposition is and should be profound in this House.
It is a matter of some pride that this House can operate substantially on the same basis as it has since 1621. The group puts this as "years ago", and indeed it is. It is as well to remember that in 1621 there was the first record of Standing Orders, but they are much older than that. This was, so to speak, a collection, if not a codification, of already existing Standing Orders. I believe that they existed for two or three centuries before 1621. It is therefore with pride that we should recall that the spirit of them is still operating.
They used to be styled Remembrances for Order and Decency to be kept in the Upper House of Parliament by the Lords. Those words are retained in the Standing Orders today. Now the Standing Orders are distanced not just by the Companion but also by the Brief Guide, so they are twice removed, so to speak. I hope that those splendid words, with their resonance of the authorised version, might be incorporated into the introduction to the Brief Guide. I feel that in the two words, "order- and "decency", the Standing Orders are encapsulated. It might be instructive and pleasant for us to be reminded of those words in the Brief Guide.
I doubt whether it is necessary for the Procedure Committee to report formally to the House once a year. It might be advantageous but it may tend to pillory noble Lords who have offended the House—either explicitly or, more likely, implicitly—and I doubt whether that is desirable.
As regards Commons Statements, I agree with what is stated in the report. I listened carefully to what the noble Lords, Lord Diamond and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said. I wonder whether the decision should not be made by the Opposition but through the usual channels and the test should be urgency. After all, that is the test for Private Notice Questions and it has worked very well over the past 40 years. I recommend the Procedure Committee to consider whether the urgency test should be the operative test for Statements as well as for Private Notice Questions.
I believe that there is a slight mistake in Recommendation (s). The group referred to the times allowed to the different categories of Peer. Unfortunately in the recommendation it refers to them as, "front benches and back benches". That must be a slip, because the relevant paragraph of the report refers to, "Lords opening or winding up debates", on the one hand, and to, "other speakers", on the other hand. There is a distinction between Lords opening or winding up debates and Front Benches, and they must not become confused as they have in the past. That is the only slip of any significance that I have noticed in the report and I thought that I should draw attention to it.

1011
I reluctantly but firmly disagree with the recommendation of red lights coming on after 15 minutes on the clock. In this House we have two systems and the timing of speeches during short debates is a comparatively recent introduction. I believe that we should keep the two systems apart. We should have either timed speeches, as in two-and-a-half-hour and five-hour debates, or we should have untimed speeches. By all means let there be a clock but I do not think it is right that an important speech should be interrupted after 15 minutes when perhaps the speaker is about to come to his conclusion. Sometimes the House may want to hear a good speaker talking on an important matter about which he knows a great deal for longer than 15 minutes. I do not think that that is a good suggestion and I should not like to see it adopted.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was very fair when he pointed to the ill effects of timed speeches; that is to say, that they preclude debate. There is no question about that matter and the group did not address itself to the question that interruptions, although permissible and desirable in other respects, are more or less inadmissible in a short debate where there are a large number of speakers, and particularly when the debate is for only two-and-a-half hours.
I would say this to the noble Lord. One of the interesting statistics in this excellent document shows that in the debates which are time-limited to five hours very seldom have speakers used their full allocation of time. The debates are nearly all between four and five hours. They last perhaps four hours and fifteen or twenty minutes, but not the full five hours. So I should have thought to that extent the five hour experiment is rather a good one because it allows time for interruptions, whereas unfortunately interruptions do not seem to be possible in the general short debates of two-and-a-half hours.
Before I close, I should like to remark on one or two things which are not covered by the group's report. I wonder whether I may put in a plea for restraint in dividing the House. Divisions, after all, take time—and are they all so necessary? Certainly we used to get along quite well without them, or with many fewer than we have now.
Secondly, the rule relating to Starred Questions and nationalised industries or public corporations seems to me not very well observed now. I recall, certainly just before the summer recess, some questions on the Post Office, for instance. Really and truly there is an underlying rationale about questions not being allowed on those industries. It is that Ministers should not be answerable for day to day questions on nationalised industries and public boards.
Exactly the same thing seems to me to apply to privatised industries. They have after all, by Acts of Parliament, been hived off from the Government, and I do not think that questions on privatised industries should be asked in this House because they tend to put the Minister in the position of answering for day to day matters on those industries, and that cannot be desirable. I am the last person to want to put restricitons on the House; but this seems to me a
1012
case which the Procedure Committee might examine. It is, after all, a comparatively new phenomenon, and I hope that they will have a look at it.
Thirdly, regarding appellations, guidance is very clearly set out in the revised brief guide on page 46. They show a proper description of Members of this House. They do not apply to those who are not Members of this House. I have frequently heard reference to the "right honourable and learned Foreign Secretary". He is not learned in our terms because he is not a Member of this House. Equally, I seem to remember Mr. Leon Brittan was referred to as a "right honourable and learned Member in another place". It is simply not in accordance with our customs. Those are small points.
I should like to end by referring to what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said about ad hoc Select Committees. I should like to see it made easier than it now is for a general matter to be sent to an ad hoc Committee. The House has produced some extremely valuable reports on general matters and should perhaps be encouraged to do so. I know that Select Committees are not popular with Ministers—least of all with civil servants—but now that there are in effect no Royal Commissions, and now that the CPRS no longer exists, the House of Lords is well placed to study those intractable problems which somehow must be solved, but there is no particular body to which to send them. In the relatively unpolitical atmosphere of the House, the Select Committee might be more profitably and more frequently used on general matters for the general good of the nation.
Finally, I know that I am not allowed to compliment the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, on his maiden speech, However, he paid this place an infinitely subtle compliment when he referred to the House as an infinitely subtle complement to another place. I am sure we all agree that one House of Commons is enough, and we do not want to ape their ways or duplicate their habits at all. The marvellous thing is that this House manages to recruit Members whose whole experience of parliamentary life, up to the time when they enter these walls, has been another place; and yet they subtly change and become converted and become famous Members of this House; and long may that remain!
4.55 p.m.
Lord Tranmire: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lords who formed the working group on the clarity and common sense of their recommendations. I pick out just two points, where I think the clarity is very important. First, one dealing with the revised guide, which is mentioned in paragraph 18 of the report. As one who served under successive Speakers and Chairmen of Ways and Means, for 45 years in the Commons, I found it very puzzling when I came here to try and enjoy the freedom and flexibility of self-regulation. But the longer I stay here, the more I am certain that it is a better procedure than that of the discipline of the Speaker. It will be a great help if the Procedure Committee are allowed to pursue this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, seems to think we can do it ourselves without their help. It would be a great thing, I think, if every Member each Session gets a revised copy of the guide. No doubt the

1013
guide can be continually revised. Moreover, all new Peers on introduction could be given a copy.
The other small point I want to raise is referred to in paragraph 31. That deals with the informal grouping of amendments. This is an arcane mystery at the present time. A few people in the know, know how amendments are grouped. It is not a determining factor, but it would be better if we could get the informal grouping on the Marshalled List. I appreciate that our normal arrangements would make that impossible in many cases. However, where a Committee stage is going to last longer than one day it would be possible for the Marshalled List to contain some information about informal groupings. It would be a help—particularly if the recommendations are adopted—if the desks in the Prince's Chamber and the Peers' Lobby had on them the lists of informal groupings. At the moment this is one of the weakest points in our procedure.
My main point is that I am a little disappointed that none of the recommendations made would have any great effect on the hours of sittings of the House. In the past 30 years the sittings of the House have increased from 484 hours in the Session 1955/56 to 1,160 in the latest year available, 1985/86. The chief reason for this is as follows. If you look at the work of this noble House, my Lords, you will find that the time spent on public Bill legislation has increased rapidly over the past 20 or 30 years. If it is likely to continue more self-regulatory rules will have to be made in order to avoid a total breakdown in our administrative system.
I was faced with that problem in the Commons during the 1970/71 Session of Parliament when I was chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure. That committee took a great deal of evidence and came to the conclusion, as indicated in its report, that the only way out of the difficulty was not to send all Bills to Standing Committees but to send non-controversial Bills to a Select Committee for examination, and in cases where a Bill was only slightly controversial or for the most part non-controversial, powers should be taken to divide the Bill and to send part of it to a Committee of the Whole House or a Standing Committee and part of it to a Select Committee.
In this House there is a Public Bill Committee which undertakes many of the procedures which my committee unanimously recommended should be adopted in the lower Chamber. Unfortunately the report containing those recommendations has never been implemented by the Commons. There was a good debate on it, which my noble friend the Leader of the House will remember. The case that something should be done was strongly supported by all Members of the Procedure Committee but nothing was done.
We in this House ought to be considering how we could introduce Select Committees to deal with all non-controversial Bills. On reading the report, I felt that too much reliance was placed on the test of the Pilotage Bill, because the argument is rather destroyed at paragraph 26, in which one reads that:
"the bill chosen was by no means uncontroversial".
1014
That was the whole object; namely, to extract the non-controversial Bills and have them discussed in, say, the Moses Room or somewhere convenient, so that the time of the House could then be used for other matters such as debates, which constitute one of our strongest functions, or for dealing with other legislation.
I have made the point. I hope that the test will be renewed on a Bill that is completely non-controversial. I hope also that the House will ensure that it has the power to send part of a Bill to a Public Bill Committee and part of it to a Committee of the Whole House. I am quite certain that we do not want to have Bills sent to Standing Committees of this House. As I saw it, Standing Committees were the weakest part of the procedure in the lower House. I do not want to see them here. I hope that we shall continue to have self-regulation and the rules. I think that it is far better that way and that we can rely on the Procedure Committee to endorse those recommendations.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I think that it would be a pity if this debate came and went without reference being made to some famous words of the late Lord Esher, although I think that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, paraphrased them. The late Lord Esher said that we should hesitate long before tinkering with an institution which we would never have had the intelligence to create for ourselves.
I have only a few points to make. To begin at the beginning, I wonder whether it is necessary for Hansard to print four times every day for ever the familiar words, "Lord So-and-So: I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper". I know that Hansard is meant to be more or less verbatim but many of the formal utterances are not printed. I very much doubt whether Hansard's report of the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill will contain over one hundred times the familiar words, spoken by the Deputy Chairman of Committees, Lord So-and-So: "Is it the Committee's wish that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is withdrawn". Would it not be enough for Hansard simply to print the words, "Lord So-and-So asked the following Question…"?
As to Starred Questions, the other day there was one which went something like this: "Having regard to the decision in Regina v. Smith, will departmental circular No. 167 be withdrawn?" It may be that most of those noble Lords who were present had read that case in the Law Reports held in the Library, and others may have had in their hand a copy of the offending circular from the Printed Paper Office, but I rather doubt it. I think that noble Lords would be grateful for some inkling in advance of what a Starred Question was all about.
As regards Statements, I should like to join the noble Lords, Lord Diamond and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, as well as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in expressing unease about the proposals concerning ministerial Statements. For instance, when there is a Statement which it cannot be said is urgent or important in the general scheme of things but which may he of great public interest—say, a Statement

1015
about whether we should have horseracing on Sundays—the media can inform the people about the opinions expressed on all sides of the House of Commons. However, the people will say, "We are accustomed to watching the House of Lords on television and we should like to know what the House of Lords thinks about it. Why don't we hear any opinions expressed about this matter? Is the House of Lords being muzzled? Are their Lordships indulging in some tremendous exercise of self-denial? What is happening?"
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, used the word "downgrade" and asked whether we were in danger of downgrading ourselves. As the late Lord Byers used to put it: So long as the House of Lords continues to exist, nothing must ever be done to give the impression that this House is in any sense a second-class Chamber.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I should like to remind the noble Lord that Statements repeated in this House cannot be seen on television. That is part of our agreement on televising the House. His argument therefore does not apply.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, of course the noble Lord is absolutely right, as he is nearly every time, but the British people will not understand his point. They will not understand the refinements pertaining to a question having originated in one House rather than the other. The public will be mystified and surprised that on their television screens they do not see and hear what the House of Lords has to say about the matter which interests them deeply. I hope that that provides an answer.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I am sorry but in fact when Statements are repeated in this House, as they frequently are at present, the television cameras have to switch off. That is the rule. The public may be mystified, but people would be just as mystified if the Statement were not given.
Lord Airedale: I think, my Lords, that I had better continue and come to the matter of noble Lords who have to leave early, before the end of a debate. On this subject I think that I have detected a disagreement between two parts of the report. Paragraph 64(c) says:
"Peers who leave early cannot expect to be answered by the Minister".
With that I entirely and absolutely agree, but when we come to paragraph 114(u) it says this:
"That Peers who leave debates early should not be answered by the Minister".
I think that is too stringent.
Sometimes there are very good reasons why a noble Lord has to leave early. He may be an expert in the subject matter of the debate; he may have raised a question which is fundamental to the debate and those who remain at the end will be eager to hear the answer to the point that has been raised. I believe that the Minister should be entirely free, either to deal with the matter if the noble Lords present wish him to do so or, otherwise, to write to the noble Lord who is no longer able to be present. I feel that the report is not very helpful in that minor regard.
1016
Finally, I wish to mention this vexed question of congratulation of maiden speakers. In the Second Reading speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on the Sunday Sports Bill (at col. 1139 of the Official Report for 15th July) the noble Lord begins:
"My Lords, I refuse to be the only person addressing your Lordships' House who does not congratulate our two maiden speakers".
Quite so; but we must discipline ourselves in this regard. There is one matter which so far does not appear in the Brief Guide, and that is the custom which I think still obtains whereby the Minister answering the debate also congratulates the maiden speaker. If I am right, I think we may have a demonstration this evening that this custom is still maintained.
I should like to mention one other possibility. That is that sometimes a subsequent speaker may have a very special reason for congratulating a maiden speaker. He may be a lifelong friend; he may be a close relative. In those circumstances, I do not think he should feel inhibited by our rules of procedure from adding his congratulations, provided that he has a really special reason for so doing.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, indicated very clearly that what they were hoping for from this debate was to share minds so that they could make a decision as to what the next steps, flowing from it, would be. If it is that they are collecting voices, I should like to add my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and claim that, in the interests of the House, to remove the chance of hearing ministerial Statements here would be a bad one. It would be a bad one from the point of view of the contributions that we can make upon matters arising out of them, and a bad one in affecting the status of the House in relation to it being part of Parliament.
I should also like to support the noble Lord's suggestion that we do not go too far down the road in restricting the length of speeches. It is perfectly true that in normal debate, in the normal way, 10 to 15 minutes is adequate—and perhaps more than adequate. There are, however, many occasions when matters of vital importance to the nation are under discussion, and we, fortunately, in this House have the advice of experts who, quite apart from their membership of this House, have a contribution to make which is quite invaluable. Therefore, to put them on those important occasions—and there are many—in a position where they would feel some embarrassment by giving us the full benefit of their knowledge and experience just because they may be infringing the rule as to the length of speeches, would be a bad thing. On those two issues I should like to add my voice to the—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, would the noble Lord tell us how a Peer himself can decide if he is a great enough expert to speak for longer than the House allows?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I do not know; but we have views as to the value of speakers and the value of the contributions that they make. It may well be the attention we give to them when they are speaking would indicate to them that we are in no hurry for them to stop at 10 minutes, when they still have something worthwhile to say.
But in the report that the group has given—which has received congratulation from all sides—they have said virtually that rules and procedures do not need much amendment. Indeed, no fundamental alterations have been suggested by them. I am not surprised at that. Indeed, when the group was set up I could not see that there was any need for any great alteration to the rules and procedures and the general conventions which are accepted in this House; so the report seems to confirm that point of view.
However, having said that, we would not have set up the group, and it would not have been accepted, unless there was a feeling, some intuition, that something was wrong that could be remedied somewhere along the line. I do not think that the feeling that something ought to be done has anything to do with the rules and the procedures of the House, as laid down; but I think it has everything to do with the individual noble Lord who takes part.
I believe that there is a tendency to copy another place in a way which is undermining the real effectiveness of your Lordships' House. I believe that the improvements that could be made are improvements that we, as individual Members of this Chamber, can make for ourselves. For example, I do not think in the old days that everybody felt it necessary to repeat every good point that had already been made. There is no loss of face in withdrawing your name from the list of speakers because the points you think were worth making have already been made and are on the record. I do not think that at Committee stage, at Report stage and, even now, at Third Reading there is always the need to put down identical amendments.
The repetition of amendments all of which mean the same thing that take up time and interfere with the general smooth running of the House, could be remedied by a little self-restraint on the part of noble Lords. In order to face up to that, I approve very much of the suggestion of a brief resume of what the procedures are, being sent to the Members, particularly new entrants to your Lordships' Chamber, at the beginning of every year. I think that would minimise any inadvertent abuse. But what about the deliberate abuse? We have seen one or two indications that it is sometimes deliberate. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, "Discreet murmurings from the general membership of the House should bring people to order." We have had too many instances over recent months where we have had something rather noisier than discreet murmurings; but it does not seem to have had any effect at all on the noble Lord who has been thought—as shown by those murmurings—to be breaching the general standard that we expect. So discreet murmurings alone leave much to be desired.
It is upon that that I should like to make a suggestion which I do not suppose will find favour everywhere. Our parliamentary system today,
1018
whether we like it or not, whether it is local government, whether it is in the other place or whether it is in your Lordships' House, is based upon parties. Parties play their part. That is what we mean when we talk about the usual channels. The usual channels in this sense means the governing party, which happens to be Conservative, in consultation with the Labour Party, which is the official Opposition, the Liberals and the Alliance, all of which are part of the parliamentary system—
Lord Somers: My Lords, may I suggest that that is only a weakness?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I did not hear that. I shall read it in Hansard and write a letter. Fortunately there is not much deliberate abuse, but when it seems to appear I believe that the party system comes into it in trying to deal with it. Each of the parties in this House, as in the other one, has its separate meetings and decides its view on how it will approach certain matters. I believe that they ought to make themselves responsible for helping the Leader of the House if they think that anybody in their group is abusing the procedures in some way. That is a line which would be very useful. It would avoid the suggestion that the Leader of the House, whoever he is, is making his intervention only because of some party difference. If the strength of the party grouping can be brought in to help the discipline, I am certain it will help in the running of the House and will help the Leader of the House on those occasions.
Finally, I hope that we will continue the existence of the Select Committees such as the European Select Committee. During the five years that I was a Member of the European Parliament what impressed me more than anything else was the high regard of every country that constituted part of the European Community for the reports of the House of Lords Select Committee on European matters. It was very high indeed. During those five years there was no other country and no other source upon which the appreciation of all nations so centred as it did upon the reports from this House. So I hope we shall continue to maintain the high reputation which that Select Committee has in its impact on the minds of the rest of the European Community.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I think that self-regulation requires occasional, and perhaps increasingly more frequent, self-examination. Self-regulation may also mean more regimentation, more rule of thumb. I doubt indeed whether it is self-regulation. It is communal regulation, which can become irksome and can change the nature of an institution as the noble Lord who has just spoken suggested. I am not going to argue the case for an office of chairman or Speaker, though I think it is very difficult to envisage many institutions in this country or anywhere else at the present time that can be effective and efficient without some authority in the chair.
I do not think we should be too slavish about tradition, the grand inheritance and other things which are noble sentiments. We are part of the

