Lords Sitting of 4 November 1993

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Baroness Dacre Baroness Dacre—Took the Oath.

Scotch Whisky: Tax Level
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, before I ask my Question I should like to make a statement. Because I tabled two Questions on whisky there is a rumour that I have a financial interest in the whisky industry, which is not the case. It is obvious that the rumour arose because my first cousin, whose name is also John Mackie, is deep in the whisky trade. My only interest in whisky is in the nice bottle of malt on my sideboard, which my family are inclined to say I renew rather too often.
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was to ask Her Majesty's Government:
What consideration they are giving to the level of lax on Scotch whisky; and what effect they consider the level of such tax has on the whisky distilling and bottling industry in Scotland.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we take into consideration a wide range of social, economic and health factors as well as revenue considerations when setting the level of taxation on spirits.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the noble Earl says that the Government take those matters into consideration. Do they realise that because of the export of whisky, free of tax, to France, Italy and Germany, they have lost £80 million in taxes? The noble Earl mentioned the social question of whisky the last time I asked this Question. Do the Government realise that around 40 per cent. of the men in the trade have lost their jobs? That is in an area, as he well knows, where there is not a lot of work. Many other factors are also contributing to a difficult situation in the whisky industry. If the Government do not improve their management of those matters—it is indeed bad management when one looks at what is happening—they will be in trouble.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, how nice it is to answer another Question on whisky from the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. It is one of a number that he asks at this time of year. He knows that I cannot discuss the rates because of the coming Budget. However, as I have said previously, it is up to each country to set its duty and taxation limits. That is right. I know that the noble Lord will be pleased to hear that, far from the so-called halcyon days of Labour when 80 per cent. of the cost of whisky was attributable to taxation, that is now down to 64.3 per cent.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, has not the position been radically altered by the adoption of the European rule that anyone can bring liquor into each country duty free? It is therefore easy to buy commodities like whisky or wine at the infinitely lower rate of duty prevailing on the Continent thus providing unfair competition to the British producer.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is true that as a result of the single market one can bring in duty-paid goods for one's own consumption. The initial estimate for the full year revenue loss on all goods was estimated at around £250 million. That does not seem to be too far off the mark.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, my noble friend mentioned health considerations. Is he aware that over the years the medical profession has offered advice to me that whisky is an excellent beverage for human health, provided it is taken in moderation? That is because my home and former constituency are in the heart of the distilling area of northern Scotland.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I welcome what my noble friend says. However, it did not take the medical profession to tell me that it was good for my health, in moderation.
Lord Macfarlane of Bearsden: My Lords, 1 declare an interest as the chairman of the United Distillers, the largest company in the Scotch whisky industry. It is surely not a matter of debate but a matter of fact that Scotch whisky is discriminated against in this country. The mathematics are irrefutable. The duty on a single whisky is more than double the duty on a glass of wine of the same alcoholic content. Is it not surprising therefore that over the past 10 years wine sales have flourished and Scotch whisky sales have decreased? Why do the Government continue to disadvantage to such an outrageous extent the product for which Scotland is best known and which is also one of the UK's top export earners?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I note what my noble friend says. However, a wide range of issues are taken into account when setting the levels of taxation.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what are the Government's estimates of the consequences of a reduction in the whisky duty for overall sales and consequently for government revenue? For example, were the duty on whisky to be reduced by 10 per cent., would the sales increase by more than 10 per cent. and revenue consequently increase? What is the Government's current estimate?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with respect, the noble Lord would not expect me to be able to answer that question without notice.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the outrageous tax on whisky in this country is highly discriminatory? If one takes into account that one can buy for £6.50 in Gibraltar a litre bottle of

1155
Famous Grouse whisky which in this country costs £16, one must see that that is discriminating against the whisky industry.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend agrees that each country should have the freedom to set its own duty rate. That is why we find a variable price from country to country.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister accept that an export industry as valuable as the Scotch whisky industry needs a prosperous home market? With the industry already struggling against the existing rates of tax, it is no help if, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, says, whisky drinkers travelling abroad are constantly bringing back supplies. The home market is essential for the export trade.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I note with care what the noble Lord says.
Lord Desai: My Lords, does the Minister agree that now we have a single European market we must think about a policy which leads to wide tax differences on tobacco and alcohol? Does the Treasury have any thoughts on how it is going to re-think that policy fundamentally? If not, the losses will continue to grow.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that we thought of that long before the single market existed and gave consideration to it. However, I am sure the noble Lord will agree that it is for each country to set its own duty rates.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, to build on the question of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, was there a greater take when total duty was 80 per cent. compared with 60 per cent.?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the figure that I quoted to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, was tax and duty as a percentage of the price. That has gone down. With regard to the duty yield, I cannot go back as far as that. But in cash terms, it looks much the same as in 1985–86.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the noble Earl did not give a very good reply to his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter on the subject of the amount of whisky being brought back into this country on which the Government lose all the tax. It is an enormous figure. Should that point not be considered very carefully?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I took up the question of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and gave a very full reply that included not only whisky but all imported spirits and beers.

First World War: "Cowardice" Verdicts
3.10 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have considered the request to reconsider the verdicts on soldiers executed for "cowardice" in the First World War; and, if so, what are their conclusions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, we have considered this matter with the utmost care but have concluded that it would not be appropriate to reconsider the verdicts.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is a matter of great regret that there has been no change in the Government's response since Andrew MacKinlay's splendid initiative in raising this issue in another place 18 months ago? We now know clearly what was not appreciated in the 1914 war, that there were irregularities in the courts martial. There was no legal representation or right of appeal for men on trial for their lives. We now know that violence does affect the minds of some men. If the Government still refuse to remove this badge of shame, it will be unjust to the memories of these men, unfair to the families and incomprehensible to the public.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, and indeed to his honourable friend from the other place, I do not think anyone disputes the humanity that they have shown in considering this extremely difficult subject. I would point out to the noble Lord that from a close examination of a very strong cross-section of the files concerned—I must say, as someone who has read a number of these files, it is a very harrowing experience—it is perfectly clear that the irregularities he alleges are not supported by a reading of the files and that the regulations in operation at the time were not breached by the authorities. The noble Lord will know that a number of the people who are aware of the campaign that he and his honourable friend have been conducting were not aware of the circumstances of their husband's, father's or relation's death, and the campaign itself has raised questions in their minds which were not there before.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, although in the only war in which I served these unhappy folk would never have been convicted or executed at all, would it not be kinder to all concerned if we left their souls to rest in peace without disintering them from time to time for further discussion in this way?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I wholly agree with what my noble and learned friend says and with his proposition that circumstances have changed and that no one in the Second World War was shot for the reasons that these people were shot in the First World War. Our understanding of matters such as post-traumatic stress

