Lords Sitting of 10 January 1995

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

Deaf-Blind Children: Needs
Lord Dormand of Easingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the number of units catering for deaf-blind children, and whether they intend to increase that number.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, there are approximately 20 units. Decisions about whether to increase this number rest with local providers in response to local needs and resources.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in spite of that Answer, is there not substantial evidence to show that more units of various kinds are needed? Equally important is the fact that the spread of the units varies a great deal throughout the country. Some areas are well-provided for; others have no provision. In the circumstances, is there not the strongest case for the Government to extend the three-year government grant which is to finish in April this year? As the needs of deaf-blind children are unique, what are the Government doing about increasing training facilities for the teachers of such children?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in saying that the needs of these children are unique. That is why over three years the Government have set aside ring-fenced funding from central government of £3.9 million as part of the GEST programme in order to meet those needs. It is for local authorities to decide where the units should be sited. They have been encouraged to form consortia. The number of children who need the facility is small and, therefore, it is important that local authorities group together to provide it. The grant was given for two years. That period was extended to three years. The idea of the grant was to meet the start-up costs and to help local authorities to establish the units. They are now established and it is appropriate that local authorities should take on their revenue running costs.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I appreciate the Answer the Minister gave to my noble friend. I understand that SENSE is about to undertake a new survey of the needs of deaf-blind children. Is the department involved in that survey or are there ways in which it can be of assistance to SENSE?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we recognise and appreciate the organisation, which is one of the leading voluntary organisations in the field. It is most
80
businesslike and works well and closely with the department. We wish to support it in any way we can and we believe that the survey will be useful.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, is the Minister aware that SENSE celebrates its 40th anniversary this year? Does she agree that the extension of GEST has increased awareness among LEAs of the educational needs of children with dual sensory impairment and learning difficulties?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lady is right. The organisation has the respect not only of the Government but of the nation as a whole. As a result of its good work, it received this year a grant of £110,000. We support the organisation not only in accolades but financially.
Lord Renton: My Lords, how many such children are there in the United Kingdom? Is the number increasing or decreasing?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we do not know the exact number. The degree of disability varies. Some of the children are partially sighted and others are mildly deaf. Today I refer to those who are severely handicapped and deaf-blind, as I believe does the Question. We do not know the exact number of such children. It is interesting to note that in the past the disability was caused by rubella. Its incidence has decreased enormously but, sadly, today these sensory deficiencies are more often the result of premature births.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I understand that the sad problem extends across the responsibilities of both the Department of Health and the Department for Education. If the Minister is saying that the GEST funds will definitely be withdrawn in the spring will it be possible for those departments to co-operate in order to ensure that the unique services, as described by my noble friend, are provided in a way that does not rest simply on the extended funds of local authorities?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we see this as the responsibility of local authorities. Under the Education Act that recently passed through your Lordships' House, they have a statutory responsibility to provide for pupils with special educational needs. The needs of such pupils clearly fall within the remit of education. The units have been set up and it is now up to local authorities to face their responsibilities.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say how the system of reporting congenital abnormalities works? It seems very strange that she does not know how many of those children are suffering from dual handicaps.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, when a baby is born there is a system which provides that any physical disabilities from which that baby suffers must be notified to the local health authority through the director of public health. However, it is very difficult to identify

81
deaf-blind babies at birth, especially the deafness. Therefore, that is what SENSE is trying to do in terms of its survey.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, to what extent has it been established, if at all, that the condition is occasioned by vaccine damage?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I do not have the figures but I believe it to be very rare indeed. We hoped that the numbers of children so affected would reduce as the incidence of rubella decreased, but, as I said, that has not been the case. The primary cause now is premature birth. Very small babies which are born prematurely may have those disabilities.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I found her Answer very disappointing indeed? I should have thought that the least the Government could do would be to extend the grant. The Minister said, as most Ministers from that Bench have said, that it is a matter for the local authorities. Perhaps she will say where the local authorities will find the money in view of the fact that the grants to them have been restricted. A Department of Education survey in 1986 said that there were 600 deaf-blind children. If the Department of Education could do it then, why cannot the Department for Education do it now and obtain some facts about the situation?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it depends entirely on the degree of disability about which the noble Lord is talking. There are categories of disability. Because of his unease, I shall write to the noble Lord about the matter. The GEST funding was for two years and it has been extended for a third year. Local authorities know that. They know also that as a group these children have benefited more from central government funding than any other group. It would be unfair to other groups if that funding were to continue and local authorities did not face up to their responsibilities.

Quarantine Protection
2.45 p.m.
Lord Astor of Heverasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering replacing the quarantine requirement for cats and dogs entering the United Kingdom from other European Union states with a system of vaccination and unambiguous identification.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, the Government share the concern of the Agriculture Select Committee in another place. They would never support a change which would increase the likelihood of rabies entering the United Kingdom. The question of whether any other arrangements can offer the same protection as quarantine or better is essentially
82
technical which the Government will need to consider carefully. The onus is on those recommending change to demonstrate that it offers at least as good a protection as quarantine, which has served us well.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he agree that, with tried and tested alternatives, we should not keep pets locked up for six months in cold, damp and noisy cells? Is he aware of the changes in Sweden and Norway where, for the first seven months after their introduction, vaccination and identification rather than quarantine have been an outstanding success?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I have already said, quarantine has stood this country in good stead for a great many years. We should have to think extremely carefully before changing that system. It is fair to say that it is too early to make a full assessment of the new systems operating in Norway and Sweden, bearing in mind that the changes were implemented only in June 1994 and the incubation period for rabies is itself six months. Indeed, one must remember that the changes which have been made are based on a system of border controls which are illegal under single market rules.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the Minister agree that 15 years ago the Waterhouse inquiry, for which I take some responsibility, looked at the whole serious problem of rabies in this country? No change has taken place which would justify the repeal of the Act which Parliament implemented on the recommendations of that report.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for reminding the House of the conclusions of the Waterhouse Report which, as he rightly says, reached the conclusion that quarantine should stay and, indeed, that it should be tightened up in certain respects. Since that time, there has been no case of rabies outside of quarantine, and that in itself tells a very powerful story.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House that, before any steps are taken to relax the regulations, he will satisfy himself that the veterinary standards in the countries to the south and south-east of the European Community are as high and as well managed as those in this country?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very powerful point. It is the case that some European Union states are defined as "rabies-free" and others have had great success in reducing the incidence of cases through a widespread campaign of wildlife vaccinations. But there are countries in the Community and bordering it where rabies is still common.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, will the noble Earl tell the House whether there are any other countries in the European Union which, like us, do not have a dog registration scheme? As we do not have such a scheme, does that not put us in a very vulnerable position as regards having any sensible liaison with other countries

83
should anything go wrong; that is, dogs coming into this country, going astray and then being unable to be traced?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I shall need to take advice regarding which members of the European Union have a dog registration scheme and which do not. However, I am sure that the noble Viscount will agree that it is the simplicity of the quarantine system which has, in many ways, proved its success. It is automatic that any animal, whether registered or not, enters quarantine on arrival at these shores. I do not believe that the question of a registration scheme in this country would assist or indeed detract from that fact.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, in regard to the reply that my noble friend gave to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn—namely, that there were no recent cases of rabies outside of quarantine—can he advise the House how many cases there have been of infected animals inside quarantine?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am aware that there was a case of an animal developing clinical rabies while in quarantine in 1990, when a dog from Zambia developed the disease. Before that I believe there was a further case in 1983. Cases do occur from time to time, but they are by no means common.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, the noble Earl has discounted the effectiveness of a dog registration scheme. However, if the quarantine system were to be abolished in this country, leading to demands from large sections of the public for the reintroduction of dog licensing in this country, would Her Majesty's Government respond to such a request?
Earl Howe: My Lords, some of the proposals put forward by the Select Committee would involve a de facto system of licensing. If any change were to be made, I believe that such a system would be necessary. It would be necessary to identify animals in a fail-safe manner.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House what measures Her Majesty's Government have taken to prevent the Channel Tunnel being invaded by rabied rats?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I can reassure my noble friend on that score. Strict hygiene, supported by the use of poisoned bait, is being maintained in the Channel Tunnel to minimise the risk of colonisation by rodents. Should regular site inspections reveal any infestation by rodents, intensified treatment of specific areas will be carried out. Members of the state veterinary service and wildlife officers visit the whole area regularly to check on the measures and to give advice.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, given the fact that the environment Bill of, I believe, 1991 gave the Secretary of State the power to introduce a dog registration
84
scheme, can the Minister tell the House whether any plans have been made so that, if it were necessary to do so, such a scheme could be implemented at short notice?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am not aware of any plans to introduce dog registration at short notice. However, I shall inquire of my right honourable friend and write to the noble Baroness if I am wrong in that respect.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as the only common land border that we have with another EC country is that between Northern Ireland and the Republic, can my noble friend say whether it continues to be desirable for the Irish and ourselves to go step by step in the matter? Further, can my noble friend tell the House the attitude of the Irish Government?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend has made an important point. The Republic of Ireland is itself defined as rabies free as, of course, is the United Kingdom. My understanding is that the Government of the Republic are of one mind with ourselves.

World Trade Organisation
2.53 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is their policy that the World Trade Organisation should not be a specialised agency or affiliate of the United Nations.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not consider that the World Trade Organisation should be a specialised agency or a formal affiliate of the United Nations.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply, which I welcome. I wish the new organisation well in its future administration of GATT. However, is there any pressure from other governments and organisations for it to be part of the United Nations? Should not GATT be kept separate, if possible, from the horse-trading that has become a feature at the United Nations on different subjects? GATT negotiations such as those in the recent Uruguay Round seem difficult enough without wider complications.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the United Nations Secretariat did raise the idea of affiliation. However, it met with unanimous opposition from members of the World Trade Organisation. I entirely agree with my noble friend that the organisation should be kept separate from the United Nations.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, in view of the difficulties of ratifying the accords of the Uruguay Round, can my noble friend confirm that every member state of the European Union will be an individual member of the World Trade Organisation and not merely represented by the European Community as a whole?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that the answer to my noble friend's question is yes. However, I prefer to

85
take advice on the matter. If I am wrong, I shall inform my noble friend. My understanding is that each member is a member in its own right.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is there not a case for a very close liaison between the new World Trade Organisation—which we all wish success—and other UN specialised agencies in order to ensure very close contact? Was the decision taken a final or an interim one? Further, can the matter be reconsidered if it is thought that that would be helpful?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe that we want to reconsider the question. The UK Government do not agree with that idea; nor, indeed, do any other members of the World Trade Organisation. However, I agree with the noble Lord that co-operation is important. We would support the establishment of observers among the World Trade Organisation and other intergovernmental organisations such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and so on. We are all in favour of co-operation, but that is different from saying that the organisation should be a part of the United Nations.

Influenza Virus: Research Co-operation
2.57 p.m.
Lord Molloyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there is co-operation between scientists from Britain and from other countries in attempts to control the 'flu virus; and, if so, what is being done to fund this research.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, UK scientists have been collaborating with international researchers for many years. For example, one of three World Health Organisation collaborating centres for influenza is based in the UK and is funded by the Government through the Medical Research Council. The Department of Health also funds research directly and further money has been provided by the European Commission for international surveillance.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that worthwhile reply. It gives us some encouragement. However, is the Minister aware that influenza is still the greatest killer on earth? Indeed, 20 million people died in 1970, and millions die every year. People are a little concerned. Will the Minister consider the situation where there is a threat of infection when people are gathered together; for example, school children in their schools?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the people who suffer from influenza tend to be those who are older. In fact, when we look at the deaths each year from influenza, it is mostly people who are suffering from
86
other chronic conditions; for example, bronchitis, asthma, and so on. Therefore, the question about school children is really not relevant.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister use the occasion to emphasise once again the necessity for older people to have anti-flu vaccinations as quickly as they can?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. Indeed, the Chief Medical Officer wrote to general practitioners in June, and again in September last year, reminding them of the need to encourage their patients to come forward for vaccination.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware—I am sure that she is—that the Australians believe that they are on the verge of making a very great contribution towards producing a vaccine that will prevent influenza? Can we not encourage the rest of the Commonwealth, and other nations, to join us in supporting the Australians in what might well be a very great invention for all mankind?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we have vaccines for influenza every year; indeed, we have had them over many years. The difficulty is that the virus changes year on year. Therefore, we have to grow a different vaccine every year according to the anticipated strains that will be current during that year. I should like to take the opportunity to say that UK scientists are actually the world leaders in advising the World Health Organisation on identifying those strains. As a nation, we should be very proud of that fact.

Blasphemy (Abolition) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to abolish the offence of blasphemy and certain other common law offences; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Avebury.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
3.2 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The first report from the Procedure Committee covers four matters. First, the committee has given further consideration to the report of the Group on Sittings of the House in the light of the views expressed in the debate on 2nd November. The committee has made the eight recommendations set out in the report. The underlying aim of this package of recommendations—most of which are experimental—is to enable the House to rise earlier, which I imagine that all your Lordships will welcome.

87
Secondly, the committee has recommended a relaxation in the sub judice rule to bring the position in this House more closely into line with the position in another place. At present the sub judice rule prevents reference in the House to any case before a court. In another place there is an exception in relation to civil cases for certain matters involving ministerial decisions or issues of national importance. This exception is at the discretion of the Speaker who must be satisfied that there is no real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings.
In the absence of a direct counterpart in this House to the Speaker in another place, the committee recommends that a similar discretion should be exercised by the Leader of the House, whose decision would be made on advice and after consultation. This arrangement is novel in so far as it gives the Leader a role going beyond advising the House. But the committee—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Leader of the House aware that this is completely unconstitutional to give the Leader of the House a position he has never occupied before? I think it would be quite pernicious.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if matters of that kind were to be dealt with following the moving of this Motion when I feel sure that in your Lordships' customary way your Lordships will take into account any matters which are raised by any noble Lord. Perhaps I should start the last sentence again so that I do not lose your Lordships. I am sure I am never in any danger of doing that, but I might lose myself in the process.
This arrangement is novel in so far as it gives the Leader a role going beyond advising the House, but the committee agreed that the House should have the benefit of the less restrictive rule which applies already in another place and felt that this was the best way of achieving this aim. Thirdly, the committee has approved a new edition of the Brief Guide to the Procedure and Practice of the House. In doing so, the committee decided to clarify three customs of the House which are not always adhered to.
First, maiden speakers should normally be congratulated by the following speaker only. It is desirable that noble Lords should not leave the Chamber during those congratulations. Secondly, noble Lords taking part in debates are expected to attend as much of it as possible, including the end of the debate. Noble Lords who become aware in advance that they are unlikely to be able to stay until the end should normally remove their names from the list of speakers.
Thirdly, the time for Back-Bench questions and comments on Statements is now limited to 20 minutes and the committee considers that the same limit should also apply to Front Bench speakers. Finally, the committee has considered the practice in relation to Questions for Written Answer which have not been answered when the House adjourns for a Recess. At present such Questions remain unanswered until the House resumes. The committee recommends that in future answers should normally be sent to the noble
88
Lord concerned within a fortnight, and then printed in Hansard for the next Sitting day, with a reference to the date on which they were answered.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 9).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
ORDERED TO REPORT:
1. SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
The Committee has given further consideration to the Report (HL Paper 83, Session 1993–94) of the Group on Sittings of the House, in the light of the views expressed in debate on 2 November.
The Committee recommends:

(1) That further opportunities should be found for the use of Special Public Bill Committee procedure, in particular for Law Commission bills but also for other bills introduced into either House.

(2) That, as an experiment, a suitable bill should be considered by an informal committee along the lines described in paragraphs 8 to 17 of the Report.

(3) That, as an experiment, a suitable bill should be committed to a committee of the whole House off the floor of the House, as proposed in paragraphs 18 to 23 of the Report. There should be no divisions in the committee.

(4) That no action be taken on the suggestion, discussed in paragraphs 24 and 25 of the Report, that some public bills might be carried over from one session to the next.

(5) That there should be a time limit of 1½. hours for all unstarred questions, other than those taken in dinner breaks (which are already limited to one hour). Time limits on speeches should be applied in the usual way, allowing at least 10 minutes for the Lord asking the question and 12 minutes for the Minister's reply, for both 1-hour and l½-hour unstarred questions. It follows that unstarred questions should be asked only on matters where a limited number of Lords are likely to wish to speak.

(6) That the House should sit on Fridays when the pressure of business requires and when there is a realistic expectation that a Friday sitting will enable the House to rise earlier on other days that week.

(7) That no starred questions should be taken on Fridays.

(8) That whenever possible business should be arranged so as to avoid the need for the House to sit beyond an agreed time, say 10 p.m. The Committee recognises that a significant improvement in the hours of sitting of the House can come only with general support throughout the House, and by agreement through the usual channels, and not by any decision of the Committee.

2. THE SUB JUDICE RULE
The Committee has given further consideration to the rule governing reference to cases sub judice. While the House agreed in 1963 that the practice should be similar in both Houses of Parliament, the practice has in fact been different since 1972 when the Commons gave the Speaker discretion to allow reference to matters sub judice which "relate to a Ministerial decision which cannot be challenged in Court except on grounds of misdirection or bad faith, or concern issues of national importance such as the national economy, public order or the essentials of life".
The Committee recommends that a somewhat similar relaxation of the rule should be adopted in this House, and that the discretion whether a matter may be raised should be vested in the Leader of the House whose decision would be made on advice and after consultation. In contrast to the practice in relation to Private Notice Questions, where the Leader's preliminary decision may be challenged in the House, the Committee recommends that the

89
Leader's decision should not be subject to challenge as otherwise inappropriate cases might be raised on the floor of the House under the guise of a challenge to the Leader's ruling.
The reference in the Commons' rule to ministerial decisions "which cannot be challenged in Court except on grounds of misdirection or bad faith" is no longer appropriate in view of the development of judicial review since the Commons' rule was adopted, and the Committee recommends that those words be omitted from the rule in this House.
The Committee accordingly recommends that the following proviso should be added to the paragraph in the Companion (page 52) dealing with cases before civil courts:
"This is subject to the proviso that, where a ministerial decision is in question, or a case concerns issues of national importance such as the national economy, public order or the essentials of life, reference may be made at the discretion of the Leader of the House, who must be satisfied that there is no real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings. The Leader of the House should be given at least 24 hours' notice of any proposal to refer to a matter which is sub judice. It is undesirable that the exercise of his discretion should be challenged in the House."
3. BRIEF GUIDE TO THE PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE OF THE HOUSE
The Committee has considered and approved a draft new edition of the Brief Guide to the Procedure and Practice of the House of Lords, which will be made available at the same time as the new edition of the Companion to the Standing Orders.
The Committee noted certain customs of the House which at present are too often not adhered to and which are to be clarified in the new Brief Guide. They are as follows:
(1) Maiden Speeches
Maiden speakers should normally be congratulated by the following speaker only whose congratulations are on behalf of the whole House. It is accordingly desirable that Lords should not leave the Chamber during such congratulations.
(2) Attendance at debates
Lords taking part in a debate are expected to attend as much of it as possible, in particular the opening speeches, the speeches immediately before and after their own, and the winding-up speeches "below the gap". Lords who become aware in advance that they are unlikely to be able to stay until the end should normally remove their names from the list of speakers.
(3) Statements
The period for back-bench questions and comments on statements is now limited to 20 minutes. While there is no formal limit on front-bench speakers, the Committee considers that they too should seek to be brief and that the time for front-bench questions and comments and the Minister's reply should not normally be longer than the period for back-benchers.
4. QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN ANSWER: ANSWERS DURING RECESSES
At present a question for written answer which has not been answered when the House adjourns for a recess remains unanswered until the House resumes. The Committee recommends that in future answers should normally be sent to the Lord concerned within a fortnight, even when the House is not sitting. Answers would, as at present, be printed in the Official Report for the next sitting day, with a reference to the date on which they were answered.
Lord Monkswellrose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert ("with the exception of item 2 (The Sub-Judice Rule) which shall be referred back to the Select Committee for further consideration).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment in effect asks the Select Committee to have another look at the issue of the sub judice rule. I hope to explain to
90
your Lordships why this may be useful, but before I do I wish to pay a tribute to the Select Committee. I am sure I speak for all of us when I say that we owe a debt of gratitude to the hard work of the Select Committee and in particular to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for the exemplary way in which he has introduced this report.
I should also like to express my gratitude to the powers that be for enabling consideration of this report to be taken now rather than before the Christmas Recess. That has enabled us to consider the report at our leisure and digest the implications. That is useful. I wish to say a few words about the background to the report, then to consider the implications of the recommendations and suggest an alternative way of dealing with them.
As the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has already explained, section 2 of the report effectively sets a precedent in the way in which we conduct ourselves. Two of the very real strengths of this House are that every Member of your Lordships' House is able to contribute to our debates and offer their advice to the Government. Also, virtually all our business is taken on the Floor of the House. In this respect we are rather different from the other place and I think we need to recognise that difference and revel in it, if I may say that.
We must recognise that in the other place there are 650 Members, all of whom want to speak and contribute and raise issues. Over the years they have evolved a system of rules and they have empowered their Speaker to control their debates and determine who shall and shall not speak. But we do things rather differently in this House. I have spoken on previous occasions about the risk that we run in taking business off the Floor of the House and dealing with it upstairs. I do not wish to elaborate on that except to say that in this report we must be careful—I am sure we will be—about recommendations (1) and (3) in section 1.
However, in section 2 on the subject of the sub judice rule we run a new risk. Here I must stress that nothing in my remarks should be construed as a wish to interfere with the judiciary in the discharge of its functions in a court of law. I am sure that I speak for all of your Lordships when I say that we should have no right, nor should we seek to interfere, in the practice of a court of law.
The rules of sub judice should not be used to prevent Parliament offering advice to Government Ministers in the discharge of their discretionary functions. As the committee has advised the House, it is right that issues of national importance should be raised.
In 1963, as the report makes clear, it was agreed that the practice in this House should be similar to the practice in another place. I stress "similar", rather than the same. It is eminently sensible that the committee should be able to raise issues which are in theory sub judice. However, the committee goes much further and suggests that the Leader of the House should have the power to determine what should or should not be discussed on the Floor of your Lordships' House and, unfortunately, to suggest that the decision of the Leader of the House should not be challenged on the Floor of the House.