1019
legislature of a country which is striving to hold its own and to advance in the modern world, and we have to judge everything against what is required of an assembly: what are we to do and how well are we doing it? I shall return to that, because I have a bee buzzing in my bonnet that I want to get rid of at the outset and that is paragraph 103, dinner hour business.
I am a great sufferer from this growing practice of having an adjournment for the dinner hour and slotting in secondary business, non-contentious business, to be transacted by those who forgo the benefit of the dinner hour. My union says that if the workers are to be given a dinner hour, all the workers should have the dinner hour at the same time. Moreover, I get caught in this web of contrivance to do something during the dinner hour, because I am usually interested in agricultural orders, covering the space allotted to the battery hen and rules on the feeding of pigs and the keeping of sheep. Agricultural orders seem to come on during the dinner hour. I resent having to transact the business of this House to the sound of knives and forks in an adjoining room. Why should we transact the business of the nation during a period when the bulk of your Lordships' House is in a state of concentrated gluttony in a room down the corridor?
This is not becoming to the work that we do in your Lordships' House. Let us have a dinner hour. I think it is a very welcome break, often in dull and tedious proceedings. But let us all have it at the same time and come back refreshed. That is the first point.
The second point that I feel deeply about is Question Time. I have long given up putting down Questions for oral answer because I cannot bear to wait three or four weeks before I get the information that I want. What sort of information do we seek that we are willing to wait three or four weeks to get it and then just get a few supplementary questions and a slot on the television programme? I do not think that is any satisfaction to any noble Lord who is taking his business seriously.
But I think we ought to know more of these great scorers in the Question Time match. Who are the eight Lords who managed to ask one-third of the total Questions in a Session? Who is the noble Lord who put down 37 Questions in one Session? Surely there is some accolade that we can bestow upon them. Can we not summon them to the Bar, commend them on their diligence and say that without them we should sink into apathy and complacency? Surely we cannot let such commendable application to the task and work of the House go unnoticed and unrewarded. I do not know who they are but I can make one or two pretty good guesses.
Also, could we not agree that the Table should be able to advise noble Lords about the suitability of some of the Questions that are put down? For example, any noble Lord who asks the Government what they are doing to maintain the peace of the world should be advised not to put down the Question, because he ought to get, but he will not get, a short answer to a damn silly question. But there are silly Questions on the Order Paper of global
1020
significance. I shall not go into them. I have a few here that I could quote, but we all know what they are.
No Minister is prepared in answer to a Question in this House—as Ministers used to be, if they are not now, in the House of Commons—to get up and say, "No, Sir", and sit down, or, "That is another question. That does not arise from the Question you are asking". The trouble is that the courtesies and the tolerances of this House are positively stifling. We ought to be a little more brusque with people who are going over the bounds of self-regulation.
But it is obvious that the big debate that is going to come in due course will be on Statements, and I strongly support the recommendation of the Committee on this, though I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in his view. I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that when Statements are repeated in this House we are required to go into private session. The television cameras must go off. The public must not hear over the air what we say. It is a kind of closed shop for a time. That quite apart from anything else is a bit of a reflection upon us. Why is that? The simple answer is that those Statements are not made to us at all. They are made to another House and they should stay in that House. They are repeated here as a matter of courtesy and convenience. We are not asked to begin a debate on a Statement that is made in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, made a valid point when he said that probably urgency should govern the repetition of a Statement in your Lordships' House. I would add to that matters which come clearly within the role of your Lordships' House. A number of matters that are subject to Statements in the House of Commons relate to the work that that House has to do.
I have now spoken for eight minutes. I hope that I may continue as I am trying very hard to finish my speech within 10 minutes. It will be quite painful but I shall try.
We might say that Statements should be repeated in this House not "rarely", as stated in paragraph 78 of the report, but only occasionally. "Rarely" is a very strong word to use in this connection. However, that is a matter for discussion. We shall obviously hear much more about it.
Finally, should we now give more attention to the role of your Lordships' House in the parliamentary system? I have been here for 13 years and I am rather unclear about the attitude of noble Lords as to the reasons why we are here and our role in the system. We are not just a rubber stamp for the other place. We are not a duplicate House of Commons. We have a distinctive role of our own. It is a little difficult to find that role having regard to the fact that we emerge from being battered over the years and from having our claws clipped and our wings torn out and submitted to other humiliations because Members in the other place thought that we had too much power and that we should put up with less.
But should we not be thinking now about removing some of the absurdities and anomalies about our role in the whole system? I regard our primary role as that of legislative revision. High on

1021
the list of our roles is the guardianship of the constitution, such as it is. Another important role is the protection and safeguarding of the liberties of the subject.
I do not begrudge any time that is necessary to give detailed consideration to a Bill similar to the Criminal Justice Bill. That is more our role than fiddling about with the greater benefits under the national insurance scheme. We can bankrupt the national insurance scheme but we are forbidden to talk about taxation. We deal with all kinds of things which are not our true role while matters concerning the liberties of the subject are inserted into Finance Bills, and therefore put outside the scope of our amendment. We allow the tax gatherer to bully the citizen behind our backs because the Parliament Act of 1911 excluded us from tampering with a Money Bill. Therefore the Government tack on to a money Bill all kinds of things about recovery which are vital questions concerning the liberty of the subject. That has taken me 11 minutes and now I shall sit down.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Taylor: My Lords, there have now been some 13 speeches, the lengths of which were 14 minutes for the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, then eight minutes, 10, 10, eight, nine, 15, eight, three, eight, nine and 12 minutes. Those speeches were just about the right length. They would not be at all improved by being any longer. It is much harder to make a good short speech than it is to make a long speech. Indeed most long speeches become extremely boring after a while no matter how expert and wonderful the speaker.
The person whose speeches I remember enjoying most was the late Lord Attlee who never spoke for more than 10 minutes in this House. His speeches were always succinct and to the point. A rule of 10 minutes per speech is a very good rule other than for the speeches of the opening and closing speakers. That is not an absolute rule but it is a very good one.
How are we to be told when we have reached our 10 minutes? A red light will not be all that useful as 10 per cent. of us are colour-blind. In fact we can land ourselves in trouble if we follow red lights when they are not red. The only certain signal which will penetrate to the speaker who is in full flow is an auditory signal. I do not suggest that we ring a dinner hell. However, I well remember when I was a young house officer at St. Thomas's that there used to be a single bell sound. It made a ting sound. My sound was ting-ting followed by ting-ting-ting—a sequence of two tings followed by three tings for a senior house physician. Just such a simple signal at the end of eight, nine and 10 minutes would be quite enough to slow us up and it would be a jolly sight more effective than lights. If a light turns red we cannot stop however much we may want to.
I wish to direct the attention of noble Lords to the excellent quality of the report we are discussing. It is a real beauty. It is as good as any scientific paper. I also draw noble Lords' attention to the typography, the paper on which the report is printed, its size and kind. If only all our Select Committees and other committees produced such reports they would do a
1022
great deal more good. The reports might cost a little more to produce but they would be read.
We produced a first-class report on occupational health services which got absolutely nowhere. But when we saw how it was printed it was not surprising. The report that we are discussing shows how the other report should have been printed. The report is also extremely good in the way that the tables are presented. I have only one slight criticism of the tables. They give percentages of time rather than hours of time. It would be a little better if they gave both but the arguments and the presentation in general are first class.
I personally favour five or six parliamentary Questions. I know how irritating they are sometimes to the Leader of the House. I have seen him become so irritated and kerfuffled because the time is being taken up and he knows that two frightful Statements are coming. I cannot blame him for that but it would be fun to have six Questions because they wake us up after lunch and we need waking up.
The other interesting matter is what happens when Questions are over. If the debate to follow is not very interesting there is a wonderful flight of the innocents from the Chamber. I do not know where they fly to but they all disappear very quickly.
I remember once when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, was Minister of Science. I asked him whether, as my supplementary question was rather long, I could with permission circulate it in the Official Report. He nearly blew his top and told me that only the Government were allowed to circulate anything the the Official Report.
It occurs to me that if noble Lords have points which they cannot fit into their short speeches it might be considered whether they could place a small note or an appendix in the Official Report to the effect that that was what they wanted to argue. I cannot guarantee that it would be worth reading but they may not insert it when they have considered the matter. I cannot see that that procedure would do a lot of harm.
My last question concerns the loom of youth. One of the glorious things about your Lordships' House is the part played by younger Peers. That depends on the hereditary system. I believe in that system. I think that it is right and proper that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren may be compelled to perform certain duties in the service of their country. I favour the choice for life Peers as to whether they should be hereditary or non-hereditary. It should be rather interesting to see how many of those who object to hereditary peerages accept them.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I feel that I have a contribution to make to the debate in a technical sense of crossing one or two "t"s. First, let me deal with the problem of Friday and Monday sittings. Nowhere does the report draw attention to the difficulties of Peers who live at great distances. Monday is a most awkward day to get to work here for those who live 500 miles away. As I am now a widower, it does not affect me. But I think it is bad luck on wives, who sometimes find husbands leaving

1023
for a Monday sitting on Sunday night and not returning until the following Friday. I wonder whether it is worth considering giving more time to business on Fridays, despite what is said in paragraph 107. I should prefer to sit late on a Friday rather than come to the House on a Monday. There is also the problem of buying tickets, booking seats and reserving a room, which makes it advisable to be able to plan fairly far ahead.
One point which was not mentioned in the report and which has not been mentioned so far in the debate is the question of the cost of fares for wives who draw a place at the ceremony of the opening of Parliament. It is all very well if one lives in Eaton Square and the missus draws a place. But if one lives in Sutherland, shall we say, it is an enormous expense to bring a wife down without an allowance from the state. The other place provides very liberal allowances for wives. Perhaps that is worth considering in this House.
My next point concerns paragraph 112 and the names of Peers who are taking the Oath and the like. The Clerk has a clear voice and good diction; one hears him very well, as we heard him today. However, when many Peers take the Oath it is impossible to hear them even with the hearing aid. I wonder whether it would be technically possible to tinker with the microphone above the Box so that it can be made louder when a Peer is taking the Oath. It generally happens that there is a great deal of movement at the time when such Peers come forward. Perhaps the volume of the system could be improved. Otherwise, I do not know how we can persuade Peers to raise their voices.
My next point concerns paragraph 114, which deals with Questions for Written Answer. I believe that these are being abused. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, mentioned their drafting. I wonder whether those at the Table are satisfied that they have enough power to trim the Questions so that they are of importance or put forward to obtain information. That is the object of such Questions, rather than to allow someone to expound a political theory, as seems to be the case with some of the Questions for Written Answers.
I do not believe that the system of Unstarred Questions is working properly. We had an example last week when my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing rose to ask an Unstarred Question at a quarter-past eight o'clock, just as the cameramen were covering up their cameras. A very interesting and important debate followed. The previous debates of the day had also been important. However, that Unstarred Question was of urgent importance and it was not relayed by the cameras. Perhaps the question of availability of time for Back-Benchers who have the occasional Unstarred Question could be reconsidered. I say it in that way because it seems to me that many of the Questions for Written Answer arise from the frustration which some Back-Benchers feel over not being able to get a word in edgewise over some bee they have in their bonnet.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, who spoke earlier, mentioned the matter of a debate on the Motion, That the noble Lord be no
1024
longer heard. I believe I am right in saying that that matter is debatable. That is another complexity in this method of trimming which may be resorted to. It is worth consideration in dealing with the matters with which we are all concerned.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Sherfield: My Lords, since I have been associated with the Select Committees on the European Communities and on Science and Technology for a number of years, I rise briefly to make a comment on the group's recommendations in that area and to enlarge on what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said at the beginning of the debate.
The most significant point about those two Select Committees is that they are run on a shoestring. A single Clerk with a secretary is solely responsible for the organisation of an inquiry. He has some back-up in case of need from the Clerk of Committees, who, however, has multifarious other duties. The Committee Clerk also usually has help from one or more specialist advisers. However, their role is entirely advisory and they cannot be asked to undertake administrative tasks.
Moreover, the Committee Clerk is responsible for drafting the report. That involves not only the administrative task of handling large volumes of evidence but also that of mastering and absorbing them. Given the restrictions on manpower, the appointment of additional Clerks of the House clearly raises difficult issues. I suggest that the House might adopt a system already in force in another place of appointing specialist assistants to committees. These persons are normally postdoctoral university graduates who are employed for fixed contracts for a term of two years in the case of the other place, renewable for another two years, and provide specialist expertise and day-to-day assistance with the preparation of papers and the analysis of evidence.
In the case of the House of Lords where the Select Committee inquiries typically take from eight months to one year, a one-year contract to a postdoctoral researcher might prove attractive. I note that this suggestion has been referred to the staff sub-committee. I hope I can have an assurance that this referral is not equivalent to a decent burial.
What a Committee Clerk in this House really needs is someone who can research secondary sources and work on parts of the evidence, and who is also available to hold the fort if the Clerk falls sick or is otherwise temporarily put out of action. If the assistant can help with the writing of the report, that is a bonus.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, mentioned the Congress of the United States. The last time I was on the Hill, its Committee on Science and Technology had a staff of over 100, equivalent to about half, I think, of the entire staff of this House, including the legal staff. The United States' Committee can also call on the resources of the scientific service of the Library of Congress and of the Office of Technology Assessment. In this context the present request for one or two temporary junior assistants does not seem outrageous.

1025
What I am suggesting for the Select Committee on Science and Technology would, I believe, be equally applicable to the European Communities Committee, although I personally no longer have a connection with that body. I certainly agree with the view that there can be no increase in the number of ad hoc Select Committees unless additional Clerks are available. One ad hoc committee at a time appears to be the most that can be contemplated.
Before I sit down I should like to welcome the Recommendations of the committee on Statements and on the timing of debates on Select Committee reports. I have suffered much from sitting late on many an occasion discussing reports which have been the work of many months with an attendance in single figures.
5.53 p.m.
Viscount Rochdale: My Lords, I have ventured to put my name down on the list of speakers even though it is an extremely long one. The reason is that having taken part in the work of your Lordships' House for over 40 years—I think I am only behind the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in that respect—I believe I have learned some lessons which may be of help to your Lordships in this debate.
I made my maiden speech in February 1946 in Her Majesty's Robing Room. Incidentally, I spoke then from the Cross-Benches. Since 1946 there have been an enormous number of changes but the really big difference which has been mentioned over and over again today, and which to my mind is most important, is the enormous increase in the workload of the House. I think one can illustrate that well by recalling that in those days we never sat more than Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said, it was not a question of stopping for dinner—we hardly ever got to dinner. We stopped at about 8 o'clock. Those few comments indicate the extent to which the workload has inexorably increased. It is against that background that I look at this report.
Like every other noble Lord, I welcome this debate and congratulate those who have produced this really first-class report. It is excellent. We should congratulate both the Members of the Committee and the clerks not only on producing the report but on doing so in what has been a relatively short time. I also pay tribute to what my noble friend Lord Whitelaw said about the importance of statistics. I regard these as very important not only for our consideration at the moment but also for the future. Study of them will help us to see how trends are moving.
Our objective is quite simple. Given the present composition of the House and the nature and volume of the workload that has to be disposed of—a workload that, despite the sincere undertakings of every Government to see that it is reduced, has always increasedߞwe should see that we make full use of the immense volume of experience and expertise available to us. Therefore our procedure must ensure that the work flows through smoothly, and with as little interruption as possible.
1026
I believe it has largely been due to our present system of flexible self-regulation that the growing workload over all those years has been acceptable and taken on by the House. The report itself says in paragraph 113 that the House has been able to handle the intense strains-those are the report's words-of the last Session.
I like very much what the report says in paragraphs 12 to 16 about self-regulation. If there were any form of control by a Speaker, sooner or later that could only result in rigidity and the slowing down of the work. That does emphasise the importance of paragraph 115 in the report, which states:
"Our freedom of debate and system of self-regulation can only continue…if we as Members of the House are willing to regard our liberty as a trust".
That brings me to the point of how we can preserve that. It raises the importance of the Brief Guide. I am sure it is important to new Peers and to those who have been in the House for some time. I often find that I have either forgotten or been unaware of some important point of custom or procedure. If we had this new Brief Guide I believe that would bring a great deal of good. I hope that it will be printed so it is easily readable.
I have only two points of detail to which I wish to refer. I can be particularly brief about the first because it is a point that practically every speaker in your Lordships' House has referred to today. That is the timing of Statements, which can be extraordinarily irritating for somebody who is about to speak in a debate and who then finds that the continuity and flow of the discussion stops because a Statement is going to be made.
I realise that there are two points of view about whether Statements should be made orally. When I read the report on this point I asked myself, "What exactly is the interpretation to be put on the `exceptional case' and what does it mean?" There, I feel we must be as flexible as possible. I believe that there are some Statements which could usefully be dropped, but that there are a great many more which it could be dangerous to lose.
My other point is one to which the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, referred—the place on our Order Paper of reports from Select Committees. Very often they come at the end of the day, and the report suggests that Standing Order No. 38 should be adjusted to allow such reports to be taken early in the business of the House. Of course, the importance of these reports varies greatly. They involve a great deal of work by Peers, their advisers and also—the point I want to make-members of the public and organisations both here and abroad who come to give evidence. They take an enormous amount of trouble preparing written documents of evidence and they come to give evidence orally. If they see the result of their efforts put in a report which is eventually tucked away for debate at the end of the day, it must reduce the credibility and importance of those reports, which are, after all, your Lordships' reports.
I give one example of the importance which people from overseas sometimes place on coming here to give evidence. Four years ago I was chairman of one of the sub-committees dealing with policy towards competition in shipping. On this particular day we