1157
disorder has immeasurably improved. Indeed, our treatment of these matters has improved in the short time that has elapsed between the Falklands conflict and the Gulf conflict; and no doubt in the unfortunate event of another conflict taking place, our understanding will have improved still more.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that, since the Private Member's Bill on this subject was introduced, by leave, into the House of Commons a fortnight ago, there has been a sharp rise in public interest in the fate of these men? The noble Viscount must expect to hear further on this subject as that Bill makes progress, as I feel sure that it will. But one aspect of this great tragedy of the First World War is that people are still troubled in their conscience as to where these soldiers are buried. What identification, if any, marks the place where their remains have been buried? Are they under the auspices of the War Graves Commission? Are they identified as having suffered the fate that they did? Will this stain on the memory of men in the First World War continue forever? There are a number of questions on this subject which, now that the matter has been raised with increasing interest, will have to be answered. So will the noble Viscount prepare himself for further questions on the matter?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, when the noble Lord utters that kind of warning it behoves me to take careful note, particularly in view of his own experience in that dreadful conflict. I am all too aware of the public interest that this subject has rightly aroused if only because of the number of television interviews I have been constrained to give on the subject. In view of the noble Lord's question about where these people are buried, I would point out to him that, so far as I am aware, only one gravestone says that the victim was shot. That legend was put on the gravestone at the request of the family concerned. The authorities tried to show some consideration by not drawing attention to the eventual fate of the people concerned; and I think that does them great credit.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, would it be true to say that some of the people who were described as cowards were in fact conscientious objectors and that their Christian witness would not be an evidence of cowardice?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord will be as aware as I am that some of the bravest people in both world wars were conscientious objectors. I am also well aware that my own great grandfather was chairman of the board which considered the question of conscientious objectors. I certainly know from my own papers and indeed from public records on the subject that he and his colleagues took enormous trouble to try to ensure that conscientious objectors were properly looked after and were looked after with sympathy. Indeed, there are a number of letters to him on the subject paying tribute to his work. I would say to the noble Lord that, on the whole, the commission did its work well and it is something of which we can be proud.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware—
Lord Elton: My Lords, is it not the case that throughout history every generation has judged its contemporaries and every succeeding generation has judged the judgment itself? Is not our compassionate duty to look at the judgment as a whole; not to disinter individual cases but to let them, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham suggested, rest in peace?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I find it extremely difficult to be dogmatic about what I found to be one of the most difficult judgments I have ever been called to make; and certainly the most difficult judgment I have ever been called to make during the course of my 18 months at the Ministry of Defence. I have been much interested by the reaction of people with whom I have discussed this matter at length. Like me, they started by taking much the same view as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. On longer consideration, we have all been constrained—not all, but most of us—to see that there are other considerations which we have to take into account, one of which was the consideration that my noble friend has just mentioned.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, with the leave of noble Lords opposite, perhaps the Opposition Front Bench may have its word. Is the noble Viscount aware that I was somewhat surprised when he said that he had read through the files? As I understand it, according to the Ministry of Defence, a number of files were no longer required for administrative use in 1947 and were thrown away. Is that the case? Is that true? Will the noble Viscount reconsider the matter of whether he has actually read through these files; whether he has read through the file of the man not yet 18 who was found lost after an artillery barrage and then shot? Has the Minister read the file of a 19 year-old volunteer who refused to put his cap on despite an officer's order and who was sentenced to death? In order that these souls may rest in peace—I say this in front of the most reverend Primate—is it not time that the Government showed a little Christian charity?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as regards the files, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, gives me an opportunity to put him right on his understanding of the facts. Perhaps the noble Lord is not aware that just over 10 per cent. of the soldiers condemned to death as a result of the court martials which we are discussing today were shot. Nearly 90 per cent. were reprieved and overwhelmingly at the insistence of the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Haig. It is all very well for the noble Lord to say what he did, but I suspect that he has not read the files. The files which survive—if the noble Lord would like to listen while I attempt to answer his question—are those of the soldiers who were shot. The files of the soldiers who were reprieved were burnt during an incendiary attack in 1941 on the Arnside Street repository.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the noble Viscount say how many files there are and what would be

1159
involved in going through them all? Does he agree that at that time and by our standards, terrible mistakes were made and terrible sentences passed? That was more than 70 years ago. Does the Minister further agree that it is too late to go through all those files and that we should let the matter rest?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am immensely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. As I said, the majority of the files of the cases concerned were destroyed. The 300-odd files—there is a dispute about the ultimate number of files, even among those who are requesting what the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has requested—which survive are those of the people who were shot.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Lord says that he has read the files—
Viscount Cranborne: Some of them.
Lord Richard: He has had that opportunity which has been denied the rest of us. Will he make the files available to the rest of us so that we can judge, too?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, a number of books have been written on this subject. One in particular was written by Judge Babington, who had the advantage of looking at a number of the files. So they have been available.

Israel-Syria Relations
3.22 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in extending to Syria the recent peace agreement between Israel and the PLO.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, during his recent visit to Syria on 22nd-24th October my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary emphasised to President Assad and Foreign Minister Shara'a the importance we attach to early progress in the negotiations between Israel and Syria if there is to be comprehensive and lasting peace in the region.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I take the opportunity too to thank the Foreign Secretary for his very commendable endeavours. Does the Minister agree that unless Israel and the Syrians can agree on the Golan Heights, the tremendous endeavours of Israel and the PLO and their initiative will not by itself achieve peace in the Middle East? Therefore, does she agree that it is vital that the British Foreign Secretary's suggestions should be followed up and supported by the United Nations?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. The original agreement between Israel and the PLO is now being followed up by an Israeli-Jordanian agreement on an
1160
agenda for talks. We hope that these agreements will act as a catalyst for negotiations with Syria and the Lebanon.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in view of the clear statement made by the Foreign Secretary in another place earlier this week that there will not be a comprehensive peace until there are agreements between Israel and Syria, Israel and Jordan and Israel and the Lebanon, and in view of the United Kingdom Government's wish to do their utmost to keep the peace process on the move, can the Minister tell the House what practical steps the Government will be taking to achieve that aim?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we shall continue to do all that we can, quietly in the background, pushing and pressing as appropriate, to ensure that a lasting and comprehensive settlement is achieved. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said on the last occasion we discussed this subject, much of the discussion is best done in private. In that way we have succeeded with Israel and the PLO.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sorry to press the Minister. Does her last remark mean that she disagrees with her right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary who said in another place earlier this week that the Government wished to take a more visible role in the matter?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: No, my Lords, I do not disagree with my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, but I do disagree with some of the noble Baroness's questioning. On these very delicate matters it is not always conducive to progress to say at each stage what is going on. We shall make progress where we can, and where we can help—such as our £6 million worth of bilateral aid and our further £6 million through the EC—we shall certainly make that help visible.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, no doubt the noble Baroness is aware of the real danger being created by Syrian fundamentalists in trying to delay progress. Does she agree that it might help if we can encourage a meeting between Mr. Rabin and Mr. Assad? Would not that kind of summit help to follow up what the Israelis and the PLO have already begun in trying to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that by having discussions not only with President Assad but with all others in the region, we shall have a better chance of making progress. We shall do all we can to that end both visibly and behind the scenes.