91
I suggest that that recommendation raises a number of problems. First, it places one of our number in a superior position in determining what may be raised in the House. It also gives that Member the ability to determine what another noble Lord may or may not say in the House. It places the Leader of the House in a very difficult position by calling on him to make a judgment about whether another member of the Government of which he is a member may be called into question on the Floor of the House. It also suggests that the Leader of the House may not be challenged on the Floor of the House in the exercise of his judgment.
I suggest that that is not the way we do business in this House; nor is it a way in which we should do business in the future. It is a major departure from precedent and sets a precedent which may do us harm in the future. Nowhere in the Standing Orders nor in the Companion do we give such power to the Leader of the House.
It has been suggested that the issue of Private Notice Questions is a precedent. I argue that it is not. As Standing Order 33 makes clear, and the Companion elaborates on page 81, there is no bar on a Private Notice Question being asked and the House can insist on the Government giving an immediate reply. That is completely different from giving the Leader of the House the power to prevent an issue being raised and to prevent the House from challenging his judgment.
I have also learned that there has been some concern among noble and learned Lords on the subject of your Lordships raising cases that are sub judice because of the possible risk of this House trying to influence the decision of a court of law. We must recognise that we have a special responsibility because of our relationship with the highest court in the land. I suggest that there are probably Members of your Lordships' House who would have dearly liked to influence a court of law, but we do not do that. I am sure also that if anyone in this House tried to do so there would be a very swift Motion from any quarter of the House that such a noble Lord should no longer be heard.
Where do we go from here? I suggest that we use the precedent that has already been established. I refer to the case of Miss Sue Hagan and Miss Sally Croft. That case was raised in this House on 31st March, 13th April and 6th June last year. On at least two of those occasions the case was sub judice because it was before a court of law. It is interesting and significant that at no time did any Member of your Lordships' House try to influence a court of law, but there was a concerted effort from all sides of your Lordships' House to influence the Home Secretary in the exercise of his discretion in that case.
On one occasion during those debates it was moved that a noble Lord be no longer heard because it was felt that he might transgress the sub judice rule. On that occasion the Motion was withdrawn. The House was adjourned for five minutes and when it reassembled the debate continued.
I suggest that the way in which that case was raised and debated in your Lordships' House showed your Lordships' House at its best. It demonstrated that, even when passions are roused and the rules appear likely to be broken, self-regulation by your Lordships works. In
92
saying that I must pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, who, as Leader of the House at the time, demonstrated true capacities of leadership which enabled the House to work to its own rules by accommodating our current sub judice rules with the will of the House expressed in 1963 that our practice should be similar to that of the other place while maintaining our self-regulatory climate. I see no reason for not using that precedent to frame a modification to the Companion to enable debate in this House that would enable us to give advice to government Ministers and prevent us attempting to influence courts of law.
To summarise, there is a need to change our sub judice rules in line with the practice in the other place. In the other place the Speaker controls the business. In this House we control our own business. It has been suggested that the Leader of the House should assume the role of Speaker in this case, but he is a member of the Government and not a servant of the House. We have a proud and good record of controlling our own debates without a Speaker. My amendment would enable the procedure Committee to look at the subject again and frame changes to our sub judice rules which would preserve our self-regulatory regime, allow us to offer advice to Ministers and prevent interference in the conduct of cases before a court of law. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert ("with the exception of item 2 (The Sub-Judice Rule) which shall be referred back to the Select Committee for further consideration).—(Lord Monkswell.)
3.15 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, my first instinct was identical to that expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in his short intervention a few minutes ago. The rest of the report may be reasonably satisfactory, but trying to install a pseudo Speaker in your Lordships' House would be not only the wrong thing to do but a stupid thing to do. In terms of wanting to copy the other place, if any copying is to be done the other place ought to copy our procedures and our standards. Anyone who has sat in both Houses will be familiar with the nonsense of the points of order which arise from the interpretation of what is right or wrong. Our system works, and it works well. Whatever happens to the rest of the report, I hope that it is not too late to alter the suggestion that there should be a Speaker—whether it is the Leader of the House or anybody else—giving judgment of that sort.
Our strength is our complete independence to work to our own rules. The system has worked well. Any alteration in the direction which is suggested in terms of making the Leader of the House a pseudo Speaker will tie us up in bureaucracy which will interfere with the effectiveness of this House.
I do not know whether the right way to give effect to what I suggest is by voting for the amendment. I shall give more thought to that in the light of what other noble Lords may say. However, whether it is through the amendment or by some other means I hope that the complete freedom of this House to adhere to its own self-control will not be interfered with.

93
I have sat in your Lordships' House under Leaders from different parties, so there is no question about the individuals involved. Indeed, I can think of no one I would rather follow almost without question as Leader than the present Leader of this House. However, that is not the point. To enter into the bureaucracy which would flow from an individual dictating—and being legally able to dictate—how the House shall conduct itself would be a retrograde step. I hope that at this stage we shall find some way to avoid moving down that road.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I should like to support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and my noble friend Lord Monkswell because all that is being asked for is further consideration. I very much hope that the Chairman of Committees will feel able to say that that is appropriate and that my noble friend Lord Monkswell will withdraw his amendment. Anything to do with procedure really ought to go through by general consent because it is the framework within which our deliberations are conducted.
There really is no rush for this because at heading 3 we are told that,
"The Committee has considered and approved a draft new addition of the Brief Guide… and a new edition of the Companion to the Standing Orders".
I obtained those documents from the Printed Paper Office today. They appeared in 1989. I cannot believe that there is any great rush to replace them.
I understand that the Procedure Committee has established a sub-committee to consider the question of Peers' interests. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees will explain to the House the sub-committee's remit. The sub-committee could well suggest one or two changes. They would have to be sent out as addenda to the newly printed editions of the Brief Guide and the Companion. For the sake of a few months' delay we are really losing nothing.
When the question of interests is being considered, I would like to draw attention to two points. One concerns the position of EC Commissioners. In this House we are privileged to have former Commissioners in our midst. To peasants like myself, representative of the great unwashed, to be led by the hand through the labyrinths of the EC by those Commissioners is a great privilege. However, I would ask whether our Pharisee Commissioners should not declare an interest if they are in receipt of a pension from the EC. In the interests of pruning the budget, they may well eschew the pension, in which case I congratulate them. But otherwise I believe that there is a specific interest there.
The other point is important because I do not believe that anyone has realised the situation which has evolved. During the debate on 2nd November on the Liaison Committee report I drew attention to a portion of the report which stated:
"The Liaison Committee has considered a proposal for a Select Committee to scrutinise legislation for consistency with the European Convention on Human Rights'".—[official Report, 2/11/94; col. 844.]
94
I said that I suspected that that proposal had come from a pressure group. After the debate I wrote to the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal asking for the origin of the proposal. I was told that it was put forward by four Peers, one Conservative, one Labour, one Liberal Democrat and a Cross-Bencher. That leads us on, does it not, to the phrase which is so helpful,
"support in all parts of the House".
But all those four Peers were barristers. It seems to me that where substantial changes in the law are being made which will generate a great deal of work in the courts, that factor is just as much an interest as any other interests which are declared in your Lordships' House. I hope therefore that the Committee will consider that aspect.
It is not an academic matter because in the Sunday Telegraph I noted a report headed, "£150m bill for NHS blunders". The article refers to a memo from the Department of Health to the Treasury revealing that damages for medical negligence will cost the National Health Service £150 million this year. Officials predict that claims will rise by more than 20 per cent. annually. That does not mean that the medical services are becoming more negligent by 20 per cent. every year. It means that the legal profession is touting for business to try to encourage people to take cases. I am sure that noble Lords have seen advertisements in newspapers asking people whether they would not be eligible for claims. The article states:
"Officials … predict that claims will rise by … 20 per cent. annually, with American-style litigation against doctors crippling the Health Service".
It is a serious matter and sooner or later, if we are not to go the way of the United States, this country has to face up to the problem. I suggest that the sub-committee would be doing a service—
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I suggest that the sub-committee may well be doing a service if it had a look at that problem.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if I am not intervening—or am I?—perhaps I may briefly oppose this Motion, albeit that I happen to be a member of the Bar. Having raised the subject on a previous occasion in your Lordships' House, and having been present at the rather unfortunate affair which arose at which my noble friend Lord Ferrers—I see that he is in his place—was present when the question of sub judice arose, I wish to say shortly that it seems to me that the proposed proviso affords a relevant, reasonable and wholly satisfactory resolution of the problem on the basis of 24 hours' notice in which to seek advice and entertain discussion. It surely could not be intended that no one could, so to speak, query the advice or the decision of the Leader of the House; but, by and large, surely as proposed it is a sensible resolution on the face of it. I oppose the amendment.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the case for reconsideration of the proposal to give this strange

95
revolutionary new power to the Leader of the House has been so well expressed by both sides of the House that I need hardly say much. However, I have been Leader of the House, and I have also been moved out of order in this House. That is, I suppose, a unique sequence of events; I cannot envisage the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, being moved out of order.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: No.
The Earl of Longford: I therefore have certain credentials for taking part in the debate.
There was a real problem last summer. The more one went into it, the more acute the problem was. On the one hand, it could be argued that nothing must be done to disturb the judiciary in their work. On the other hand, the moment that the judiciary had decided on an issue, a couple of ladies were going to be extradited to America and at that time it seemed—mercifully it has not turned out that way—that they would be in prison for a year before trial. That was the difficult situation.
I quite agree that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, handled the matter with dexterity, as was expected of him. I have no doubt that the present Leader of the House would have handled it in the same fashion. But I would not say that the result was perfect. I therefore feel that it is only right that we should have another look at the issue.
However, I cannot agree that it would be right for the Leader of the House to be put on the same footing as the Speaker of the House of Commons. It would be totally unlike anything that has happened in this House before. I remember the days when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, was Leader of the House. Lord Stansgate kept chivying him with what seemed to him tiresome questions. The noble and learned Lord finally became irate and said, "The noble Lord knows that I have my remedy". Lord Stansgate, enjoying the situation, replied, "If the noble and learned Lord has his remedy, he had better use it". The noble and learned Lord also enjoying it, said, "I will use it", and he moved that the noble Lord be no longer heard. But the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, would be the last to suggest that on that occasion he should have been able to move Lord Stansgate out of order.
The proposal is the thin edge of the wedge. I very much hope that anyone who has love for the House and its traditions will agree to the matter being handed back to the committee for further consideration.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I understand both points of view. I understand that the House of Lords should not be in any different position from the House of Commons in matters relating to the sub judice rule. On the other hand, I also understand the arguments of the mover of the amendment and those who have spoken in favour of it. Once again, the proposal would hand over power from the elected body to someone who is, after all, in one way a bureaucrat. We must always be careful about that.
The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees made two points. The first was that any decision of the Leader of the House would be taken after advice. Presumably that would be advice from the Clerks. Secondly, he said
96
that it would be taken after consultation. I should like to know with whom the consultation will take place. Will it take place with the Leader of the Opposition alone, or with all the parties, including the Cross Benches? I think the House is entitled to know the answer to the two questions: where will the advice come from, and with whom will consultation take place? If the amendment is put to a vote, I think that the decision of many Members will depend upon the answers to those questions.
There are two other points I wish to make since the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees did not deal with them. First, as regards Unstarred Questions, a time limit is suggested for speeches. It is also proposed that Unstarred Questions which will take longer than one-and-a-half hours should not be put down. However, we shall not know how many speakers wish to speak perhaps until the very day before the debate and that will raise some difficulty. The final question I wish to ask is: why is it felt necessary to remove Starred Questions from the agenda when we sit on Fridays?
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I should like to draw attention to paragrphs (2) and (3) under heading 1 of the report. Paragraph (2) states that,
"a suitable bill should be considered by an informal committee along the lines described in paragraphs 8 to 17 of the Report".
If your Lordships agree to the committee being formed, I take the view that that committee will almost act in the capacity—
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will feel it appropriate to adjourn the House for five minutes.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 3.33 to 3.38 p.m.]
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, there are two or three points I wish to raise. I have some anxiety about whether paragraphs (2) and (3) will be productive. It is suggested that,
"as an experiment, a suitable bill should be considered by an informal committee along the lines described in paragraphs 8 to 17 of the Report".
Paragraph (3) states that,
"as an experiment, a suitable bill should be committed to a committee of the whole House off the floor of the House, as proposed in paragraphs 18 to 23 of the Report. There should be no divisions in the committee".
In my view—members of the committee may tell me that I am wrong—this is to enter upon the Standing Committee procedure of another place. When a Bill is sent to a committee, the committee will process the Bill. At Report stage in another place, the Bill returns to the Floor of the House and may still be amended.
Paragraph (3) states:
"There should be no divisions in the committee".
What is proposed is a debating society on particular Bills which will not produce anything. Why do I say that? Paragraph 8 of the report, after reference to formal amendments, states:
"Where an acceptable case has been made, hopefully the Government would make concessions".

97
I have been privileged to sit on the Opposition Benches in this House since 1983. Along with colleagues generally on this side, including members of the Liberal Party, and those in other parts of the Chamber—even, sometimes, some of the Government's own supporters—I have spent hour after hour trying to persuade the Government to be reasonable, to see the light of day and to accept cases in relation to which, if the debate set the criteria for what was to be in the Bill, this side and those in opposition to the Government would have won hands down. The only time in all those years that the Government ever conceded beforehand and refused to process a part of a Bill or bring it back when it had been altered here against their wishes was when they knew that they were on a hiding to nothing. I remind the Government that in respect of one of the reverses they suffered here—on the War Crimes Bill—they invoked the Parliament Act to override noble Lords. I do not argue the points of that Bill. I merely say that that was what the Government did. They trod all over this House, brought the Bill back and made it law. So where do we get—
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I must interrupt my noble friend. The War Crimes Bill was given a free vote in another place.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Yes, my Lords, that is correct. However, noble Lords eventually voted against it and then the Government insisted on it. That is my point. I believe that we are both correct.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Dean of Beswick: I do not believe that the noble Lord is more correct than I am. The last time the Parliament Act was invoked by this Government—the only time, I believe—was in relation to the War Crimes Bill. It is not within my memory that the Government have, with good will, conceded to the opposition—I am not talking only about my own party—anything of a major character where the case has been proved.
The report states that hopefully the Government would make concessions. If that position is accepted but the Government say, "We will not be reasonable; the Bill remains as it stands; we have spent so many hours on it in Committee; we are not altering anything", and it is then brought into this Chamber on Report, effectively a Committee stage is started at Report stage here. In effect, the Bill would be gone through for the first time with voting powers to alter it in this Chamber and not upstairs. I wonder whether we might not be getting involved in a spurious exercise in going through a Bill without opinion being taken by means of a vote being cast at the end of debate on some very important issues.
I want to follow what my noble friend Lord Stoddart said regarding the matter of Unstarred Questions. I would want to see only a minimum of interference in the procedure of this House in respect of what Back-Benchers, more than anyone, value tremendously; namely, the right to bring an issue before the House, debate it and receive a ministerial Answer. That is far better than what happens in the other place by means of
98
the half-hour adjournment debate, which does not mean much at all. I believe that it would be stretching things a little even to say that we will make it the practice for the dinner hour to be taken up with Unstarred Questions. I believe it was my noble friend Lord Stoddart who made the point: how do you know how many names will be put down on the list of speakers? That could be known only at 12 o'clock on the day of the debate. I recall within the past few months the noble Earl, Lord Longford, putting down a Motion on some matter which resulted in a list of between 12 and 18 speakers. Who is going to turn round and tell noble Lords, once their names are down, that they cannot speak because the debate is over-provided for? We have to be very careful when we tinker with that. It should not be forgotten that Unstarred Questions do not trespass on the time of the House in terms of legislation. It is Members' own time that is being used; all that is required is that a Minister is present to answer the debate.
The suggestion has been made that this House is full of self-discipline. It is fair to say that most of the time it is. I have been in this Chamber and have limited myself to 10 to 12 minutes in introducing an Unstarred Question. I believe that the maximum time I ever took was 15 minutes, and I was quite rightly ticked off by my Chief Whip after the event. However, I was followed by a member of my party who spoke for 25 minutes. For the House to accept the proposed rulings on procedure for Unstarred Questions and to expect every Member of this House to give an undertaking to speak for 10 minutes and no more is a complete nonsense.
The Unstarred Question procedure in this place is very valuable. Often a Back-Bencher brings to the notice of the House an issue which ought to be given a place on the Order Paper but the time factor acts against. He or she therefore takes a personal initiative in bringing a matter before the House that is of great significance. A Member once tabled a Question on passports for those from Hong Kong. There was no legislation going through Parliament that could cater for the matter. Back-Benchers brought the issue forward. Those who promote restriction on the time taken up by Unstarred Questions would do well to look at the matter again. It is a retrograde step. We have a very valuable asset. I would be opposed to any alteration. As I say, I reluctantly accept that there may be a case for using the dinner hour to debate some matters; but for most subjects one hour is far too short a time.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may say one or two words merely on one issue that is before the House; namely, the amendment which I had thought we were in process of debating relating to sub judice. I have listened closely indeed to what has been said. I wish to pose the dilemma, as I see it, with which the Procedure Committee was faced.
After the case, to which reference has been made, of the two ladies who were sent back to Oregon and the prohibition that seemed to apply to my noble friend Lord Longford when he tried to raise certain issues of ministerial discretion in relation to the case, despite the fact that it was in front of the court I took the view that

99
our rules in relation to sub judice were too restrictive. I had reason to look at the position taken by the House of Commons. It was perfectly clear that the position there is easier from the point of view of someone seeking to raise an issue than it is in this place. There are various historical reasons for that into which I need not go. The fact is that in another place the Speaker now has a discretion to allow much wider debate on an issue that is before the courts than apparently is the position here. I therefore felt it was right that the Procedure Committee should look at the issue and see whether we could move our procedures nearer to those of the House of Commons, particularly as there is a resolution of this House that, so far as is reasonably practicable, the procedures of the two Houses should be in accord.
After discussion in the Procedure Committee it was concluded that there was indeed a good case for altering the position in this House so that noble Lords could raise issues of ministerial discretion which, up to now, they have not been able to do. Therefore the question is one of mechanisms: how does one achieve a situation in which a noble Lord is entitled to raise the issue without it being raised in such a way as to prejudice the case going on in front of the courts?
The Speaker in the other House has the power to take that decision. On the face of it, nobody in this House is capable of doing it. Somebody has to take the decision. It seems to me that, by definition, there cannot be discussion on the Floor of the House as to whether the issue that one wants to raise and which is in fact being discussed at that moment on the Floor of the House will or will not prejudice the proceedings. By then the issue has been raised. Once the matter is out, the damage has been done—if indeed damage is to be done. Therefore, somehow, a body, an individual or a group of people who could take that decision has to be found.
The Procedure Committee decided to recommend to the House that the person who should have to take that decision should be the Leader of the House. He sits in a dual capacity: he is a political figure and a member of the Cabinet but he also represents the House. As Leader of the Opposition in this House, I believe that in that second capacity the Leader of the House is capable of taking a decision in the interests of the House. I know that there are political problems. I accept that. Sometimes it is very difficult for a politician to be sufficiently schizophrenic in his approach to his duties to be able to cut himself off and say, "I am not doing this in my political capacity; I am doing it in my capacity as Leader of the House". I observe only that judges have to do that in the courts almost every day. If a judge's mind is capable of being divided, I do not see why the mind of the Leader of the House should not be equally capable of making that kind of distinction.
That is the position at which we arrived. It seems to me that the debate today has established two things, at least so far as I am aware. One is that there is a feeling in the House that the Leader of the House is not the right person to take the decision. In answer to that, I ask "If not him, who?" and there is no reply to that. The second point that seems to have been made is that this matter should be referred back to the Procedure Committee. I am not necessarily against that course. If
100
the House wishes it to be referred back, so be it. I observe only that the dilemma which the Procedure Committee faced when it considered the matter a month or so ago remains precisely the same. It does not change because there has been an airing of the issue on the Floor today. We shall still have to face exactly the same issues and problems and try to find an acceptable solution.
I suppose that one other possibility today is for the mechanism to be put in place; we try it for a year or so to see how it works; and if it works (or not) it must come back to the House for the House to say yea or nay on whether noble Lords feel that giving such discretion to the Leader of the House is a good or bad thing. If that were the feeling of the House today, I should certainly not stand in the way of it.
Finally, I believe that on the whole it has been helpful that this issue has been raised. My noble friend Lord Monkswell was perfectly entitled to raise it. He raised it in what I consider to be a moderate and sensible way. The House should be grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to have this debate.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about the sub judice rule. The purpose of that rule is to ensure that the system of justice is not interfered with by any extraneous source. It is a counterpart of the rule in the courts that they will not countenance any inquiry into how Parliament—either House of Parliament—conducts its business. The two are complementary, in order to prevent collisions between the judiciary and legislature such as occurred, unfortunately, before those rules were crystallised.
As the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition explained, the purpose of the Procedure Committee's proposal was to bring our procedure closer to that of the other place. I respectfully agree with him that if that is to be done, what is proposed by the Procedure Committee is the only practical course to bring it about.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked: with whom should there be consultation? I apprehend that it would be with the party leaders and perhaps, occasionally, with some Cross-Benchers. The difficulty about the latter is that it would produce a wide variety of opinion. The advice, I should have thought, would be from the Clerk of the Parliaments and possibly the Counsel to the Chairman of Committees. One other consultation seems to me highly desirable; namely, between the Leader of the House and the Speaker of the other place, to ensure that the practice is not different in any particular case.
It is a long time since I had direct experience of this procedure in another place but I have tried to follow it. So far as I can see, the present practice in the other place works extremely well. The most recent case of importance arose during the debate on the Maastricht Bill because there had been an application to the High Court for judicial review which would, in effect, have invalidated that Bill. It was rejected at first instance. It was then appealed and the Speaker had to make her decision. She decided that the rule should be waived. I