1027
had witnesses from Hamburg, Germany and from Paris, France, and a very eminent shipowner from Norway. It so happened that this gentleman was on holiday in Miami but he thought it sufficiently important to break his holiday to come and give evidence to us and then return immediately to Miami. If foreigners accord that amount of weight to our work, then we should respond by giving it the same degree of importance and have these reports debated early in the day.
That is all I want to say. I welcome this report. I believe it is very timely and I think we should congratulate everyone who has played a part in producing it. I have enjoyed and learnt a lot from the speeches of the other noble Lords who have spoken.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity of participating in this debate. When I put my name down on the list yesterday to take part in the debate I realised that a lot of people with a wealth of experience and suggestions would be participating. I, too, congratulate the committee and the clerks because we are greatly indebted to the servants of the House for the work that they do. I have been here for eight years and realise how much we owe the people who serve us so well and who are so generous in giving their time and experience, especially to help new Members.
No one will stop me, as a Member of this House, from congratulating someone if I feel they are worthy of congratulations. I believe that it would be impertinent of anyone to suggest in any orders that a Peer should not congratulate another Peer on a maiden speech, whether or not it is custom. It is worthwhile recognising that point. I congratulate Members on both sides if they have a point to make. I most sincerely congratulate my noble friend Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe on his maiden speech.
I did not realise when I put my name down to speak that I would be 20th on the batting list. Of course, that means many of the points that I was going to make have already been made. Therefore, I am not going to repeat those. Often in debates of this nature, where a noble Lord has prepared a speech but is 25th, 20th or whatever on the list, regardless of how many times the point has been made, he will still repeat it. Much time could be saved if speakers would say, "All my points have been made and therefore I say no more". I look forward to what the Procedure Committee has to say when it has studied all the suggestions that have been made, and that I would have made had I been number two or three in the batting order this afternoon.
6.5 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am among those who are glad that the report did not suggest having a Speaker in your Lordships' House. That would be quite disastrous and alter the whole character of the place. It would encourage endless points of order, as it does in the other place. Therefore, I am glad that that was not proposed.
The report says that there is nothing wrong with the rules of the House, only the way in which we use
1028
them or abuse them. It is true that there are more people in the House than ever before and more working Peers. I am not so sure that I like the distinction or the insinuation but it is a fact that if one creates more Peers and they are told they have to work it is not surprising that the procedures get into a muddle. That does not mean to say that the rules are wrong. The whole glory of your Lordships' House is that we are masters of our own procedures. That should be so and it is up to us to protect and control them. I suggest that it is up to us not to be selfish.
The length of speeches is considered by everyone to be too long other than, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, one's own. I approve of the suggestion that the aim for the length of a speech should be 15 minutes; but that should be a target and not a limit because it would be wrong to have too much rigidity. It is better to have flexibility even if occasionally a noble Lord errs on the wrong side.
I remember a speech of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. It was not the speech that he made today, but one he made no fewer than 22 years ago. I remember every word of it. It was during a debate on the shortness of speeches. The noble Lord said, "As everything I intended to say has already been said I shall now resume my seat". It was a masterly speech.
It is not surprising that over the years we have tried to find ways of curtailing the length of speeches of noble Lords. I considered the idea of coloured lights that changed from green to red, was rather effective; but, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, as 10 per cent. of your Lordships are colour blind, it would not have any effect and it would be much better to have a little bell that went, "ping ping". I could not help but think that if 10 per cent. of your Lordships are colour blind, and 20 per cent. deaf, then how one curtails a deaf noble Lord in full flood by going, "ping ping" is hard to imagine! But at least we ought to give this suggestion a try.
When the noble Lord said that, it recalled to my mind a suggestion made by my noble friend the Chief Whip some years ago when he was in a less exalted position than he now is. He suggested that next to the digital clocks there ought to be a little instrument out of which a cuckoo would come at the appropriate time and make an appropriate noise. He also suggested that a specific sum should be deducted from your Lordships' expenses for any speeches that went over a specified time and that that would have a suitably curtailing effect. One would be indecorous, the other inappropriate and both would be undesirable but at least we have perpetually to try to find ways of curtailing speeches. The answer is that one has to be unselfish.
The real abuse of this House comes at Question Time. Supplementary questions are too long and frequently read. Ministerial Answers are frequently far too long and by being so not only do they extend Question Time but Ministers also expose themselves to replies and give time to other noble Lords to think up possible supplementaries.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that he wished people could answer quite shortly. I remember an occasion when Lord Fraser of

1029
Lonsdale, who was sitting in the position just behind the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, got up to ask a Question. Lord Bowles was speaking from this Bench and gave the Answer, "No, my Lords". That succinct Answer was so unusual that the whole House roared with laughter. Lord Fraser got up and asked, "Why not?", and the House again roared with laughter. The point is that the Question and Answer were much more succinct and much more interesting.
While on the point about Questions and Answers, there was an occasion about three weeks ago when one noble Lord asked three supplementary questions in a row and read them all. The Minister answered more lengthily than was anticipated and the answers were read too. There is a requirement for both Questions and Answers to be short and not to be read.
One tends to think that it is up to the Leader of the House to control the House, but of course he cannot. It is up to the House to control the House. The Leader of the House, if I may say so with the greatest respect, should he backed up not only by Back-Benchers on both sides but also by Front-Benchers on the other side when he tries to suggest that we move on.
I had the curious experience of being catapulted from a lowly position into having to act as Leader of your Lordships' House when the late Lord Soames was Governor of Rhodesia. It was a tricky matter to decide when you should intervene. If you get up too early people complain that you are spoiling the sport. If you leave it too long people get fed up. I suggested on one occasion that it might be to the convenience of your Lordships if we moved on to the next Question. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, getting up and saying, "Why is it that the noble Earl should think that it is to the convenience of the House that we move on'? It is not to the convenience of the House at all. I want to ask another question". It is very difficult to get the balance right. The point is that it is not just up to the Leader of the House. It ought to be up to noble Lords on all sides of the House, Back-Benchers and Front-Benchers, to take the initiative and to back up the Leader when he speaks on behalf of the whole House.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am sorry that I have only just come in but I must raise this point. What do people mean when they say that it is up to everybody to intervene? Do they really visualise a state of affairs in which a Back-Bencher or a Front-Bencher pops up and says, "I think this man has gone on too long"? It would be chaos, in my opinion.
Earl Ferrers: Yes, my Lords, but you can always call "Order!", or you can say "Question" or "Speech"; and if the noble Lord goes on too long it is always possible to get up and ask the Leader of the House whether he does not think that the noble Lord opposite is abusing the procedures. So there are a variety of ways in which this can be done.
On the question of procedure, I think it is essential that we remember only to speak once on Report. The Report stage is not another Committee stage. That is frequently forgotten. It is also wrong to put down amendments for Report which have already been put
1030
down in another form or in a similar form at Committee stage. A short while ago an amendment was put down-there were not many people in the Chamber-and the noble Lord who put it down said, "I should have liked to divide the House but as there are not many noble Lords here this evening I shall not do so. However, I shall put down the amendment again on Report". That is an abuse of the procedures of the House. Likewise, the idea of Third Reading becoming another Committee or Report stage is obviously wrong.
On Statements I feel a great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It would be a pity if Statements were not repeated, and if they were to be only a rarity that would be a pity too. They are part of the political life of the country. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, Statements are made to Parliament and not to one House. This matter is under scrutiny not because of the Statements but because of the way we abuse Statements. If the Opposition Benches could curtail themselves to making a comment and asking a question for elucidation and Back-Benchers to asking a question for elucidation, Statements would be dealt with more quickly.
The report is highly useful. I do not think we should have a report every year and perpetually look at ourselves and wonder what is going on. That would make us too introspective and would waste time. But in the end it is up to us not to be selfish and to ensure that the rules, which after all have lasted many years, should continue because they are perfectly all right.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I intend to follow the lead of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and confine my remarks to the workings of Select Committees. The report of the group notes:
"Many members of the House thought that the existing Select Committees … are working satisfactorily, and believed that they are well regarded outside the House".
I cannot speak for the European Communities Committee but I have been involved with the Science and Technology Committee. It is known to me that its reports are well regarded. The most recent example is the report of the sub-committee on civil research and development chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, which has had considerable influence, especially on the Government. That is a remarkable achievement considering, as the noble Lord mentioned, the staffing that supports the work.
In the case of the Science and Technology Committee we operate under two constraints, which have the effect of reinforcing each other. The first, which is self-imposed, is that the topic should be examined and dealt with in not more than 12 months. The second is that the staff back-up is limited, as has been explained, to a Clerk and a technical adviser. I am sure that the 12-month timetable is absolutely right. Without it there would be a great danger of drift and of losing the impetus of the subject. However, it is a tight timetable, which with the staffing constraint gives us very little flexibility. One might add that one is talking about the quantity of

1031
staff rather than the quality. I would be the first to acknowledge how well served we are by our Clerks and by our technical advisers. Be that as it, may, we have little room for manoeuvre for the things that might go wrong or for the unexpected developments.
These twin constraints of timetable and staffing mean that the committees receive very little back-up. The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, gave some examples and I shall give some too. Given the tight timetable, it would be particularly helpful in the early stages of our work when members need to be brought up to speed as fast as possible if we could have background papers on the subject we are investigating. It is also important at the later stages to have position papers and analyses of the issues as they have emerged from the evidence sessions so as to develop our thinking on the thrust and conclusions of our report.
I very much welcome the suggestion which the group endorsed that we should try out the idea of specialist assistance to the sub-committees. The objection will be made that this will mean more public expenditure. I have a suggestion on that point to which I shall come in a moment, but leaving that aside, goodness knows our demands are modest enough in all conscience and the remuneration of our often very distinguished technical advisers amounts to little more than an honorarium. I think we trespass rather considerably and indeed perhaps dangerously on their good will.
By any normal standards for inquiries such as these—I spend most of my life doing investigative inquiries of one kind or another—we operate with very little back-up and run on a knife edge. As a result, we are not as effective as we could be. This results at times in unreasonable burdens being placed on members of a committee and more particularly on its chairman. We end up having to do much too much devilling on our own, which for busy people is not a very efficient way of proceeding. All things considered, I think it is remarkable what we manage to do.
I come to my suggestion. If money is the objection to more staffing, perhaps we should explore the possibility of seeking the secondment or sponsorship of a special assistant from industry or commerce. This might be a young man in his late twenties or early thirties who would work for a committee for 12 months. In my experience it is frequently the case that at that stage in a person's career not only is he ready for a change but he can gain considerably from such a change, which is useful for his own development. For that matter, it is often useful for the company concerned to take a person out of his environment and give him a change for a few years. He comes back a rather more developed person. I think that we should explore and experiment with this idea. It would make a great difference to the effectiveness of a committee and at very little cost.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I congratulate the working group on the excellence of its report.
On looking through the membership of the group, I was pleased to note that so far as I could see not one of them in my time in the House had ever offended
1032
against the letter or the spirit of any of the Standing Orders. The members were therefore in a unique position to appreciate the defects of which some of us from time to time are guilty.
I support strongly the recommendations in regard to EC debates and the work of Select Committees, which were touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, and other noble Lords.
In 1979 the House spent only 32 hours discussing the reports of Select Committees of the House. In 1986 again only 32 hours were spent on such discussions. In view of the importance of the subjects covered by the Select Committee on the European Communities, it is clear that we should pay much more attention to the committee reports and give them much more time for discussion in the House.
Many noble Lords have mentioned that the reports of the Select Committee on the European Communities are held in high regard throughout Europe. I am of the opinion, without wishing to express any particular preference, that they may be more highly regarded—perhaps for different reasons—than those of Select Committees of another place, although I do not wish to cast any aspersion on the nature and content of those reports.
Since the passing of the Single European Act in particular, what has been done and contemplated in Europe is of enormous importance to the United Kingdom. I respectfully suggest that, given our reputation already in this respect, thanks to Select Committees on the subject, we should give much greater prominence to their reports in regard not only to the time of day at which the debates are held but also to the number that come before the House for discussion.
That leads to the question of Statements. I am sorry to have to disagree—and it is rarely that I would so disagree on a non-party matter—with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on a House procedural question. The recommendations of the group seem to me to make sense. I have mentioned that in 1986 we spent 32 hours discussing important EC reports. I should mention also that in 1986 we spent 45 hours on Statements. On the basis of the statistics quoted in the group's report, allotting to each working day 7.18 hours, approximately six working days were spent on Statements in the House.
Other noble Lords may disagree with me, but I do not take it as an affront to your Lordships' House if a Statement made in another place is not repeated here provided that we have a way of knowing about it. By the nature of the construction of Parliament, there are many more Ministers in the other placeߞMinisters in the Cabinet, Ministers in charge of departments—than there are here. Where a department has a Minister in the other place, it is natural that the Statement and subsequent party exchanges should be made in the Chamber of the other place and answered by the department chief, who would be thoroughly familiar with the subject matter of the Statement.
The situation would be different if the Cabinet Minister were a Member of this House. A Statement by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, on a

1033
subject for which he has ministerial responsibilities clearly should be made here and should be the subject of comment here. I would expect any Statement made on behalf of the Government in this House by the noble Viscount who is Leader of the House and Deputy Prime Minister to be made here without questions upon it. In that way we could save a great deal of time. I do not think that it is an affront to this House if a Statement is not repeated here. Nor do I think that our dignity requires it. After all, we have other realms of dignity better perhaps than those in another place.
Question Time has been mentioned. I venture to suggest that we in this House, for all our defects, conduct ourselves at Question Time in a slightly more agreeable if less humorous manner than do Members of another place.
I have one final observation in support of the noble Lords, Lord Henderson of Brompton, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Harmar-Nicholls. I agree that we ought not to start having coloured lights here. I think it is a little unnecessary for reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was good enough to mention in a different context.
When a speaker is addressing the House in controversial terms—controversy is not yet banned in the House of Lords—it is customary for him to attract interruption and, as is the custom in the other place, invariably one gives way. It can so happen that the speaker, if he becomes extremely controversial—Heaven forfend that he should—may he interrupted, quite properly, on two occasions. That would mean that some five minutes out of his 15 minutes is taken up. I do not think that it is necessary for the preservation of self-discipline to have these extra measures which have been mentioned in the report and which appear in the draft of the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders. Nor do I think it a good thing that Members of your Lordships' House may be licensed by the rules to say, "Too long, too long". We have other ways of making our feelings known without resorting to formal words which are in effect half legalised by their appearance in the Standing Orders. Those are the three suggestions I have to make.
My noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby has been here some six months longer than I have. He expressed some degree of doubt about the purposes and role of your Lordships' House. Of one thing I am certain, that one of the principal roles of your Lordships' House, in which I am very proud to participate, is that of being the second forum in the United Kingdom in which matters of public importance are discussed. We should never forget that role, in addition to that of a revising Chamber. We should all be very pleased to do our best to continue to maintain its reputation.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, I begin with an apology and a compliment: the apology from myself and the compliment to the authors of the report. I apologise for taking part in this debate having regard to the short period for which I have been in this
1034
House. I would only plead in mitigation that I have perhaps some knowledge of parliamentary procedures having sat during 11 Parliaments in the other House and for six years in the European Parliament.
Although sincere, my compliment does not embrace a totality of endorsement of the conclusions of the group. Nevertheless, my congratulations to the group are unqualified with regard to the dedication that has gone into the making of this report and with regard to the industry, the skill and the clarity of its draftsmanship. It covers a very wide area. In the classic words of Mr. Wackford Squeers, but with considerably more accuracy, "Here's richness", and with so rich a diet there is imposed on those who take part in the debate difficult questions of selection of a theme.
I propose to confine my observations to questions 6 and 3, ministerial Statements and the Public Bill Committees, with which I shall deal very shortly, and the main question of self-regulation, with which, for reasons that will appear, I shall have to deal at a little more length although I trust not wearisomely so.
On ministerial Statements, I welcome the recommendation in paragraph 78 of the report. I respect the views of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter with his exceptional knowledge of procedure and I take his constitutional point. Nevertheless, the basic consideration here is the degree of disruption to which the present practice exposes the business of this House. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, nodding acquiescence to that proposition. There is a major difference between the timing of Statements here and in the other House. There they are timed to suit the convenience of business—normally between Questions and business-and therefore have no disruptive effect on the business of the House. As your Lordships know, here it is far otherwise. I therefore welcome the removal of this major factor in the disruption of the House. I only wish that the group had gone the whole hog and, having appreciated the logic of the position, had abolished the dinner hour as well.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Hear, hear!
Lord Broxbourne: I am very glad to hear that my noble friend endorses that suggestion. However, at paragraph 103 the report rejects that possibility. I can understand a certain reluctance. "The dinner hour", "Adjournment during pleasure", what agreeable Trollopean evocations those words bring out. One has visions of the Duke of Omnium being driven to his London mansion or his club to enjoy the delights of Victorian gastronomy. If noble Lords want an indication of what those delights were let them read the description in Disraeli's Reminiscences of the dinner which Lord Palmerston ate by himself. After the delights of Victorian gastronomy noble Lords then returned to the House, or not as the case might be.
On the Public Bill Committees I need say very little indeed. I was an advocate of this in the last Parliament before the experimental setting up of the committee for the Pilotage Bill. I entirely endorse