The British Film Industry
3.26 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What additional assistance they propose to give to the British film industry.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, earlier this year my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, held a round of meetings with the different sectors of the film industry to discuss the state of the industry and possible measures to help it. He is considering what might be done in the light of those discussions and will announce his conclusions in due course.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I look forward to those conclusions. Is the Minister aware that investment in feature film production in the United Kingdom has gone from £425 million in 1984 to £185 million in 1992? Is she further aware that, while cinema admissions are increasing—that has been happening for some seven or eight years—most of the films are American productions and British films are not being given an equal opportunity to compete in this expanding market? Will the Government give urgent consideration to two matters which would be of great importance to the British film industry? The first is to provide fiscal incentives, particularly the 100 per cent. first-year capital write-offs, and, secondly, the removal of the withholding tax on foreign actors?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in answering the first part of the noble Lord's question, the Government do not believe that the British film industry needs high levels of subsidy. We look to the private sector for investment in production. However, the noble Lord is right in saying that since 1985 the UK production base 0, and those films having to be made, on average, with a smaller budget. We are exploring the reasons why the money has dried up and what can be done to provide additional measures for investment in films.
My next point has nothing to do with the question asked by the noble Lord. I believe that, despite the low level of investment, the record of success of British film producers has been truly spectacular. I believe that the House would want to acknowledge that. As regards the other part of the noble Lord's question, that is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure the noble Lord would not expect me to answer that.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the tone of her Answer should give hope to the industry, but will she remember that, although representatives of the industry visited No. 10 four years ago when hopes were again built up, nothing tangible seems to have flown from that so far?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not agree with my noble friend. Much progress has been achieved. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced changes in the tax regime for films following discussions with the industry at that
1162
meeting. We have established the British Film Commission and the European Co-production Fund and we have joined EURIMAGES.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, may I first declare an interest as chairman of British Screen Finance, which is a commercially owned, privately financed company receiving some modest help in grant from the Government for which we are grateful? When it comes to the question of the lottery allocation, in due course, will the Minister give consideration to allocating the funds which might be available from the lottery to British Screen Finance for it to manage, given that it is conducted and managed by professionals in the industry, rather than to the Arts Council, which wilt have no experience in that field?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will agree that the £2 million grant which has been given to British Screen Finance is worth having. With regard to the rest of his question, I know that my right honourable friend is cogitating and, for all I know, inwardly digesting the meat of the various advice that is put to him. As I have said, his conclusions will be forthcoming as soon as possible.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the Government will know about the recent French campaign to erect some kind of cultural protection against American invasion in the world of films and about the apparently forthcoming move to try to get the whole European Community to do that. What is the Government's opinion of that initiative?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not think that I have anything more to say. As I have said, my right honourable friend has had various consultations with every kind of body connected with the film industry. He will be making his conclusions known as soon as he can.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the basic facts are that cinema-going is the most popular art form in Britain, as was shown by a recent Arts Council survey, and that attendances have doubled in the past 10 years? Despite that, however, the British film industry is actually disappearing before our eyes. Productions fell by 20 per cent. last year to a miserable low of 47 productions, primarily financed either by foreigners or bound for television. Will the Minister please tell her right honourable friend that it is absolutely crucial that he comes forward with proposals for financial incentives, such as all other governments give, to rescue the British film industry and to rescue Britain from swamping by American film culture? Will she also point out that in the GATT negotiations it is important to pursue the question of sustaining cultural industries?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should be delighted to pass on those remarks to my right honourable friend.

Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is yet another Motion in a series which I have to move at this time of the parliamentary year in relation to Private Bills to enable the promoters of the Bill to carry the Bill over into the next Session. The Message from another place only reached us yesterday for reasons which are unclear. I regret having to trouble the House with this further Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Commons Message of yesterday be now considered; and that the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in this Session in order to proceed with the Bill in the next Session of Parliament, notice of their intention to do so having been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments;
That such Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 3 p.m. on the second sitting day in the next Session with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to such Bill in the next Session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Railways Bill
3.33 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reason be considered forthwith.
Moved, That the Commons reason be considered forthwith.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Railways Bill
  MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO LORDS AMENDMENTS TO A COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF A LORDS AMENDMENT
  [Page and line references are to Bill 107 as first printed for the Lords]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF A LORDS AMENDMENT
  1Clause 22, page 24, line 40, at end insert:
  "(3) Subject to the following provisions of this section, subsection (1) above shall not prevent—
  1164

  (a) the British Railways Board (in this Act referred to as "the Board"), or

  (b) a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board, from being a franchisee.

  (4) Subject to the following provisions of this section, whenever the Franchising Director proposes to issue invitations to tender under section 23 below in respect of any particular services for the carriage of passengers by railway, he may, after consultation with the Board and the Regulator, determine that neither the Board nor any wholly owned subsidiary of the Board shall be eligible for inclusion among the persons to whom the invitations are to be issued or who may be selected as the franchisee.
  (5) The Franchising Director shall not make a determination under subsection (4) above unless he considers that it is desirable to do so—

  (a) for the purpose of promoting competition for franchises;

  (b) for the purpose of promoting the award of franchise agreements to companies in which qualifying railway employees have a substantial interest;

  (c) for the purpose of encouraging new entry to the passenger railway industry; or

  (d) for the purpose of preventing or reducing the dominance of any person or persons in the market for the provision in Great Britain, or in a part of Great Britain, of services for the carriage of passengers by railway.

  (6) The Franchising Director shall—

  (a) give notice of any determination under subsection (4) above to the Board; and

  (b) publish notice of the determination in such manner as he thinks fit.

  (7) Nothing in subsection (5) above shall be taken to affect the matters which the Franchising Director may take into account in determining the other persons whom he invites to tender for franchise agreements or whom he selects as franchisees.
  (8) No objectives, instructions or guidance shall be given under section 5 above by the Secretary of State to the Franchising Director with respect to the exercise of his functions under this section.
  (9) In this section—
  "competition for franchises" means competition to become franchisees under franchise agreements;
  "encouraging new entry to the passenger railway industry" means encouraging private sector operators who do not currently provide services for the carriage of passengers by railway to commence doing so;
  "qualifying railway employees", in the case of any franchise agreement, means persons who are or have been employed in an undertaking which provides or provided the services to which the franchise agreement relates at a time before those services begin to be provided under that franchise agreement. ".