101
have seen no criticism at all of that decision; nor do I have any reason to think that it does not operate perfectly satisfactorily.
The difficulty arises in the next stage. There was no appeal from the Court of Appeal to your Lordships' House. But it is there that the difficulty arises because the judicial decision of your Lordships' House is the decision of the whole House. That is the legal position. So often, the conventional, real situation is slightly different—or very different—because the Appellate Committee operates like a court of law, is seen to do so and approved of so operating. On the other hand, it is well over 150 years since the lay Lords attempted in any way to influence a decision of the Appellate Committee—long before there were Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. In my view, it would be highly improper for any Lord of Appeal, whether or not a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, to express any view on the merits of any case which was pending in your Lordships' House. If that were improper, as I think it would be, from any legal Member of your Lordships' House, it would be still more improper from a lay Member in view of the history to which I adverted. It would be extremely improbable therefore that the Leader of the House would ever advise the waiver of the rule in any case that was pending before your Lordships' House. It would need to be a quite exceptional circumstance and one to which I cannot at the moment advert.
It seems to me that there is no reason to refer this report back, as the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, put it with his usual calm persuasiveness. On the other hand, the question arises of keeping our own procedure in line with that of the other place. The Procedure Committee may like to give that point further consideration. But for that, it is not necessary to refer the matter back, and I hope that it will not be so referred.
4 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, as is so often the case the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, shone a special and clear searchlight on this problem. We are all grateful to him for that. We are grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who outlined the issues with such clarity. I am even more grateful though I slightly differ from him in his conclusions.
What emerges from the debate is that there is a certain conflict between two desiderata. If we can, we want to bring our procedure in relation to the sub judice rule into line with that of the Commons. But we do not want to turn the Leader of your Lordships' House into anything like the Speaker of the House of Commons. I am not worried about individual decisions that he may make, on ex officio or ad hominem grounds. I do not believe that there would be conflict between his political stance and his functions as Leader of the House. I am sure that he would give the fairest possible decisions in which I would have total confidence.
However, the problem arises of taking him down the road of possessing a unilateral power equivalent to that of the Speaker which may have certain repercussions in the future. I incline to the view, as the noble Lord, Lord
102
Richard, said, that there is no other way round the situation. But the doubts expressed were sufficient—to my mind at any rate, speaking as a member of the Procedure Committee and bearing a responsibility for the recommendations—to persuade me that it would be courteous to the House and perhaps produce a better solution if the Procedure Committee, with great expedition, looked again at the matter. I do not think that we should lose much by that. It may well be that after that further meeting we would come back with the same recommendation. But I believe that the matter should be looked at again in light of the views expressed fairly widely around the Chamber.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I rise not to make a speech but to make a brief point. I am surprised that no one mentioned the possibility that there is another solution. It is not an absolute solution but it is a suggestion which should at least be put to the House; namely, that we have a Speaker in the Lord Chancellor. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is also the head of the judiciary, in addition to being a Member of the Cabinet. While I have every faith in the noble Viscount, and have great sympathy with everything said by my noble friend, nevertheless, the Lord Chancellor is a figure of great significance in our constitution and in this House. We should therefore consider the possibility of referring cases to him.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, on the point just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, there is little to distinguish—from a political point of view—the position of the Lord Chancellor and that of the Leader of the House. It is still a political appointment. If the Lord Chancellor were appointed in the same manner as the Speaker of another place, perhaps the argument would have greater significance.
I listened to the various arguments put forward and understand that a number of your Lordships hold strong views about change. We are animals who, from time to time, have a reluctance to change. However, the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, must appeal to most of your Lordships. In this matter we are taking a step in the dark. We are not certain of what the knock-on effect of this would be. I agree with my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls when he said that it would be a retrograde step. I share his view. It may well be a retrograde step but we do not know that. If, without commitment, your Lordships' accept the proposal put forward by the Procedure Committee and incorporate it in a trial period of, say, two or three years with the Procedure Committee keeping the matter under review, the matter may be brought back to your Lordships' House at a later date when we could assess the views of your Lordships. That may be the best way forward.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with the permission of the House, perhaps I may say that this has been an extremely interesting exchange. It has taken rather longer than perhaps any Member sitting in the House expected. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, we should thank the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for raising a matter of considerable interest to your Lordships' House, and rightly so. Perhaps your

103
Lordships will allow me briefly to put my own gloss on this debate. I do not wish to speak to the matters raised by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees in his opening remarks. I wish to speak more particularly to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell.
I am extremely conscious that the Leader of the House enjoys no more privileges than any other Member of your Lordships' House. That is not only the immemorial custom of your Lordships' House, but it is also right that it should be so. Many of your Lordships—I believe everyone who spoke this afternoon—recognised that that is the right and the position. I would be the last in any way to seek to undermine that position. It is fundamental to the way your Lordships' House is organised and self-regulation should be the watchword of how we conduct our affairs.
I therefore have the greatest sympathy with the dilemma put with such clarity by both the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Jenkins, concerning the sub judice rule. The difficulty is clearly set out in paragraph 3 of the report. By virtue of a matter being raised as to whether or not it is sub judice, the noble Lord who raises the point is immediately entering into discussion on a matter which may subsequently and retrospectively, after that discussion, be thought to have been sub judice, thereby, in a circular way, defeating the very object of having a sub judice rule in the first place.
The last thing in the world I want to do—indeed it would be invidious for me to do so—is to put the Leader forward as a quasi-Speaker in this matter and in this matter alone. But the difficulty is, as the committee recognised, and indeed as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, recognised in his remarks, that at some point somebody must give a ruling if we are to avoid the matter being raised and thereby prejudicing the case in hand.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, suggested the Lord Chancellor as someone who might, with advantage, be proposed for this role. I am very far from being against that suggestion. However, I would ask the noble Lord to consider page 17 of the 1989 edition of the Companion to the Standing Orders. If the House would allow me, I should like to quote from that:
"The Lord Chancellor is Speaker of the House of Lords ex officio. It is his duty ordinarily to attend as Speaker, to sit on the Woolsack and to preside over the deliberations of the House, except when it is in Committee. He puts the Question on all Motions which are submitted to the House, but he has no power either to maintain order or to act in any way as the representative or mouthpiece of the House".
That is qualified by the phrase,
"unless the House confers the necessary authority upon him".
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the Lord Chancellor holds another very important office; namely, he is the head of the judiciary and he sits as a judge. He is one step away from the Cabinet as far as that is concerned.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I wholly accept that point. The difficulty, it seems to me—as always, in all matters, but in this matter particularly, I am in the hands of your Lordships—is that the Lord Chancellor, who would undoubtedly be a better judge in these matters
104
than I as Leader of the House, would find it difficult to enter into the regulation of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, might like to take that point into account.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount for giving way. The noble Viscount is the Leader of the House. The Lord Chancellor is not the Leader of the House. That is a difference. In one sense the Leader of the House is our man. The Lord Chancellor, apart from being outside of the House, is the judiciary's man. He is the leader of the judiciary. Therefore, he has an interest, unlike the Leader of the House. That surely disqualifies the Lord Chancellor from making any decision as to whether a matter is sub judice.
4.15 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as is so often the case, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has anticipated what I was going to say, although he perhaps puts it more forcefully and more elegantly than I could have done. The Lord Chancellor and the Leader of the House, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, pointed out, have to lead a somewhat schizophrenic existence in your Lordships' House, both as members of the Cabinet and in performing a rather less partisan function. I feel that any competent Leader of the House must regard his or her position as Leader of the House as one in which he or she is Leader of the whole House and is not a partisan figure in that capacity. Many former Leaders of your Lordships' House are still Members of your Lordships' House. By common consent, they have been extremely effective and forceful Leaders of the House who have respected and indeed adorned that tradition. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, is a very good case in point.
There is a case for the Leader of the House to be given this task in spite of the caveats entered by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I understand wholly what he says particularly as, if this change were to be made, it would be I, as Leader of the House, who would take on a function which would be a new departure for your Lordships and therefore would be all the greater a responsibility for me to discharge.
It might also be worth saying that the pronouncements of the Leader over whether a matter should be sub judice would be characterised in particular by two considerations. First, it is very clear that any pronouncement by the Leader on whether a matter is sub judice would be in the direction only of a relaxation of debate rather than a prohibition. That, in terms of the freedoms of your Lordships' House, would be most important for your Lordships to understand.
The second point has been made by many of your Lordships during the course of this afternoon's exchanges. The Leader would not pronounce in a personal capacity. He would take advice. I listened, as always, with particular attention to the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I suspect that it would not be appropriate for the Leader to take the advice of the Opposition leaders or indeed the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers because they,

105
inevitably, are purely political figures, however much they may be leaders in waiting. What would be sensible is for the Leader to take the advice of the Counsel to the Chairman of Committees and indeed of the learned Clerk of the House.
As such, primed with their advice and a suitable degree of notice before having to pronounce to your Lordships on sub judice matters, he would be rather like what I understand the Pope would be like when he pronounces on a matter of doctrine, in which he is, I am told, infallible. I am not a Roman Catholic myself but I understand that if he pronounces ex cathedra, he is suitably primed with all the advice and panoply which followers of that faith believe gives him the authority he would need. In this case that kind of advice would bolster the Leader's position as an independent figure representing your Lordships as a whole rather than representing the party of the government of the day.
I am extremely conscious that I have spoken for rather longer than I intended to, which perhaps is one of the penalties of speaking unprepared. I should like to suggest to your Lordships that there are two alternatives. The first is the alternative proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, which is that we should try the recommendation of the committee for a period long enough to give us some experience of the workings of the proposal and that we should then review it after perhaps two or three examples of this happening. Then, if the House expressed itself dissatisfied with how the experiment was working, it would be open to the House to reject it.
The other alternative, which was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was that this matter should be referred back to the Procedure Committee, which would then take note of the exchanges this afternoon and make a further recommendation to your Lordships. I am entirely, as always, in the hands of your Lordships' House. I have to say—this is no more than a matter of judgment in which I could be proved entirely wrong—that I would strongly suspect, having listened with close attention to the deliberations of the Procedure Committee when it discussed this important matter and indeed the consultations that occurred before that committee sat, that the committee would find it very difficult—there are many members of the committee present today who might disagree with me on this—to come to any different conclusion from the one it has already come to.
Therefore, if the House were to ask me to make a recommendation, the recommendation that I would feel constrained to make, in spite of the very sensible and understandable reservations expressed by noble Lords on all sides of the House, would be for a relatively short period of experiment. If the experiment is manifestly a failure, or if there are any doubts at all about the propriety of the way in which the experiment has been handled, or indeed the safeguards that are put in place, it is open to the House to refer it back to the Procedure Committee or indeed to revert to the status quo.
However, I believe that the House will be well aware of the difficulty to which so many of your Lordships have already alluded this afternoon. Quite simply, it
106
does not make sense for Parliament, in the form of both its Houses, to labour under different sub judice rules. We are talking about the pragmatic effects of matters which are not being allowed to be discussed in one House and then being discussed in another. No matter where it is discussed, and in whichever House of Parliament, the person accused or the civil case under discussion, will find itself prejudiced in a way which would be against the best traditions of British justice and of this House.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he explain to me how the House can express itself on the two propositions which he has put? If the majority of us feel that the matter should go back to the committee, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, how can we set about doing that? If we support the amendment on the Order Paper, what would be the procedure for getting the second alternative accepted rather than the one which my noble friend appears to favour?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I know that the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees is waiting to reply. I say to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicolls that I hope that this is a matter which does not come to a vote because I suspect that matters of this kind are much better resolved by consensus and agreement. Therefore, I suggest that it is open to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, to decide whether or not to withdraw his amendment. If he wishes to withdraw it, that would imply that your Lordships as a whole would follow the inclination both of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and of myself. However, if the noble Lord does not wish to withdraw the amendment, I would be reluctant to push the matter to a vote.
I suggest to your Lordships that if there is sufficient feeling in your Lordships' House, the second alternative open to us is the one that we can follow. It would be extremely unfortunate if we divided on this matter. A decision is much better arrived at by consensus. If we need to take a little time, so much the better.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, why cannot we do both? We can ask the committee to consider looking at it and to adopt the measure temporarily as it is. That seems to me to satisfy everybody's inclinations.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this significant debate this afternoon. As your Lordships appreciate, it would be normal courtesy for me to refer by name to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, but I hope that they will forgive me if I do not do so because there have been a large number of speakers. I shall of course mention those noble Lords who have raised matters outside this particular issue.
In the few, brief references in this debate on the sub judice rule, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for his kind remarks at the outset of his speech, and also for having notified me before he tabled his amendment that he was proposing to raise this matter in some way in the House.

107
It has become evident in the course of this afternoon's debate that there is a point which has not been specifically mentioned but which I believe I should mention. I hope that I am not disclosing a secret which I should not disclose. The discussions in the Procedure Committee were very lengthy. It sat on three occasions considering the sub judice rule. Therefore, that is an indication in itself that the committee was taking the matter very seriously indeed. It considered all the points which have been raised by your Lordships this afternoon. Over quite a period of time the committee has been very conscious both of the difficulties and of the benefits of introducing a change to the rule.
A point which has not been raised is one which I believe I should mention; namely, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House accepted with some diffidence the role which was proposed in the recommendation from the Procedure Committee. It is not something which was overwhelmingly and instantly accepted with acclamation and great enthusiasm. But having been considered over a period of time, and for all the reasons which have been outlined this afternoon by the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in particular—the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, referred to it as well—it has been accepted that that was really the only practicable solution which was open to the committee to recommend to your Lordships.
The only other points which I wish to mention are these: as has been stated in the debate this afternoon and in the report which is before your Lordships, that the decision of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House would be based on advice. It is perfectly true to say—it has not been spelt out in so many words—that those who have been suggested as the providers of that advice to the Leader are the very ones who, for example, were mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—that is to say, the Clerk of the Parliaments and the counsel to the Chairman of Committees in the principal place. In these circumstances, the Leader would need independent legal advice. The others who have been mentioned are the noble and learned Lords the Lords of Appeal and the Lord Chancellor.
I enter a note of reservation on that point. We have to be conscious, as the Procedure Committee itself was conscious—it could not be otherwise with two noble and learned Lords sitting on that committee; namely, the noble and learned Lords the Lord Chancellor and Lord Mustill—that that consultation would have to be carried out with some delicacy because noble and learned Lords may well find themselves sitting on the very cases which have come under consideration under the sub judice rule. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the judiciary at that level generally would find a practical way of dealing with the situation, but we have to be conscious of it. That is why I mentioned that the principal, and initial at least, source of advice would be the Clerk of the Parliaments and the counsel to the Chairman of Committees.
I do not want to prolong matters, but there is one other point which I should like to mention in this connection. It was the clear wish of the Procedure Committee that there should be greater freedom in this House—and that cannot be over-emphasised in my
108
respectful submission—as there is already in another place, to refer in debate to matters which are technically sub judice but which are the legitimate concerns of Parliament.
I underline that by saying that the important feature of the new procedure proposed to your Lordships is that the Leader, in coming to a decision on one of these matters, can only relax the prohibition in debate; he cannot impose it. It is important for us to bear that in mind because it is a relaxation. It is an extension of the powers of the House to consider these matters.
In the light of all that your Lordships have said, I say this to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Monkswell—I am so sorry, my Lords, I should have said, "the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell". I shall have to try very rapidly to retrieve my awkward situation by saying that he presented his case so eloquently that perhaps your Lordships might feel that an accolade of that kind is not inappropriate in his case. If the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, feels able to withdraw his amendment, I shall now give a firm undertaking to the House that after the limited period of experience of these matters, I shall invite the Procedure Committee to review the situation to see whether it is working or working as properly as we would wish.
In giving that very firm undertaking, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, not to tie me down to a specific period because it may be that for the remainder of this Session we might have no sub judice matter to consider at all. In that case, there would be no point and it would be a time-wasting matter. If I may leave the matter in that way and not attempt to tie your Lordships down to a specific time, and say that within a reasonable period of experience, which might well be a Session and a half or even six months, that might best suit your Lordships' convenience.
So as not to have to intervene later, perhaps I may deal with the various other points that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, dealt with new editions of the Companion and the Brief Guide. Before we rose for the Christmas Recess on 16th December, we had a report from the Procedure Committee and accepted amendments to the Companion. The new edition is in train. I well understand the points he made. They can be taken into account, and, if necessary, an appropriate addition can be made at a later stage.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord for a second as he is on that subject. On maiden speakers, it has been drawn to my attention and to the attention of many other noble Lords that when maiden speakers are speaking people walk in as well as out. Could that point be inserted in the Brief Guide?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that point. As the House has taken a decision on the new edition of the Companion, it is open to me only to invite those concerned to make alterations on the basis of editorial discretion. That is something to which your Lordships have given approval in the past and which, I understand,

109
is a practice of the House. I shall be happy to consider that point to see whether it can be accommodated by that means.
On another point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, happily, Commissioners are not a matter for me. He also raised the subject of interests. I have no doubt that when the committee comes to consider Members' interests it will bear that in mind. Perhaps I may quote one sentence without prolonging matters unduly. The terms of reference of the sub-committee on this matter which is to be appointed state:
"To consider the practice of the House in relation to financial and other interests of Members and, in particular, the case for a register of interests; and to make recommendations".
The points the noble Lord made are wholly embraced in the remit given to the sub-committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, asked about the one-and-a-half hour rule. I can assure him that that is a point with which the Procedure Committee grappled. It must be admitted that there is a difficulty. I invite him to accept that the best way forward is to see how it works. Most of the proposals are suggested experiments. Nothing is immutable. Nothing is cast in stone and cannot be altered. If necessary, the Procedure Committee will get to grips again with that matter.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. On the same point, is the Chairman of Committees saying that the dinner hour Unstarred Question and the one-and-a-half hour limit are trials and will not be enforced rigidly at this stage?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the one-hour limit for Unstarred Questions in the dinner hour is a matter which has been accepted by your Lordships. The new proposal is for a one-and-a-half hour limitation. That experiment is recommended in the Procedure Committee's report. I suggest that the experiment should be tried to see how it works.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, suppose there are seven names down, which would mean a one-and-a-half hour debate, and the last speaker rises after one hour and 28 minutes, will someone call him to order?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, no one would be able to call that speaker to order. What the noble Lord implies by his question is right. If the final speaker in such an Unstarred Question is the Minister, it has been thought that at least for the trial period an informal indication can be given by the Clerk of the Parliaments or the Clerk at the Table to the Minister that the time is running out. The matter can be brought to a satisfactory and civilised conclusion in that way.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend concludes, will he deal with recommendation No. (7)—no Starred Questions on Fridays? Why should there not be Starred Questions?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, with his customary perspicacity, the noble Lord has raised the very point upon which my index finger rests in my rough notes. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, made the point about no Starred Questions on Fridays.
110
That too is a problem. I have to confess that the Procedure Committee grappled with a great many things. It saw both sides of the argument clearly. It was difficult to come to a conclusion. The main point of the proposal that there should be additional Friday sittings was that it would save noble Lords from sitting late on other days of the week. That was the prime purpose. Starred Questions come into that argument because they would take up a certain amount of time and so jeopardise some of the time that we are trying to save. That is one consideration.
There is another consideration which I feel free to mention and which neither the noble Viscount the Leader of the House nor the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, would feel so free to raise—it is a significant point, if I may say so—and it is that Ministers have other duties. If they are to do their job properly it is essential for them to get around the country to do other things in their departments and elsewhere and also to go outside the country. I may offend some noble Lords when I say that it is a consideration that to some extent Ministers need to be protected to that extent by us as a House.
I appreciate the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Stoddart, on the subject of Starred Questions. This too is something that I suggest should be tried out. It is something to which we can return if your Lordships are restive about the way the matter is going. If that is so, I shall have no hesitation in recommending that the Procedure Committee has another look at the matter. Again, it is an experiment. This is a package of experiments. I invite your Lordships to accept it in that spirit and in that way.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to intervene again. What he said about Ministers' time apparently does not apply in the Commons.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I should be trespassing hazardously were I to venture an answer about procedure in the other place. Nowadays, if not in earlier years, there are no Oral Questions—I recall they call them that in another place—on Fridays.
I believe and hope that I have dealt with all the various matters, except on the sub judice rule, that noble Lords have raised. If not, they will of course approach me elsewhere, and I shall try to find an answer for them. It is in that spirit that I say that this is a series of recommendations which, although modest, is significant, and I invite your Lordships to accept it.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I have only one short point to make. I refrained from taking part in the general discussion on the Question that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, be agreed to because I thought that a later opportunity would arise when the Question was whether the report itself should be agreed to. It is a very short point. It is simply on paragraph 3 and relates to maiden speeches. The noble Lord referred to the short sentence that says simply that only the next speaker shall

111
congratulate the maiden speaker. However, the custom seems to have grown up for the Minister replying to the debate to add his congratulations to the maiden speaker.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Hear, hear!
Lord Airedale: My Lords, no doubt that is of great satisfaction to the maiden speaker and the custom finds favour in the House.
If the words in the report are transferred into the new Companion to the Standing Orders, in future Ministers winding up will feel inhibited in adding their congratulations to the maiden speaker. That would be a pity. I understand that the new Companion goes to the printers in a week's time. I hope that even at this late hour some means can be found of making it clear that the Minister winding up the debate is free to add his congratulations to the maiden speaker, if he feels inclined to do so.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has raised a significant point. As regards his pessimism about the amount of time, I have no information that the new Companion is to go to the printers next week. I understand that there will be a little more time. Perhaps I may consider his suggestion and see whether the wording needs to be incorporated into the new edition. It would have to be done under the editorial discretion reservation. However, it might not be necessary to go so far as that because the recommended insertion reads:
"Maiden speakers should normally be congratulated by the following speaker only".
I suggest that that amply accommodates any congratulations offered by the Minister in winding up. I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—although not uttered from a standing position—that this is a desirable practice to be retained.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, it is imperative that the Minister has ample time to answer an Unstarred Question, otherwise why have the Question in the first place?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I agree that that is a consideration and, if your Lordships agree to the Motion today, a matter that we must look at closely in the course of the experiment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, having been under the same misapprehension as my noble friend Lord Airedale, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord one question. It relates to Front Bench time being limited to 20 minutes as regards Statements. I sympathise with the objective of that recommendation but I can recall cases in which Statements have lasted beyond 20 minutes. Will the principle be applied in conjunction with the principle of equal time?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising that point because it gives me an opportunity to clarify the matter. The Statement is excluded from the time limit.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on my amendment.
112
There was support from all sides of the House. I do not intend to refer to all the speakers who took part—I am sure noble Lords will understand why—but I wish to refer to one or two points that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked whom the Leader of the House would consult in reaching a decision. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that someone must take a decision but, my Lords, in this House we collectively take decisions. There is no Member who must take decisions on our current Standing Orders and rules of debate. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, suggested that an alternative person might be the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It is interesting to reflect on the fact that the only Member of this House who is a servant of the House as opposed to a government Minister or Leader of the Opposition is the Chairman of Committees. It might be that in the further deliberations of the Procedure Committee the use of his position will be considered.
I am grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for his contribution. It clarified the exercise of this new function of his office. It is important to note that he said specifically that he would not consult through the usual channels but would take legal advice and advice on procedure. That is most significant and I welcome it. It means that the usual channels will not be compromised by the decision.
I was also grateful to the Chairman of Committees not only for his clear explanation and reply to the debate but for the assurances that he has given to the House that the proposal for the operation of the sub judice rule is for a trial period. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Finance) Bill
4.46 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Extended meaning of "the Treaties" and "the Community Treaties"]:
Lord Bruce of Doningtonmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, after ("1994") insert ("(as set out in the Schedule to this Act)").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 7. They have as their purpose the incorporation of the Council decision of 31st October 1994 as a schedule to the Bill. Today we spent longer than expected on the extremely interesting Motion relating to Standing Orders. I and colleagues in other parts of the Committee have tabled amendments to the Bill. Without in any way binding them, I must