1035
what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, and I am grateful to him for mentioning me in this context. I welcome both the endorsement of a role for the Public Bill Committee and the procedural improvements suggested for further study by the Procedure Committee, notably the possibility of sittings in the mornings in order not to clash with the business of the House and better arrangements for Divisions.
I come to the main matter, self-regulation. Here we were asked to express a preference either for continuance of self-regulation or for a speakership with controlling powers. Paragraph 13 of the report states:
"The case for a Speaker with controlling powers received virtually no support and was argued by only one Peer"—
I can visualise the corridors of Westminster buzzing with speculation as to the identity of this lone heretic. Who, they may have asked, was this Ishmaelite, this iconoclastic figure? Let there be a truce to surmise and speculation. I should not wish the finger of suspicion to be pointed at any innocent Peer. I make a clean breast of it. It was I, Broxbourne, who put forward this unacceptable proposition. The report continues,
"who believed it less surprising that the system was flawed than that it worked at all".
Where the draftsman got the word "flawed" from we may hear when the reply is made to this debate. It certainly did not come into my representations.
It is of course permissible, and no doubt sensible, to improve on my prose, but to improve on Dr. Johnson is presumptuous indeed, and noble Lords will recognise the derivation of this expression:
"A woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all".
For the avoidance of doubt let me hasten to say that I do not for a moment endorse Dr. Johnson's view on women preaching. He would not say that today and indeed he would be in a great deal of trouble if he did. He certainly would not say it if, like your Lordships, he had the advantage of hearing in debate in this House the contributions of noble Baronesses with all their eloquence and elegance, their cogency and their charm.
But there is an underlying proposition which in Dr. Johnson's phrase would have a bottom of good sense and it is this. There are certain things and activities for which there is a natural and normal way of doing them. It does not mean that it is impossible to do them in any other way but it is unlikely that the other way will be as good. That proposition is reflected in the workings of this House.
In the workings of any parliamentary or deliberative assembly, the natural and normal way is for procedure to be regulated by a chairman or president (we call him a Speaker) who is able with the expert advice he receives—I associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, said as to the expertise of the advice here of the ever helpful Clerks at the Table—to interpret the rules and to ensure compliance therewith. That is the ordinary and accepted way of doing it the world over, and always has been.
1036
Before this report was produced I ventured to suggest that a case study be made to show what the procedures were in other assemblies in Europe, in the Commonwealth and in the United States. Was it done? There is no evidence, no mention in the report, nothing in the voluminous appendices to the report, so we must assume that in fact it was not done.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, to whose speech I listened with customary respect and attention, that our procedure is unique. I even go so far as to associate myself with his description of it as being "odd", though perhaps that is unnecessarily disrespectful. Unique I think it is. It does not follow that it is wrong, but it puts the onus on those who seek to justify it. What the report says is:
"The introduction of a Speakership with powers would encourage time-wasting points of order, worsen conduct, and curtail the ancient liberties of the House".
Not a scintilla of evidence is adduced to support that amazing and unqualified proposition. The veriest tyro at the Bar would take a pronouncement like that as crying out for particularisation, interrogatories and all the salutary processes of cross-examination. Of course, those things it has not received.
I do not believe that those are the concomitants of speakership, neither the usual concomitants nor, still less, the inevitable or necessary concomitants. I have some knowledge of Speakers in another place. The noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, once observed, when Mr. Speaker Thomas, that I had made more speeches proposing and seconding the election of Speakers than he had preached Methodist sermons. He was too nice and too modest to say, as was undoubtedly the fact, that the sermons were much better than the speeches. Nevertheless it has given me experience of speakership.
I see the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, in her place. I sat in the House of Commons originally under the distinguished speakership of her eminent father, Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown, and later under that of her eminent spouse, Harry Hylton-Foster. I do not recall that any of six Speakers were unable to regulate the proceedings in that House. without these catastrophic consequences ensuing. Of course the atmosphere was not quite like the atmosphere of this place. Some would say it was more lively and that that was not necessarily a bad thing, but at any rate they were able to keep order within the hounds of regulation.
Of course there are problems. The report acknowledges problems but does not attempt to analyse or assess the problems regarding the trichotomic position, if that is the right expression—I see my noble friend looking at me with all his great classical learning—of the Lord Chancellor. I ventured to suggest some possible solutions to this problem. These suggestions received no analysis and no attention in the report and so I leave it there. I shall not canvass them here, because the concept is rejected in the report, but I hope that they will be borne in mind for another day.
Meanwhile I concede that here I have lost the case: not a wholly unfamiliar experience for anybody who practised at the Bar as long as I did. What is unusual is to lose the case without right of appeal and without even the right of audience to make oral submissions

1037
as to the merits of the argument and to test the evidence for the other case. I can only console myself with the classic lines victrix causa Diis placuit, sed victa Catoni. I got it right, I think. Do not let your Lordships think for a moment that I am identifying with Cato; I should not dream of being so presumptuous. I only recite the lines to show that minorities, even minorities of one, are not always or necessarily wrong.
I said a moment ago, "No appeal". There is one court of appeal and that is history. We shall await the judgment of history on this, which may well be that on this day we missed an opportunity to improve the procedures of the House. So let me conclude with this. Some of your Lordships may feel that I am unduly influenced by the practices and procedures of the other place. It could be so-that other House which I knew so long, loved so well and sought to serve a little. But I would not wish your Lordships to think that I do not know that there are cherished traditions and practices in this House which are well worthy of respect. For my part I would wish to observe any procedures and play any modest part I can in them whatever they may be. I am grateful, as a minority spokesman, for the kindness and attention with which your Lordships have been good enough to listen to me.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the eminent persons' report that we are debating has met with universal praise this afternoon, although I think probably few of its recommendations have been unanimously welcomed. The most difficult matter seems likely to be the treatment of repeated Statements, and I should not like to guess now as to which view is likely to prevail in the end, or if indeed a third one along the lines proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, might be feasible.
Like others, I think that the informal group are much to be congratulated on having produced a careful and wise report. The report finds in favour of various objectives, many of them old favourites—shorter speeches, less time on Starred Questions, fewer repeated Commons Statements—but these are not sought to be achieved by any means other than voluntary means.
The objective of shorter speeches is to be attempted by the clock, which is apparently to be turned like a traffic light from green to red, presumably by a clerk at the Table working from a set of tariffs—so many minutes for an opening or winding-up speaker, so many minutes for a Front-Bench speaker, and so many minutes for a Back-Bench speaker.
In this case the onus for self-restraint will be in the first place on the speaker who, it is hoped, will be shamed by the sight of the red clock into sitting down early, and secondly on his listeners who are assumed to be emboldened by the sight of the clock into reminding the speaker that he should sit down if he has not done so voluntarily.
In the case of Starred Questions, where the objective is to limit Question Time to 30 minutes at most, the onus is to be with the Leader of the House or his deputies, although, as my noble friend Lord
1038
Ferrers has said, the Leader of the House cannot do this without support from other quarters. In the case of the proposal for repeated Commons Statements the onus is placed on the Opposition parties, for Statements would continue to be offered to Opposition parties with the presumption, in the words of the report, that they would not be delivered orally but would be printed in Hansard. So self-regulation involves a contribution, as proposed, from all of us.
The report proposes an annual review of how procedure is getting along in this House, which in these changing times is a sensible provision. I do not think that the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, need apply. I also support the proposal to reduce the number of Starred Questions in the name of any single noble Lord from three to two in order to give more scope to those Peers who make less frequent use of this facility.
Increased politicisation has been commented on as a new and growing feature in this House.
In one peripheral respect the report attacks politicisation in its controversial proposal to remove the automatic repetition of Commons Statements. The answers to the questionnaire reveal a broad antipathy to repeated Statements. Why should this be so? The principal—although by no means the only—supporters of automatically repeated Statements seem to be Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. That seems to me to be natural. After all it is they who are given an opportunity for a free tilt at government at this time. But Back-Benchers, on the whole, do not either widely attend or widely participate in reported Statements.
I think that on the whole noble Lords—the silent, suffering majority, in the words of the report—have no great affection for topicality. If, by coincidence, a Starred Question turns out to be topical, noble Lords will wholeheartedly enter into the spirit of the occasion. But Statements are sprung at short notice. It seems to me that noble Lords usually prefer to plan their political activity. Statements also disrupt other business. My noble friend Lord Broxbourne has just shown vividly how they are much more of a disruption in this House than they are in the other place.
Like others here I was a Member of the European Parliament, which had, for someone coming from this House, an excessive, even overwhelming love of topicality. Not a day passed without a flood of applications for business to be rearranged in order that politcal battle could be engaged on some resolution impetuously introduced on some recent event, usually in some distant part of the world. Everyone was kept at a high and exhausting level of alertness. But Peers, the silent majority, I presume to observe, do not for the most part like to live every minute with their senses all keenly attuned to detect shifts and to sense opportunities in the political breeze.
They cultivate—they are encouraged to cultivate—a more reflective, well-pondered contribution to political life. Consequently my sympathies are with those who resent the interruption and postponement of the principal

1039
business to please what is often a vociferous but small minority. I would therefore support the proposals to turn the repeated Statements into the exception rather than the rule, and for them to be taken at the least disruptive moment.
However, a nettle which the informal group in their report did not grasp was the question of committees. The report repeats a complaint made by some noble Lords—echoed this afternoon by the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton and Lord Henderson of Brompton—that there are too few ad hoc committees, and also the complaint that the present system displays a tendency towards too great a concentration on European affairs.
At the same time the report notes that the present permanent structure of our committees restricts the capacity of the House to set up ad hoc committees on subjects which deserve examination because neither the Members nor, more particularly, the staff are available. The report does not suggest any solution to this. In fact, it says very little on the subject.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, says that the European Communities Committee is run on a shoestring it is nevertheless the case that a considerable proportion of the resources of this House are devoted to servicing the permanent Select Committees. Leaving aside Members' time, I am informed that no less than one third of the staff of the administrative offices of this House are exclusively devoted to servicing the Select Committees.
That is fine if that is what the House as a whole wants, but is it what the House wants and should we not find out if it is still what the House wants? Without in any way wishing to cast any aspersions at all on the dedicated work of the assiduous Members and staff of those committees, or on the value of the work that they have done, nevertheless it is a common occurrence to find that Select Committee reports are being debated in this House in front of little more than the Members of the sub-committee concerned. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and my noble friend Lord Rochdale both complained about the fact that the House was not interested enough in the reports of their committees. It seems to me that that provides a prima facie case for a review of our existing permanent committee structure to see whether, in its entirety, it still corresponds to the demands of the changed circumstances so as to justify the resources required by it. If the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, is right, maybe we are trying to do too much already with too few resources.
In conclusion, the report serves most usefully to remind us of the remarkable freedoms which we have in this House. We have the freedom to introduce any Bill; propose any amendment; ask any question; make any speech. Those freedoms are available equally to each one of us. This liberal system is inevitably put at risk by the pressures arising from ever greater numbers of so-called working Peers, a greater volume of legislation and, consequently, ever greater politicisation. The system will be particularly tested by the strains of a legislative programme such
1040
as the present Session offers. The report puts it well when it states:
"Self-regulation imposes a responsibility on each individual Member to act in accordance not only with the rules but with the spirit and tradition underlining them".
Ultimately, the whole delicate and intricate system can be maintained only by the willing participation of all parties; Government, Opposition and Back-Benchers. Surely the value of the report and the debate is that they probe for the common ground between the different parties. I have every confidence that sufficient common ground will be found to enable this House and its cherished procedures to survive unscathed and buffetings to which they are exposed today.
7.2 p.m.
The Marquess of Salisbury: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for their kind remarks about my father.
I hope that your Lordships will be delighted to hear that I shall be brief. I intervene on only one point. Most of the debate has concentrated on the need for self-restraint leading to efficient self-regulation. No doubt that is important but I suggest that it is only part of what needs to be done. The real problem is the growth of government legislation. When one reads the report, one sees that an increasingly greater percentage of time is spent considering government Bills. I suggest that we are nearing the point of becoming a revising Chamber and nothing more. That seems to me to be undesirable, because one of the major contributions provided by your Lordships' House is the admirable general debates by means of which we have played such a notable part in Parliament.
One asks oneself whether there is any possibility of improving the situation. The simple answer is to have less government legislation, but I suppose that that is unlikely. Indeed, the more government legislation there is the more it seems to increase. Perhaps there are two ways in which the Government could help without interfering with their programme. First, would it not be possible in a normal Session—the point does not apply during this Session—to have more Bills coming to this House at the beginning of the Session? That would reduce the pressure on your Lordships' time at the end of the summer period. Very often we have little business to transact in the autumn.
Secondly, it appears that a number of Bills which come before the House have not been well prepared. It seems to me to be due to pressure on the draftsmen, who are, no doubt, just as good now as they were in the past but who have had to produce more Bills than they can comfortably digest. This means that a considerable amount of your Lordships' time is spent in what could be said to be unnecessarily revising Bills which should have been properly thought out in the first place. We had a good example of that on Monday of this week when amendment after amendment was moved and the Government agreed to take them all away for further consideration. It was quite clear that matters had not been properly thought out.

1041
I support the general report of the group. I hope that as the House—and particularly the Back-Bench Members—has been asked to exercise restraint, the Leader will be able to tell us that the Government will play their part in trying to make our business more acceptable.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree with everything which has been said by the noble Marquess. To some extent he has raised new issues in this debate, because we have spent much time discussing how we should approach our own responsibilities as Members of this House without considering the role of government. I propose to deal with that issue during the course of my remarks.
In opening the debate, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, reminded us why it was that a group of our colleagues had been asked to look at these issues. He said that last year we had had an arduous session. If I may say so, that is something of an English understatement. As we all remember, there were substantial complaints from all quarters of the House about the hours that we had been forced to endure in considering a number of measures from the House of Commons all of which arrived remarkably late.
During the 13 years for which I have been a Member of this House I have had the benefit of listening to four of five other rows with different Leaders of the House when exactly the same complaint has been made. Unhappily, despite that, we do not appear to have improved our procedures and our general approach to the consideration of legislation. For instance, I remember the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, as Leader of the Opposition. complaining bitterly about the behaviour of the then Labour Government in sending to this House so much legislation so late. He said that the House would not put up with it any more. There were then no references to individual responsibilities of Members of this House. I was then a Minister and I agreed with everything he said.
First, I think that we should recognise, as did the noble Marquess, that, although we have our responsibilities as Members of this House, so have the Government. They also have a part to play in easing our burden in a House which is still essentially an institution of part-timers. So I shall divide my remarks into those two main categories.
Dealing first with our responsibilities as Members of this House, I agree with the committee and the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, that we should rely on self-regulation. I heard the speech of the lone dissentient, the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, but I am afraid that he did not persuade me that it would be sensible to move in his direction. I suspect that that is the overwhelming view of this House. I also believe that we should have shorter speeches. I am not sure about the red light. If I may put it as politely as possible, those who are some of our more insensitive colleagues in relation to the length of their speeches will not be deterred by a red light. Indeed, were we to invite the massed bands of the Brigade of Guards to strike up, I suspect that that would have just as little effect.
Next I am afraid that I disagree with the committee and agree with the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-
1042
Carpenter and Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and my noble friend Lord Diamond on the question of the repetition of Government Statements and Statements on Private Notice Questions asked in the House of Commons. I do not want to go over the arguments again as they have been set out clearly. I believe that it would diminish the role of this House were we to accept such a formula. I believe that it would also sharply diminish the rights of all opposition parties both now and in the future.
We can all become bored when a Statement interrupts business in which we are interested, but what about yesterday's two Statements? Which of those would have been delivered in this House if the formula of the committee had been adopted? Should we have had the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, repeating an extremely important Statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons or should we have had the extremely important statement on electricity prices with all its very substantial political and economic implications? I do not know the answer to that question and I suspect nobody else does either.
Next, I very much agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, and my noble friend Lord Diamond on the question of Public Bill Committees on government Bills. I think that they can save time, and I am not impressed by the argument that the experience of the Pilotage Bill proves anything at all. I think we should certainly repeat that experiment.
I must remind the House that during the lifetime of the Labour Government a Betting and Gaming Bill did in fact go through just such a Public Bill Committee. It had as Members a number of eminent experts on this area of social policy, including the then Bishop of London and the late Lord Wigg. I believe that the members of that Committee, the Government and, I suspect, the House itself gained from that experience.
Next, if I may be a conservative on this question, I am afraid that I am a strong supporter of the dinner hour. I believe that it is one of our more civilised practices and, as one of the veterans of the seven days of the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill, the idea of going without dinner for seven evenings, though no doubt highly advantageous in other respects, does seem to me slightly unreasonable.
Now I will, if I may, turn to the position of the Government in this matter. First, again, I agree with my noble friend Lord Diamond that there is a great deal to be said, in terms of the management of Government business, for setting aside time on a contingency basis, so that Government legislation which has to be introduced speedily because of some substantial expression of public disquiet may be brought in without adding to an already overloaded programme. A good example of this is the Firearms Bill which is soon to be introduced in the House of Commons by the Home Secretary following the tragedy of Hungerford. But we can think of plenty of other examples of exactly the same thing arising in the past.
Secondly, I should like if I may to raise a rather more fundamental point. This is a matter which has