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  2Subsection (4), line 2, leave out from first ("to") to ("in") and insert ("award a franchise under this Part")
  LORDS AMENDMENT
  3Subsection (4), line 6, leave out from ("for") to end of subsection and insert ("selection as the franchisee. ")

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  Subsection (5), line 1, leave out from ("shall") to end of paragraph (a) and insert ("only make a determination under subsection (4) if a transfer of services to the private sector would not significantly increase the cost to the Franchising Director of providing the service and if he considers that it is necessary to make such a determination to facilitate such a transfer and—").
  The Commons disagreed to the above amendments for the following reason:
  Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate for a determination of the kind in question to be made later than the time at which the Franchising Director issues invitations to tender in respect of the services to which the determination relates.

  MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON
  Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff rose to move, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 5, but the House do insist on their Amendment No. 4.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is not my intention to rake over the embers of last night's curious experiences although I suspect that, sadly, they will continue to glow for some time to come. Let us return to the central issue of the three amendments which we debated in your Lordships' House yesterday and agreed. They were amendments about allowing British Rail to bid for franchises.
  Although I personally disagree with the Commons in their rejection of Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, as they are numbered on today' s Marshalled List, the other place has offered its reasons. Those reasons put forward a valid point of view whether we agree with them or not. Only time will tell whether we are correct or whether another place is correct. I fear—for the sake of British Rail and for the rail network in this country—that we are right and that the other place is wrong. However, I do not believe that at this stage anything is to be gained by pressing the amendments further.
  However, Amendment No. 4 is rather a different matter. The purpose of the amendment was to ensure that British Rail could not be excluded if it offered a service which was significantly cheaper than that offered by anyone else. I have to suggest that that is ignored in the reasons given by another place. It seems to me that the reasons apply only to the first two amendments and have no bearing on the third amendment even though the other place seemed to sit up rather late last night deciding on those reasons. It is not for us to discuss the ways in which they were achieved. Nevertheless, it took another place until 2 o'clock and, for some reason, the Commons seem to have failed to produce any reason for rejecting Amendment No. 4.
  Perhaps the Commons did not realise that Amendment No. 4 can be freestanding. When it was discussed in your Lordships' House yesterday, it was associated with the other two amendments even though the Government insisted on having a separate vote on each of the three amendments. The amendments could be, and were, associated. However, Amendment No. 4 is a freestanding amendment and instead of being operated as it would have been under our suggestions against
  1166
  Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, it will equally well operate against the benchmark of the shadow franchise which is already in the Bill and which the franchise director will have to take into account.
  It may be that once again we shall have constitutional qualms. I hope not. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, set those qualms aside yesterday in your Lordships' House. I would merely add that this is not a repeat of what we did yesterday. This is the first time that it has been suggested that we send one of the amendments back to the Commons when the Commons have rejected it. Yesterday we were merely amending government amendments.
  So the reason for insisting on this amendment is first to find out whether there is a reason for the objection to it. Much more importantly, however, and much more simply, it is to save the taxpayer the possibility of wasteful expenditure. I believe that on that ground alone we have, first, the right to expect an explanation from the Government as to why they see extra expenditure being possible under the Bill as it now stands arid then, if we are not satisfied with that, to send the provisions back to another place and invite it to have another look at the matter. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 5, but the House do insist on their Amendment No. 4.—(Lord Tordoff.)
  Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should like to make a few observations at this stage. Yesterday, we had sight for the first time of the Commons amendment to the one that I moved in your Lordships' House and which your Lordships accepted. I took the view, as did others of your Lordships, that the amendment from another place ate away at the heart of what we had suggested. Despite the fact that I was in some disagreement with a number of my noble friends, whose views I respect, I believe that we had every right to criticise that amendment; to point out what we thought were its shortcomings, and to seek to amend it, as indeed we did.
  Another place has now made very clear its views about our amendments. It has stuck to its own views. In my opinion, for what it is worth, if we were now to press our view, we would be moving the argument to an altogether different level. Instead of merely talking about what was likely to be good or bad for our railway system, we should be talking about other matters, and we might be embarking upon a discussion and a process to which we would not find it easy to put a full stop. So, in my view, having had some part in those arguments, and not, I think having any reason to regret anything I have said, or withdraw it, I still feel that at this stage it would be unwise to press the matter further. My view of the measure remains the same, but I believe that we should be unwise to press the amendments which yesterday we carried in the face of the flat rejection of them by the other place.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, although whether we press it any further is another matter. It seems to me that no reply has been given to Amendment

  1167
  No. 4. Amendment No. 4 is, of course, the major amendment, because it was that amendment which was phrased in a way that would make it clear that we were intent upon saving the taxpayer's money. Surely that is an important issue. That point is not addressed at all in the reply that we have received from the other place. It has replied, as I see it, to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, but a reply to Amendment No. 4 does not exist. In those circumstances, I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has a point. I shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say in response. We must judge what we do in the light of that response.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I may say one or two words in disagreement, unfortunately, with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I say "unfortunately" because I believe that we all agree that his performance and the care that he has taken with the Bill have been exceptional under the circumstances. The House and the railway industry—
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, and the community.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, and the community indeed. They have every cause to be grateful to the noble Lord and other noble Lords for the efforts that they have made to try to get the Bill right. Clearly, the House of Lords, having first passed an amendment in Committee, believed that there was something fundamentally wrong with the Bill. When the other place amended that amendment, this House continued to believe that it was right and that the other place was wrong. There is therefore a matter of principle involved. If this House believes that what it is doing is right, then it should continue to say so, and to confirm the view that it has taken on the Bill so far.
  The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said that we might endanger our own institution; that we might endanger the House of Lords; that it would be unwise to have a further confrontation with the other place. However, the constitution allows this House to have its final say. There is provision in the Parliament Act for what happens if this House insists upon its amendment. There is provision for the Bill to be represented to the other place, and to pass into law within 28 days of its being given its Second Reading in the other place. In this case, we should be bringing about a delay, since the Bill would be reintroduced immediately in the next Session, of only weeks. But those weeks would give the other place and, in particular, the Minister an opportunity to have third thoughts about this issue, and, because it is so important, it is correct surely that the House, as a whole, and the Government get it right.
  I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that that would be a minor confrontation—if we call it a confrontation—because in 1991 we had a much more serious confrontation with the other place: we refused to give further consideration to the War Crimes Bill which it had passed with a large majority with the support of the Government and the Prime Minister. But on that occasion, this House said, "No", even to considering the
  1168
  Bill any further. That was a much more serious matter. Here we are merely saying to the other place, "We think that you have got it wrong. We have had long discussions about this. We have had learned arguments. We have had expert arguments from noble Lords who are specialists in this matter". It is our duty to say to the other place, "We understand your position, but you must understand ours. On a matter of principle, and on a number of occasions, we have decided that there is something fundamentally wrong with this Bill, and in those circumstances we cannot agree that you should put down our amendments". Therefore we should insist upon the amendment.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords,—
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister. I did not intend to intervene, but I am prompted to do so by what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I do not agree entirely that this is now a purely constitutional issue, because I believe that sufficient has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Stoddart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, to show that there is still some policy content involved. However, I respectfully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that, in a sense, we are moving into a new dimension, because the issue now would clearly be constitutional. We should face that fact. I suggested yesterday that, in effect, we were being asked to assent to the substitution of a one-Chamber Parliament for a two-Chamber Parliament, whenever the Government wish it. That is a Chamber where the Government have disciplined powers over their majority by the powers of the Whip and where they can impose a guillotine. Both measures have occurred in respect of this Bill; Whips were applied and a guillotine was imposed. Therefore, the question is how far your Lordships acquiesce in what is a move to a one-Chamber Parliament.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, your Lordships' powers are limited by the Parliament Act. But, in addition, we have a self-imposed limitation by what is known generally as the "Salisbury doctrine". We do not oppose a measure from the House of Commons which was clearly put before the electorate in an election manifesto in this sense: that we do not oppose the Second Reading where there is a clear policy commitment, and it follows that we do not countenance wrecking amendments. That follows from the Second Reading adoption. In addition to the doctrine of the mandate, which hardly stands up to examination because it treats the manifesto as though it were a referendum, there are undoubtedly the effects of the manifesto as a commitment.
  Understandably, the Government have been accused of pursuing this Bill purely out of ideological prejudice carried to an absurd degree. Obviously, there is an ideological element behind it but one must be fair to the Government. They undertook a commitment in their manifesto to introduce a Bill to privatise the railway industry. Having given that commitment, they were morally bound to do so. However, that does not mean that your Lordships are bound to agree to every detail. For example, it would be quite absurd to say that that