113
point out that it will be necessary for me to curtail my remarks with the object of concluding the Committee procedure at a reasonable hour, preferably before dinner. Obviously, I cannot bind my colleagues, but those are my sentiments on the matter.
During Second Reading much was made of the authority of the Prime Minister to give an undertaking on behalf of Parliament—whether it was on behalf of Parliament or his own Government—to the provisions relating to own resources within the Community and within a new financial perspective.
It was said that the House and, indeed, Parliament should automatically agree to the new ceilings which are set out on the basis that the Prime Minister had given an undertaking to carry them into effect. For my part, and perhaps for the part of some of my colleagues, that authority did not exist on the basis of the Council of Ministers' deliberations in Edinburgh.
Therefore, I thought it necessary to clarify the matter beyond all reasonable doubt. I have before me the detailed proceedings of the European Council in Edinburgh and the conclusions of the presidency. Connoisseurs of the diaries of Mr. Alan Clark, which have been referred to on a number of occasions in relation to the deliberations of the Council, will confirm that sometimes those deliberations take place under rather unpromising circumstances. It will be recalled that Mr. Clark, as a matter of his own personal memory, commented on the sobriety or otherwise of members of the Council when taking part in its proceedings. Indeed, more recently, the right honourable gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames also ventured to suggest that very important decisions were taken over port and cigars in the evening without the benefit of papers. We all know that those presidential conclusions are, in the main, drafted before the conference takes place.
Bearing that in mind, it would seem that the presidency of 22nd December 1992 in Edinburgh reached two conclusions. The first conclusion was included in Part C at paragraph Ai, which refers to the own resources ceiling. It ventures to put forward the actual figures. It states that:
"The annual ceiling on own resources for appropriations for payments will be as follows and shall under no circumstances be exceeded".
That assent by the British presidency to the proposition which is implied by the presence of that paragraph in the president's conclusions would seem to be conclusive.
But yet, it is followed almost on the next page, by another decision which is essentially in conflict with the one already agreed. It states:
"The European Council asks the Commission to prepare a new Own Resources Decision…",
although one had already been agreed to earlier on in the communiqué,
"for the Council to approve and recommend to Member States for adoption by 1995 in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 201 of the Treaty. The ceilings applicable in 1999 will continue to apply until such time as the new Own Resources Decision is amended".
114
Therefore, there is a half justification for the decision that has been taken by the Government.
However, one matter is certain on a reading of the documents: it was open to the Government, prior to the decision which was reached as a result of that conclusion, to seek to amend it before the Council decision of 31st October. Noble Lords will observe that it is the Council's decision of 31st October which I wish to have incorporated as a schedule to the Bill.
I am told that it is not proper for the decision to be incorporated as a schedule to the Bill because a schedule to a Bill can be amended and, therefore, the schedule should not contain that decision. All I can say is that I was advised by the Table that the amendment was quite in order. Who am I to suggest that the Table was wrong to advise that I could table the decision in the form of a schedule and add it to the Bill?
Of course, there is another purpose. If one goes back to the original Bill, one finds that it is very short. Its principal provision in Clause 1 is to incorporate:
"the decisions of the Council of 7th May 1985, 24th June 1988, and 31st October 1994, on the Communities' system of own resources".
At this stage, I imagined that on seeing the Bill and being immediately seized of the necessity to grasp its implications thoroughly before any observations were made on it in the Chamber, there would have been a rush by noble Lords on the Printed Paper Office to provide copies of the decision which Members were invited to debate on Second Reading. I am pleased to say that the House was well attended on Second Reading. Therefore, I should have thought that the Printed Paper Office would have been overwhelmed by demands for copies of the decision. I doubt whether there were sufficient copies of the Council's decision, as a Community document, on the premises at the time. Therefore, by tabling the amendment my intention is that the attention of Members of the Committee should be drawn to the contents of the decision. I am quite sure that most Members of the Committee here today have a copy of those amendments. Therefore, by tabling this amendment, I have at least drawn the attention of Members of the Committee to what the Council's decision really comprises.
I see no reason why it should not be included as a schedule. There are legal, accounting and management considerations. Members of the Committee will have noted that Amendment No. 3, which we shall debate, states:
"Provided that Her Majesty's Government shall lay before both Houses of Parliament an annual report on the operation of Article 2(1) (c) of the latter decision".
It would have been impossible for the Committee to have considered in detail the various matters relating to Article 2(1) (c), which has now been reproduced as Amendment No. 7, unless it was read in the context of the decision as a whole.
Therefore, I have quite properly tabled the amendment and when matters for elucidation under Amendment No. 3 come to be discussed, Members of the Committee will at least have the decision before them. Indeed, later amendments will also refer to the

115
decision. Without having the decision in front of the Committee, it would be difficult to judge such amendments within the context of the decision.
That is why—and I am keeping one eye on the Clock, as well as trying to safeguard what remains of my voice—I urge the Government to accept the amendment. What conceivable harm is there in incorporating as a schedule to a government Bill a decision, in detail, which has already been agreed by the Government? Why should they be such blushing brides in the face of the results of their own detailed negotiations and ingenuity? Is there something in a decision reached on 31st October by virtue of which they feel we might find out something that they would rather we did not know? Why should it not be incorporated in the Bill?
There are other matters involved; as, indeed, will emerge from discussion on later amendments with which we are due to deal, albeit shortly, this afternoon. There are questions relating to VAT and questions relating to estimates or figures in respect of the gross national product or the gross national income of each country which are set out in some detail. Such matters are likely to be in dispute for some time and need to be discussed. On the way forward to the intergovernmental conference, it must not be imagined that the agenda which Parliament will discuss will be set for us in advance or that we shall be dictated to regarding what we shall or shall not discuss in the lead-up to the conference. Therefore, it is vital that the decisions arrived at are readily available, not only to Members of this Chamber but also to members of the legal profession in the UK. Such decisions should also be available to the European Court of Justice and in Europe generally.
Is it expected that those people will ask their respective sources of published data for copies of an opinion or explanatory notes by their own governments or, for that matter, explanatory notes by our Government, when there is a perfectly easy way of dealing with it by simply referring to the legislation itself which would be in the office of every lawyer in the country and in the offices of all the European lawyers? It would be a much greater advantage for them in terms of time and—dare I mention it?—in terms of cost to have the text readily available in the legal document that they are examining.
Therefore, I urge the Government, with all the powers that my croaky voice will permit, to accept the amendment. They will do themselves justice and they will greatly facilitate the workings of this Chamber and, possibly, of the courts. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I should be most grateful if my noble friend the Minister would inform the Committee as to the position on this and subsequent amendments which are, after all, amendments to what has been certified by Madam Speaker as a money Bill. As I understand it—and I am subject of course to correction in such matters—if this Chamber carries this or any other amendment it would have absolutely no effect because the Bill would proceed with Royal Assent in a few days' time in its present form; in other words, in the form that it left the other place.
116
Before Members of the Committee spend a great deal of time and care—as, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has obviously done—on detailed discussion of what would be good to put in the Bill, I believe that we should know whether that work will serve any useful purpose. In the Committee stage, or during any other stage of the Bill, we can express opinions which we hope will command attention outside—for example, in the media—and influence public opinion in the long term. Let us hope that that proves to be so. However, actually to carry an amendment to the Bill seems not only to be a waste of time but is also, if I may put it this way, asking this Chamber to make a fool of itself.
Lord Henley: It may be useful to my noble friend and to Members of the Committee if I repeat some of what I said on the subject yesterday when I confirmed, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter put it, that Madam Speaker in another place had certified the legislation as being a money Bill. As my noble friend quite rightly said, it means that after Thursday of this week, the Bill may be presented for Royal Assent under the terms of the Parliament Act with or without agreement of this Chamber. There is no need for the Bill to be considered further in another place, whether or not this place amends it.
As I also stressed yesterday, because considerable interest had been expressed in the Bill, we felt it right to have a full debate on Second Reading. It was agreed by the usual channels—most unusually for a money Bill—that there would be a separate Committee stage which would allow noble Lords further to air their views on particular subjects. At the time, I said that amendments had already been tabled.
During yesterday's debate, I said that I felt there was no practical purpose to be served by amending the Bill and further prolonging the proceedings. I believe I said that I therefore trusted that noble Lords would not seek further to obstruct the passage of the Bill. I hope that we can have further useful discussion on those points this afternoon. However, for the very reasons given by my noble friend, I believe that it would be very ill-advised for this Chamber to seek to amend the Bill.
I turn now to the noble Lord's amendment. I see that my noble friend wishes to intervene. I give way.
The Earl of Onslow: I am much obliged. Am I right in saying that if, peradventure, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, which seems to be a very sensible amendment, were to be carried, the other place would not even bother to discuss it and would pay no attention to it at all? If that is the case, then however sensible we may be, the idiocies in other places—I use the word in the plural rather than the singular—cannot be coped with.
However, if the other place would actually discuss the matter again there is some point in continuing. But if the other place will not pay a blind bit of notice to what

117
we say, however sensible, intelligent, wise or omniscient we may be, it seems slightly pointless for us even to attempt to be omniscient.
Lord Richard: I am not sure whether I am interrupting the Minister or saying something on my own account. However, whichever it is, I should like to make it perfectly clear. I should like the Minister to consider the following in his reply. As I understand the position, once the legislation is certified as a money Bill, then the Act applies and, so far as we are concerned, any amendment that we pass would have absolutely no effect whatever. Indeed, not only would it have no effect but also the other place would not need to discuss it.
It is not a question of saying to the other place, "Look, reconsider it: we think you ought to think again". None of that applies. In effect, we are indulging ourselves by discussing amendments and, should we pass them, the Bill would be changed so far as concerns this Chamber; but it would not have a scrap of effect. I am bound to say that I very much agree with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. If we continue, I believe that we shall be making fools of ourselves.
Perhaps I may just say one other thing. I agreed that there should be two days' discussion on this Bill. Various representations were made to me, and on behalf of the Labour Party I thought it was right that we should have a full discussion on it. We therefore had a full discussion on Second Reading yesterday. I am bound to say that when I agreed to two days I did not think we were going to go through this charade of having a Committee stage which has no effect whatsoever. I had thought that what we would do was to have the Second Reading yesterday and today we would have had a Third Reading debate, in which no doubt those who spoke yesterday could have repeated on Third Reading what they had said on Second Reading. Perhaps indeed some extra people would have come in in order to support what they did not say yesterday but what they would have said had they been there yesterday. At the end of the day that would have been the Third Reading of the Bill and that would have been the end of it.
It still is my view that if the Chamber wishes to air opinions on this piece of legislation, and if it wishes to express its views—individually Members of the Committee have views to express—the way to do it is to have a Third Reading debate, and the way not to do it is to consider in detail amendments as if this were a Bill that we could amend with any kind of sense at all and send it back to the other place to reconsider.
Lord Henley: I do not—
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: I feel that with this money Bill issue we put our finger on an important point as regards our relationship with Europe. The fact of the matter is that here we are unable to speak because this is a money Bill but it affects the constitutional position. Money is the key to the whole thing. The Committee might like to consider what my noble friend Lord Cockfield said in the Second Reading debate:
118
"it is a great pity that the Community did not proceed to a successful conclusion with economic integration before it embarked upon political union".—[Official Report, 9/1/95; col. 25.]
He then explained how the economic integration would automatically lead on to the political issue he mentioned. I think the Committee ought to have a view on the political side of this matter. To be gagged, as we always are in the case of a money Bill, greatly inhibits us. I think the people—
5.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: With all due respect, if I could interrupt my noble friend, he is in no way being gagged at all and nor is this Chamber being gagged. My noble friend had every opportunity yesterday to make a speech at Second Reading; nor am I suggesting that he should be gagged at Committee stage or Third Reading. If I can depress the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, he has an opportunity for further debate at Third Reading and Bill do now pass, all stages of which we shall be taking today. In no way are we trying to gag my noble friend. He did have his opportunity to speak at Second Reading yesterday.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: I apologise to my noble friend; I accept his point on that. However, we are inhibited in that we cannot pass an amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It seems that we have now got away from interventions and are back discussing the matter in Committee, and we shall await what the Minister has to say when he gets to his feet a second time. I did not intend to intervene on this until my noble friend did so. We have to be perfectly clear that it is the right of this Chamber to discuss—indeed, I believe it also has a duty to do so—these matters. It is perfectly possible for the Committee to discuss, and indeed to pass, amendments if it so wishes. There is absolutely nothing in the rules of this Chamber, nor in the Parliament Act, which precludes this Chamber from discussing and agreeing to amendments. What happens to them afterwards, of course, is a different matter. The House of Commons need not even consider them, that is true, but of course the House of Lords has the power to consider them as well. That is why it can be valuable for this House to be entitled to—and it often does have—a Committee stage. It may well be that some sensible amendment is moved here and passed here and the House of Commons suddenly says, "By God, that is not a bad amendment after all. We shall take it on board and we shall pass it".
The idea that the House of Lords Committee stage means absolutely nothing at all is completely erroneous. I repeat that we are entitled to have a Committee stage on a money Bill. The fact that we have not had them is neither here nor there. This Chamber is entitled to have such a stage. On this occasion we have had it. The House of Lords is perfectly entitled this afternoon to discuss amendments and, if necessary, to pass the amendments, and after that the House of Commons is perfectly entitled to look at those amendments and, if necessary, take them on board, pass them themselves and incorporate them in this Bill. That is the position. I am glad that the House of Lords has had this debate. I

119
am also glad that it is having this debate this afternoon on a Committee stage which enables us to probe matters relating to the Bill and to probe them in the same way as we would probe them on any other Bill before us.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: I hope I may interrupt yet again. I feel quite strongly on this. I am emotionally on the side of the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Stoddart, on this matter. I find the Bill personally offensive. The Government have done silly things. They have provided money which was unnecessary. But if we are going to argue that we have to act constitutionally and rightly and we want Europe to behave in the same way as us we should not, I think, as a Chamber behave in what could be regarded as a silly fashion. We are in danger of being silly over this. I do not quite know whether what I am suggesting is in order, but I wish to suggest that we adjourn the Committee stage now and we discuss the amendments as a whole, without attempting to do any voting or anything like that, in a Third Reading debate. I think that would be a more civilised and more sensible way to proceed and one that is more in tune with the spirit of the constitution. I am an old-fashioned high Tory and I like the spirits of constitutions rather than their nitty or their gritty.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Earl sits down, he may be unaware that this Committee stage was agreed through the usual channels several weeks ago.
Lord Henley: I am not sure I can take the Committee much further on this point. As I said—and as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has just repeated—it has been agreed through the usual channels that, most unusually for a money Bill, we would have this opportunity for further discussion and we would use the opportunity of the Committee stage to do it. My advice to the Committee would be to reject each and every amendment as it comes along because I think no useful purpose is served by passing amendments in this Chamber. But I think that it is possible—as many noble Lords have said, this has been agreed by the usual channels and by others—that we can have a discussion on these matters. It might be to the benefit of the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Stoddart, if they were able to raise their points and I, on behalf of the Government, could then give a considered response. But I hope that after they have listened to those considered responses, they will not feel it necessary to seek the opinion of the Committee on each or any of their amendments.
If I may, I would now, hoping that I shall not be interrupted, seek to address a little more briefly than the noble Lord did his own amendment, Amendment No. 1, which he moved and in speaking to it spoke also to Amendment No. 7. I have no intention whatsoever on this occasion of arguing that it is not a proper amendment. I would be quite happy to do that, whatever the advice of the Clerks, if I felt it was not a proper amendment. It is perfectly in order. But I have to say in passing that, because of the way he has transcripted it from, I presume, Cmnd. 2702, without, I think, taking into account the correction slip, the amendment itself
120
would be defective. Should we have passed the amendment, I believe we would then have to come back at a further Report stage to amend his amendment.
I also wanted to assure the noble Lord that in no way was it necessary for him to put down the amendment merely to ensure that sufficient copies would be available. As he made that point, I asked one of my colleagues on the Front Bench to run, walk or whatever to the Printed Paper Office. My noble friend Lady Trumpington did exactly that and took advice from the Printed Paper Office. I received the assurance that there are sufficient copies there for the noble Lord and others who might want to have a copy of it.
I do not believe that there is a need to add the own resources decision as a schedule to the Bill. It was certainly not done in 1985 or in 1988 and there has never been any question of the status of those own resources decisions. Indeed, none of the legislation listed in Schedule 1(2) to the European Communities Act appears as a schedule to that Act.
The reference in the Bill is perfectly clear. The inclusion of the Own Resources Decision as a schedule would add nothing. The Own Resources Decision has been published as a Command Paper and is readily available. Such an addition to the Bill would quite simply further lengthen a piece of legislation unnecessarily. The noble Lord will be aware of the calls from many noble Lords on that subject on many occasions, and I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in his place.
Perhaps I may also deal with one other point which the noble Lord made. He referred to Part C of the future financing of the Community (the Delors II package), which I have in front of me. Page 5 refers to the fact that under the new Own Resources Decision the European Council asked the Commission to prepare a new Own Resources Decision incorporating those changes.
I believe that the noble Lord suspected that some funny business was going on. I can assure the noble Lord that there is nothing of the sort. The Edinburgh Council simply reached a political agreement on details such as the own resources ceiling. It simply then asked the Commission to prepare the new Own Resources Decision; namely, the legal text. That is what appears in the Command Paper, Cmnd. 2702, and was also published in the Official Journal of the European Union. That legal text incorporates that new ceiling. There is nothing sinister in the mention in subparagraph 5 of the new Own Resources Decision. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that assurance and will not feel it necessary to press the amendment on this occasion.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his reply and to all those who have taken part in this short debate. I believe it can be agreed that there are occasions when it is not possible at Second Reading to go into some of the details of various proposals which in the normal way are more appropriate to Committee stage. That is the purpose of Committee stages: to focus on matters of detail.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, may say that, in the light of our legal position vis-à-vis the Parliament Act and so on, it is largely irrelevant for us to discuss

121
the matter here. However, I am quite sure that on reflection the noble Lord will agree that these are matters which it is proper for this Chamber to discuss in detail notwithstanding the fact that the Government in another place may pay no attention to them. As a testimonial for that position I draw the Government's attention—and that of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—to the attendance in your Lordships' Chamber this afternoon on matters on which it is presumed to have little interest. I believe that the answer lies in the seats behind the noble Lord.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. The noble Lord should be fair. I said that it was very good to discuss these issues in public and hope that they will be taken up by the media and public opinion, but that it would be pointless and foolish to divide the Committee when one knows that the result of the Division will be totally ineffective.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, and ask the Committee to forgive the state of my voice at present.
Having accomplished my original purpose, I respectfully ask the Committee for leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monsonmoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("Communities"') and insert ("Union's").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move the amendment with more than my usual trepidation, partly because I am standing in for the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, at fairly short notice and partly because of the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, yesterday (at col. 24 of Hansard) described those of us who oppose the Bill or have doubts or reservations about it. The noble Lord described us as disaffected elements, very much in the same way as a high-ranking officer in the paramilitary forces of the Russian Ministry of the Interior would describe Chechen freedom fighters. One can only hope that we United Kingdom freedom fighters do not face a similar fate.
The reason for tabling the amendment is not that we actually want the budget extended to cover European Union expenditure in addition to the narrower European Community expenditure. Far from it. However, whether we want it or not, it seems that it is already a fait accompli.
The European Parliament has already asked its president to rename the budget of the European Communities the "budget of the European Union". Although no reason was given it seems clear that that is to reflect the fact that the common foreign and security policy, together with the justice and home affairs expenditure, is included in the budget for the first time.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, (who I am sorry cannot be here today) was told by the Government in our Maastricht debates that Titles V and VI of European Union expenditure would be allocated from the Communities' budget but would be limited to
122
administrative costs and possibly—but only if agreed unanimously in the Council—also to operational costs. The draft budget for 1995 shows that 901 million ecu were allocated to external aspects of certain Community policies and "other co-operation measures". Can the noble Lord, Lord Henley, tell us exactly what those are? Is it, as promised by the Government at the time of our Maastricht debates, all being spent purely on administration or is the Commission using Community funds to draw a Union competence into its clutches?
Will the Government give an assurance that the distinction between the Community and the Union will not become blurred, as apparently the European Parliament wants to happen so that the Community and the Union ultimately become indistinguishable? We await the answer with interest.
Incidentally, I believe that this covers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. In any Third Reading debate we could not expect detailed, semi-technical replies from the Government, whatever the matter being discussed. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, also made that point very well. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: The Council decision is entitled a decision on:
"the system of the European Communities' own resources".
It is not a decision on the own resources of the Union. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that a description used in an Act of Parliament to refer to another piece of legislation should correspond to the title of that legislation.
There is also a good reason for the Council's decision being referred to as a decision on the system of the European Communities' own resources, for it is not based on any article of the Treaty on European Union (namely Maastricht). Instead it is based entirely on articles of the various founding treaties—the Treaty of Rome and the treaties setting up the European Atomic Energy Community, the Coal and Steel Community, and so on.
The noble Lord went on to say that the European Parliament has asked that the European Communities' budget should be renamed the budget of the European Union. That is true, although the Council does not accept the Parliament's renaming of the budget because it is the budget of the European Communities. There is no question but that the own resources system legally relates simply to the Community, based, as I said, on the articles of the various founding treaties, and not to the Union itself.
I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Monson: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I am pleased to hear that the Council has rejected the European Parliament's request. We shall have to continue to be very vigilant in the matter. However, I do not believe that we can go further today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