1043
already been touched upon by the noble Marquess who has just resumed his seat. There is simply far, far too much government legislation. That is true now, was true in the past when I was a Minister, and no doubt will be true in the future. Not only is there far too much of it, but some of the Bills introduced into already overloaded programmes are much too long in themselves.
As an example, I now should like to direct the attention of the House and the noble Viscount to the Bill to which we have so far devoted seven days—the Criminal Justice Bill. It contains 139 clauses; 11 schedules, and a substantial number of major new issues have been tabled in the form of Government amendments. This Bill in fact is five separate Bills. It is an extradition Bill; it is a criminal proceedings Bill; it is a penal affairs Bill; it is a criminal injuries compensation Bill and it is a juries Bill. We all, unhappily, know what happens when a department gets a place in a legislative programme. It shoves into the Bill in question every possible proposition that it can lay its hands on, many of which will have been waiting around for a very substantial period of time.
All I would say to the noble Viscount is that in terms of the responsibility he carries, as an important member of Cabinet Committees, I very much hope he will look into the possibility of repeating the experiments of the past when Leaders of the House of Commons have on occasion rationed departments to a specific number of clauses. This happened to me on a Home Office Bill when the Home Office was told it had 50 clauses and no more.
I repeat, I do not think it is reasonable to give us a Bill of 137 clauses, and then give us just 13 days between Committee stage and Report stage for the massive issues which are going to have to be considered by both Home Office officials and Ministers, and by Members of this House before we come to Report stage. I can of course understand the complaint expressed in civilised terms, if I may say so, by the Government Chief Whip last Thursday, when he said that we were making not quite so much progress on the Bill as he would have liked but I would only point out to him that, as I have said this evening, if we are going to have massive Bills of this kind, the Government must reconcile themselves to very lengthy Committee and Report stages. I repeat, too, that, if we are going to have Bills as long as this, we need more than 13 days between Committee stage and Report stage.
We have still had no answer from the Government on the question—which was raised through the usual channels—of a possible meeting concerning the issue of extradition. I brought up this matter with the noble Lord last Thursday evening, as he will recall, but silence still reigns. I hope this will now be looked at as a matter of urgency.
Finally, my Lords, there is one issue which was not dealt with in the terms of reference of this particular group of our colleagues but which I believe is worthy of serious consideration. It may well be that it could be sent on to another committee of Members of this House. We are having, as we all know, more and more legislation pushed in front of us. We are also having more and more representations made to us by
1044
outside organisations—a point which is dealt with in the report which we are now debating. We are having to have more and more meetings with interested bodies in this House. Yet the accommodation for Members of this House is still in scandalously short supply. All I do hope is—and I put this in the most delicate way—that we are going to have a look at a situation in which over 60 officials of a government department have offices in the Palace of Westminster which, in my opinion, should be made available to junior Ministers, whose accommodation is appallingly inadequate, and also to other Members of the House. I think that does deserve attention and I very much hope that the noble Viscount will look into it as early as possible.
With that, all I can say is that we should like to express again on behalf of the whole of the House our gratitude to all those who have been involved in the extremely important work of this committee. We thank them all for applying themselves with such energy to these matters and for having produced such an extremely readable report.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, both the noble Viscount and the Chairman of Committees in introducing this report emphasised that it did not suggest any fundamental change in our procedures but rather a gradual evolution of them. They re-emphasised the importance of self-regulation and that we should continue to enjoy the privilege of unrestricted debate. Indeed with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, there has been unanimous agreement with this point.
I should first of all like to add my congratulations to those which others have already given to the members of the working group and those who supported them for such a useful, interesting and fact-filled report. I think we are all very grateful to them for that.
The underlying point is that our procedures work well owing to the good sense and self-discipline of Members of the House. My own feeling is that there is no point in laying down in our procedures, or indeed in law in general, any matter which is so restrictive that it becomes unenforceable. Indeed, the working group admitted as much when it recognised that the suggestion made some two or three years ago that there should be only a single point in each supplementary question at Question Time was too restrictive and not enforceable. It therefore suggested that not more than two points should be contained in supplementary questions.
I shall not move on to the wider field entered by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, which is a major matter for debate. Rather I shall address myself to some of the specific issues that have been raised in the debate today.
The topicality of Starred Questions is one point. That does not seem to me to be a major problem because it has always been possible for Peers who wish to ask a very topical Question to go to a colleague and ask, "Will you switch your non-topical Question with my topical Question so that I can get it on earlier and you can have a later date?". I have

1045
found fellow Peers always very helpful in such matters. Indeed very often it has been possible to have a topical Question put on the Order Paper in that way.
The working party put forward a suggestion that the number of Questions on the Order Paper from any one Peer at any one time should be reduced from three to two. That is obviously a possible way of dealing with the problem. Another way would be to restrict a Peer to a single Question on the Order Paper on any one day and to retain three Questions. There are in fact ways in which Questions of some topicality can be organised and we can ensure that topical matters can be debated.
Statements caused a considerable amount of debate. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, was absolutely opposed to the recommendations in the report and rightly said that each issue ought to be decided on its merit. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, brought up a very interesting point about the two Statements that were made yesterday, which highlighted one of the problems. Your Lordships may have thought that the Chancellor's Autumn Statement was the most important of the two, but all the news coverage last night and today centred on the Statement about electricity prices.
When the Opposition are offered a Statement the difficulty is to know what is in it. One may be told that it is a Statement of no consequence at all. One then asks oneself why, if it is a Statement of no consequence at all, it is being made at all. I can recall some years back being told that a certain Statement was of no consequence and I agreed not to have it. It concerned the appointment of Mr. MacGregor as Chairman of British Steel at some fantastic salary, with an additional honorarium built in. The next day I had a red face. That is part of the difficulty about Statements.
Another point is that both the number of Statements made in the House of Commons and the number of PNQs have dramatically increased over the past five years. The total number rose from 86 in 1980–81 to 152 in 1985–86. Over that time the Statements that we had as a proportion of those figures changed very little. It would help us considerably if the Government made fewer Statements, because we would then not have quite so many in this House.
Length of speeches can be a problem. Noble Lords have been fairly good today; very few speakers have taken longer than 15 minutes and most have spoken for only 10 minutes. However, the length of speeches causes a problem and results in discourtesies inflicted on the House as a whole by Members leaving early. I have always thought that the five-hour debate, which was introduced a few years ago, is very useful because it enables speakers to know when it will finish.
The other week one or two noble Lords left before the end of a debate. I know that one of them did not apologise for leaving early. He looked at the number of speakers on the list and calculated that the debate would be over by about 8.30 p.m. In fact it went on until 10 o'clock but he could not offer an apology in his speech because he was unaware that it would last so long.
1046
The length of speeches raises difficulties and I think that time-limited debates can be a useful procedure. If they were a regular feature of our Wednesday debates, I am sure that it would be to the benefit of the House as a whole. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will not agree with me on that point.
As regards maiden speakers, there is a situation which, although it has not occurred today, has happened twice recently to my certain knowledge. There is a tradition in this House that no Peer leaves the Chamber while a speaker is making his maiden speech. It is a very good tradition. On two occasions, one fairly recent and the other not so far distant, one of your Lordships has shouted, "Order, order" in the middle of a maiden speech. It was quite proper to do so, but the unfortunate maiden speaker did not know what he was doing wrong and was completely put off his stroke by looking round to see in what way he had offended. I hope that such things can be done a little more quietly in future.
As for congratulations offered to maiden speakers, to some extent I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. On the other hand, I must say that this is a matter that cannot be considered as absolute and I agree in that with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I have a very special reason for wanting to congratulate my noble friend Lord Cocks on his most excellent and enjoyable speech. He has been my colleague for many years and plays his part in organising the usual channels. I should like to record my congratulations to him on his maiden speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was the only Peer who asked why we do not sit early when, as today, there are two introductions into the House. I have been waging for some time a little campaign to urge that we should always sit regularly at 2.30 and not at an earlier time. Noble Lords work to a routine pattern of coming to the Chamber at 2.30 and if perchance the House should meet at 2.15, most of them will nonetheless turn up at half-past two. The result is that the first Peer to be introduced faces an almost empty House, since no one comes along until 2.30.
My noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies, who I very much regret cannot be here today, often complained that nobody read the Whip that she issued and therefore it was important to advise Members verbally. She is absolutely right. People do not read the Order Paper and so do not know that the House will sit at 2.15 rather than at 2.30; that is a good reason for sticking to the time of 2.30 p.m.
On the subject of Unstarred Questions and the timing of the second Unstarred Question to be not after 8 p.m., we ought to look again at that point. It seems slightly ludicrous to say that a second Unstarred Question cannot start after 8 p.m. but that a first can start at 9 p.m. or 10 p.m.
I am conscious that I have now been speaking for 11 minutes but there is one further very important matter that I should like to raise; namely, the role of the Leader of the House. Several noble Lords have referred to his very important and difficult task in determining the will of the House. As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said—and I very much agree with him—the Leader is likely to be criticised equally if he

1047
comes in too soon or if he comes in too late. I think it is always better to be a trifle too late than a trifle too early. Certainly on those occasions when there has been a case of a noble Lord not self-disciplining himself, the Opposition will, as always, give full support to the Leader of the House in the exercise of his duties.
I should like to add personally that we all know we are very well served by the present Leader of the House in this matter. Again and again he has managed sensitively to judge the mood of the House and we have supported him.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, raised the problem of a substitute Leader. There is of course a well-known hierarchy as to who is the substitute Leader at any point of time during the day, depending on who is actually sitting on the Government Front Bench at that particular time. There have been problems which have arisen when a fairly new and junior Whip has suddenly been faced with an unexpected situation. I appreciate that it is not possible to cover every eventuality, but I think that it is important that there is an experienced Whip on the Bench at most times, particularly at times when there is likely to be some point of tension arising on the Floor of the House.
As many noble Lords have said, this is a useful report; and I think the debate has been useful too, if for nothing else than to make Peers very much aware of what the procedures of the House are. I think it is useful for this to happen from time to time.
7.32 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I think that I have listened to every speech in this debate with considerable interest, except for one: one that I think I would have admired the most had I not, for what perhaps might be described as good reasons, slipped out of the House for a moment, and that was the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn. He said that as other people had made the points he was going to make, he was not going to say any more. How could I have asked for a better speech to have missed?
I am going I think to please the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, because I rather agree with him. I do not think I would feel right if I had not expressed my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe. After all, I am also—although it is a long time ago and was in another place—yet another of the wicked Whips of both parties in both Houses. We are, because of the nature of our calling, very inclined to be a close community; but we have to be in order to stand against all those people who want to criticise us from time to time. If we were not, I do not think we would have survived so long as we have in both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, if I were not able to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, I should feel very upset. So if I am going to break some rule that everybody is very keen to introduce, then I have started the right way to do it. However, the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, made a most amusing and interesting speech and we shall obviously be delighted to hear a great deal more from him. No doubt we shall do so, not the least because he has been under a long period of silence in another place.
1048
The first point I come to is the question of self-regulation and the duties of the Leader of your Lordships' House in the procedures that we have at the moment. It would be right if I started by saying that one must always, even if one has become convinced of a particular course—as indeed I have done about self-regulation—pay great attention to those who have not. Therefore, I listened with great care to my noble friend Lord Broxbourne who, having come from another place, like I have, has decided in a contrary way to me about the proposal. The fact that he is in the minority of one in this debate, and also in a minority of one in the reports that were sent to the group, does not mean that he should not express himself as forcefully as he has.
He said we would be judged by history. That is extremely nice, is it not? I do not know how I am going to be judged in history. I do not quite know what is going to happen to me when that judgment comes. I doubt whether I shall be able to observe it; know about it; or whether, indeed, I shall be able to do so in the company of the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne. Whether we shall be divided on proper reasons, I cannot tell. Nevertheless, perhaps we should continue, if we have the chance, to take the same views. I am extremely grateful to two of my predecessors in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for the kind support that they have given to the procedures, and indeed to the way in which I try to exercise them at the present time.
I am also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for some very generous personal remarks which, whether they are justified or not, are all the more welcome. The great thing about kind remarks is that they are always much more welcome when they are not justified than perhaps when they are. In this case, I am extremely grateful to him.
I do take on board some of the criticisms. I should like to say a word about them, and a word about what I try to do in what I believe to be the service of your Lordships' House. I once expressed a view, when very new to the job, saying that I thought something. I always remember—and I am sure he will not mind my repeating it—the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, saying to me, "You were quite right, but if only you had said: 'That is what the House wants' and not 'I' wanted it". He said then I would have commanded much greater support and assent. Ever since then whenever I feel like saying "I", I can always see the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and I know I must not do it, and I will not; if I do, it will be totally by mistake.
There is, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, with his experience of the time when he occupied this role, a very difficult balance to be achieved. The House as a whole should recognise—as I know my predecessors do—that one of the problems which I believe are created, and certainly have to be faced, by the Leader of the House is as follows. When does he intervene? If he intervenes too soon, then he will become regarded as too quick. I noticed in another context, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said that he observed my impatience sometimes during Question Time. The great thing that all my friends have known

1049
for many years is that I have never been able to disguise my feelings for one single second; my feelings are seen all over my face at all times. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has seen them, so have a great many other people over the years. I have to agree that sometimes I do feel irritated at the length of time that Question Time is taking I feel irritated at all sorts of things from time to time; but that is true of that.
However, what I do feel is this. If I, as Leader of your Lordships' House, get it wrong, I hope I would be understood if I said I would far sooner—as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said—get it wrong by being late than get it wrong by being early. If I am early in trying to change or stop something, the danger is that I will be thought to be early by the Opposition Front Bench. I rely on their support, and am extremely grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Ponsonby, for all the support that they have always given me—and, indeed, to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and the other parties as well.
It means that I have to earn that support, because if I act too soon they will support me but they will rightly come to me afterwards—and I would expect them to do so—and say, "Don't expect us to go along with you always if you do it as quickly as that, and cut off the wrong person at the wrong time". Nothing is more disastrous than cutting off the wrong person at the wrong time—the person who has something to say and who ought to be allowed to say it. It is awfully easy to do it and to get it wrong. That may be a slightly cowardly way of going about it—I do not think that "cowardly" is quite the right word—but I think, on balance, it is safety that I should like, because if I am to serve the House I have to take as many people as possible along with me when I make that intervention. I think that my predecessors would agree with me.
I now turn to a short reference to the group's recommendation about the Brief Guide. On the whole, this seems to me to be very much supported. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, my noble friend Lord Nugent, the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, and the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, all said that they thought it would be very valuable and with their considerable experience of your Lordships' House I believe that that is a strong recommendation for it. I am extremely grateful to the group for that proposal. We shall certainly seek to carry it forward.
I turn now to legislation. The group's proposals on your Lordships' legislative work are modest and I hope that they will be useful. However, first I must meet the charges or rather the points made by my noble friend Lord Salisbury and indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. They are not strictly relevant to the group's report and therefore I must not spend too long on them. But they are relevant to the work of your Lordships' House and they are relevant to my work as the Leader of your Lordships' House and I think I owe an answer to some of those points.
First, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, about the contingency arrangement, the truth is that every government—and this has certainly been so for all the time that I have been trying to wrestle with this
1050
problem in government—always have a contingency for legislation written in at the start. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, as an ex-Chief Secretary, will know that all Chief Secretaries have always written in a contingency reserve and somehow before very long the contingency reserve is eaten up. That is true of the contingency reserve on legislation.
Why has it been eaten up in this Session? I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, answered the point out of his own mouth. The firearms legislation is a classic case. There is a tremendous demand from everyone that there must be firearms legislation at the earliest possible moment—why are the Government dragging their feet? I must say to those who say that they cannot ride both horses. They can try, because a lot of people like riding two horses at once. But they must not be allowed to do it, because if the argument is that you must do it at once, you can be quite certain that the Bill that is then produced will not be properly prepared and thought out and will have to be substantially amended when it comes to Parliament. So the truth is that getting the balance right in legislation is extremely difficult and I wish it was easy to have a contingency and keep it.
I now come to the Criminal Justice Bill to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has referred. He said that much has been added to it. Yes, my Lords. As I understand it, some of the provisions that are already included are not particularly liked by some of your Lordships, but many of those that have been added are liked by your Lordships; for instance, the legislation on knives which your Lordships regard as valuable and important and many of the other measures that have come into that Bill.
It is interesting that when I was Home Secretary five or six years ago there was another Criminal Justice Bill. So if the Home Office are stuffing things into this Criminal Justice Bill, they have a great precedent for doing so, because they did it five or six years ago, though not as much because I tried to stop it then, as my right honourable friend the present Home Secretary is trying not to do more now. But as the noble Lord will know very well, once you have a Criminal Justice Bill there are so many things that so many people genuinely want to put into it. That is the problem with a Criminal Justice Bill. These are all excuses, I know, for a failure to control the Government's legislative programme. I plead guilty to that.
There is another reason that I should like to put forward. It is true that when there is a large majority in another place, inevitably the mood of a government is, "Why can we not do more legislation?" It is much easier to do the legislation in another place if you have a large majority on a Standing Committee upstairs. It is quite easy to get a Bill through a Standing Committee. I have, in my time, tried to take Bills through a Standing Committee with a majority of one, but when you have a majority of five or six it is very easy and you do not worry.
If there is the possibility of a guillotine, anyway, after a period of time—and, rightly or wrongly, the other place has made the whole procedure of guillotines very much easier than it was previously; it has done so quite deliberately and it was agreed, I