  1169
  manifesto commitment—I use the word commitment and not the word "mandate" extended its umbrella effect to details such as pensions, which were introduced in a late schedule to the Bill, or to the franchising system, which I do not believe that the Government had thought of at the time of the general election.
  Therefore, it seems to me that in respect of a detail such as this—an important detail, as has been pointed out—noble Lords are entitled to vindicate their view and, moreover, to vindicate their view that in reality Parliament still consists of two Chambers, of which this Chamber is a most important one. Your Lordships command an unexampled and unparalleled wealth of experience and knowledge on this and on almost every subject that might be raised in this Chamber.
  The Bill does not stand alone. Habitually government legislation has been forced through your Lordships' House at very late hours and at very early hours. The other day the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned the Education Bill, which remains painfully in our minds. Habitually we were kept sitting after 11 p.m. and often after midnight. On one occasion we were kept until three o'clock in the morning.
  In respect of the Child Support Bill, again your Lordships were not given sufficient time to discuss the measure. In the end there was no debate on the Motion that the Bill do now pass because your Lordships were told that the next day's business would be lost. That measure was the most bureaucratic that has appeared on the statute book. We are now learning the lesson of the widespread objection to the child support officers applying a formula in a schedule which no one claims to understand, except perhaps the person in the department who devised it. Certainly the Minister did not claim to understand it, no child support officer can understand it and still less can the unfortunate wives and husbands whom the Bill concerns understand it. That measure has now come home to roost.
  Then there was the Children Act. That was debated at length and there were numerous government amendments at every stage in your Lordships' House. But when it came back from the other place the government amendments ran to more pages than did the Bill as sent to the other place. That was by no means the end because further tinkering had to take place. Subsequently the Courts and Legal Services Bill included a long schedule running to four pages which made more amendments to the Children Act.
  Nor was that the end. We have suddenly woken up to find that, hardly had the words "family values" left our mouths when, due to the pressure of business, we had provided under that Act that a child could divorce a parent. That is one example of the Government treating your Lordships' House as though it were of no consequence.
  Even more serious was the War Crimes Act mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. The substantial majority in your Lordships' House was simply disregarded and the Bill was re-presented under the Parliament Act. I have yet to hear any constitutional lawyer say that he thought that was a proper use of the Parliament Act, whether or not he approves of that Act.
  1170
  Therefore, it seems to me that the time has come when your Lordships must make up your minds: are we supinely to allow your Lordships' House to be marginalised and sidelined in the constitution, or shall your Lordships take the perfectly feasible course of supporting the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff?
  Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, for whom I have the greatest respect, has addressed the wrong question. He put the issue to your Lordships as though it is a great matter of constitutional import. He did so with great and seductive skill. He appealed first to your Lordships' sense of flattery, saying that the House was an unexampled resource of all the wisdom in the world. Although I agree that among us there are a large variety of skills, it must be said that the skills and experience of privatisation lie largely at the other end of the corridor and not at this. We have had many years' experience and have profited from them.
  The noble and learned Lord went on to appeal to your Lordships' sense of fatigue which is always a very lively sentiment at this stage of the proceedings. He moved from that to the irritation which any assembly such as ours must feel towards those who manage its affairs. He suggested that it would have been possible to conduct the business of your Lordships' House while going to bed at a reasonable hour and having our dinners undisturbed. That has never been achieved in the past since the reign of Queen Victoria and it is not reasonable to suppose that any decision this evening will change that.
  The constitutional question is a question not of whether we have the undoubted right—because we do—to continue to insist until the Parliament Act is invoked, but whether this is an appropriate occasion on which to invoke it and, if we do that, whether the consequences will be more acceptable to us than the consequences if we do not. Nobody has addressed the question, although I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will do so, of what will fall together with this amendment if the Parliament Act is invoked. Nobody has considered the question of whether there are degrees of opposition appropriate to different occasions. The most recent occasion—and one of the very few occasions on which the Parliament Act was invoked—was a matter on which many of your Lordships held very strong philosophical and even moral feelings: it was the question of the War Crimes Bill. I believe that the attitude which the House then struck was exactly right and suited not only to the occasion but also to the variety of skills and experience present in your Lordships' House and perhaps not present in another place.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, will the noble Lord not accept that the Parliament Act is not the only alternative? An alternative is for the Government, who are mainly and crucially concerned, to accept your Lordships' view.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, the point that I make is that it has been suggested elsewhere that this is an appropriate time to court the use of the Parliament Act.