123
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindonmoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert:
("Provided that Her Majesty's Government shall lay before both Houses of Parliament an annual report on the operation of Article 2(1) (c) of the latter decision;").
The noble Lord said: As noble Lords will know, Article 2(1)(c) refers to VAT and to the determination of a uniform rate. I shall not read out the article. Article 10 refers to the arrangements for a possible introduction of a fixed uniform rate applicable to the VAT base.
I hope that I have understood the meaning of uniform rate. I take it to mean—I stand to be corrected—that we shall have a uniform rate for VAT across the Community, and eventually a standard base also. If I am wrong no doubt I shall be corrected. However, as I say, Article 2(1) (c) when taken in conjunction with Article 10 could be a ticking time bomb which, if allowed to explode, will have serious implications for parliamentary control of taxation and for the people of this country. They could find themselves paying taxes not strictly levied by their elected representatives. That seems to me to be taxation without representation. I hope that I read the article correctly, and that I shall be corrected if I do not. That means taxation without representation.
As I understand it, we already have the elimination of zero-rated VAT on such items as books, periodicals and newspapers, children's clothes, new buildings and transport fares hanging over our heads. The pass has already been sold on domestic fuel, which now has VAT levied at 8 per cent. No doubt in due course further attempts will be made to levy the full 17.5 per cent. tax on domestic fuel. We are already under threat of a big extension of VAT on essential items. The Commission will not be satisfied until we have VAT on everything, including all foodstuffs.
The implications for the economy alone, especially for the retail prices index with the inflationary pressures, of allowing anybody other than the properly elected Parliament and Government so to decide, are horrific. Yet that is what is being contemplated by the EC with the apparent full consent and approval of the British Chancellor and the Cabinet. No doubt that squares well with the Chancellor's fanatical support for a single currency which he knows perfectly well implies a single Government complete with taxing powers. However, it does not square with democratic government and parliamentary control. Indeed, if control was lost over the range of Vat rated items and the rate of VAT, that would be the final betrayal of Parliament and of the right of the people to proper representation before taxation, including the right to boot out those who would impose taxation which the people believe to be oppressive or unnecessary.
As I understand it, what the Chancellor has ostensibly agreed to will not be possible under the regime foreshadowed by the Council, by our own Government and by the decision in October 1996. I have no doubt that we shall be told that the Government have the veto
124
over all matters of taxation; that qualified majority voting will not apply in the case of taxation. But we have no guarantee that the Government will not cave in to pressure as they so often do—and most recently did in allowing the Spanish fishermen further access to fishing grounds to the disadvantage of British fishermen, further endangering fish stocks in British waters.
Having given in, the issue will first be represented as a great victory—game, set and match, so to speak—and a triumph for our negotiations. Then when the truth is revealed—that it is a bad deal for Britain and the powers of Parliament—and Parliament shows signs of rebellion, it will be told that the Government made an international agreement which Parliament must honour. That is what the Government did over the Bill that we now discuss. The matter will then be made one of confidence, with dissolution threatened if Parliament dares to rebel. We know the end of the story because it is all written in the House of Commons Hansard.
We must ensure that Parliament, and especially the House of Commons, are never again faced with the blackmail that they encountered over the Bill. That is why the amendment should be passed in order to help Parliament to keep proper control over what the Government do, especially over taxation. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: This pass has already been sold. When there was a row over whether fuel should be taxed, it was noticeable that the Labour Party—if peradventure by the most unlikely of coincidences it should ever become the Government—studiously avoided giving an undertaking that it would remove VAT from fuel. That particular pass has been sold. Parliament has already allowed its taxation rights to be inhibited. The issue obviously slipped through; perhaps people did not understand it, but it has happened. I do not know how we can claw that matter back. Somehow we must claw it back because the rights of taxation are at the root and core of all government.
If one takes away the right to tax, one takes away the power to govern. That is how the whole of English parliamentary tradition arose. Parliament said to the king, "You have run short of money, and if you want some more you will have to come and ask us for it". That is how the core of English parliamentary tradition and government arose. That is why, that directive having been agreed, we cannot now lower VAT below 15 per cent. If any amount goes on, that can only be agreed unanimously. But equally any amount can only be taken off unanimously. The idea that the Greeks may say, "No, you can take some VAT off children's shoes which has been imposed", fills me with total disbelief.
Anything which can be done to restrict the rights of the European Commission to impose any tax on British subjects must be encouraged above anything else.
Lord Cockfield: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, will be greatly relieved, if somewhat disappointed, that Article 2(1) (c) does not bear the meaning that he seeks to put on it. It could not possibly bear the meaning that he seeks to put on it; it has never borne the meaning that he seeks to put on it; and it will never bear the meaning that he seeks to put on it. It is merely an item in a calculation that has to be

125
made to ascertain the contributions given by individual member states, all of which have slight differences or greater ones in their VAT coverage.
If you tax 12 or 15 people by means of a calculation based upon any concept you like, you must have a uniform concept on which to do it. Therefore, what is created is what is called a Community assiette. I am sorry to use foreign words in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. You set up a notional system which would provide the same amount or the same basis of revenue which you then use to calculate the contributions. That has nothing whatever to do with the system that a member uses in its own member state. In fact, it is a recognition that systems differ from one member state to another.
There is one point on which I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. It is a great pity that we are not given more information about the financial relations between our own country and the European Union. In an earlier debate I suggested that the budget Red Book ought to contain a comparatively modest section—possibly of two or three pages and it already has many pages—which sets out clearly the financial relationships. That is not to produce an argument but merely to ensure that at least we have a solid basis of factual information which can underpin discussion of many of the issues.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I support the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, on his amendment. I am quite sure that the Committee will be grateful for the usual authoritative utterances delivered with his customary modesty on what is really the state of affairs. He makes it quite clear that:
"the application of a uniform rate valid for all Member States to the VAT assessment base which is determined in a uniform manner for Member States according to Community rules"
remains for most Members of the Committee, and, I suspect, for Members of another place who bother to read the regulations, a matter of some mystery. Therefore, I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate, he will reveal to the Committee the nature of the calculations involved in the determination of a uniform rate. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, suggested that perhaps in some future budget—if it should ever be considered by your Lordships' House—there ought to be three pages explaining how the calculations are arrived at. However, for this afternoon's purposes we shall be grateful for a brief summary from the noble Lord of how the uniform rate is determined. I am quite sure that the Committee will agree that the calculations are a matter which we ought to consider in Committee. They are matters of detail but since they affect the amount of money payable from the Consolidated Fund into European funds, they ought to be carefully considered and should not remain shrouded in mystery.
If Members of the Committee examine Article 2 1(c) a little further, they will find the words,
"However, the assessment base to be taken into account"—
and so far we do not know how that is calculated—
126
"for the purposes of this Decision shall, from 1995, not exceed 50% of GNP in the case of Member States whose per capita GNP in 1991 was less than 90% of the Community average; for the other Member States the assessment base to be taken into account shall not exceed"—
and the article lists them: 54 per cent. of their GNP in 1995, 53 per cent. in 1996, 52 per cent. in 1997, 51 per cent. in 1998 and 50 per cent. in 1999. The article continues:
"The cap of 50% of their GNP to be introduced for all Member States in 1999 shall remain applicable until such time as this Decision is amended".
I trust that the Committee is now seized of the detail comprised in Article 2 1(c). After all, they are matters of some importance in determining what the contributions of member states shall be.
Unhappily, GNP is nowhere defined. That makes it a little difficult for the matter to be considered even on Second Reading in general terms, let alone in Committee. The Government seem to resent even the existence of a committee to discuss the matter. So perhaps we may have the opinion of the Court of Auditors on it. The report of the Court of Auditors unfortunately arrived too late for the Government to take it into account when they were discussing the Bill in another place. However, in its latest report, the Court of Auditors has some pretty pungent observations to make about the way of determining GNP. With leave, I shall acquaint the Committee with what the report says about the matter. I trust that noble Lords will bear with me and the husky voice in which I deliver the comments.
Page 33 of the report of the Court of Auditors covering the financial year 1993 states:
"In order to evaluate the ability to pay, or the relative prosperity of the Member States, the regulations"—
referred to in the Bill as "rules"—
"in force sometimes refer to GNP and sometimes to GDP, which are evaluated in some cases in ecus and in others in purchasing power standards, (PPS). The choice of concept has repercussions on the financial responsibilities of the Member States. The Commission should explain the criteria which led to the adoption of GNP in ecus in the area of budget financing".
The report continues:
"In spite of the measures already taken by the Commission, the degree of comparability, exhaustiveness and reliability of the data in respect of the Member States' national accounts should be improved and considerable progress may still be made so as to obtain a genuinely harmonized system, as the Court pointed out … in its Annual Report concerning the financial year 1991".
The report states further:
"As a result of the forecasting errors inherent in any GNP forecast there is a danger that the ceiling for levies provided for by Community legislation will be exceeded and the risk of bias in the allocation of the charge between the Member States, which then has to be corrected by means of an unwieldy system of balances".
Finally, in terms of ducking the system or the lack of information available to it, the Court of Auditors concludes:
"Employing a statistical concept such as GNP, which does not correspond to a fiscal base which can be checked with a reasonable degree of certainty, may provide a means of ensuring that the financial responsibilities of the European Union are fairly divided up between the Member States. Nevertheless, the use of such a concept requires a considerable effort from the Commission and the Member

127
States to ensure that the national accounts are reliable and harmonized, and thus to ensure that the budget and policies of the European Union are managed rationally".
In other words, before the rules come into operation, the Commission and the member states of the Council have to agree on what GNP really is, and then to agree it so that beyond all reasonable doubt the ultimate contributions of the member states and the ceilings of the own resources demanded of them can be accurately determined. At the moment they cannot be.
One of the purposes in putting down this amendment is to acquaint noble Lords with the fact that many difficulties lie ahead and that, in spite of these abstruse calculations —which, if I may say so without offence, members of the Council do not themselves always understand—without some reliable check as to the accuracy of the assumptions that are made (the degree of accuracy which is insisted upon by firms of chartered accountants when they approve the prospectuses of companies; namely, that all the assumptions are correct and the calculations are reasonable) all this will be a lot of nonsense. Indeed, in their present form all they are designed to do is to obscure and ultimately damage the Council's perception of what may be the truth.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may intervene briefly. I say to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington that I must admit I did not know that this amendment was to do with the correct definition of GNP or GDP. Having lectured on the subject for more years than I care to reflect on, I can only say that I have never had the slightest difficulty in knowing what either of the terms means or how to produce a consistent set of national accounts; and I cannot believe that the future of the European Community depends on matters of that sort. However, that is not the main reason for my intervention.
My noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon referred to the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Henley, when he replies, will agree that the decision to levy VAT on domestic fuel was taken by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, presumably in agreement with the Prime Minister. The decision was to levy VAT at the full rate in two stages. The current Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed that decision. Again, the decision was taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and, I assume, again in agreement with the Prime Minister. The other place then got rid of the second tranche of that increase, precisely as would happen in the normal workings of our government and as has happened traditionally for a great many years.
Will the Minister therefore confirm that the decision was not taken by the European Community—that it was not taken by the Commission; that it did not instruct the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do that; and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was at no time under pressure to do it? It is vitally important that we confirm that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this country is still the person who leads us —together with the First Lord of the Treasury, who is of course the Prime Minister—in taxation matters of this kind. It is certainly news to me that this tax was levied because of the European Commission. I hope that the Minister can
128
confirm that it was the Chancellor. Obviously I have a political reason for pressing that point: I wish to make it very clear now and in future that this loathsome tax was one that was decided upon by this Government, and is not a tax that was put on by the Commission. It is very important for the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for once to rebut the view expressed by my noble friend.
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord on this point. Am I not also right in that, had the tax been put on, and had there been a Labour Government, they could not have taken it off? That is the fundamental taxation point. It is no good rabbiting on about how evil the tax is, blah, blah, blah, and then complaining that it is the European Community that levied it. If you cannot take it off, you are still hidebound by an outside authority which has taken away substantial taxation powers—historical powers which have been attributed and got by the Parliaments of this kingdom for a long time. That is the core of the rot that has set in.
Lord Peston: I hesitate to intervene a second time, but that was not the point that was made by my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I hope that the noble Earl will recognise that it was Members in another place—and in particular some of his friends in the other place—who prevented the second tranche of that tax being levied, and who could, if they had so wanted, have prevented the first tranche being levied. He simply cannot get off the hook that it was the Government who levied the tax and not the European Commission. It is vitally important to remember what this Government did. But it is equally worth remembering what the noble Lord's friends in another place also managed to do.
Lord Henley: I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Cockfield for his intervention. I have a sneaking suspicion that it would have been convenient for the House if the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, had intervened after the intervention of my noble friend Lord Cockfield, who gave a perfectly clear explanation of what we are talking about here, and withdrawn his amendment. However, I have a sneaking feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, knew all along that this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the rate of VAT that is levied on goods and services.
Like the fat boy in Pickwick Papers, the noble Lord likes to make our flesh creep with stories about VAT and scares of that sort. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that any decisions of that sort that actually went to the Council of Ministers would require unanimity, just as any changes to the rebate negotiated by my noble friend Lady Thatcher in 1984 would also require unanimity. The noble Lord implied that we caved in on every occasion. I stress again to the noble Lord that it was a Conservative Government who arranged that rebate and we have no intention of caving in on that in the future.
I can also confirm that it is obviously my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is the one who makes decisions, which then obviously have to go to another place, about levels of taxation, levels of VAT. As I said, this amendment and the clause with which we are dealing has absolutely nothing to do

129
with the rate of VAT that is levied on goods and services. It relates solely to the formulae used to calculate own resources. The VAT-based own resource does not flow directly from the amount of tax that is collected but is a wholly separate calculation, as my noble friend Lord Cockfield stressed, based on member states' VAT bases which for this purpose alone are subject to statistical judgment to ensure the same coverage of all goods and services in all member states.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked for details—although I do not believe he really wanted that detailed an explanation —of just how that would work. I do not believe that it would assist the House if I gave the noble Lord the detailed explanation that he requires at the moment. But I can assure him—I am sure that he has the papers—that Her Majesty's Treasury did supply the committee with papers on 15th July and 26th September explaining the detail behind the United Kingdom's gross contributions and the calculations of the United Kingdom's abatement. I am sure that the noble Lord, if he has not already done so, will study those papers with the extraordinary detail that he normally devotes to these matters.
I can also assure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that work is going on to harmonise the methods of calculating member states' GNP. I note the points that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I am sure that noble Lords will remember his expertise in trying to come to a detailed and harmonised method of calculating such figures, which the noble Lord assures us is a matter of considerable ease.
The amendment requires the Government to produce further supplementary reports on the operation of the VAT resource. It might be worth my turning some little attention to that one particular point. Even if the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, did not address that point, certainly my noble friend Lord Cockfield did.
I can assure the noble Lord that in another place it was suggested that information on the Community budget appears in too many reports and documents and may not be in the most user-friendly presentation. As a result of that and a as a result of those representations, my honourable friend the Paymaster General in another place at Committee stage—I refer the noble Lord to the comments that he makes at cols. 372 and 413 of Hansard on 7th December—undertook to expand and improve the annual statement of the Community budget. The noble Lord will be familiar with the annual statement that comes out in the spring of each year. I have before me the one for March 1994. That statement already provides for the amounts that are paid by each member state under the VAT-based own resource. I refer the noble Lord to Table 2 on page 9 of the annual statement which sets out each member state's VAT contributions in each year from 1991 to 1994.
I trust therefore that the noble Lord will agree that the inclusion in the Bill of an obligation on the Government to provide a report on the operation of VAT own resource would add very little indeed, if anything, to the information that the House will receive, bearing in mind the assurances and guarantees that my right honourable
130
friend made in another place. I hope therefore that on this occasion the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: Before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he will answer what to him is probably a rather simplistic question. I have found in various aspects of my life, in dealing with charities and listed buildings, that I have come up against the Treasury. The Treasury has written to me and said that much as they regret having to charge this tax, it is subject to a VAT directive and therefore nothing can be done about the matter. That seems to me to run somewhat counter to what my noble friend has been saying; namely, that VAT is a purely national tax levied by national processes.
Lord Henley: I can assure my noble friend that what he is discussing has nothing whatever to do with the Bill before the Committee on this occasion. It is true that the standard rate of VAT can be no lower than 15 per cent. The extent of zero-rating and reduced-rate VAT is certainly limited. As regards the decision as to where my right honourable friend wishes to put VAT, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, stressed that point in relation to VAT on fuel. We might disagree on the merits or otherwise of it but it was the decision of my right honourable friend the former Chancellor, confirmed by my right honourable friend the present Chancellor, to levy that particular duty, which, sadly, was not agreed to by another place.
6 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: If we needed any justification for having a Committee stage on this Bill, the present discussion has just shown it. Many noble Lords, including myself, have learned much and been put right by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, and others. We now understand a lot more about VAT—how it is levied, the basis upon which it is levied and indeed the limitation, if there is one, on the ability of the European Community to impose taxation of a particular kind on the British people and indeed the British Parliament. So this Committee stage has been very useful. I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition will accept that it has been a useful exercise.
I must say to my noble friend Lord Bruce that I do not like being too fair to the Government. But in fact the Government raised no objection to a Committee stage. They were perfectly amenable to it all the way along. I have heard no criticism at all from them and that is to their credit. We cannot give them much credit but when credit is due, I believe in giving it. I give the Government credit on this particular issue. Indeed, the Government Benches are almost full. It is remarkable. I congratulate them.
I also accept the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, that the European Community cannot fix the amount of tax nor, at this stage, fix the base on which the tax is levied. What he said was interesting in more than one respect. He was absolutely right to say that people simply do not understand what is coming out of the European Community. There is so much gobbledegook in so many languages that even Members

131
of Parliament do not understand what is being said, let alone the general electorate. That is simply not good enough. I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that the Government are to make some attempt to ensure that not only Members of Parliament but people generally understand what is being proposed and done in the European Community.
My noble friend Lord Peston took to task my noble friend Lord Bruce about his contribution. He said that he did not know what GNP had to do with the matter. I shall tell him. The Court of Auditors drew attention to the problem in 1993. The 1993 Court of Auditors' report found that Germany had not included the former East Germany in its calculations of its GNP and that some countries were still using 1970s data. The Court of Auditors described some of the information provided to the Commission by member states as "unreliable". In those circumstances, I believe that the points raised by my noble friend Lord Bruce were very relevant and of use to the Committee.
My noble friend also asked what on earth VAT on fuel had to do with the Commission—or the Council of Ministers, because that is the body that makes the final decisions and one has to accept that. The fact of the matter is that the proposal to put VAT on fuel is included in the sixth directive. So it is already a directive of the EC that VAT should be levied on domestic fuel, as well as on a range of other items. The question is when it comes into operation, not whether it does so.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend. As he said, we are all trying to learn from this debate. Is he saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not have a choice about levying VAT on domestic fuel? Is he also saying that when his right honourable friend, in the very near future, becomes Chancellor of the Exchequer, he will not have an opportunity to take such decisions? I find that very difficult to follow. Is he telling me that there is no choice?
Lord Bruce of Donington: His field of action was very limited. After all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to raise some £3 billion net out of the Consolidated Fund. Indeed, he had to impose a three-line Whip in order to secure the Government's agreement to that £3 billion and threaten resignation if it were not found. In searching around for money to enable him to honour the obligation to pay that £3 billion net to the Commission, he was circumscribed. In fact, he alighted, quite reasonably from his point of view, on the measure already taken by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, his right honourable friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: In answer to my noble friend on the Front Bench, I did not say in my speech that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to levy 17½ per cent., or whatever, on fuel. I said that the threat was hanging over our heads. That threat is there all the time through the sixth directive, which was agreed by the British Government; and indeed, as I understand it, must be imposed or made effective by 1996. No doubt I shall
132
be corrected if that is wrong. Nevertheless, that threat is there all the time. At one time or another the European Commission will say: "Come along, Britain, you are dragging your feet. There are all these things to which we have agreed to extend VAT. It is about time you implemented them".
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, referred again to unanimity being required before EC decisions are made. The problem is that British governments, British Ministers and Chancellors of the Exchequer, can go to Europe and make decisions without first obtaining the consent of Parliament. They can make decisions on expenditure and on taxation. As I said earlier, when it comes to the push and Parliament is asked to ratify what those Ministers have done, Parliament is told, "We made an international agreement and therefore you will let us down if you do not do what we say and ratify the agreement we have already made". That is the problem which we must address and which the Government will increasingly need to consider as the dissidents grow greater in influence and more in number.
With those words, I shall not press the amendment. I accede to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Beloffmoved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
(". Each year Her Majesty's Government shall make a report to Parliament which shall include—

(a) Her Majesty's Government's estimate of the amount of money from the Budget of the European Communities which is lost to fraud, irregularity and financial mismanagement in the previous year;

(b) details of Her Majesty's Government's efforts to combat fraud, irregularity and financial mismanagement both within the United Kingdom and in the institutions of the European Communities;

(c) details of the efforts of the European Commission and the European Parliament to combat fraud, irregularity and financial mismanagement;

(d) details of the efforts made by other Member States in combating fraud, irregularity and financial mismanagement.").

The noble Lord said: If this were a real Committee stage, I should be saying that the Government will accept the amendment because it merely puts into statutory form what they assure us is already their practice. Indeed, in the course of yesterday's debate, the Minister explained the very active role Her Majesty's Government are playing in the pursuit of fraud and mismanagement. However, as this is not a real Committee stage—as was pointed out, it is an occasion for discussion rather than legislation—I simply take the opportunity of asking the Chamber to turn for a little while to the subject of fraud and mismanagement, which was discussed at intervals yesterday.
I do not share the optimism of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that by discussing these matters we contribute greatly to general enlightenment. I found no

133
report of yesterday's proceedings in the press, in spite of the fact that they were graced by the contributions of no fewer than five former commissioners.
Lord Cockfield: In fact, there was a report in the Financial Times.
Lord Beloff: I do not have time to read the specialist press; I read only general newspapers and books. However much we think that we may have enlightened the elite readership of the Financial Times, that is unlikely to make a huge impact on the electorate. But it was informative for your Lordships, largely because of the contributions of the former commissioners, of whom no fewer than three are now in their places.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Four!
Lord Beloff: I apologise, four. There was also the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, who did not intervene in the debate. Perhaps he repents his earlier life in Brussels. At any rate, we received no guidance one way or the other from that brooding presence.
When we came to discuss fraud and the commissioners, what struck me was their eagerness to disclaim responsibility for what the Community actually does. In their sensitivity they felt that when anything was said about the Community then it must to some extent be a criticism of the Commission. It reminded me of other kinds of prima donnas and I was thinking that a possible collective word for former commissioners would be a "sensitivity" of commissioners.
In some respects, the former commissioners remind me also of a class of persons much in the public eye at the moment; namely, the Prison Service. When there is an escape, a riot or something of that kind, what do we hear from the Director of the Prison Service and his acolytes? They all say, "Oh, no, it was not me; it was those Ministers". That is what the commissioners tell us about fraud. Anything that is lacking is due to the failure of the Ministers. That may or may not be true. But it is an interesting fact upon which these commissioners, who come from different political parties, appear to agree.
The other main point, made particularly by my noble friend Lord Cockfield and generally accepted in the Chamber, was that the bulk of fraud takes place not in Brussels itself, but in the various member countries. He said that we must find a way of dealing with fraud and mismanagement in those member states, or many of them. My noble friend produced a possible solution which did great credit to his imagination, perhaps fertilised by constant reading of the Financial Times. Roughly, as I understood it—I believe I understood it—it was that if the expenditures undertaken under the Community umbrella were in part financed out of those countries' own taxation—that is to say, if it were not just our money being spent in Spain but Spanish money, also—then they would perhaps be keener on making sure that the money was properly spent.
That sounds plausible. It sounded so plausible that even my noble friend Lord Tebbit—who I regret cannot be with us today—was attracted by the proposition. But
134
when one comes to think of it, it does not really work for one perfectly obvious reason. It was frequently said yesterday, and rightly, that the expenditure that countries make on their contributions to the European Community is relatively small compared with total public expenditure. By the same token, it is true also, though not quite to the same extent, that receipts from the Community are, in most countries, even those who are net recipients, a relatively small part of the general money available to their governments.
When we consider what is happening in the way of financial mismanagement and fraud, we obtain some guidance from the fact that other governments do not themselves already deal satisfactorily with what is going on in their own countries. The degree of fraud perpetrated in Spain by Ministers or persons close to Ministers was recently referred to by His Majesty the King of Spain as calling into question the ability of Spain to retain the democracy it recovered after the death of Franco. In France the number of Ministers under arrest or threatened with arrest is reaching the point where it may be cheaper to hold Cabinet meetings in gaol. When one comes to Italy it looks as though the impact made on the public mind by the revelations of fraud and corruption is such that, to put it in a nutshell, we are seeing the reversal of the Risorgimento. We are seeing the break up of the Italian Republic.
I do not go into minor delinquencies. If the Greeks wish to spend their own money on furnishing Mr. Papandreou with a new palace and three swimming pools, that is their decision. But if we are asked to be in partnership with a number of countries which, quite irrespective of what they do with the money we raise from our taxpayers, are not at the moment capable of dealing with the money they raise from their own taxpayers, does that not cast a very considerable doubt on this whole idea of progressing towards economic and monetary union, on which the twin ornaments of the economic profession and the Labour Front Bench seem so keen? There is only one way in which this could be approached even moderately reasonably, which would be to say, "Okay, we throw in the sponge. We will accept a single currency, which will be the deutschmark; we will accept the Bundesbank as Europe's rulers; and, by and large, we hope that we can accommodate ourselves to that kind of thing". But that is not desired by any country and perhaps least of all, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, would agree, by Germany itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, pointed out yesterday how the misgivings, the discontents, the dissents, or whatever one likes to call them, in this country with regard to the financial aspect of the way in which the Community is being run are increasingly paralleled in continental Europe. One has to face the fact that this is only one example—the example of an attitude towards fraud and financial mismanagement—of what divides countries and makes some societies very different from others. To try to unite them in some