1051
think, on all sides—that means that it is easier to get a Bill through. If I consistently say that it is far too big a programme to get a Bill through, I have to convince people always on the basis of the work of your Lordships' House, and there comes a moment when it is a difficult argument to produce.
Those are some of the things that happen. In the same way, it happens that there are many more representations made, inevitably, from outside, because there is more pressure. Hope always springs eternal, as I know, and the hope is that it may be possible to defeat the Government in the House of Lords, when it will manifestly not be possible to do so in another place. So all these factors have led to more pressure on our legislative time.
I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Salisbury that this year the argument about starting Bills here, which has often been relevant in the past, is not relevant. We are taking the Criminal Justice Bill now. We are already starting four Bills, some of them pretty major, in your Lordships' House—a very rare occurrence. I wish I could believe, looking at the Government's legislative programme, that that will necessarily mean that it will be easier in June and July next year. I would be a very rash man, knowing the composition of some of the Bills that are coming from another place, to make any such assertion. But at least it will not be because we did not have major Bills at the beginning of the session.
I do not think that I shall enter into the question of the dinner hour. When I came to this House I thought it was an odd procedure, but I never dared suggest to the Chief Whip that it was an odd procedure. So I just decided it was one of those things I must accept as something that always happens in the House of Lords and until today I have never thought about it, one way or the other. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and my noble friend Lord Broxbourne want to abolish it; the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, does not want to take other business in the middle of it and, on the whole, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, wants to abolish it, too.
Noble Lords: No.
Viscount Whitelaw: He wants to keep it? I am sorry, I clearly got that quite wrong. I do not know the answer to this point and I leave it very happily in the hands of the two Chief Whips. But I have to say to your Lordships that if the Government could not put other business into the dinner hour it would clog up the legislation still further. So if there is to be a dinner hour, I think it is necessary to have some other business inserted in that place. That is how it happens. I have learned to be a good boy and believe that is right.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, raised the question of the Pilotage Bill; we ought to have a non-controversial Bill and the Pilotage Bill was too controversial. He is probably right, but there is a problem about a non-controversial Bill. A non-controversial Bill is that very Bill which never takes any time, anyway, when it is on the Floor of the House. So, by definition, it certainly does not save any time if you send it up to a Standing Committee.
1052
That is the problem, I am afraid, and I do not think there is very much of a way around it—
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, may I interrupt? Perhaps I should say a "mildly controversial Bill".
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I heard the Chief Whip make a point which I shall repeat—I am not sure that it was a very good one. It was that we thought that the Pilotage Bill was a mildly controversial one.
Lord Shackleton: You were wrong.
Viscount Whitelaw: That is why it was not a good point! On Questions and debates, obviously, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, we must try to keep Question Time brisk, varied and topical. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, raised the very important question of our treatment of privatised industries at Question Time. Perhaps I could study that further and ask the Procedure Committee to look into it. I take the point about the duty of Ministers not to answer more than two questions and to keep their remarks brief, as in particular my noble friend Lord Ferrers and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said. I know that is right. That is a very understandable fault on the part of Ministers. I constantly stress to them that it is very understandable. They feel that they should give information because this House, unlike another place, wants to get information. The other place never wanted information at Question Time; but this House does want information. Consequently Ministers feel that they should give information. I notice from time to time, if Ministers do not give sufficient information, that noble Lords get up and ask why a Minister has not answered a second point. They say that they wish to have a perfectly good answer to a simple question, and that it has not been given.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that I long for the day when I can find a Question to which I may be able to give an answer of, "No, sir". If I can find such a Question, I shall take it away from whichever Minister it concerns in order to answer it in those terms and to see what happens when I have done that. The Minister concerned may not like it, but we could try it. It is a good principle.
We want to try to make Answers as quick as we can, and we shall certainly do that; but I ask noble Lords to understand that Ministers in giving information are seeking to serve the House. It is difficult to tell them what they must do because then noble Lords complain that Ministers never give any information. We must try to achieve a balance in this matter.
As regards debates, we have the problem of the red light. The Clock was installed in 1971. The best thing to say about the red light at this moment is that it clearly is a matter which needs some further consideration. It should be given that through the usual channels. I should like to discuss that matter with the Leaders of the other parties before I put a paper forward to the Procedure Committee. It is one of those issues with which it is probably wise to

1053
proceed somewhat slowly in view of certain differences of opinion that may arise. The Clock seems to be a success; I am very worried about it at the moment. But I am not sure about the red light. I should have got on very badly with the red light.
I have a long list of noble Lords who have spoken regarding the matter of Statements. Those noble Lords who were for the findings of the report were: the noble Earl, Lord Perth, the noble Lords, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, Lord Henderson of Brompton, Lord Bruce of Donington, Lord Broxbourne and the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale. Those against it were the noble Lords, Lord Diamond, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Airedale, Lord Ferrier, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and Lord Harris of Greenwich. The position on that matter is pretty divided. I believe again that it is right to proceed cautiously and slowly. Some of the problems that could be faced when dealing with this were mentioned. We must face those problems together and see if we can come forward with some reasonably acceptable proposal.
Lastly, I come to the important comments about Select Committees which were made by the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton, Lord Sherfield, Lord Chorley, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, and, on a slightly different point, by the noble Lord, Lord Reay. The argument was put forward that Select Committees operate on a shoestring. There was also a point made about having more ad hoc Select Committees. I should like to consider both those problems and see what we can produce. I wish to assure the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that the question of specialist assistance has not yet been referred to the Staff Sub-committee but that it certainly will be.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, made an interesting point about secondment. Again, I shall consider that and see whether I can help. Despite some of the strictures made about Select Committees, I have always been told so much about the valuable work that they do and I think that they are an important part of our procedures. We must ensure that they are given the chance to work properly. I certainly take the point that their findings should be debated at a proper time.
Although I have taken a rather long time, I hope that I have done my best to do justice to a very important debate. I have tried to give your Lordships the answers to as many questions as I can. I hope that I have achieved that. I very much welcome the working group's report, and I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and to all the members of the group. I welcome the helpful and constructive remarks that have been made this afternoon.
I shall now proceed as I promised at the start of the debate. We shall have the discussions. We shall have the paper presented to the Procedure Committee and then we shall see what the House makes of it all. I commend the report to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agricultural Research and Development
7.54 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will outline their future policy on agricultural research and development and whether they plan to reduce the number of staff engaged in agricultural research, development and advisory work; and if so by how many and over what period of time.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to begin by explaining why I put this Question down. Those of your Lordships who take an interest in these matters will know that there is considerable concern in the agricultural industry and among the staff of the various research and development institutes at the stories and rumours that are circulating regarding the possibility of yet further cuts in agricultural research, development and advisory work.
I thought that putting down this Question would give the Minister the chance to scotch these rumours; to reassure the industry and the staffs of the various institutes and also to set out the Government's policy on agricultural research and development and perhaps give their manpower guidelines.
I wish first to ask the Minister to explain the figures in the press release issued by the Ministry yesterday in connection with the Autumn Statement. That press release stated that the provisions for 1989–90 and for the following year have been reduced by £5 million and £10 million respectively to reflect an increasing level of industry funding for research and development. Presumably those figures represent the Ministry's targets for raising the extra funds from industry. Will the Minister explain whether, if there are further cuts in the pipeline as a result of the review of research and development emanating from No. 10 and the Cabinet Office, these cuts would be in addition to the £15 million in the Autumn Statement?
The industry feels a little hard done by by the fact that it seems to be penalised on its success in raising money towards research and development. It seems that the more the industry raises the more the Treasury decides to cut the money for research and development. We know all about cuts. They have been of the order of 20 per cent. since 1985. We are now told, and I agree, that we have a leaner and fitter research and development effort. Also there has been a substantial increase in funding from within the industry itself.
One way and another farmers are contributing something in the order of £9 million towards research and development. There is also the research effort which takes place completely outside the public sector; for example, the arable research centres, which are funded entirely by farmers. The Horticultural Development Council has been set up and a levy is collected through the HGCA for research and development into cereals. There are also the proposals which the Minister will know about for a Development Council for oilseeds. All those bodies raise money from the industry for research and development.
The Minister will know that the industry has been urged to take on board the concept of the bolt on levy to raise money to attach to the existing effort. It is hard to bolt on to fresh air. We have to be sure that there will be a central research and development effort so that when levies are collected from farmers the money will be well spent.
We are aware from the stories that are now circulating in the press of the new phrase or the buzz word, "near market research". That seems to me to be one of those deceptively simple ideas which emerges from the Treasury or from other places. As I understand it the argument is an extremely elegant one. It is that if we want it, we pay for it. If we will not pay for it we obviously do not want it. That argument misses the point completely about farming and farmers.
As the Minister knows, the farming industry consists of a large number of small businesses. A substantial proportion of those businesses are just stuggling to survive. The farmer is not always aware of the benefits of R&D at farm level and he is not always able to handle rapid changes of policy on research and development. It is almost possible to say in that regard that sometimes the man in Whitehall does know best. I urge the Minister in considering near market research not to assume too great a sophistication on the part of the farmer in considering that concept.
I believe that all those in the industry and indeed those who work in the R&D sector are entitled to ask for a period of stability to give the staffs of the various institutes some idea of where they are after the cuts we have gone through in the last two to three years. The Minister will not be surprised to learn that the uncertainty which has been created is resulting in very poor morale among many of the people engaged in that field.
There is also the problem of defining near market research. If we consider the things which the agricultural industry in its R&D effort should be looking at, in the new field of biotechnology, the whole area of lower inputs into farming, the problems of the environment, of diet and human health and the problems of animal welfare, those are all what economists would describe as public goods. They should be paid for, in my view, by the public sector.
Perhaps I may give a practical example concerning a matter about which we shall be hearing within the next few months—the set-aside programme. If a farmer has a fallow, the leaching of nitrates from a fallow occurs at a greater rate than from almost anything else which can be done with land. If instead we grow a green manure crop such as mustard, that is a pernicious weed in the rape crop that might follow it.
That is an example of the sort of thing for which we are entitled to ask for help in research and development. The farmer should not be asked to pay for the work because it is, after all, a constriction on the production and profit for the public good.
Tomorrow we shall be discussing a Bill which provides grants for farm diversification and the farm
1056
woodlands scheme. Those matters will also require research.
There is a place for commercial funding and it would be silly to deny it. If a company or a group of farmers can see a specific commercial advantage they should pay for the research work required on the basis of a research contract. But all those matters must be examined objectively. There is a key point about the dangers of commercial funding.
I was struck recently by the juxtaposition of two articles in the Grower magazine. One column concerned the fresh research and development cuts which are likely to occur in 1988. The Minister may have seen the article. It was said that the response of the research institutes to the news that was emerging from the science policy adviser to the Cabinet was chilling with regard to its effect on R&D. Next to that article was a story which stated that ADAS had just concluded its first agreement in the horticultural industry with a commercial company. The agreement is that the farmer, if he buys the products of that company, will be given the ADAS service free. I have been engaged for 30 years as an agricultural consultant and never once in that time would I have dreamed of having an arrangement of that nature. I see that the Minister looks surprised and that she is agreeing with me. That example illustrates the danger of commercial funding.
If one takes the possibility that ADAS might not reach its budget of £6 million from charging, and if you are the man in the field and you know that there is pressure on the budget and your job may be the one to go if the budget is cut, then will you be as objective as you should be when you consider the products of that company?
Such examples of the dangers of commercial funding occur in other parts of the industry as well; I know of a number of examples of the type of arrangement by which a commercial company subsidises the use of ADAS by a farmer.
I would argue that much of the research and development effort in agriculture is strategic and that the timespan for planning should be much longer than the three years, say, of the Annual Statement. I urge the Minister to identify the long-term strategic nature of much of the work done in the research and development field and to move it upstream to a five-year or perhaps even a 10-year timespan.
All these matters must be put into perspective. Suppose that the story in the press referring to cuts of the order of £60 million is wrong by a factor of two-thirds. Let us say that the Ministry will be looking for reductions of the order of £20 million. One can think of the agony and upset that will be caused in the R&D sector by a cut of that size. May I remind the House that £20 million was the cost of the advertising for the flotation of BP shares?
I should like to conclude by asking the Minister some specific questions. What is the department's view of its role in providing a viable research, development and advisory service to the rural community? What is its policy concerning the public funding of strategic and applied research and development? May we have a definition of near market research? Who is going to define it; will it be

1057
done within the department or externally? Having defined it, what will be done about it? Are such areas to be privatised? Are they to be cut out completely or perhaps funded by an industry-wide levy?
I also urge the Minister to look carefully at the legislation concerning development councils. They provide a way of raising funds from all sides of industry—farmers, processors, the trade and so forth. There are some good examples of those councils at work.
I believe that the crucial point is the timescale of the review that is now going on. This matter is causing a great deal of anxiety in the industry and among the research people concerned. We have heard stories concerning cuts happening in the next two years or so. R&D staffs are entitled to know after all that has happened in the last few years how many jobs may go and when.
Lastly, I hope that the Minister will undertake to ensure that both Parliament and the industry will have the chance to discuss the proposals and that they will not he presented with a fait accompli.
8.7 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for putting down the Question. I am particularly grateful because only last week I intended to put down a Question along similar lines. In looking through the Order Paper, I found that the noble Lord had already done so. We are grateful to him.
I am concerned about the effects of Government cuts in funding for research in terms of the agricultural research stations and institutes. My knowledge, such as it is, comes from Rothamsted, where I am a member. I glory in the title of Treasurer of the Lords Agricultural Trust Committee, which is the governing body of Rothamsted. That research station has had very severe cuts in staff over the past six years. The Government have quite correctly curtailed expenditure and I applaud that. It is a major part of their philosophy and I believe that they are quite right to do so. Not just agricultural research but all research has had to take its share of the cuts. Although it bleated, it expected to take its share of those cuts. However, the cuts have been substantial; and they go on and on, as does the demand for cuts.
My fear is that the fat has gone. Further cuts will make inroads into the very core of the scientific operation and scientific integrity of those stations. It is all very well for the Government to say, "Go out and get funding from sponsors in the marketplace". In general, I agree with that philosophy. Sponsors will not readily agree to put their money long-term into research stations when the scientific core and excellence of the establishment and the reputation responsible for attracting the funding in the first place are themselves at risk and might even be in danger of being diminished.
If I may give an example. In April 1981 there were 850 science-grade posts in arable crops research between seven stations (of which Rothamsted was one) and of those 424 posts were at Rothamsted. In April 1988 there will be only 424 such posts in all
1058
arable crops research stations of which Rothamsted will have only 247. In other words, in 1981 one station out of seven—Rothamsted—employed as many science-grade people as does the whole Arable Crops Research Institute now. These cuts have been traumatic.
It does not end with staff cuts. When staff is cut and buildings remain the same, the overheads increase making it consequentially difficult to get outside sponsors because commercial bodies do not want to pay for large overheads. They want specifics. The more the staff is cut, the worse becomes morale. Those who are left wonder why they should remain and if it is worth their while to do so.
Very often offers come from abroad. This weekend I was talking about one person, admittedly in a different area of research—namely medical research—who had been in America for one year and was returning to England. He was a surgeon and he had a number of offers of employment from America including one with a salary of 500,000 dollars per year which is the equivalent of £300,000 per year. He was returning to a consultancy worth £30,000 in England.
The danger of the brain drain is considerable and it was in order to try to stop this, especially for scientists who were working in the Ministry of Defence, that the Government decided to increase the pay of scientists by 22 per cent. in two years. That was understandable because they wanted to try to prevent the brain drain. Of course it is much easier for the Ministry of Defence. Most of their budget is spent on weaponry and upon the armed services. The effect of the increase in the pay of scientists on the Ministry of Defence is therefore insignificant. But because scientists in the Ministry of Defence get increases, scientists across the board in government research also get increases. The effect of this has been devastating in agricultural research.
Institutes have a higher proportion of that kind of staff than other research councils. The great majority of staff are in the IPCS grades, and most of them are at the top of the scale. The budget of over 70 per cent. of agricultural research institutes goes on salaries. The opportunities to rob other areas of expense is minimal. This can only be done on building maintenance and the replacement of equipment. There is not much scope there.
The problem itself is further compounded by the fact that the sophistication of modern equipment requires vastly increased funds to be spent on equipment if research is to be kept to the forefront. One cannot expect excellence of research to be achieved by using out-of-date and inadequate equipment. This is not peculiar to agriculture but it is a problem which faces those who have to balance the books at research stations.
To put it in perspective, in 1987–1988 the grant-in-aid made by the Government for arable crops is £12 million. In 1981–1982 it was £15 million. At today's values that 15 million would have been worth over £20 million. So in six years government funding has dropped in real terms from £20 million to £12 million, and it is now only 60 per cent. of what it was six years ago on arable crops research.