  1171
  I suggest to your Lordships that it would be wholly inappropriate. This amendment goes to the heart of the purpose of the Bill. It was clear at the time at which the statement was put into the manifesto that the Bill would be brought to your Lordships although the detailed method was not made clear. The amendment seeks to preserve an element of the present system which the Bill was designed to remove.
  For all those reasons, I hope that your Lordships will not fall into the trap of giving such credit to the enormous experience and wisdom of the noble and learned Lord. I do not use those terms in any sense in flattery because I have been a coadjutor with him on other matters and I have seen the depth of his skills and the clarity of his vision. But on this matter, I believe that he is wrong and I hope that in addressing the amendment, my noble friend will encourage your Lordships to resist it.
  4 p.m.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is perhaps a little premature in referring to the Parliament Act. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, remarked last night, we have a provisional day set aside for business on Monday. We have Starred Questions on the Order Paper. It is quite a time before we need to think of the Parliament Act.
  The noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, to whom I always listen with the greatest attention, suggested that perhaps we owed a respect to another place. That is rather more consideration than another place showed us last night. Nevertheless, if we were insisting again—
  Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble Earl cannot have listened to me with all that close attention. Whatever I felt towards the other place, I did not this afternoon express respect for it.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that correction. I hope that he will forgive me for the occasional use of euphemism. It is a necessary part of the political vocabulary.
  He suggested that perhaps it is time to give way. If this had been the same combination of amendments again, he might perhaps have had a case. I make no judgment on that. But in combination with the Bill as it now stands, as my noble friend Lord Tordoff pointed out, this is something at which we are asking another place to look for the first time. We are entitled to find out what may be its opinion. When we find it out, we shall no doubt take account of it in whatever way then seems appropriate.
  The noble Lord also raises a question of the future of this House. That is a delicate question. I admit that there are times when caution is needed. In dealing with another place, which we must challenge but from which we derive our power, we must walk on a tightrope. But the point of a tightrope is that you can fall off one side of it or the other. We may show too little respect for another place, but if we show too much, we do not justify our existence. The first Earl of Shaftesbury, addressing this House in 1675 said:
  1172
  "My Lords, if you should grow useless, you will soon grow burdensome".
  I believe that that is advice to which we should listen today.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may make a very brief intervention. The problem is narrow and has nothing to do with the Parliament Act or the War Crimes Bill. The Reasons Committee in another place has not given a reason as regards Amendment No. 4. That is the narrow problem. It is not a great constitutional matter but it is a matter which seems to have been overlooked by your Lordships. I have nothing further to say.
  Lord Eatwell: My Lords, perhaps I may bring the issue back to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. In his reply, I urge the noble Earl to address himself directly and carefully to Amendment No. 4. I point out that it is designed purely to save the taxpayer money. Why are the Government opposed to saving the taxpayer money?
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for not insisting on Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. That means that a determination would have to be made before invitations to tender were issued.
  But Amendment No. 4 on which the noble Lord insists, would not allow the franchising director to make a determination unless he was satisfied that a transfer would not significantly increase the cost of providing the service. I believe that I was the only Member of your Lordships' House to address this amendment yesterday. I shall try to do so again now.
  At the point of inviting bids, the franchising director could only have a very hazy picture of the relative costs of the private sector versus BR operation of the service in question. Any judgment that he made would necessarily be speculative. I cannot accept what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, suggested when he spoke first; namely, that this amendment is as free-standing as he would like to believe. It makes sense to consider the relative costs at the point of awarding the franchise but not at the point of inviting tenders. That is the difference.
  The noble Lord is right that the franchising director will have at that stage a view about BR's costs as he will have access to BR's historical record of the costs of providing the service as a shadow franchise. But he will not have a full picture of the cost of private sector operations with which to make a valid comparison.
  The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, omitted to mention one important aspect of his amendment. It deletes from the government amendment the criterion of promotion of competition for franchises. I am sure that the whole House will agree that that is an important issue. Competition for franchises is an important objective and it should be taken into account when the franchising director decides whether to make a determination. By insisting, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, wants us to do with Amendment No. 4, that that is excluded, that is to the detriment of the Bill.

  1173
  We have narrowed the differences between this House and another place to the details of the franchising director's power of determination. It is an important issue but a relatively narrow one.
  I can assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that we have given the matter very serious consideration. I have spent a long time with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my honourable friend the Minister for Public Transport, examining this issue alone. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State made recommendations to another place. The other place has taken the view that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, should not be incorporated in the Bill. I hope that the House will agree that we should not press the matter further. The delayed 11 o'clock train from last night has now arrived at the station. I invite your Lordships to climb on board.
  Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I think it would be better to say that the train now arriving in the station comes as a complete surprise to the Government. I still do not believe that we have received answers to the questions regarding the Commons reasons for rejecting the amendment, which I think are due to us. I heard what the Minister said in relation to the amendment, but it does not altogether seem to tie up with the words of his right honourable friend in another place last night who said:
  "[It] means that the franchising director would take into account the costs in any awards that he makes, not least because he will have as his benchmark the historic track record of the existing passenger franchise, the new shadow franchise, when he examines the bids".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/93; col. 421.]
  I thought that that was what I was indicating from the beginning. Therefore, I do not quite understand the Minister's response to it.
  Perhaps I may say immediately how gratified I am that., on a matter of transport which normally attracts very few people in your Lordships' House, we should have such a large gathering on both sides of the Chamber for such an important matter. Indeed, beyond the Bar of the House, there seems to be an unusual interest in the matter. I cannot think why. I am most grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in the short debate. As always, one is grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for taking us through the constitutional issues. However, on this occasion one is also most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for following up with a synopsis of what the noble and learned Lord said.
  It was probably as well said on 11th November 1975 (at col.1742 of Hansard) when it was said:
  "If now we decide to use that very limited power, we are not thwarting the will of the people for, in so far as it is represented by the House of Commons, it will and must prevail in a comparatively short time. We shall be using those powers for the purpose for which they were given to us".
  Those were the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who was Leader of the Opposition in your Lordships' House at that time. Therefore, I fear that the tune does change, depending on which side of the House one is sitting.
  Our proposal was not meant to be a wrecking amendment and it is not a constitutional monstrosity; indeed, it is a very simple amendment designed to elicit
  1174
  why on earth the Government want to expose themselves to the risk of the taxpayer having to pay more than he should. The amendment was designed for the benefit of the taxpayer and for the benefit of rail users.
  At an earlier stage, I said that the Bill was unamendable. We have tried to amend it on a number of occasions in order to improve it. But the fact is that, however many amendments we table to the Bill, we shall not improve it. It is a ghastly Bill. It will bring anguish in its train. I have come to a conclusion that a further minor and specific amendment will not improve the Bill all that much. In those circumstances, after a good discussion this afternoon, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
  On Question, Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.15 p.m.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 to Commons Amendment No. 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for Reason numbered 5.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 to Commons Amendment No. 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for Reason numbered 5.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
  Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise from these Benches to respond to the Message from the other place in the absence of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis who has a long-standing appointment abroad and also of my noble friend Lord Carmichael who, I regret to say, currently has flu.
  It is a matter of great regret that the other place has seen fit to reject our amendments. That is especially so in respect of Amendment No. 4 which we have just discussed and which would have saved the taxpayer money. I share the view already expressed by noble Lords in the House that we have received no adequate reason from the other place as to its rejection of Amendment No. 4.
  I should like to say most emphatically from this Dispatch Box today that none of the amendments we have supported on this side of the House has been intended to derail privatisation, as has been alleged. Many of us may not like privatisation, including myself, but I think that there has been a genuine understanding on all sides of the House that the Government made privatisation a part of the manifesto on which they were elected. Therefore, we have had to respect that fact.
  We have wanted to achieve improvements in the Bill. In particular, as has already been said, we wanted to retain the expertise of BR and to save public money. Many newspapers this morning, including the Evening Standard which normally supports the Government, have said that the Peyton-Marsh amendments were sensible. Nevertheless, they have been rejected. As a non-elected revising Chamber, we shall have to accept that, although I deeply regret it. In my view, the other place has been ill-advised to reject our amendments.
  The procedures by which we have reached the current stage have, I think, been quite farcical. We were left waiting around for a long time last night for a Message