135
federal system, with a single currency and a single bank which go with it, would involve a federal system or even something rather more centralised than a federal system.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord has just said that a single language goes with a single currency. Would he care to repeat that opinion in Caernarvon?
Lord Beloff: I did not use the word "language". I am afraid the noble Earl—I do not blame him—was not listening to me very carefully. In this House we are not only free in what we can say: we are also free in how far we listen.
Perhaps I may come back to my central point. I was struck yesterday by something quite different which came from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. He pointed out that our Minister of Agriculture was unable to stop the trade in live animals across the Channel because, under the Community's rules, he had no power to do so. Then it struck me how interesting it was that in this country the sufferings of animals figure largely in the public consciousness. As someone living in the county of Sussex, which is now being flooded with policemen at our expense in order to protect these shipments, I am aware of the degree to which animal welfare is a subject in this country. But it is not among most of our continental partners. There is a difference. It is a profound, if one likes, philosophical difference.
Wherever we go—fraud is one way in and animal welfare is another: one can think of half a dozen more but they were illustrated yesterday—we are brought to the conclusion that the most important task at the moment is to find ways in which the countries of Europe, different though they are, can co-operate. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who lives in a world of abstractions, was suddenly confronted, as he thought, by some degree of what he called xenophobia in our discussions. There may be some xenophobia—not, I think, in the discussions of this House but in the country and in other European countries—but the xenophobia is created by the Community. It is because people feel that they are not being asked to be nice to foreigners or to co-operate with foreigners but are to be ruled by foreigners that there is this instinctive reaction.
This debate has given us the opportunity to look at this matter again. I hope there will be further opportunities. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: The amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, draw attention not only to fraud but to irregularity in financial management, at whatever level. In the course of our discussions on Second Reading relating to fraud and to irregularity in financial management the Government have concentrated mainly on the fraud aspect, without any particular emphasis upon irregularity in financial management. Their case is substantially the same as that of the Commission itself. It is that the responsibility for fraud lies mainly with the member states. The value of this amendment is that over the whole sphere it draws attention not only to fraud but to irregularity in financial management.
136
There can be no doubt but that irregularity and mismanagement are not necessarily principally concentrated in the member states but in the Commission itself. If the noble Lord reads pages 5 and 6 of the Court of Auditors' report for the financial year 1993 he will find that view abundantly justified. Because of time I shall give two extracts only from pages 5 and 6 of the Court of Auditors' report for 1993. The first states that,
"the development of Community activities has not been accompanied, either in the Commission or in the Member States, by a commensurate development of the necessary financial management and control systems".
It goes on:
"Although the Commission has undoubtedly made efforts to correct the weaknesses in accounting and financial management systems to which successive reports of the Court have drawn attention, it has failed to secure … the proper level of financial management and control necessary in the complex environment of Community finances".
If I may say so, this is one of the factors to which I have endeavoured over these weeks and months to draw your Lordships' attention.
At the bureaucratic level there is lack of control and bad financial management. There are persistent breaches of the Commission's own financial regulations and the Commission seeks to avoid responsibility for this by insisting, with the apparent approval of Her Majesty's Government and possibly also, for all I know, of Her Majesty's Opposition, that the principal responsibility lies in the hands of the member states. There will indeed have to be further investigations into this matter. I can assure Members of the Committee that there will be detailed investigations into when, doubtless through the usual channels, it will be convenient to discuss the Court of Auditors' report for 1993, which has only recently been delivered.
In the meantime I leave the Committee with a quotation from a report which appeared in the Daily Express on 12th November 1994. I would like some observations as to whether Her Majesty's Government know anything about it and, if they do, whether they place any credence in it at all. So far it has not been contradicted either by the Commission or the Government. It says:
"Several top Eurocrats face jail for involvement in frauds worth billions of pounds. EU officials revealed yesterday that there are nine separate investigations into corruption inside Commission headquarters, with the Italian Mafia believed to be involved. The EU has already completed one investigation into corruption-by an Italian who committed suicide when he learned he was about to be questioned. This week the EU opened a fraud hotline, with rewards for information which leads to fiddles being exposed".
I do not place my own personal credence on that report. I would like to have greater verification than that, as the noble Lord well knows. But at this stage I ask whether the Government have heard anything about it and whether—following the usual press office facilities that exist within the noble Lord's department, a department which has tentacles throughout the Press Association and the newspapers of the world—any checks were made by the Treasury or by his department as to whether or not there is any truth in this. I have seen no rebuttal.

137
In the meantime I trust that the Committee will accept the verdict of the latest Court of Auditors' report which has not been before either the other place or this House. It shows that there is widespread irregularity and lack of proper financial control within the Commission itself. I trust that, when the Government provide the various reports which they have promised and which substantially agree with what the noble Lord asks for in his amendment, they will include full details of anything that comes to light.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: This question of fraud is inevitable when we have something quite as silly as the common agricultural policy. Fraud is involved in Italy in getting subsidies for double or triple the number of olive trees which really exist. There is the export of more hard wheat from Italy than is actually produced there. There is the fraud as regards Greek tobacco which even the Albanians will not smoke. Admittedly the next fraud is peculiarly and blissfully an Irish one involving cows on a farm which straddled the border, the animals being moved back and forth across the border. The farmer was finally acquitted because defence counsel said, "How can you prove that the cows were exactly the same as those which went each way on several occasions?" That was a famous Irish fraud.
The CAP is the root cause not only of distortion of world trade, but of this fraud and fiddle. Until we get rid of it, with all its trade distortions, environmental disasters and subsidies to do things which we should not do, there will be no improvement. I plead guilty to putting my nose into the trough and getting set-aside payments. If somebody is stupid enough to put the trough there, my nose is going to go into it with the rest of them, and quick as a flash. But we must get rid of the common agricultural policy which is where the vast majority of the fraud occurs. The CAP also accounts for a large proportion of the European budget. It represents at a minimum 50 per cent. of its budget. Furthermore, in the social and cohesion funds, there is the drainage of the marshes at Missolonghi to increase Greek agricultural production. That has caused environmental damage. There is also the question of cutting down cork trees which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, in the debate yesterday. We have not only the common agricultural policy which takes up far too much of the European budget and the possibilities for fraud which go with it, but we have other budgets under other financial headings for increases in agricultural production. Until these matters are put right fraud will not go away.
Lord Monson: I support this amendment. I wish to pick up what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in his magnificent introduction as regards the attitude to fraud as distinct from specific acts of fraud. Time and time again those of us who are not actively involved read or hear what occurs when British Ministers, MPs, MEPs, commissioners or civil servants bring up the question of fraud in Brussels or Strasbourg. Their continental counterparts, or most of them, almost
138
invariably yawn, fidget, twiddle their fingers, fill in crosswords or generally show by their body language that they are thoroughly bored with the whole business.
It is not that they are actively in favour of fraud, but simply that generally they do not consider it to be as iniquitous as we do on this side of the Channel and that too much Anglo-Saxon obsession with fraud diverts time and energy from the grandiose task of building a United States of Europe. That is why it is so important that Her Majesty's Government produce an annual report on fraud, whether by accepting the amendment on the Marshalled List or otherwise.
Lord Cockfield: If I may be so bold as to say so, the only difference which exists between myself and the four previous speakers is that they are so extraordinarily good at talking about the subject: I simply want to do something about it. My speech yesterday was directed to that end. If one is going to do something about it, one has to start by identifying where the fraud occurs and who is responsible for it. If one looks at every single case quoted by my noble friend Lord Onslow, in each case the money was expended by the government of a member state or their agencies.
I have with me, because I referred to it yesterday, an admirable booklet produced by the Intervention Board in Reading. This is a document of enormous clarity. It sets out very clearly indeed who pays the money and the progress. I suggest that one of the reasons why fraud, mismanagement, maladministration and all the other emotive terms which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, can think of, is so much lower in the United Kingdom is because the situation is explained with great clarity by people like the Intervention Board in the United Kingdom. If one reads that document one can see exactly where the responsibility lies. It goes so far as saying that the responsibility for auditing the books rests not with the Commission in Brussels, but with the National Audit Office in London.
That is the position throughout. If the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, would care to update himself a little and move from 1993 to November 1994—I told this story yesterday—he would know that the president of the Court of the Auditors said that 80 per cent. of the money was disbursed by the member states. If 80 per cent. of the expenditure incurred properly or improperly is incurred in the member states by their governments and under their authority and with whatever controls or lack of them which exist in those member states, that is where the responsibility primarily lies.
You see it again if you read the conclusions of the Essen Summit—the meeting of the heads of government. They deal with fraud under pillar 3 of the Maastricht Treaty, and pillar 3 is inter-governmental co-operation between the member states. The Commission is marginalised under pillar 3. Unless you start by finding out where the responsibility lies, you will never solve the problem. As I said some time ago in your Lordships' House, it is no good shooting the wrong man. You have to start by finding the right person and then proceed to shoot him. That is what I have been trying to do.

139
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Beloff is so scornful of the forces of the market-place. I know that he is not an economist and regards economists as being somewhat lowly down the intellectual pecking order. But I am saying that what motivates people's behaviour at the end of the day is who foots the bill. If they have to foot the bill themselves for the fraud, the irregularities and the maladministration which occur in their own member state, that is the best possible incentive you can give them to do something about it.
I am far more anxious than any noble Lord who has spoken so far that this problem should be dealt with and solved. I am anxious that it should be dealt with and solved because it is a blot on the face of the Community, and I support the Community, while so many of the people who talk about fraud do so from the perspective of knocking the Community. I am not referring to any particular person so I hope that there will not be any protest about that. There is not the slightest doubt that a great deal of the attention that is directed to the subject is in the context of criticising the Community. If you proceed down the road of ensuring that the member states have to bear the greater part of the burden—I suggest that they should pay 51 per cent. of the total amount that they claim—they will undoubtedly take a much stronger line on good administration in their own country. This is a problem that has to be dealt with, and any effective way of dealing with it I should be only too glad to support.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: I could suggest an even better solution than that presented by my noble friend Lord Cockfield, and that is that the individual countries should pay 100 per cent. The problem with all these matters is that once there are enormous sums of other people's money floating about people are bound to get at it. I know that my noble friend Lord Cockfield would say that the whole of the agricultural policy is designed by the Community to produce various results—more or less production and specific objectives. But I am a farmer, and when the booklet so admirably produced by MAFF comes through I read it carefully. There are a great many experts reading it all over the country. They say that that is where the money is. Therefore one does not farm with a view to producing anything in particular; there is a new crop in farming. It is called the European paper crop. We pay a great deal of attention to reaping vast amounts of money from it.
I see from the figures in the Bill that agricultural expenditure is calculated to rise by 8 per cent., 9 per cent. or whatever it is. How can one possibly tell what it will rise by? It will depend entirely upon how people play the game; what happens to the weather; and everything else. For the moment we are being paid increased subsidies when the price of grain, for instance, is way above its support levels. We cannot intercept the free market and adjust that matter. We will spend our time endlessly wasting money until we return the
140
payment of subsidy to national interest, and then if governments get it wrong the electorate will vote them out and try a different government.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Stewartby: Perhaps I may offer one or two brief comments based on the torrid experience of having represented the UK in the Budget Council for a number of years in the 1980s. My strong impression at that time was that many Ministers representing those member states which were net beneficiaries of the Community budget were careless of how expenditure was to be applied so long as the appropriate portion of the total came the way of their country.
I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said about will power in this whole area. Of course it is necessary, as my noble friend Lord Cockfield said, to pursue the issue through the member states where fraud and irregularities occur. But I doubt seriously whether the sanctions on those member states within the processes of the Community, and particularly with regard to the Community budget, are effective. One has only to look at the consequences of sanctions in any area to see whether they are effective, and clearly in this area they are not.
If restitution has to be paid, it is to be paid only if the irregularity or the fraud is discovered. All moneys which are applied wrongly in member states, but where the fraudulent or irregular application of those moneys never properly comes to light or cannot properly be substantiated, are in terms of transfers of resources still effectively to the advantage of those countries. Although their governments may in general terms be committed to the orderly conduct of their affairs, it is inevitable—it is only human nature—that if there are financial advantages for those countries to turn something of a blind eye or to be less than 100 per cent. enthusiastic in pursuing the areas of misappropriation, then that is likely to happen.
I suspect that the difference in attitude between member states, based on whether they are net beneficiaries or net contributors to the Community budget, probably lies at the heart of this great problem. So I hope that the Government can, through their representatives, particularly in the Budget Council, try to establish a specific axis with other member states which are net contributors—for all practical purposes in the past that has meant Germany, although I understand that if the amendments to the budget process go through other member states are likely to become net contributors—and that by concerted action by those who represent taxpayers who are parting with their money in favour of the citizens of other countries putting their case strongly, persistently and with determination we can achieve a different attitude among the recipients.
I well recall a number of Budget Councils where the UK was isolated, with the exception of Germany, in calling for restraint on expenditure. The obvious reason for that was that Germany and the UK were the two countries which had to pay most of the bills for the extra budget expenditure for which the other 10 member states were calling.

141
The member states which are continuous net beneficiaries from the Community budget underestimate the resentment that can be caused in countries such as ours, where for so many years we have had to look at the issue the other way around. I hope and believe that a tougher attitude is developing in Germany. For a long time, it seemed willing to provide substantial resources because of the importance which, for strategic and other reasons, it attaches to the coherence of the Community. Perhaps, since the collapse of the Warsaw pact and the reunification of Germany, its emphasis has changed. If so, that is in Europe's interest. We, like Germany, are in the position of having to come to Parliament year after year and ask for expenditure to be sanctioned. We know that inevitably part of that will go to other member states, and that part of it will not properly be applied.
I hope that those who represent this country in the councils will be able to make common cause with others who are, or will be, the net contributors to that budget and will try to follow the purpose through as strongly as they can.
Lord Tugendhat: Like my noble friend Lord Stewartby, I have had experience of budget councils. Indeed, for some eight years I was budget Commissioner and am one of the two Commissioners who did not speak yesterday. I agree with my noble friend that standards of public life and financial probity vary substantially from one member state to another. However, I cannot help feeling that if one stands back a little from the debate, one might suppose that we are citizens of a country in which fraud and financial irregularity is completely unknown and a phenomenon to be found only on the other side of the Channel. That is not the case, as we know, in relation to income tax, social benefits, the workings of the CAP in this country and in relations with the Community, as we have found when court decisions have gone against us. I cannot help believing that a modicum of modesty about the righteousness of our position and the wrongness of other people's might be helpful on these occasions.
Although we have high standards of public life and financial probity, we are not alone in that. Denmark and Holland have standards that are equally high. Germany and a number of other countries also have high standards. If we are criticising other countries for having lower standards, it is tempting to believe that there is an element of nationalism and xenophobia, to which my noble friend Lord Beloff referred, in particular when one criticises them when they are trying to do something about it. I believe that the events in Italy—the extraordinary courage of the Italian magistrates facing dangers that in this country are known only in Northern Ireland—deserve praise rather than what has seemed to me from time to time to be supercilious contempt.
In large part, the same applies to what is happening in France. It is no part of my brief to defend the French way of doing things but I believe that a country which can bring its Ministers to book, which can prosecute Ministers who break the law and which can even put Ministers in prison, is a country which is doing something about the standards in public life and not one
142
that is going rapidly down hill. I believe that recent events in France and Italy should give one some encouragement rather than the reverse. I am reminded of the problems that the Security Services used to run into when they uncovered Soviet spies working in MI5. They were always more criticised for uncovering them than they would have been had they let them remain in operation.
My next point is addressed primarily to my old sparring partner in the European Parliament, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. He draws a great deal on the reports of the Court of Auditors and on other accusations that are made. It is worth pointing out—and I am sure that he will agree with me—that perhaps the principal source of information about fraud in the Community are the Community institutions. Again, one ought to draw some encouragement from the fact that the Community institutions take this issue so seriously that they have brought before the public the great body of evidence on which this debate has centred. The Court of Auditors has played an important part in that. As the noble Lord will recall, the Court of Auditors produces a report and the Commission produces a reply. In the interests of balance and fairness, it might from time to time be reasonable to quote not only the accusations of the Court of Auditors—accusations which I am sure are fully investigated. Our mutual friend, Mr. Daniel Strasser, with whom we used to have so many dealings together, is an illustrious member of the Court of Auditors. I believe that before throwing on to the table accusations that appear in the Daily Express or some other periodical, it would be worth considering the Commission's response.
I hope that in respect of my final point I might carry with me the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. Surely, one of the biggest failings of the European Parliament in recent years has been the failure to make sufficient use of the discharge; that is the point at which it goes over the way the money was spent. Making more use of the discharge would be one of the best possible ways of putting a check on the extent to which funds can be made available subsequently for misuse. It is in the power of the discharge that the European Parliament has the opportunity to make a considerable contribution to dealing with what is undoubtedly a serious problem. It is a problem that all of us ought to take seriously and it is one which the Community institutions do more than anyone else to bring to public attention.
7 p.m.
Lord Henley: I welcome my noble friend Lord Tugendhat to the debate. He is not the last of the former Commissioners to speak; there is one more member of that vast body of expertise to lend his weight to our deliberations.
I have considerable sympathy with the sentiments which motivated the tabling of the amendment. We have had a useful discussion but at the same time one ought to remember the wise words of my noble friend Lord Tugendhat in asking certain Members of the Committee to put these matters into perspective. It would be idle of me to repeat all that my noble friend Lady Chalker and I said yesterday about what the Government are doing

143
in the fight against fraud and the changes that we have seen in the CAP. The fight will continue and Her Majesty's Government will be at the forefront of it.
As regards the amendment, I give the assurance that, through explanatory memoranda, debates and liaison with Select Committees, the Government always keep Parliament in close touch with developments on this front. However, I do not believe that there is any need for a section in the Act spelling out exactly how that should be done.
The Government do much to keep Parliament informed of all developments on fraud and financial mismanagement. Indeed, as I said in respect of an earlier amendment, one of the criticisms most often heard is that there are too many documents and reports and not too few. In 1994 approximately 700 explanatory memoranda were submitted, of which about 60 covered budgetary matters. I daresay that even the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, might be overwhelmed by such a large number of documents for his perusal.
Lord Bruce of Donington: No.
Lord Henley: I live in hope! What is needed is that the various documents and reports available should be brought together in one document. As I said earlier, in another place the Paymaster General confirmed the Government's view that one of the essential tasks is to keep Parliament fully informed about what they are doing to counter fraud and mismanagement. That is why my right honourable friend gave the assurance that he did, which I repeated earlier to the Committee on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, to expand the Annual Statement on the Community Budget to include what is being done as regards budgetary discipline and mismanagement and to counter fraud.
In the light of the Government's commitment to improve the annual statement to cover the points which have been raised, I hope that Members of the Committee will accept that a legislative obligation to do that is unnecessary.
Perhaps I may deal with a couple of paragraphs in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. With regard to subsection (a), the noble Lord asks that an annual estimate should be given of the amount of money lost to fraud. I repeat that the level of fraud and waste is a matter of great anxiety to the Government, as it is to all Members of the Committee. But I believe that all would agree that the level of fraud and irregularity, whether it is fraud against those funds, fraud at home against the social security budget or tax fraud, is something which, by its nature, is incalculable. We cannot know to what extent findings are representative of the whole picture. Contrary to many press reports, the European Court of Auditors does not give an estimate, despite the fact that it obviously has access to a great deal more information than the Government. However, although we shall expand the reports to which I referred earlier, I regret that it would not be possible for the Government to give an estimate which would be of any use whatever to your Lordships.
144
Secondly, subsection (d) of the amendment asks whether the annual statement could contain details of efforts made by other member states to counter fraud. Obviously the Government are very interested in what other member states are doing to combat fraud. Indeed, we were instrumental in achieving European Council conclusions at Essen which invited all member states to produce a report to the Council on just that. However, I do not believe that it would be appropriate for the Government to submit statutory reports to the United Kingdom Parliament on what other member states are doing. Following Essen, it is for the member states to produce those reports for the Council. Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to do so.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with the question of financial mismanagement and irregularity because I believe that we have focused to a greater extent on fraud than on those matters which were discussed when we debated these issues yesterday. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that financial mismanagement and irregularities are problems for the Community budget as well as the criminal fraud to which we have referred. I believe that our approach to fraud and mismanagement is parallel. I have already explained our approach to fraud. On mismanagement, the Edinburgh European Council spelt out that Community policies should be subject to periodic review and that individual projects should be subject to thorough appraisal before resources are committed to ensure that they yield economic benefits in keeping with the resources deployed. Since Edinburgh, the need for prior appraisal has been built into the cohesion and structural fund regulations and into the fourth framework programme for research and development. I assure the noble Lord that the Government will continue to press for all new policies to contain similar provisions. The Court of Auditors will play an important role in ensuring that the appraisals are carried out according to the appropriate standards.
As regards irregularities, Article 13 of the new budget discipline decision agreed on 31st October 1994 provides for the possibility of temporarily reducing or suspending monthly advances to cover CAP expenditure where irregularities are suspected or where there is a problem as regards the quality of data provided to the Commission by member states. I believe that those are positive steps which the Government will continue to pursue.
We shall continue to press also for further improvements. I assure my noble friend Lord Stewartby that we are receiving greater assistance from member states which are or are about to become net contributors and which have strong traditions of intolerance of fraud and waste. I assure my noble friend that we shall continue to work extremely closely with all those states which are or are about to become net contributors.
With regard to the Daily Express article of 12th November to which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred, I assure him that we are aware of the investigations into the Italian official mentioned in that article. When we are aware of allegations against Community officials, we shall pursue those matters as is appropriate through the Council. In the light of earlier