1059
At the same time the top-of-the-scale salaries to which I have referred have increased by 40 per cent. Even the expense of ordinary scientific equipment like flasks has increased by far more than the cost of inflation before one considers the cost and the requirement for specialised sophisticated equipment. Obviously, the combination of the substantial cuts in funding on the one side and the greatly increased costs on the other, has meant only one thing and that is loss of jobs. It is the only practical place where cuts can be made. Put blandly, Rothamsted has been kept in balance simply by firing people. At Rothamsted the number of science-grade posts has halved in six years from 424 to 247, and this trend looks like continuing.
I am bound to tell your Lordships that the budget for next year for the Institute of Arable Crops Research shows a deficit of £850,000. I do not know what is going to be done about this. There is a plan to make a further 33 posts redundant, but that will save only £550,000. That will make the seventh round of redundancies and if the Government do not make up the difference between £550,000 and £850,000 then a further list of redundancies—the eighth in five years—will be drawn up representing another 18 posts.
My fear is that agricultural scientific research is being put severely at risk. I happen to have referred to Rothamsted because that is where my experience has been gained. However, I have no reason to doubt that the same picture is reflected in other research institutes throughout the industry. Much is being done, and quite rightly so, and with great enthusiasm, to attract earnings from industry and other sources. But this is the point. It becomes progressively more difficult to attract funds if the core staff are lost because it is they who are the very ones who are capable of planning and directing projects. Yet they are not the ones who are necessarily central to an applied programme which of course is what the sponsor wants.
It is all very well for the Minister of Agriculture, my right honourable friend, to say that agriculture users should provide the funds or that agriculture should do so. He must know that the state of agriculture is such that farmers are concerned, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, just to continue to exist. Some people are going bankrupt. There is not a pot of cash there to be raided for research.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday that there is an extra £45 million to be allowed for scientific research. That sounds good; but I ask my noble friend Lady Trumpington: how much of that is going to agriculture? I understand that most of it has already been allocated. I understand that £6 million is being devoted to research on AIDS; £8½ million is devoted to the purchase of a ship; and £27 million for pay increases. That leaves only £3½ million for investment on all scientific research for which the Government are responsible.
How much of this is going to agriculture? There is concern because all the vibrations indicate that the Government are going to cut yet further their support for agricultural research. I know that agriculture is at
1060
present unpopular because of surpluses, the common agricultural policy and also because of the perceived effects upon the environment of chemicals and the problems of wildlife. The fact is that agriculture is a huge and, let us not forget it, a very important industry. We cannot afford to turn off the taps on research, nor can we afford to wreck it. Much of the present research is designed to improve the very aspects for which agriculture has been criticised.
The warning I give to the Government this evening is simply this. Look out! The excellence of research, the morale of research and the integrity of research is at risk. The Government have their responsibility—not the whole responsibility but an important part of it—for ensuring that research is not put at risk.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I too express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this vitally important matter and also for the admirable way in which he introduced the subject. As those of us who have the privilege of knowing him already realise, he showed a very wide knowledge of not only the technical matters of farming but also the much wider aspects. In doing so he gave us an admirable introduction to this debate.
When the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, started his speech I was a little surprised that he applauded the present Government in the principle of their cuts in agricultural research. However, in listening to the rest of his speech there was nothing with which I could not find myself in complete and wholehearted agreement, particularly his final warning.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I did not actually say that I applauded the cuts in research. I said that I applauded the cuts in government expenditure across the board, in which research had to play its part.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I am happy to have that explanation and apologise for having misunderstood.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I start with a personal reminiscence. Some 50 years ago I was engaged as a young bacteriologist in research into blood clotting. I was working in particular with the staphylococcus which speeded up the clotting of blood and the streptococcus which had the opposite effect.
So far as I or the professor who suggested this line of research could see there was no real practical significance in this, but it was of general interest and where it would lead noboby could tell. It now transpires that the ability of the streptococcus to inhibit clotting, and in certain cases to dissolve the clot, is becoming a very important treatment in one of the great killer diseases; namely, coronary thrombosis.
I am not attempting to take any credit. Nothing I did had any effect on that. However, it is an illustration of the way in which seemingly useless research, just adding a very small amount to the general fund of knowledge, can after many years lead to something which is of great significance. All those

1061
who are engaged in research of any kind could give many such examples.
Agriculture today, as we all know, is in a transitional period. No longer are we living under the threat of shortages in this country or in Western Europe as a whole. No longer is it necessary to grow more and more, to have ever heavier crops, ever greater applications of fertilisers and ever more surpluses. We have surpluses and we have entirely new problems. It is essential for all those who are concerned with this industry that we should figure out new jobs for agriculture, new activities and new crops. The need for this will last for the foreseeable future.
I suggest that there is a special need for more work to be done on methods of resisting disease in crops and in animals which do not need the application of pesticides or sprays of one kind or another; but the need for research on this and many other aspects is just as great as ever. In some ways it is greater, because we have these new problems arising from the era of surpluses in which we are now living.
But what is happening today? We have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, what is happening at Rothamsted, the oldest and most respected of our agricultural institutes, where the grants have been cut and are still being cut. It is still under threat and morale, although still strong thanks to the fine people who are working there and the efforts of those in charge, cannot be as good as it was in the days when there was ever more money, applause and gratitude for what was being done.
For example, to add two very small points to what the noble Earl said, there is no longer a department of soil physics at Rothamsted, as I understand it. That is truly of enormous importance. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned the leaking of nitrates. One cannot understand and control matters of that kind, with the enormous implications to our water supplies and so on, unless one's knowledge of soil physics is ever widening and improving, but that has now been cut. On a rather smaller scale, there is no research into the pea crop, yet everybody agrees that we must hunt round for alternative crops to sugar-beet, wheat and barley, which are in surplus. Surely both of those aspects—one of basic importance and the other of perhaps ephemeral importance—should be encouraged with more funds made available rather than having to scrap the whole lot.
I give one example from the Plant Breeding Institute, now largely privatised. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, will be closely connected with this since her title comes from the village in which it works, Trumpington just outside Cambridge. There has been a remarkable step forward as a result of work carried out in the Plant Breeding Institute, which has recently produced plants by genetic means which are resistant to viral infection—in this case tobacco plants because they were the plants used in the experiments but the results can be applied to a whole range of plants. There is no question of sprays, but purely by making use of the new and fantastically delicate operations of genetic engineering this has opened up a whole field of advance. However, because of cuts in the finance and the changes which
1062
are being made, that work is now at risk. I put it no stronger than that.
Development in that type of work undoubtedly is not receiving the encouragement and the funds which could make so much contribution, not for the next five years but perhaps for the next 10, 20 or 30 years. That is the sort of horizon that we should be looking at when discussing these matters.
I end by quoting some comments which some of your Lordships may have read in the newspapers today by Sir Walter Bodmer, the President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. He is reported as saying that the science budget needs to be increased by £100 million in real terms. In real terms it faces an annual reduction of 4 per cent. According to Sir Walter, the announcements made yesterday are extremely disappointing and totally inadequate. That does not specifically apply to agricultural science but agricultural science and research is, after all, one aspect—an important but not the most important aspect, as I freely admit—of the whole attitude of our present Government towards scientific research.
Industry quite rightly should be looked to to provide funds for the type of research that will give short-term advantages and out of which industry itself can make a profit, but we cannot look to industry to provide the funds for the basic research which has such long-term implications. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give us some encouragement when she comes to reply to this short debate.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Carter for providing this opportunity to debate these critical questions. I wish also to indicate my support for the points raised by my noble friend in his opening remarks.
During a debate on a similar subject in this House on 14th May 1986, some 18 months ago, I expressed concern along with other noble Lords about the Government's policies and about the reduction in the finance available for agricultural research, development and the advisory services. In that debate I indicated the importance of agriculture to the Northern Ireland economy where some 14 per cent. of the working population are engaged in farming and in industries and services directly related to farming. I am pleased to say that Mr. Tom King, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, strongly emphasised the importance of agriculture to Northern Ireland when he spoke to a number of agricultural journalists some two weeks ago. I quote from the Belfast Newsletter dated 19th October 1987 in which Mr. King said:
"With its ancillaries it is our major industry employing eight times as many people as the shipyard and produces food products worth well over £1 billion each year … One of the most important requirements in our agricultural industry is the ability to export. Approximately three-quarters of the production of our food companies is shipped out of Northern Ireland".
Mr. King went on to say to the journalists that the research and development which they would see during their tour of Northern Ireland provided incomparable back-up for the industry. He said:
"Northern Ireland has a unique animal health status within the British Isles. This is a commercially valuable asset which we jealously

1063
develop and maintain. Today many commercially significant animal diseases, endemic elsewhere in Europe and in Britain, are absent in Northern Ireland. This year we have introduced new schemes to improve the breeding of cattle and sheep to ensure that our meat products continue to meet the standards of leanness and quality which the customer demands".
I welcome and support Mr. King's praise for Northern Ireland's agricultural industry. However it must be said—and Mr. King is well aware of the situation—that the high standards and status of Northern Ireland's agricultural products have not been obtained by the policies of the present Government; nor by measures adopted over the past few years. The high standards and status of agricultural production have been the outcome of agricultural research, development and advisory services laid down and acted upon by the Department of Agriculture, Northern Ireland, over a period of many years. Indeed the criticism made in the debate 18 months ago of the present Government's policies and of the financial cuts introduced some time before that concerning these basic and crucial services has proved to be well founded; and as this debate has already suggested, the trends are likely to be even more regressive.
In my opinion this is borne out by the figures published in the Belfast Newsletter of 31st October. It stated:
"A further fall in cattle numbers is revealed in the final results of the agricultural census taken on June 1, 1987, in Northern Ireland.
"A department spokesman said that, with some exceptions, the results published yesterday confirmed the trends indicated by the preliminary figures published in August. Within the cattle numbers, dairy and beef cow herds showed slight declines, accompanied by larger falls in other cattle … Total cattle numbers fell by 3 per cent. to 1·43 million".
Over the years the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture has developed a highly sophisticated and expert range of research, development and advisory services. These schemes are incorporated in legislation and are provided through centres established by DANI in association with Queen's University, the Ulster University and agriculture colleges. Some specific examples of the consequences of the financial cuts have already been given, consequences in respect of the industry and the skilled personnel involved in agricultural production. I want to give one example.
One unit covers three aspects of research, development and advisory services. I refer to the Cattle Artificial Insemination Unit, the AI Scheme in Northern Ireland. The Ulster Year Book, which is the official handbook for Northern Ireland, states on page 173:
"The Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture operates various schemes and services to help producers of livestock to obtain breeding stock with high genetic potential thus ensuring that commercial producers have access to stock with the highest productive capacity.
"The object of the AI Scheme is the improvement of the quality of both dairy and beef cattle in Northern Ireland. It can also play a considerable part in the prevention of diseases which affect the breeding cycle of cattle as well as reducing the possibility of spread of other infectious or contagious diseases. The Department provides an Al service by technicians through 11 centres around Northern Ireland. A wide selection of semen from proven hulls is available to Northern Ireland farmers".
1064
On Friday 30th October I received a 10-page paper from the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance; it was a copy of that organisation's response to proposals by the Government to disengage from the provision of this AI service. In other words, the Government plan to privatise the AI unit for the artificial insemination of cattle. NIPSA is a recognised trade union organisation and represents all grades of Northern Ireland Civil Service employees except a few posts at Permanent Secretary level. Indeed, NIPSA and the trade union movement in Northern Ireland are seriously concerned about this proposal and the lack of adequate consultations about the loss of more than 100 jobs in the unit.
Many representatives of the farming community have also expressed their deep concern about the proposal and one spokesman is quoted as saying, and I quote from the Irish News of 19th October 1987:
"This lastest example of the privatisation disease could have serious consequences both for the smaller farmer and for the overall quality of the Northern Ireland cattle herd. The Al system at present provides a prompt, high quality service at a reasonable cost to all farmers. An ordinary visit costs less than £5. This has resulted, due to the wide use of a consistent, quality service, in a noticeable improvement in the quality of the Northern Ireland cattle stock. We could have no guarantees in a privatised free-for-all situation that the cost or availability of the service could be maintained, especially to the smaller users. That could lead to farmers returning to making their own direct arrangements with inferior animals and to a deterioration in the quality of the Northern Ireland herd. The maintenance by the Department of Agriculture of an effective, high quality, low cost operation has been of great advantage to farmers individually and to the agricultural economy of Northern Ireland as a whole."
I quote from a summary of the 10-page document presented to me by the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance:
"The proposal that DANI disengages from the AI Service cannot be examined in isolation from other factors. The resources needed to police and enforce the conditions governing a privatised Service coupled with the effects on the animal health status of the herd and losses arising from the use of inferior bulls cannot be ignored. The cost to the tax-payer is also important. Social Security budgets will increase, Inland Revenue and National Insurance contributions will be reduced. Permanent job loss will occur, dole queues will increase and Government, rather than meeting their promise to improve the economic and employment position within the country, will manifestly be seen to be doing the opposite. Disengagement, especially if it results in privatisation, means the Department retaining responsibility for, but losing control of, the Service. The cost of disengagement and/or privatisation to Northern Ireland's economy in general and the farming community in particular will be enormous. It quite simply cannot be afforded and must not happen."
Since receiving the paper I have not had an opportunity to consult the department or Lord Lyell who, as we know, is Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Northern Ireland Office with special responsibility for agriculture. Nor indeed have I had the time to discuss the matter in detail with the official Opposition spokesman dealing with Northern Ireland affairs or with the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord John-Mackie, who deal with agriculture. Nor have I had an opportunity to mention my intention to raise the matter with the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, who will reply. Therefore, I do not expect anything to emerge by way of reply to the matters urgently presented to me.
With the best interests of Northern Ireland agriculture in mind, I hope that the debate and the official record may alert the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and his ministerial colleagues to the situation and that they will arrange for urgent and

1065
earnest consultations with the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance representatives. I also hope that more attention will be given by the Government to research and development and to the advisory services of the agriculture industry throughout the United Kingdom. Some despairing reports have been presented to the House this evening. I hope that these will be examined in close detail by the Government.
8.44 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I should explain at the outset that my interest is as Chairman of the Agricultural and Food Research Council. I wish to talk not so much about that council but about the whole breadth of agricultural research in the country in terms of the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I must say how grateful I am to the noble Lord for introducing the subject. By the force of his speech and indeed by the force of the speech of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, it was made clear that in the last few years there has been a quite dramatic change in agricultural research in this country. Its extent was tellingly spelt out by my noble friend in terms of the Rothamsted Institute, although that could be repeated throughout the research services, be it within the Ministry of Agriculture, in Scotland within the AFRC or, following the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, to an extent in Northern Ireland. I have been impressed when visiting Hillsborough in Northern Ireland by the high quality of research undertaken there. It is very much part of the complex and wide, though sometimes rather difficult to follow, structure of agricultural research. One can add to that the research associations' university research work.
Throughout the field of agricultural and food research, as we have heard, dramatic changes have taken place in the past few years. I believe that there have been positive changes to meet the new challenges. ADAS, the AFRC and others have changed their management structure. This has been highly advantageous. As we have heard, changes have taken place in the source of funding and I am sure that, as we have heard, there will be yet further changes in line with government wishes—but more of that anon.
There have been shifts in research emphasis—that is, in the shape of research programmes. Indeed, the House on a number of occasions has expressed great interest in seeing such new initiatives in agricultural and food research. I can recollect some very useful debates on the impact of agriculture on the environment led by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian. I remember debates on animal health and veterinary sciences, on agricultural engineering and on biotechnology—one of the glamour areas of the biological sciences, in which agricultural research has a pivotal and successful role. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and others speaking with great passion and force and, I thought, with great conviction about the need for maintaining a research base for grassland farming in Wales and the West. Only last February we had the new initiative from the Government referring in part to the need to research alternative crops to support rural areas. All this
1066
demonstrates how important many sectors judge research to be if we are to meet the fast changing needs not just of agriculture and food but of a large number of industries based on the biological sciences.
Those changes have taken place against swingeing cuts and, possibly even more damaging, against the fear of yet more cuts. Sadly, yesterday's press release from the Ministry confirms that these fears are not misplaced. I know that there is some increased funding in the science Vote, from which I hope the AFRC may benefit. I fear that the Ministry of Agriculture will not be able to do so; nor will the Department of Agriculture in Scotland. As my noble friend Lord Ferrers pointed out, a large part of these funds must already have been earmarked.
I am saddened by the terms of the press release, which states:
"The provisions for 1989–90 and 1990–91 have also been reduced (by £5 million and £10 million respectively) to reflect an increasing level of industry funding for research and development".
The implication is clearly, "If you're successful enough to get industrial funding, we're going to cut you". If ever there was an incentive for research institutes to obtain alternative funding, that is not it. I fear that it flies very much in the face of the assurance given to me many times by successive Ministers that, if agriculture looked after itself, it would receive support. I should welcome an assurance from my noble friend that the inference drawn from that one rather damaging sentence is wrong.
The plea for long-term strategic thinking about the role of agricultural research which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, would be echoed not just by research managers and research staff but in particular by industrial funders—people who are already participating in funding research in this country. My noble friend Lord Ferrers made this point very forcefully. They cannot be expected to put increasing sums of money into our research institutes if the base is being forever eroded and if they do not know where the bottom line will be. I repeat that the words of that press statement are not calculated to inspire great enthusiasm.
Time and again in debates on all aspects of the civil research budget and civil research policy, the point has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and others, of the need for an oversight of civil research; that we cannot go on taking pot-shots at this or that aspect of research. We are talking today about agricultural research but on another day we might well be talking about research on the energy industry or the like.
What has been needed for a long time is a strategic oversight. It is greatly to be welcomed that we now have the machinery for such an oversight. We have the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology (shortened inevitably to ACOST). That is in response to your Lordships' Select Committee. I am sure that the research managers in the Ministry of Agriculture, ACOST and elsewhere, will welcome enormously the opportunity which now exists to extend this oversight not to agricultural research alone but to the biological sciences as a whole. It is too early—because ACOST is only just in place—to get a feel as to what it is likely to determine. However, I