  1175
  which never came. I do not think that that did the image of Parliament any good. It was all unnecessary. It would have been so much more dignified last night if we had all accepted the proposition of my noble friend Lord Richard and gone home to resume, as we have done, this afternoon. It has not been our fault.
  We have fought long and hard on the Bill. I believe that we have been right. The amendments tabled on this side of the House have, as I have said before, not been an attempt to oppose privatisation; nor have we been briefed by BR, as has been said in some quarters. However, we have been briefed—and I do not deny it—by organisations representing pensioners. I do not see why we should not have accepted advice from them, or from trade unions on the issue of employee rights. We have done what we thought was right to try to protect passengers, future rail users, taxpayers, employees and pensioners. We have not entirely succeeded, but we did our best. The shambles that the Government have found themselves in because of the Bill has not been the fault of the Opposition.
  My Lords, as I said, we have done our best. Indeed, how can the Government expect anything else when such substantial amendments were introduced at a very late stage of the Bill's proceedings? We had all too little time—and I say this especially to the Minister—to get advice on them and consider them in the depth that we should have liked.
  However, despite all those problems, we have done what we can. Time alone will show whether we were right. But I am convinced that we were right and that, eventually, the electorate will give its verdict on this misguided, misbegotten piece of legislation.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I should like to thank all speakers who have taken part in the proceedings of the Bill, not only up to and including Third Reading but also subsequently at all hours of the day and night. I believe that it is worth bearing in mind the fact that we passed about 470 amendments to another place, most of which were intended to improve the Bill. Moreover, we have had over 50 hours of debate in the Chamber. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, wishes to intervene. I give way.
  Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. He just raised the point about the number of amendments passed to another place. I wonder whether he can tell his right honourable friend that it is most unfortunate that he apparently seeks to blame last night's problems on the huge number of amendments coming from your Lordships' House as if it were our fault. The vast majority of those were government amendments and for the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State to blame us for the number of amendments that the Commons had to deal with is a little unfair.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I certainly have not heard my right honourable friend blaming the House. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my right honourable friend the Minister for Public Transport have gone out of their way to meet the
  1176
  concerns of your Lordships' House. It is interesting to note that during the 50 hours or so of debate that we have had on the Railways Bill in this House only about 10 hours were spent on government amendments. I believe that shows we have fulfilled our function well. The government amendments were mostly technical and revising amendments, as I had predicted. I extend a "thank you" to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his courtesy today and to the noble Baroness for her kind words. I thank all your Lordships. I beg to move.
  The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the Question is that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to the Commons Amendment No. 1 with which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 5.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Prorogation
4.20 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that it is now expected that the House will be prorogued by Royal Commission at 9.30 a.m. tomorrow morning until Thursday 18th November.

European Economic Area Bill [H.L.]
4.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT [The page and line refer to Bill [91] as first printed by the Commons]
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 5, after 'Act,' insert 'in the list'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Amendment No. 1 is simply a drafting correction and Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 take account of the protocol that excludes Switzerland from the EEA agreement and allows for late membership by Liechtenstein. Amendment No. 5 deals with a privilege amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2 Clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert 'together with the Protocol adjusting that Agreement signed at Brussels on 17th March 1993'.
3Clause 6, page 3, line 46, at end insert 'as adjusted by the Protocol signed at Brussels on 17th March 1993.'.
4Page 4, line 3, at end insert—

1177
'(2) References in this Act to the date on which the Agreement comes into force are references to the date on which (in accordance with the Protocol signed at Brussels on 17th March 1993) it comes into force otherwise than as regards Liechtenstein.'.
5Clause 7, page 4. line 6, leave out subsection (2)
6In the Title, at end insert 'as adjusted by the Protocol signed at Brussels on 17th March 1993.'
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 en block.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993
4.23 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Arran) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th October be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order is long and complex but it is none the less largely non-contentious. The length of the order is a consequence of it consolidating as well as amending existing law relating to roads in Northern Ireland. The modification and clarification of roads law introduced in the order is necessary to take account of changing needs and circumstances, deficiencies identified through operational experience and the desirability of further harmony with highway law in England and Wales. The order should, as a result, better serve the operational needs of the Department of the Environment as road authority and hence the interests of road users.
Turning to the content of the order, I will confine my remarks to the most significant of the new and amended provisions. Part III introduces a procedure for authorising the private sector to provide and maintain special roads in exchange for the facility to charge tolls. This will correspond closely with the provisions of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. Although there are no toll roads operating in Northern Ireland and no current proposals for the introduction of such facilities, it is considered prudent to provide for the possible eventuality.
Part IV contains new and amended provisions relating to the improvement and safety of roads, which in particular, modify the Department of the Environment's power to provide street lighting to take account of street lighting in private streets becoming the responsibility of the developer; to clarify its road drainage responsibilities; and to give it improved powers to introduce traffic calming measures and to deal with sources of potential danger or nuisance to road users.
Part VIII replaces the anachronistic local provision, the Down County Council (Strangford Lough Ferry) Act 1967, under which the Department of the Environment has operated the Strangford ferry service since the reorganisation of local government in Northern Ireland in 1973. Article 122, which
1178
corresponds to Section 23 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, gives the Department of the Environment for the first time a specific power to enter into agreements whereby works carried out by the department under the order will be paid for by a developer, either wholly or in part.
The order makes a number of other relatively minor or technical changes in roads law, chiefly reflecting operational experience. However, I have drawn attention to the main provisions of the legislation. I commend the order to your Lordships' House and I hope it will be welcomed as a convenient, comprehensive and clear statement of the law on public roads in Northern Ireland.'
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th October be approved.—(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the synopsis of the Bill which he gave us with his usual skill and speed, especially in view of the fact that this is rather a long order. I am also grateful to him for elucidating the new elements which the order introduces and for signalling them so clearly. We on these Benches are concerned by a number of aspects of this order which we believe reflects, in general terms, the Government's failure to adopt an integrated transport policy for Northern Ireland, and indeed for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which we have urged on them for a long time.
It is to be hoped that in this case the matter can he debated more fully in another place when it considers the order. The whole order is based on the necessity, announced right at the beginning of it, to facilitate road traffic. This seems to us to be a shaky basis for policy. The Government should, especially if they are serious about the Rio Summit, be seeking instead to reduce rather than accommodate traffic growth. We need to provide full environmental assessment of all transport options before opting for a road as opposed to a different option.
I hope that the noble Earl will give me a little assistance and elucidation on one part of the order. Perhaps he can throw light on Part V of the order which deals specifically with environmental assessment. Article 67(1) states that,
"where the Department has under consideration the construction of a new road … it shall determine before the date of publication of details of the project whether or not it falls within Annex I or Annex II to Council Directive No. 85/337/EEC".
The article continues:
"Where it appears to the Department that it falls within Annex I, or that it falls within Annex II … that it should be made subject to an environmental assessment in accordance with the Directive, the Department shall prepare an environmental statement".
Headings (a) and (b) of Article 67(2) contain reservations about the nature of the assessment. Why are these reservations especially necessary in this case? What will be the effect of the statement on the eventual assessment? Who precisely will make the environmental assessment? The department will make the statement, but who will make the assessment? Am I correct in assuming that, regardless of what any