145
discussions this afternoon on the subject of the sub judice rule, it would not be wise for me to comment further on that matter at the moment.
In the light of what I said both on this amendment and on the earlier amendment in relation to the assurances that the Paymaster General and I have given as to the improved annual report which the Government will put before Parliament, I hope that my noble friend Lord Beloff will not press the amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Beloff: We have had a jolly run round the course again. There have been some interesting contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, repeated the suggestion that he made yesterday and gave the analysis which led him to it. My problem is that, if it is the governments of certain countries who are responsible, it is rather difficult to see how they can also be made the agents for curing the problem. The noble Lord's idea is that the answer would be to raise locally a proportion of the money. However, that presupposes that, if there were no transfers between member states, there would be no irregularity or fraud. That seems to me to be a very difficult proposition to sustain. But we can continue to disagree at the moment. None of our solutions looks likely to deal conclusively with what is bound to be a continuing problem.
It was valuable to have the intervention of yet another former Commissioner, but I believe that the noble Lord who accused me of superciliousness was quite wrong. I was not suggesting that Britain is uniquely virtuous or that other countries are uniquely vicious. I suggested merely that, in a continent in which countries differ so greatly in their fundamental attitudes to so many matters, to try to create a federal system in which all of them would participate freely is, at this stage, asking too much and that the attempt to impose such a system is one of the reasons for discontent.
I should not wish further to prolong the debate. No doubt we shall have many more debates and I gladly accede to the Minister's polite request and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Morrismoved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
(" . This Act shall not come into force until the final version of the Budget of the European Communities for 1995, as adopted by the European Parliament and the Budget Council, has been made available to Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move the above modest amendment, despite the fact that it is tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. As Members of the Committee who heard discussions on previous amendments will be aware, there is every reason to have considerable concern for the welfare of the noble Lord's voice. In that spirit, I wish to assist him by moving the amendment.
Although the final version of the final budget of the European Community was adopted by the European Parliament on 15th December, according to the Library
146
of the other place the text will not be available in this country until February. We thus have the astonishing position where Parliament—that is, the other place—is being asked to approve expenditure without knowing the details of its destination.
So far as I am aware, the own resources decision has not even been approved by the Dutch Parliament. Can my noble friend the Minister say how many countries have not yet given their approval to it; and, if not, why not? A summary is available of the final version including commitment appropriations of 80,892.87 million ecus and payment appropriations of 76.5 million ecus. That represents a 12 per cent. increase on the 1994 budget. However, it must be pointed out that that is for 15 nations and not 12.
Further, 400 million ecus will be given to help modernise the Portuguese textile industry. One would like to ask why? What about the Lancastrians? Moreover, 460 million ecus of aid have been allocated to the Mediterranean programme. That is not as much as was requested, but it has been described as,
"a step in the right direction".
As to the latter payments, the question should first be asked why British taxpayers should have to pay for what is essentially a political programme to keep the French and Spanish happy in the face of the shift in the Community's centre of gravity north and east with the accession of Sweden, Finland and Austria and the expected entry of eastern Europe.
Secondly, it should be asked whether the Government feel that taxpayers' money will be well spent on Colonel Gaddafi and President Assad. Although there has been an aid programme to North Africa since the early 1970s, the new programme goes far beyond that, and furthermore takes on new countries such as Libya.
The first instalment of 460 million ecus will undoubtedly escalate to the 4.3 billion requested by the Commission—with, of course, French and Spanish prompting. It seems absurd to pay such sums when we are still unsure where the money to the "poor four" goes. That is just another illustration of the ancient principle that there should be no taxation without representation. I believe that this modest little amendment would go a good way in the right direction towards helping to solve the problem. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I should like to express my support for the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that it is unfortunate that the draft budget as established by the Council for the year 1995 has not been available to Parliament. Indeed, it is only in a few months' time that the preliminary draft budget for 1996—in May to be precise—will be made available to the European Parliament and presumably to Her Majesty's Government. It is most unfortunate that we do not receive such documents on time.
I willingly agree with the remarks that fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, with whom I was very pleased to co-operate when he was Budget Commissioner and I was a rapporteur for the European

147
Parliament's Budget Committee. I believe that the noble Lord would probably accept from me that, before I make my remarks on the reports of the Court of Auditors, I invariably examine the Commission's replies and then attempt some evaluation. Most of the replies from the Commission to the documents are to the effect that since the report remedial action has been taken. However, that is a little mysterious because the same problem arises all over again in the next year. Nevertheless, I hope that the noble Lord will accept from me —as, indeed, I accepted from him when he was a very illustrious Commissioner—that I speak with the same good faith as he was good enough to address to the European Parliament while serving there.
I am not saying that the production of the 1995 draft budget would have illuminated Members of the Committee very much. It is a document about three inches thick with nearly 1,000 pages, most of which are unintelligible except to those who are fairly skilled in the interpretation of the various regulations to which it refers and who are able to understand the complex language involved; for example, the difference between commitment appropriations, undifferentiated commitments, commitments of payment and so on. It is a most complex document; but, nevertheless, it is susceptible enough, after fairly continuous study, to enable one to know what it is all about. Indeed, I can assure the Committee that it is sufficient for me to be dead accurate in the observations that I have made about Title B1-17 on the tobacco appropriations that were made for 1994 and anticipated for 1995.
Once again we have a problem. We have arrived at a situation where the ceilings of expenditure are ultimately decided by unanimity. The budget decisions which are required to come within the limits, and which do in fact come within those limits by quite a fair margin—for example, the odd 50 million or so—are made by qualified majority voting. In other words, although Her Majesty's Government give unanimous approval to the ceiling, they have no control as to how those amounts are expended because the allocations in the budget are made by qualified majority voting. One has only to look at some of the recipient countries to see what I mean. However, I speak with respect for those nationalities. I am not xenophobic in that sense. I refer to those countries with the utmost respect for their inhabitants, their rulers, their advisers and everyone else.
However, if one looks at what happens to money in the budget devoted not merely to the CAP but also to the structural funds and sees the allocations to Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal and, indeed, our fellows across the Irish Channel, the mind sometimes boggles as to how those sums have been arrived at and what real approval the United Kingdom would have given had the budget itself been subject to unanimity as distinct from qualified majority voting.
148
That is all I have to say on the budget for the time being. I terminate my remarks on that aspect in the full and certain knowledge that, with the indulgence of the Committee, I shall be here once again when the preliminary draft budget for 1996 comes to this place.
Lord Henley: Both noble Lords have spoken briefly to the amendment. I hope that they will allow me to respond even more briefly. Parliament has had an explanatory memorandum accompanying the Council's second reading of the 1995 budget. That second reading occurred on 16th November. Parliament also received an explanatory memorandum on the Commission's second letter of amendment which took account of enlargement to 15 member states, and was agreed by the Council on 8th December. After the Council's second reading, the procedure is that the budget goes to the European Parliament for adoption. The final version of the budget as adopted is never published, I regret, until late January or early February. I am afraid that the 1995 budget is no exception.
I believe it would be inappropriate to hold up the coming into force of this Bill until the final version of the 1995 budget has been published. Provisions made in the 1995 budget can be altered only by way of supplementary and amending budget. Whatever supplementary and amending budget was proposed, should such supplementary and amending budget be proposed, a further explanatory memorandum would be submitted for the noble Lord's elucidation, and/or others. I shall certainly ensure, as far as I am able, that the final version of the 1995 budget is available to the Chamber absolutely as soon as it is published. Then I will await with interest the questions, an estimation, and whatever, from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce.
If this new clause were carried, and if the other place were of the same view, the United Kingdom would be unable to report adoption of the Council Decision until the final version of the budget had been made available. I believe that that delay is both unnecessary and undesirable and would in fact achieve absolutely nothing. I hope therefore that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will feel able on this occasion to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I shall respond to that final point that the noble Lord has made. The noble Lord will doubtless be aware that another place, even though it had not seen the documents, was constrained to note the contents of the preliminary draft budget—the first draft budget as established by the Council—and explanatory memorandum. It was given one hour's debate on 28th November with 20 Members present and very little evidence that any Member of another place had examined the budget in detail, which is perhaps the justification for the interest, fortunately, which this Chamber has given to the budget.
Lord Henley: I obviously cannot speak for another place, but I am sure that if the noble Lord wishes to find

149
means of debating these matters in this Chamber, with his usual ingenuity he will do so. That is a matter for the noble Lord.
Lord Morris: I must thank my noble friend for that answer and for giving me a tour d'horizon of the procedures for the examination of these matters by the Council of Ministers and indeed by the European Parliament. I do not know whether it is coincidence but I was interested to hear that the Council of Ministers completed the examination of the budget on 8th December which happened to be the Feast of the Holy Innocents. That may be a total coincidence and nothing else. However, I do not wish to make myself even more unpopular by pressing this amendment. I think that in the circumstances I had better withdraw it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bruce of Doningtonmoved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
(" . This Act shall come into force only when each House of Parliament has come to a resolution on a motion tabled by a Minister of the Crown as to whether the United Kingdom Government has taken sufficient steps to eliminate wasteful and fraudulent expenditure within the General budget of the European Community as identified by the Court of Auditors.").
The noble Lord said: If I may, I shall deal with this amendment very shortly indeed, partly because of the time limitations which I intimated to the usual channels and partly because, in a way, it would not be appropriate for me to introduce the new clause in the manner in which I should have preferred to have introduced it. The new clause states:
"This Act shall come into force only when each House of Parliament has come to a resolution on a motion tabled by a Minister of the Crown as to whether the United Kingdom Government has taken sufficient steps to eliminate wasteful and fraudulent expenditure within the General budget of the European Community as identified by the Court of Auditors".
I have some rather important information to give to the Committee which does not enable me to comply with the terms of the new clause itself because my own amendment stipulates,
"as identified by the Court of Auditors".
It has come to my attention that the audit of the Court of Auditors does not extend over the whole extent of European Community expenditure. That is a fact that I have been able to verify for the year 1993 by an examination in detail of the Court of Auditors' report. I am informed—I have given, the Government notice of the facts as I have discovered them—that the Court of Auditors does not audit the internal expenditure of any of the institutions. It only audits the operational expenditure. I must apologise to the Committee for not being aware of that before. I ought to have picked it up a long time ago on the basis of evidence already available to me.
However, the fact of the matter is that there is a cosy deal between the European Parliament, the European Commission and the European Council on the basis of, "I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine", and it has become an apparent convention that the Court of Auditors does not intrude into a detailed audit of the
150
institutions' own expenditure. This I regard as something very important indeed to which I sincerely trust Her Majesty's Government will pay immediate attention and produce some immediate assurances, because the luxury expenditure of these institutions on new parliaments, on some of their so-called information campaigns, and some of their internal grants to the individual party organisations comprised within the European Parliament has to be seen to be believed. Provided that I get the normal customary, and perhaps on this occasion even short response from the Government, it would be my intention after the Government's reply, subject to any other Member wishing to speak, to withdraw the amendment in due course. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: In due course I hope to respond to that specific point raised by the noble Lord. I thank him for his usual courtesy in giving me some degree of notice, and I hope that to some extent I understood him when we discussed this earlier. I hope therefore that my response will be sufficient. Obviously, if it is not, it might be most useful to suggest that we come back to it on another occasion when we can consider the matter, having carefully read what the noble Lord had to say this afternoon, and when the noble Lord has had a look at what I am about to say. Then we could take the whole matter further.
As regards the amendment, I am grateful that the noble Lord has given an assurance that what I believe to be the last substantive amendment will not be pressed to a Division. In due course we can therefore move on after what I believe has been three or four hours of relatively useful debate, and return this Bill to another place.
Turning to the noble Lord's specific point as to whether the Court of Auditors is in breach of the treaty as it does not audit internal administrative spending, under Article 188C of the treaty, the Court of Auditors is required to examine the accounts of all revenue and expenditure of the Community. The Court does audit all Community expenditure and revenue, and that includes both the management of Community resources in member states where the work is carried out in liaison with national audit bodies such as the National Audit Office in the United Kingdom, and expenditure related to the Community institutions—the Commission, the Council, the European Parliament and the Court of Justice. The Court of Auditors itself is subject to external audit.
The Court of Auditors' report on the 1993 EC budget includes references to expenditure administered by the Commission. Chapter 16 deals with travel expenses paid by the institutions. Chapter 19 deals with the Commission's management of data protection resources. The Court of Auditors' report on the 1992 budget includes references to expenditure administered by the Commission. Chapter 15 deals with the European Parliament's budgetary and general accounts with particular reference to the use of consultancy services and an inventory of movable property. Chapter 16 dealt with the Council's administrative expenditure, with particular reference to inventory records and the checking and authorisation of commitments. Chapter 17

151
dealt with the Commission's move from the Berlaymont building. Therefore, I do not consider the Court of Auditors to be in breach of its obligations to audit all Community expenditure and revenue.
Nevertheless, having said that, I shall look very carefully at what the noble Lord had to say and take further advice on these matters, I hope that he will also look carefully at what I have said this afternoon, and I suggest that we take the matter up on another occasion.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his assurance. I can assure him that the matters that he has discussed in relation to the Court of Auditors' report for 1992 and 1991 are not unknown to me, but they cover specific operations of the various bodies concerned. I do not think that he made any reference to the internal accounts of either the European Parliament or the Council. Nevertheless, I agree that we ought to discuss the matter more fully on a later occasion. I thank Members of the Committee for their participation in this debate. I believe that the Committee stage of the Bill was abundantly justified on information grounds only. Such detail could not have been dealt with solely on a Second Reading. Expressing my thanks to all concerned, exactly on the dot that I promised, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 15th December): Report received.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
This may be the appropriate moment for me to say a few words. We have had two interesting days of useful debate on the Bill. The points that have been raised are very relevant. Certainly her Majesty's Government will bear them in mind for the future.
Much has been said about fraud and financial mismanagement and irregularity in the Community. Yet again, I give the assurance that Her Majesty's Government will continue to take these matters very seriously and will continue to play a leading role in seeking improvements. In addition, the work of your Lordships' Select Committee in this respect has been extremely valuable. I have no doubt that it will continue to play an active role in investigating this important issue.
I understand that on Bills of this type feelings can occasionally run very high and people hold very strong opinions on the matters which are before us. I should like to offer my thanks to the House on this occasion for the generally good-natured manner in which we have conducted our debates and the very positive approach which all Members of the House who have taken part in the Committee stage have taken in regard to assisting Her Majesty's Government in passing this important piece of legislation to meet the commitments we made at Edinburgh—a successful deal negotiated by my right honourable friend. I should like to thank all Members of
152
the House for assisting us in getting this vital piece of legislation through. Furthermore, I should like to thank the House for the manner in which the debate has been conducted. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, that the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Henley.)
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am sorry—I am being told by the Leader of my party to "come on". Indeed, I shall, and very quickly. I had meant to say these few words at Third Reading but I was beaten to the punch by the Chairman of Committees.
This has been a worthwhile debate. We have heard excellent speeches and an excellent maiden speech. I should like to thank the Government and the usual channels for making it possible for us to have this debate. I should also like to thank all those who have taken part for their courtesy and the way that they dealt with the debate. In particular, I should like to thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for their courtesy and for the genuine attempt that they made to answer the points which were raised.
I believe that this has been a worthwhile couple of days, and I hope that most of the Members of the House who have taken part, if not all, agree that that was so.
On Question, Bill passed.

Fire Safety
7.35 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troonrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the consequences of putting into effect the report of the Fire Safety Legislation and Enforcement review will place greater cost burdens on business and upon local and national taxpayers; why a cost-benefit analysis of the proposals was not provided in the report; and whether they can guarantee that there will be no reduction in the existing inspection role of the fire authorities after the report's recommendations are in place.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I begin my remarks on a solemn note. I wish to pay a brief but no less heartfelt tribute to my old friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead who died just before Christmas and who, as noble Lords will remember, sat beside me in this corner of the Chamber for the past 15 years since we moved across from the other side of the House, however unwillingly. David was a marvellous man. He was a loyal party man, but he was never a party hack. He always knew his own mind and he always behaved accordingly. When his party was correct, Lord Pitt supported it. When his party was mistaken, which was infrequently, Lord Pitt opposed it. I am happy to say that he and I went through the Opposition Lobby together hand in hand despite the blandishments of the Chief Whip on many occasions. I am very sad that I shall no longer be able to do that.

153
Turning to the Question in my name on the Order Paper, noble Lords will notice that it is in three parts. It deals with cost burdens, with cost-benefit analysis—although that is somewhat in parentheses—and with the inspection role of the fire authorities. First, I should like to talk about cost. In its response to the interdepartmental review, the Fire Brigades Union, which has asked me to raise these matters (and I happily do so), identified cost implications in the following areas. It says that the:
"Department of Environment will have to provide substantial ongoing financial support and secretariat provisions for the proposed National Advisory Panel.
"The Department of Employment and HSC will have to provide substantial financial support for the legal implications of carrying through the proposals to make the Fire Precautions Act 1971 a relevant statutory provision of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 plus the long-term and ongoing costs of becoming the policy maker for all fire safety legislation.
"Business will pick up substantial costs of the move from the existing fire certification procedures to one of producing their own and self compliance with regulations".
The union considers that those recommendations in those areas are nothing less than a consultants' charter. As a consultant myself, I may waver in my support of the union, but I know what it means. It means that the authorities will have to pay someone to do the work previously done by the fire brigade and its associates.
The union also states:
"Local and the new unitary authorities will pick up significant costs from the proposals relating to building control procedures supplanting the role of the fire authority, costs will escalate and must either be borne or passed on to clients in increased building regulation fees".
It ends by stating:
"Central government must be prepared to inject substantial amounts of public money into two Government Departments".
That is the union's considered view of the interdepartmental scrutiny review.
The report of the review claims that its proposals for building control authorities should not increase overall costs because the increases in costs will be balanced by savings elsewhere. It may well be right. On the other hand, as the union states:
"Recommendation 21 proposes that building control authorities should have statutory responsibility for the entire building control process up to the occupation of the building, including the additional physical fire precautions currently catered for through fire certification under the Fire Precautions Act".
It points out that at the moment such certification is free.
The union refers to recommendations 24 and 25 of the report which state that building control authorities should issue occupational certificates in respect of all buildings at the end of the building control process in so far as their use is known. The union continues:
"These proposed measures, and the extension of the role of the Building Control Authority into the role of the Fire Authority will have to be paid for. Building Control Departments have to be self-financing and when their role or … the building control approval process is extended as the Report recommends then the customer"—
that is business—
"must pay. It cannot be financed in any other way".
154
It is now proposed that the present system of certification by fire authority should be replaced by the customer taking responsibility. To all intents and purposes, that is self certification. At present there is no charge for certification apart from a modest administration fee. However, at paragraph 148 the review now proposes that the owner or occupier of premises should carry out his own fire risk assessment and from that assessment he should then determine what measures are necessary to safeguard the persons in the premises and to address the risks of fire to them. In the union's view—I believe that it is correct —that must impose costs on business. An example is given. At present, for a business using the present fire certification system of a large fire brigade in the West Midlands area, and a sliding scale of charges based on the number of employees on the premises, or beds in a hotel as the case may be, the cost ranges between £87 and £223 for the production and issue of a fire certificate. Replacement certificates cost about half as much.
The union now estimates that for an owner or occupier to produce the fire certificate plans necessary to meet the review team's proposals would cost a minimum of £500. That is based on professional charges for architects, architectural technicians and other consultant advisers before the costs of the consultants surveying the premises, monitoring the works, liaising with the fire authority and other enforcers are taken into account. It estimates that the scale of charges would escalate to a minimum lower range figure of at least £2,000; and if the company decided to employ its own person to do that work, the average salary range might be in the nature of £18,000 a year, or possibly more.

It has been proposed to add a national advisory panel to the existing system. That is a new tier to be added to the existing arrangements. At present the fire safety standards for new buildings are drawn up by the British Standards Institution (BSI). It is a well known and respected body in the construction and engineering world. The BSI is partly supported by the taxpayers and partly by the sale of its various publications. If the recommendations of the review team are implemented, the additional new advisory panel will mean that taxpayers will be asked to subsidise another committee. In addition to paying for the BSI, which taxpayers already do in part, they will be asked to pay for the national advisory committee too. That would involve additional cost.
The review proposes transferring the role of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The cost implications are admitted by the review body. The review team states:
"We recognise that our recommendations will inevitably generate a considerable new workload for both the Home Office and the Health and Safety Executive which will not be reflected in their current PES allocations. We consider, however, that this is an example of a need to spend in the short term to save in the long term. HSE believe that an outcome of our recommendations could be that they would need significant extra resources".
The review body indicates a number of areas in which those resources would be required. At all events, the review team admits that there are cost implications in its proposals if they are put into operation.