1067
can quite imagine, although I would not necessarily agree, that ACOST may take the view that "near market" research—the buzz word, we have heard—may well be an area into which industry should be encouraged to move further. I would not necessarily agree or disagree but let us assume that that would be the view.
I am sure my noble friend will make this point very forcefully on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture. I believe that ACOST and my noble friend will make the point that agriculture, which has always been a technology-driven industry, will need the support and the underpinning of research and development very much more once the common agricultural policy is brought under control. Clearly, the common agricultural policy has been a grave source of embarrassment to successive governments. It was never intended that the scale of support, which is a burden on our own taxpayers, should be anything like it is at the moment.
I am equally clear that, in frustration at this inability of successive agriculture Ministers to control this cost, the reaction has been to remove all support which is within the purview of the Government, and that includes research and development. I think that it is reasonable to assume from these Benches that we shall be successful well within the lifetime of this Government in controlling quite dramatically the cost of the common agricultural policy. Farmers will not like this: inevitably the implication is that life will be tougher than it is at the moment. We shall have to be more competitive in world terms. We shall have to be able to implement technology fast. We shall be desperately looking for that technology support.
I would make this plea—and noble Lords will recognise that I have a very strong vested interest in this area—that, whatever other support policy is removed from agriculture, we look very carefully at the support which is provided by research and development if we want to have a viable agriculture in five or ten years' time, or certainly at the turn of the century. I do not believe yet that this has been done. I believe that the constant sniping at agricultural and food research which has been so damaging has not taken this overall strategy into account. It is time that ACOST—which is the machinery that should handle this—did this. It is sad that I have to say this one day after yet a further cut which will clearly be damaging.
I want to widen this point because I do not expect ACOST to look only at the needs of agriculture and the food industry but at the areas which will produce the greatest return to the economy of this country. In other words, where will civil research provide not simply jobs for scientists—which is clearly not the consideration—but profitable areas of underpinning for the new industries that we are likely to see growing in the next 10 or 20 years? I would suggest to noble Lords that the biological sciences will be one of two or three growth areas—biotechnology certainly comes to mind—and there are other areas where the agricultural and food research services within the departments and the research council will be able to give valuable underpinning. Before we dissipate these important research resources further, let us make
1068
sure that we shall not have to rebuild this expertise somewhere else with a time lag and with a damaged continuity of research which will be greatly regretted.
I am convinced that the positive response that the research services have made to the recent cuts, the ablity to move positively and rapidly into the new areas which have been identified, and the quality of the scientific work involved will be greatly appreciated by successive governments. I therefore ask the Minister when she replies to think very carefully about whether it is not possible now to give some degree of assurance that there will be no further cuts until long-term strategic thinking about the biological sciences, and agricultural and food research placed within that, has been fully worked out.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I must apologise for the fact that I was not in my place at the appropriate time. My train was held up by a serious fire.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for raising this important subject this evening. When I look back on my early memories in agriculture of going round farms with my father at the beginning of the war, it was then in a parlous state. It was largely due to the agricultural research and the advisory services that we can now look at our agriculture and be proud that it is perhaps one of the best systems in the world and certainly the best in Europe. It would be the greatest possible shame if penny-pinching cuts in research budgets were to cause us to lose this lead. I very much support the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, in what he said in this respect. It may have been good medicine to cut back research budgets. I believe that it has introduced a new spirit of realism in the world of agricultural research. But good medicine, if it is administered for too long, often kills the patient in the end.
There are two specific points of concern which I should like to raise with the noble Baroness tonight. The first relates to the fact that rather less than 6 per cent. of the funding of the AFRC budget goes into the research which takes place at universities. This compares very disadvantageously with the percentage of other research budgets, such as the medical budget, which go to research carried on in universities and puts agricultural departments at a grave disadvantage. Not only does it put them at a disadvantage in terms of their research performance but also in the context of teaching. Teaching at university level needs to be supported by research. Unless there is well-funded research potential available in a university it is increasingly difficult to attract the best teachers and the best scientists to teach in those departments. Can the noble Baroness give me any comfort that plans are in hand to help universities in this respect?
The second point I should like to raise relates to research funding of cultural and economic questions, in particular relating to agricultural policy. The kind of questions I mean are these. What will be the effect of the oils and fats tax on consumers and farmers? What will be the employment implications of reduced levels of support to agriculture or indeed of other strategies such as set aside? If a pre-pension scheme

1069
option is selected what level of pre-pension scheme will be necessary to attract the desired number of farmers out of the industry?
At the moment the answer to these questions is largely based on guesswork. There is a need for properly maintained economic models so that more efficient answers can be given. It is a travesty that the Government spend annually a couple of billion pounds on supporting agriculture and over a hundred million on technical agricultural support but they devote only a pittance to research which is aimed at understanding the economic and social consequences of changes in policy.
I am wondering whether the noble Baroness can answer the following three questions on this subject. I appreciate that the first two may involve numerical complexities which may require an answer in writing at a later date. The first is: what is the total annual expenditure on research into economic issues affecting food, agriculture and rural areas? Secondly, of this total, excluding the farm business and food expenditure surveys, what proportion is spent on research into the economic and social impact of United Kingdom and Community agricultural policies? Finally, and I think this is important, what are the mechanisms for ensuring co-ordination of research effort into these areas?
9.2 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate my noble friend. This is the second or third time that he has raised a debate in this House and he does it very well indeed. From the speeches we have just heard, the subject he has chosen will be very much appreciated because it is a very important one indeed.
I should like to take a leaf, or at least half a leaf, out of the book of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Blackburn. In the debate we have just finished he rose, said that everything had been said that he wanted to say, that it had been said better than he could say it, and sat down again. Quite a lot of what I wanted to say has been said by other speakers tonight and I do not want to touch on those subjects again. However, I should like to mention one or two of the remarks that have4 been made.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, made an important point about salaries. One cannot blame people taking advantage of higher salaries if they see double or three times their salaries available elsewhere and hear of rumours of privatisation, closing down and cuts. Nevertheless it causes a brain drain from this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, mentioned the genetic engineering done by the PBI. That is continuing, but it has been cut off from the development side. I think that was a huge mistake and I hope it will not affect it as much as was thought. The noble Lord, Lord Blease, as always, was interesting about his home country. He made several good points about the artificial insemination schemes. One important point he made concerned the loss of jobs in the area, where work is very scarce anyway.
1070
I brought with me the 1985 report on priorities of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, because I felt sure that he would mention something about it. He mentioned the difficulties of planning ahead in producing such a report and wanting all that done and then feeling that, as you cannot go ahead with various matters because of cuts all along the line, what is the use of such a report? I very much appreciated what he said on the various aspects of his work.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, asked a few questions to which we shall look forward to hearing the Minister's answers. The trouble with an Unstarred Question is the fact that the Minister speaks last and we do not know what she will have to say. Tonight she will have a lot to say, because I have never seen the Box or the messengers working so hard as they have been tonight in this last hour. We look forward to hearing what she has to say and her replies to the various questions that have been asked.
I should like to make two remarks. We know that the Government have a policy of privatization—it is a dogmatic policy which I do not like—but I should like to think that if they intend to privatise any more research stations they will take on board the lesson of the mistakes they made over the PBI. They started out way back in May 1984 with the idea of selling off the NSDO. It took them a whole year to discover that they could not do that without the PBI. They had to start all over again, and here we are at the end of 1987;I know the matter has been settled but no doubt there is a lot to do before the new company takes over. I should like to think that that will not happen again and they will think everything through before doing such a major thing as privatising PBI. The result over these four years has been uncertainty among the staff who left. Everything has been done to deprecate the work of that great institution, which has done more than anyone, in my opinion, to help British farming and to help with reducing surpluses. After all, about 80 per cent. of wheat grown last year grew from seeds brought out by the PBI.
My noble friend Lord Carter raised my second issue in a different way. It concerns the question of advice from ADAS, for quite a proportion of which farmers to a certain extent were paying. Over the years all the advice we have had has been independent, from independent public research stations. During my farming career, which stretches to 61 years at the end of next month, I valued advice from colleges in Scotland, and from ADAS when I became a farmer in England, because of its independence. Now ADAS will not have that independence—my noble friend Lord Carter gave us an example—and farmers will have to go to private firms. The best of luck to them. But they will need advice and one cannot blame ADAS if that advice is biased in favour of its own products or plants. It seems a pity that this has happened. I do not think it is good for a service in which farmers have had such great faith over the years.
I do not want to say any more. Time is getting on and it is fairly late. We look forward to what the Minister has to say. The message she must have received from everybody tonight is that we neglect research and development at our peril.
9.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging debate on a subject which may well help to determine the sorts of lives our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will lead, particularly in terms of the food that they will eat and the countryside which we hope they will enjoy. The fact that it was a wide-ranging debate may explain to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that although I am sometimes a helpless lily I was grateful for the sheaves of paper that were coming across to me.
I was also grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was kind enough to alert me in advance to the points he planned to raise. The advancement of knowledge and its sensible application to what we do are matters of the greatest importance. I have always been warned that sometimes in your Lordships' House it is the friend who sits behind one of whom one should beware. I am therefore beholden to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for giving us the opportunity to discuss these issues at a time when government itself is in the process of reviewing its priorities and objectives for research and development and indeed for science and technology generally. This is happening not just in agriculture but across the whole spectrum of the Government's civil programmes.
Because that review is still being carried out and the debate is so wide-ranging, I shall not be able to give your Lordships definitive conclusions today. But I hope that I shall be able to set a number of recent reports and rumours in perspective and to answer at least some of the concerns which have been expressed in the course of the debate.
Perhaps I can best begin with what I might dare to term the "cutting edge" of the noble Lord's Question. Your Lordships are no doubt aware of the Statement made yesterday by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place announcing the new planning provisions for expenditure on agriculture, fisheries and food for the next three years.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, suggested that industry is being penalised for contributing to research. It is quite the reverse, my Lords. The Government believe that it is appropriate for industry to do more. I was particularly interested in the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, with regard to his views on CAP. He will realise that, contrary to the speculation in a number of earlier reports, we are not reducing in any way the amount of research that we plan to commission in 1988–89. The cash provision is in fact being slightly increased to take account of the recent science salary increases. After allowing for this, the provisions for 1989–90 and 1990–91 are being reduced by £5 million and £10 million respectively, consistent with the Government's general view that industry should contribute more to work from which it benefits.
I should like to emphasise that these changes are in anticipation of increased industry funding. If this is not forthcoming there will inevitably be less research carried out. I was not aware that the noble Lord,
1072
Lord Carter, was in Harrogate last week; but word travels fast, and it is perfectly true that when I spoke to the Horticultural Trades Association in that lovely city I said to them, "Are you prepared to contribute to R&D which is of direct benefit to you? If the answer is 'No, we are not prepared to pay for even part of it', then the natural conclusion to draw is that the industry does not regard the R&D as value for money". I stand by that statement.
My noble friend Lord Selborne spoke of a damaging sentence in the press release. I agree that it is rather starkly stated; but it is really another way of saying that the balance between public and industry funding needs to be altered. The sentence was not meant to imply lack of recognition for what has been done, or any attempt to penalise industry.
To follow up from what I have just said, that there is no specific plan to reduce the number of staff engaged in R&D or advisory work, the emphasis is rather on the balance of funding as between the public and private sectors and the priorities we should adopt. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, noted that much work is strategic. I would agree up to a point. That is why we are saying that industry should concentrate on, and pay for, the work which is of more direct benefit to it, leaving government freer to fund the rest.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend for a moment because she made quite an important statement? I want to get it absolutely clear. Did my noble friend say that the Government did not wish to see any reduction in the amount of work done by research and development and the amount of personnel involved?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I said that there is no specific plan to reduce the number of staff engaged in R&D or advisory work. I believe that that is the statement which my noble friend was querying. I repeat that the emphasis is on the balance of funding as between the public and private sectors and the priorities that we should adopt. I hope that I have made myself clear.
Returning to answering the noble Lord, Lord Carter, as regards the work being strategic, I said that I agree. That is why we are saying that industry should concentrate on and pay for the work which is of more direct benefit to it, leaving government more free to fund the rest. On the questions of the balance of funding and the priorities we should adopt, our thinking is still evolving, so it is particularly welcome to have heard what noble Lords have said tonight. If I do not take up every point in the course of this speech, I hope that your Lordships will accept my assurance that everything that has been said has been carefully noted and will be taken into account. We are conscious of the need referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for the industry to have time to respond to any changes.
I should like to reply to my noble friend Lord Ferrers on the question of Rothamsted. I have taken note of his remarks. The possibility of job losses there is not the result of any government action to reduce

1073
funding. We are making money available to take account of the science salary increases but the decisions on the use of resources are a matter for the management of the institutes concerned.
Lord Walston: My Lords, before the noble Baroness leaves that point, I understood her to say that it is up to the management of Rothamsted to decide whether there should be fewer staff or fewer other things. However, she did not make clear whether the Government are to reduce, maintain or increase the amount of money.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I stated that it was up to the institute to decide on the way in which it spent money, and I left the matter there.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, made the point that the industry must be sure that there will be work on which to bolt the publicly funded element. I agree entirely with that statement.
On a more general level, it is the Government's aim to increase the contribution of publicly funded R&D to the efficiency, competitiveness and capacity for innovation of the United Kingdom economy. To assist in this it was announced in the July 1987 White Paper on Civil Research and Development that there would be strengthened central machinery to determine priorities within the context of the Government's wider objectives. This strengthened machinery takes the form of collective ministerial consideration under the Prime Minister's leadership and the new Advisory Council on Science and Technology (ACOST)—the successor body to the old Advisory Council on Applied Research and Development. The reviews which are being conducted in my department are part of this broader process.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked for a time-scale for the review. There is no specific target. However, we want to adjust the balance of funding sooner rather than later, but the decisions have not yet been taken.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers spoke about the cuts leading to increased overheads and there is a danger of that. However, both the Agricultural and Food Research Council and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland have undertaken major reorganisations to meet their changing priorities and to avoid the inefficiency that might have arisen.
I agree with much of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Walston. I should like to add a few words about the future of NSDO and PBI. That had already taken place by the time I arrived at MAFF but I was well acquainted with the feelings of local people on the subject. Notwithstanding the sale of PBI, the government intend to continue funding research and development activities in that area as appropriate. I know it is very soon, but I must say I have heard very happy remarks from the people who are working there now.
It is clear that future work in the agricultural sector will have to take full account of the problems of over-production. This will undoubtedly lead to a reallocation of resources away from areas in structural surplus and towards the need to develop alternative
1074
crop and livestock schemes to a practical stage.
We shall also be looking, in particular, at the need for agriculture to operate in sympathy with the natural environment, and to maintain the valuable public amenity that the countryside provides.
There are a number of other areas which can be broadly described as public good, where it may be more appropriate for government to take the lead, such as work on animal welfare. I think that was mentioned this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Walston.
We need also to ensure that there is a strong strategic science base on which industry can build, particularly in areas like biotechnology where there are undoubtedly new opportunities to be grasped and exploited. But as a general principle we do not think it right that the Government themselves should be funding work for which the private sector could reasonably be expected to pay.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers pondered on how much of the science increase in the Autumn Statement would go to agriculture. It is a matter for the Department of Education and Science as to how much goes to agriculture, but it is estimated that some £2 million will go on salary increases. However, it is possible that further funds will be available for important environmental and biotechnical research projects.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will appreciate, how the funding work in the private sector can be defined is one of the issues that we are still studying. It is therefore essential for industry to respond to these challenges if the United Kingdom is to avoid losing out on technical advances which are being achieved elsewhere. The type of industry funding which would be appropriate would naturally vary from sector to sector, but I would like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that we are willing to discuss the possibilities with those concerned.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, also made the point that it is sometimes difficult for individuals to benefit from R&D. I recognise that we need to do more to bring out the advantages which can be gained from research.
I should like, at this point, to say that I have every confidence in the quality and determination of British scientists. We have a tremendous record of innovation, and our agriculture and food industries are among the most highly developed in the world. But we must not be complacent or put our faith in technological advances alone. As I said at the beginning, the advancement of knowledge needs to be tempered by common sense. Therefore, we need to consider the implications of what we can do, and to provide for a consistently high level of advice. We need also to be aware of developments in other countries, and ensure that we can maximise the benefits of international collaboration.
I know that people sometimes try to make comparisons between the resources that we devote to things and those of our major competitors. However, figures on their own, even if reliable, do not necessarily reflect the very different circumstances which often exist. I suggest that we should take a look at our European neighbours and the USA where

1075
private sector expenditure on science and technology is already at a higher level.
Perhaps I may say just a word about the provision of advisory services, which takes place through ADAS in England and Wales, the Scottish Agricultural Colleges in Scotland and the Agricultural Inspectorate of the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland. Following a wide-ranging review of ADAS in 1984, the Government announced that they would be asking farmers to contribute to it. The Government have made clear to the industry that charges enable the industry to influence both the orientation and the overall extent of provision of advisory services for which charges are made.
It is still too early to draw conclusions about the extent to which industry is responding to charging, given the time required for both industry and the advisory services to adapt to the changed relationship and given that as yet there is less than a full year's experience of charging in a market that is strongly influenced by seasonal factors.
I am very sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Carter, felt that the perfectly open arrangement reached with the commercial company that he cited impugns the objectivity and professional approach for which ADAS is rightly known and respected. The arrangement is entirely consistent with the close co-operation that ADAS maintained with commercial companies before charges were introduced—for example, in the field of jointly sponsored demonstrations. His views will be deeply distressing to loyal and dedicated staff and I hope that he will reconsider them.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene for a moment. The example that I gave is not the only one in the industry where such contracts have been entered into. If a private consultant were to consider such a contract, he would be barred from membership of the British Institute of Agricultural Consultants.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as things stand with ADAS, I feel that it has the highest integrity and I stand by my remarks on its behalf.
It is late and I apologise for not replying to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Even though he gave me warning, one or two of his remarks—for instance those about the oil and fats tax—are slightly outside the terms of this debate. Quite frankly, I think I shall be on safer ground if I write to him.
To sum up, I should like to return to my initial theme of the importance of the issues that have been discussed tonight in terms of their potential to shape our future. As evidence of the Government's concern I would stress that the total public expenditure on R&D in the agricultural, horticultural, food and fisheries sectors will be over £200 million this year.
I am conscious that I have not spoken about the situation in Northern Ireland. I believe that there have been no financial reductions there for some time. I should like to say how much I enjoyed my brief visit to Northern Ireland this summer in connection with agricultural matters.
Going back to the £200 million spent this year, this represents major commitments by any standards. I do not think that it is unreasonable to look to industry and those who value the services we provide to increase their own contributions if they wish that level of
effort to be maintained in the future.

Coroners Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Commitee with amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at half-past nine o'clock.