1179
assessment may say, the department will still retain the power to proceed with the project whatever environmental dangers are signalled?
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl for his clear introduction to this order. As he said, it is a long order but he is right to describe it as non-contentious on the whole. I wish to ask the noble Earl three questions on Part III which deals on the whole with toll roads and the question of concessionaires and private firms running those roads. Is the noble Earl aware—I am sure the Government are aware—that toll roads in the United States have always had an attraction for racketeers as they generate large sums of cash? They involve an enormous cash flow. Is the Minister satisfied, in the context of Northern Ireland, that the cash that is necessary for the operation of a toll system does not present tempting opportunities to those in the terrorist organisations who are increasingly looking to racketeering as a source of finance now that other sources of finance, thank goodness, are increasingly closed to them?
My second point is why toll roads are presented as a means of raising money by concessionaires and do not appear to be considered, as I believe they should be, as a factor for pushing traffic from the roads to more efficient and environmentally benign forms of transport, including rail—which we debated so recently in your Lordships' House, in a rather more crowded Chamber than now.
Finally, I should like to ask the noble Earl what may seem a trivial question. It is mentioned in Article 35 that the police will be able to travel free on any private toll roads which are introduced, but there is no mention of the security forces. Are we to assume that the Army will have to stop and put money in the meter, or will they, too, have free travel on these roads?
Having made those three points, to which I should be grateful for a response, we on these Benches have no objections to the order.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am well aware that the present situation in Northern Ireland is one of extreme tension and that nothing should be done which would in any way make easier the commission of acts of terrorism and political violence. However, perhaps I may refer to the question of cross-border roads, a large number of which have been permanently closed or obstructed. I should like to put down a marker that the subject should not be completely forgotten but should be re-examined in the medium or long term.
I hope that such a re-examination would not be done en bloc as a matter of all or nothing. It would be far better if re-examination could be conducted on a case-by-case basis, road by road, looking first at those roads where closure causes the longest detours. I say no more. I do not expect the noble Earl even to refer to the subject today. However, I should not like it to be lost sight of completely.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, before dwelling on the points raised by noble Lords I should like to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris,
1180
to the Opposition Bench as spokesman on Northern Ireland affairs. It may be appropriate if I pay tribute at the same time to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, although he is not in his seat at the moment. The noble Lord has spoken on Northern Ireland matters for the past eight years, during which time your Lordships will agree he has asked many searching, penetrating and discerning questions, always in a most courteous manner. I am sure that your Lordships will wish to be associated with that tribute, particularly former Ministers from my own Benches who were always aware of the noble Lord's affection and respect for the people and affairs of Northern Ireland.
I said at the beginning that the order is long and complex. Several noble Lords have asked some fairly searching questions. The order was subject to extensive consultation with the interested parties prior to its consideration in your Lordships' House. It is evident that it has broad support.
Perhaps I may take some of the points, not necessarily in the order in which they were raised. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, as regards Article 35, that I understand that the Army would be exempt from the payment of tolls.
In response to the question concerning environmental assessment put by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, the environmental statement is made by the department. The department is also charged with the task of carrying out the assessment. The final decision is a matter for the Minister for the Environment in the light of the information gathered.
I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, about cash flows and the potential for racketeering by terrorists. That is a serious point, and he is quite right to raise it. Of course his views will be taken very strongly into account.
I take very seriously also the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. He is quite right. This is a very sensitive and difficult time in Northern Ireland. That is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister at this very moment is seeking to talk to the political leaders in Northern Ireland in an endeavour to get talks going again. I also take the point that the noble Lord made concerning cross-border roads.
I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Environment and Safety Information (Northern Ireland) Order 1993
4.36 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th October be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this second order would introduce provisions broadly in line with those already in force in Great Britain by the enactment of the Environment and Safety Information Act 1988. Matters concerning health and safety and environmental protection are relevant currently as new Environmental Information Regulations have recently been made in Great Britain and Northern Ireland to implement the EC Directive on Freedom of Access to Information on the

1181
Environment. Those regulations complement the provisions of this order and it is opportune therefore that the order should be introduced at this time.
I believe that it will be helpful to the House if I comment briefly on the order and then say a few words about the detailed provisions. The main purpose of the order is to require the authorities responsible for the enforcement of specified health, safety and environmental legislation to keep registers containing details of enforcement notices issued under the legislation which affect members of the public. Such notices are concerned with protecting the public from safety or environmental hazards.
The Government are keen to promote the order on two counts. First, it will make a useful contribution towards public safety and environmental protection by making companies on whom notices are served more directly accountable to the public. Companies will be encouraged to take adequate and timely precautions to protect the public from any potential dangers arising
1182
from their operations, in the knowledge that if they fail to do so information about any enforcement notices served on them will be made publicly available.
Secondly, the order encourages greater openness by the public authorities concerned. The public will be able to be informed about enforcement action which has been taken in relation to matters affecting public safety which is fully consistent with the openness principle enshrined in the Citizen's Charter.
This is a short and straightforward order which will provide the public with useful information concerning its own safety. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th October be approved—(The Earl of Arran).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before five o'clock.