155
The second part of my Question relates to the cost benefit analysis. There is little to say on that except that the review body merely admits that it did not conduct a cost benefit analysis. The reason was presumably that it did not have time to do so. I believe that such a cost benefit analysis ought to be done before any of the recommendations are implemented.
The last part of my Question relates to whether it can be guaranteed that the existing inspection role of the fire authorities will not be reduced if the recommendations of the review are adopted. The problem is that by subsuming the Fire Precautions Act into the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act there will be no direct policy-making line for the fire authorities as exists at present. That is because the new regulations under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 come under the Department of Employment and not the Home Office, which has the responsibility for the fire service. I do not wish to go into the detailed implications, but the Fire Brigades Union fears that the fire service role in fire safety would under those arrangements become no more than one of policing the work of other people. It would no longer be an integral part of fire safety.
I have little to add save that the Fire Brigades Union has asked me to make a statement on its behalf. There are several paragraphs and I shall not burden the House with the detail. At the end it states:
"if the members of the fire service are good enough to fight fires in buildings and to rescue persons from buildings on fire and from time to time risk their lives in so doing, then they are equally good enough to have a voice in how those buildings are designed, constructed and legislated for".
I believe that the review suffered from a defect which is not uncommon among the various efficiency scrutiny reviews which the Government have undertaken. They have all been hurried and have produced their reports within a relatively short time. It is fair to say that none of the scrutiny efficiency reviews has gone into its subject in sufficient detail and this one is no exception.
7.52 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I confess to being an amateur in this subject and the consensus that I have identified from those whom I have consulted on the paper is that it is extremely complex. From my position of little knowledge I can see the confusion that the review team has sought to address, including who is responsible for what—in other words, who carries the can. I mention it because in the context of questions of cost addressed by my noble friend Lord Howie, costs must be balanced against accountability.
The current legislation has been described to me as being "mosaic-like". One of the parts of the mosaic is that the different geographical areas have different regulations. I am told that London has the best regulations. That comment was made by an architect and he may have a biased view.
It certainly cannot be to the public benefit that there are problems of accountability. In the recommendations in support of the current controls and the mention of simpler and less costly systems, one might be worried about the consequences of allowing people or organisations that are less publicly accountable to
156
exercise regulatory control over premises. I appreciate that single-family dwellings may not come within that. If there is to be a new group of inspectors—perhaps the same people but under a new denomination—there must be appropriate criteria for their qualifications, experience and expertise.
I have been interested in the interface between the regulations and insurance which the review has thrown up. I am attracted by the notion that one might perhaps distinguish between hazard to life and potential damage to fabric and possibly look at new regulations and new assessments distinguishing between those two areas of hazard. After all, in the area of motor insurance there is mandatory cover for one area of potential damage but not for others. Perhaps that analogy can be extended to the building industry.
For the construction industry and for building owners—I appreciate that there are problems between those two groups —it might be a matter of insurance to deal with the fabric of the building. That would mean that insurance companies would begin to write the rules as to how fabric risks should be assessed. I do not necessarily advocate that as the way forward, but it throws up some interesting considerations. There should certainly be mandatory cover for potential personal injury, and in raising the question of insurance I do not suggest that inspection becomes unimportant. It is extremely important because it is no good discovering after the event that there has been a lapse. However, again applying the analogy of motor cars, cars are lethal weapons in the same way as dangerous buildings may be lethal weapons.
It must also be right that the construction industry has one or at least a limited number of points of contact in doing its work. It must be difficult enough in an industry where technologies are developing quite fast and there must be a natural wish—it is human nature—to shy away from responsibility. I have seen how tempting it is for professionals in different areas to suggest that a particular responsibility is that of someone else.
I can understand problems such as those that have been mentioned to me of Canary Wharf where new technology was applied. It had never been tried before in this country and therefore there had to be recourse to American standards for building many storeys of a building on top of a podium base which itself was particularly high. I mention that because I can understand the problems that professionals have in a changing world.
As regards the question of costs directly, the CBI has indicated that its member companies with the resources available have said that they will employ a surveyor specially trained to apply the law cost-effectively. However, that is not an option for small and medium-sized enterprises. They cannot simply go out and recruit new staff. The potential cost for them must be something of a worry. As the CBI comments, legislation should not become a consultant's charter which imposes extra costs on business under the banner of deregulation.
I turn now to specific points in the review document. First is the matter of high life-risk premises, as I believe they are termed; that is, premises where large numbers

157
of members of the public gather. I agree with the comments about the need to retain a very high level of regulation for such premises. It is debatable how far simpler and less costly systems ought to apply, and there should be a cautious approach to modifying enforcement procedures for fire precautions in sports grounds, cinemas and other areas of public assembly. The comment which I have heard—and I repeat it because I believe that it is telling—is that those who have been involved in dealing with sports stadia in the aftermath of the Bradford fire will take some convincing that simpler and less costly control systems are worth investigating for such premises. Perhaps the main area on which the review should focus is low to normal risk buildings. If there is more concentration on the areas of public assembly, that in itself might damage the credibility of the work of the team.
Secondly, there is the matter of licensing in London, where conditions on fire safety and means of escape are included in licences and compliance with fire conditions is checked by local authority officers at the same time as compliance with other conditions. In other words, the local authority is the one-stop shop for licensing purposes. Under the review team's proposals the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority (LFCDA) would become responsible for fire safety and its officers would have to carry out checks in addition to checks by borough officers. So applicants would be faced with two enforcement agencies rather than the efficiency of the one inspection as at present. It has been estimated that the cost to the boroughs, which would have to be passed on to businesses, would be in the region of £2 million a year.
Thirdly, I turn to the matter of houses in multiple occupation, which are currently subject to the Housing Act 1985. In London the LFCDA is the fire authority; housing authorities consult with it on a regular basis but it carries out all the enforcement.
Allowing fire safety checks to be done by local authority officers, again as part of a package of overall checks, is a cost-effective approach—again a one-stop shop, in this case for the landlord. London boroughs are concerned about possible duplication, with the housing authority having to carry out its inspections in relation to its wider housing responsibilities and the fire authority having to carry out separate safety checks, again with the likelihood of greater costs both on the landlords and on local authorities.
I would be interested to hear from the Minister, if she is able to tell us tonight, about the response to the consultation document. I said a few minutes ago that the consensus seemed to be that this is a complex subject. No doubt consultees, with their particular experience, will have been able to be clearer than I confess I have been able to be on the subject matter. I cannot resist sharing with the House the bafflement that I experienced in response to an item early on (this is to show that I read as far as page xvi) which stated:
"We recommend … that fire authorities should be given a statutory responsibility to promote public fire to the public"!
158
I can only think that that must be a typing error. I delved into the report and I think the intention must have been to refer to "fire safety". The serious point is that if such an error can creep in, what does that indicate about the confusion of all of those who are involved in the process?
8.2 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, this report of the interdepartmental review team on fire safety legislation and enforcement came about because of the need to comply with a European directive. At the same time as the compliance cost for this directive was being calculated, the DTI's deregulation task forces were at work and this triggered a further review of fire regulation legislation and enforcement. That is the review that we are discussing.
Therefore there are two justifications for this review: cost and deregulation. My noble friend Lord Howie put the unions' view. I would like to put the commonsense view. Needless to say, our views coincide. First, let us look at cost.
No cost-benefit analysis has been done on this review—apparently because the committee was asked to report within 90 days and did not have sufficient time to prepare one. However, the report states:
"The costs involved should be marginal and recoverable from the fees charged".
The report goes on to say that the increase in fees at the building control stage should be balanced by the simpler and cheaper certification procedure when the building is ready for occupation. However, at present safety inspection certification is virtually free and is done by fire officers who double as fire-fighters. That seems sensible to me. The fire-fighters have every incentive to make sure that the safety regulations are enforced, because it is they who risk their lives if the regulations are not properly carried out.
The review team, however, proposes (in paragraph 146, which my noble friend Lord Howie quoted) that owners or occupiers of premises should carry out their own fire risk assessment and determine the measures necessary to address the risk of fire. However, as there is no stated recommendation to reduce the number of fire-fighters as a result of reducing their inspection duties, perhaps the Minister can tell us where the savings will come from.
Therefore, the whole question of cost savings from these recommendations is very unclear. It appears to me that, if there are any, they will be achieved by charging owners and occupiers of buildings for the services which at present they receive virtually free. But owners and occupiers of buildings do not consider them to be free. They consider them to be services which they receive in return for their business rates. This is hardly an encouragement to the business community. Perhaps the real intention is to keep fees down by creating some sort of internal market wherein the fire service competes with self-certification or outside consultants.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised the question of insurance. That must be a further concern for business owners and occupiers. Will insurance companies charge the same premium on a building that

159
is certified after inspection by the fire service as on one that is certified after self-compliance by the owner? I very much doubt it. Indeed, the review team seems to have ignored this matter entirely. Yet if the insurance companies insist on inspection by the fire service instead of self-compliance, the whole review will have been pointless.
I now turn to the matter of deregulation. Deregulation is to be achieved by self-compliance, as with other health and safety regulations. Is the Minister sure that the enforcement of the normal health and safety regulations can be compared with the enforcement of the fire regulations? Usually a failure in enforcement in health and safety only affects the people in the factory or office concerned, whereas a failure in fire regulations can affect the whole community. Premises with poorly enforced fire regulations can burn down adjoining premises which have excellently enforced fire regulations. Failure to comply can do a lot of damage to others. Perhaps these regulations are more comparable to the MoT test rather than the normal health and safety regulations: a car in poor mechanical condition can be a danger to the public. With motor cars there is no self-compliance. The owner has to take the car to a garage, where it is properly inspected and tested. I am not therefore convinced that fire is a suitable matter for deregulation by self-compliance.
In the final part of his Question, my noble friend Lord Howie asks whether the Government,
"can guarantee that there will be no reduction in the existing inspection role of the Fire Authorities after the report's recommendations are in place".
I await the answer with interest. There must be an impact on the fire service. Large firms will comply because they will have the resources to carry out the work and pay the fire service for the consultation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out, that will not necessarily be the case with small and medium-sized enterprises. Many will comply, but others may use consultants or do nothing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about a "consultant's charter". There are two kinds of consultant. I am concerned about the increasing pandering to vested interests of the wrong kind. In no way do I criticise consultants such as my noble friend Lord Howie, who has the special knowledge and skills that companies need from time to time. Rather I am concerned about consultants who advise companies how to operate the system to their best advantage and get round rules and regulations. Self-appraisal and self-regulation are spawning a great deal of this kind of consultancy. I think I detect a growing suspicion of it. Why create new opportunities for this type of consultancy when the job is being well done by the fire service? Is there a lack of trust and confidence in the fire service? There may be anecdotal evidence provided by bodies with a vested interest in deposing the fire service, but the review team was unable to find any general dissatisfaction. On the contrary, most people have trust and confidence in the fire service, where men and women put their lives at risk.
160
This is not a case of nostalgia and sentimentality. It is a matter of the public being realistic. I, and I am certain most other people, would prefer to walk into a building and be reassured by seeing a fire certificate issued by the local fire brigade, which is known to be professional and long-standing, rather than a certificate issued by a consultancy of which perhaps no one has ever heard and which may no longer be in existence or may disappear as soon as there is trouble—perhaps advised by an insolvency consultant.
There is one final matter that I urge the Minister to consider. It is a cost which accountants cannot measure but about which managers feel very strongly; namely, the cost of demoralisation. That demoralisation will occur in the fire service if the recommendations of the interdepartmental review team are implemented, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Howie, told the House, the role of the fire service will be reduced to one of merely policing the fire safety laws and regulations. It is their contact with the public in enforcing the fire regulations and fighting fires that maintains their pride and high standards of service. Unless there are strong complaints about the fire service which this report does not reveal, it would be most unwise to risk demoralising the service for the sake of questionable deregulation and unknown financial savings. I hope that the Minister will take that into consideration. Certainly the public will feel its effect as they have done in the health, police and education services.
The question that I strongly recommend the Minister to ask the review team is: "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" These recommendations will only add to the extra costs of businesses by charging them for a service for which they think they are already paying. It will probably put up their insurance premiums. The enforcement of the fire regulations is too important to be left to the "market" of self-regulation.
8.12 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, for giving us the opportunity this evening to debate the important subject of fire safety.
But perhaps I could say at the outset that I should like to associate myself—and, if it were a more exciting time, those colleagues who would be behind me—with the comments that the noble Lord made about our beloved and much missed Lord Pitt of Hampstead. I cannot think of anybody more loved and more respected in this House. We shall miss him greatly.
As all noble Lords know, fire is a special risk. It is unlike any other in its scope and potential to cause damage and take lives. It can strike at home, in the workplace, or in places of entertainment or leisure. It is no respecter of place, circumstance, rank or title. A careless action by one individual—for example, propping open a fire door—can so easily endanger the lives of many others, even those quite remote from the source of the fire.
The promotion of fire safety, effective fire prevention measures and the enforcement of fire safety requirements, should therefore be matters of the highest

161
importance to us all. Rightly, they are matters to which the fire service is devoting increasing attention. Up and down the land, firefighters of great courage are saving many lives each year, not just by tackling fires at whatever hour of the day or night that they occur but also by providing invaluable fire safety advice to businesses and the public on the best ways to prevent fire and how to make buildings as safe as possible for those who use them. That advice is based on first-hand experience in fighting fires and observing human behaviour in those conditions, together with specialised fire safety training. No other group of professionals can bring that unique blend of expertise to bear on fire safety issues.
Since 1971, when the Fire Precautions Act was brought into effect, we have seen a steady decline in the number of fire deaths, particularly in premises covered by the Act. It is widely agreed that it has been a success story. But the Government have been concerned for some time that the 1971 Act may not provide the most suitable legislative framework for a fire safety regime for the 1990s and beyond. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, reminded us of the changing nature of firefighting and the advent of technology, with all that it represents to the building and construction industry as well as to firefighting. That is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary commissioned a review of the Act in 1993. The report was published last February. It recommended new fire safety legislation with a risk-based self-compliant approach. That report, together with the work of the Construction Industry Deregulation Task Force, paved the way for the interdepartmental review of fire safety legislation and enforcement to which the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, referred.
The recommendations of the interdepartmental fire safety scrutiny drew heavily on those of the earlier Home Office review of the Fire Precautions Act 1971. When its report was published in June last year, the Government gave it a general welcome and invited comments from those interested in and affected by its recommendations. The consultation period ended on 31st October. Over 450 separate responses were received. Given the importance of fire safety, the Government want to consider them very carefully and take into account the views of all those who have taken the time and trouble to respond.
In considering how to structure any new fire safety regime, the Government are committed to maintaining fire safety standards at the same time as minimising the overall burdens on those involved. In its report, the scrutiny team argued that those twin objectives could be secured by following its recommendations. I believe that it can take some encouragement from the fact that most respondents have given the report a broad welcome. There is strong and widespread agreement that the present arrangements can be improved and should be changed.
In addition to providing their written responses, there have been opportunities for interested parties to discuss the findings and recommendations of the scrutiny. I myself chaired a meeting of the Central Fire Brigades
162
Advisory Council at which representatives from different parts of the fire service community told me of their reactions to the recommendations. I know that throughout the country seminars have been hosted by various professional bodies to provide a forum for discussion.
The Government welcome the widespread debate and believe that it will contribute towards finding a fire safety regime which will maintain the high standards of fire safety to which the public are entitled, while at the same time reducing the burden on business and enforcing authorities.
The Government plan to announce their preliminary views on a possible way forward within the next few months. We shall then want to discuss those preliminary conclusions with interested parties, particularly since we recognise that it will not be possible to assess any new scheme properly until some flesh is put on the bones of the framework provided by the scrutiny and the details are worked out.
The Government will be looking to members of the fire community, building control officers and other interested parties to participate fully in that process, to ensure that the dual objectives of maintaining standards and minimising burdens are achieved.
When the Government consider whether to implement the scrutiny recommendations, and if so in what way, we shall place particular emphasis on looking at both the costs and benefits of the propositions before us. That aspect of our consideration of the most appropriate way forward will be particularly important, because no cost-benefit analysis of its proposals was put forward in the report of the interdepartmental scrutiny. That, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said, was because there had been insufficient time. The scrutiny had to be completed within the normal 90 working days allowed for it.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, specifically asked whether the Government could guarantee that the inspection and role of the fire authorities would not be reduced in any fire safety scheme. As I made clear, the Government have not yet taken any decisions on the recommendations. For that reason I am not in a position to offer a guarantee as such. However, it is quite clear from the scrutiny report —and indeed from the reports of other scrutineers which have touched on the enforcement role of fire authorities—that there is no evidence of any widespread dissatisfaction with the job that the fire service is now doing in this area. Quite the contrary, the fire service is one of the most respected and well loved services in the country. Many respondents have gone out of their way to plead that its enforcement role should be left untouched. That was also broadly the conclusion of the interdepartmental scrutiny.
When we consider the possible future role of the fire service, we must never lose sight of its very special fire safety expertise. The three strands of the fire brigades' work—fire fighting, fire investigation and fire safety—are closely linked, each one feeding into and informing responses to others. The Government would need to be

163
convinced that the benefits outweighed the advantages before doing anything which might disturb that complex interplay of functions.
A number of points were raised. I shall not be able to cover them all, but I shall do my best to cover the main ones. First, an accusation, given voice by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, but from the FBU, said that the guidance was something of a consultant's charter. I do not agree. I believe the fears that it is something of a charter for consultants is unfounded. Owners and occupiers of most premises will be able to do the required risk assessment and decide on the appropriate fire safety arrangements without any need for professional advice. The guidance that we produced in connection with places of work regulations was warmly welcomed as user friendly and easy to understand.
During our compliance cost exercise we asked over 80 small firms for their views on whether they would be able to undertake the requirements without resorting to consultants. The majority of them were confident that they could do that. Naturally, there will be some complex buildings, usually owned by big businesses or organisations, which will require professional expertise. But in many instances companies already have well-trained fire safety officers who are able to undertake the work for them. The Government do not believe that the proposals are a consultant's El Dorado.
Reference was made to small businesses. We shall in particular look closely at the effects of any proposed changes on small businesses. For example, we shall be concerned that if a new system were to be based on self-compliance, small businesses should not be forced to seek the advice of consultants to ensure that they are meeting their legal obligations. We shall be concerned also if new arrangements were to make it more difficult for occupiers to obtain advice from fire brigades. I know that many businesses value highly that source of information.
Quite a lot of reference was made to the transfer of enforcement responsibilities to building control. Apart from the issue of fire risk, which is the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive, a transfer of that kind would mean that there would be one enforcing authority for fire precaution matters from the construction of a building and throughout its occupation. However, a number of significant obstacles would need to be overcome. There would be considerable cost implications. For example, there would be a need for a wide-ranging programme of training for building control officers in general fire precaution matters were building control authorities to take over the enforcement role from fire authorities. By way of comparison, at present a fully trained fire prevention officer will have received 20 weeks of specialised fire training in addition to any basic training in fire safety that he received in his brigade.
There would be considerable resource implications for building control authorities in inspecting general fire precautions in occupied buildings. Each year fire authorities in England and Wales carry out over 800,000 inspections of premises. Many fire authority personnel who carry out those inspections, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, pointed out, also have operational fire-fighting
164
responsibilities. One could not simply transfer to building control authorities from fire authorities the necessary resources were building control authorities to take over the inspection function. The alternative would be to accept lower levels of inspection. It is inevitable that that would lead to a lowering of existing levels of fire safety which we, as a government, would find unacceptable. There would be other disadvantages in removing responsibility for enforcement from fire authorities. There is important cross-fertilisation between fire authorities' operational work, fire investigation work and fire safety and enforcement responsibilities. Each strand feeds into and informs the others. We would therefore need to give serious consideration to that aspect of the report.
As with the burdens on other agencies, we seek to minimise the burdens placed on local authorities, for example. That is one consideration we shall wish to take into account in considering any proposals for changes in fire safety regulations. We shall wish to examine carefully the likely cost of any proposed new fire safety regime before deciding what, if any, changes should be made. Against the background of the Government's commitment to reduce burdens, it would clearly be a nonsense to introduce changes which would have the effect of increasing them. We shall look carefully at the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Howie and Lord Haskel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, regarding what they said on costs that may be incurred by central government, local authorities and businesses. As I said, we have no wish to create a consultant's charter.
The extra bureaucracy created by adding the fire advisory panel was mentioned. We have no wish to create extra layers of bureaucracy or unnecessary new advisory committees. But there is a clear need for one consistent set of fire safety standards. That must be our goal and we shall consider carefully how that can best be achieved and whether it needs the creation of a new advisory body.
Another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, concerned fire safety policy moving to the Health and Safety Executive. The scrutiny team did not recommend that fire safety policy should rest with the Health and Safety Commission. However, I understand why some noble Lords may think that that may happen if fire safety legislation was in future subsumed under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and I can assure the House that the Government have not taken any decisions at all in that regard. Even if we decide to take forward the recommendations of the scrutiny report about subsuming fire safety legislation into the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, that does not mean that the policy responsibilities would move from my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
As I made clear earlier, fire safety is one of the three key tasks of the fire brigade, linking closely with fire fighting and fire investigation. But the Home Office is responsible for all the fire brigades' activities and it would therefore be difficult to contemplate fire safety policy being filleted out of the Home Office's responsibility. That is all the more important if the fire service is to have a coherent policy for tackling fire

165
which emphasises prevention as well as fire fighting. I am assured that the fire service will always be fully consulted whatever government department holds responsibility for fire safety policy. But the point is well noted.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised an important point in relation to houses in multiple occupation. I remind the House that, in addition to the scrutiny recommendations in regard to houses in multiple occupation, the Government issued a consultation paper concerning the feasibility of introducing a licensing scheme for houses in such occupation and that document is out for consultation until the middle of February.
Houses in multiple occupation present a particular problem, not least with the question of definition. In the Housing Act the current definition is:
"A house which is occupied by persons who do not form a single household".
That is a wide definition, as the scrutiny recognised. Though the wide definition of a house in multiple occupation makes it difficult to be precise in regard to the number of fires and fire deaths in such premises, it is generally accepted that they represent a greater risk than ordinary single, private domestic dwellings. However, houses in multiple occupation provide much needed accommodation for those who might otherwise have nowhere to live. Such premises are often at the lower end of the housing market. Over the years there have been a number of fires with tragic consequences in houses in multiple occupation. Your Lordships may remember the fire in Scarborough last year which resulted in two fatalities.
Fire safety in houses in multiple occupation is covered by provisions in housing legislation. As we know, it is enforced by local authorities, which are required not only to consider the fire safety of such premises but also other matters, including health and safety generally, as well as questions of hygiene. The scrutiny, in recommending that fire safety in houses in multiple occupation should be included in any new general fire legislation enforced by fire authorities acknowledged at the same time the need to ensure that local authorities would remain a party to any enforcement action which fire authorities might take, given the possible implications for the occupants. We shall wish to consider whether the advantages of local authorities retaining a holistic approach to houses in multiple occupation would be outweighed by those which would accrue from consolidating in general fire safety legislation fire safety in houses in multiple occupation.
The effectiveness of self-compliance was a point touched on in some detail by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. I am not sure that I share the view that self-compliance is non-compliance. The vast majority of the British public are well accustomed to the concept of
166
self-compliance in every walk of life. They are well aware of the dangers of fire and the speed with which people can be trapped and lose their lives when fires break out. There is no reason to think that owners and occupiers of premises will neglect the fundamental fire safety requirements and there is every reason to think that, by encouraging people to take personal responsibility for fire safety, rather than wait for the fire brigade to come, often when it is too late, and tell them exactly what to do or what they should have done, we can achieve and maintain high safety standards. After all, we already have a measure of self-compliance in Section 9A of the Fire Precautions Act 1971, and very few lives have been lost in those premises.
We must also remember that self-compliance will only work if it is coupled with a sensible enforcement regime, which I am confident the fire authorities would provide. One of the reasons for proceeding with the proposed places of work regulations would be to assess just how well a self-compliance regime would work out in practice.
The points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Howie and Lord Haskel, about the prospect of additional costs being borne by businesses are clearly a matter at which the Government will need to look closely. We will certainly ensure that this debate informs that thinking and we will be considering the point carefully when we review businesses' response to the report and its recommendations.
This has been an important and interesting debate, although I am conscious that we have this evening been able to touch on only a few of the issues underlying this important subject of fire safety. The Government are aware of the importance of the decisions which we shall shortly be making as we consider how we might best adapt the legislative framework and enforcement arrangements which have already done much to reduce the loss of life and property in fires. But we think that it is a task that should now be faced. Many things have changed since 1971 and the law should take account of that.
We believe that it should be possible to introduce new arrangements which safeguard and, if possible, strengthen, existing standards while reducing the burdens on business and enforcers. I have taken careful note of the points which your Lordships have made this evening and I will ensure that those are properly taken into account when the Government decide on their response to the scrutiny report. After all, I am the Minister who has this matter on her portfolio and I will be vigilant and rigorous in my scrutiny of it.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may thank her for that full and careful reply to my Question. It will require further study. I especially thank her for her very warm and moving reference to my late noble friend.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before nine o'clock.