§ 3.11p.m.
Viscount CranborneMy Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I apologise to the Leader of the Opposition for any confusion that may have arisen.
The House will be aware that since the Committee of the Whole House concluded its consideration of the Jobseekers Bill, the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee has published a further report commenting on the provisions of the Bill. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to comment on the work of the devolved powers scrutiny committee because it is relevant to the question before us this afternoon.
The work of the committee is rightly considered in your Lordships' House as being of increasing importance. It was for that reason, as well as many others, that I was particularly pleased that my noble friend Lord Alexander was asked by the House to take over the chairmanship of the committee in view of the regrettable illness of my noble friend Lord Rippon.
It is important that the devolved powers scrutiny committee should be authoritatively chaired in your Lordships' House in view of the increasing importance that secondary legislation is playing in our legislative programme. It is equally important that the Government, having made the commitment they did to the devolved powers scrutiny committee, should listen with the greatest care to the recommendations contained in the reports of the committee and, indeed, that they should seek to respond quickly and positively to the views expressed in them. It is in that spirit that I move the second Motion standing in my name this afternoon.
1378 As your Lordships will see, the Motion seeks to give the House an opportunity to consider Clause 6 of the Bill further in Committee so that the matters to which the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee has drawn attention may be debated at further length. While I believe I am right in saying that noble Lords opposite would wish to recommit more clauses than merely Clause 6, I hope that your Lordships will feel that what is proposed will give the House an opportunity to take into account the comments in paragraph 5 of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee report which particularly seeks for definition of the terms "available for employment" and "actively seeking employment" to be introduced onto the face of the Bill. The Government will do their best during the course of the recommitment on Clause 6 to satisfy the strictures contained in the reports.
I should like to make one further comment. I understand through the usual channels that, following various representations made to me in the past 24 hours in my capacity as Leader of the House, further representations have been made regarding the time available for consideration of the remaining stages of the Bill. It is extremely important that the business of this House should proceed on the basis of good will and consensus. There is no other way in which your Lordships have ever proceeded with success and I feel that it is part of my duty to ensure that that spirit is maintained.
If that is the wish of the substantial part of your Lordships' House, I would be the last to try to stand in the way of its fulfilment. I shall be extremely happy to ask the usual channels to see whether additional time can be found beyond the additional time we have already found for further consideration of the Bill. I hope your Lordships will feel therefore that the Government have done their best, not only to meet the recommendations of the devolved powers scrutiny committee, but also to ensure that the business of your Lordships' House is addressed and managed in the most constructive way possible. I commend the Motion to your Lordships.
§ Moved, That the Jobseekers Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday 11th May in respect of Clause 6 and that Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Report of Clause 6 to be received on the same day.—(Viscount Cranborne)
§ Lord RichardMy Lords, I listened with great care to the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal. However, his Motion is unsatisfactory for two main reasons. One is that the scope of the recommital is not sufficient; the other is that the arrangements, which I appreciate the Leader of the House mentioned towards the end of his speech, in relation to the taking of the recommitted stage of the Bill are profoundly unsatisfactory.
I have a little to say on this matter and I hope that the House will bear with me because it raises issues of not inconsiderable importance, not only in relation to the Bill, which in itself is extremely important, but also, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said, in relation to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee.
The Motion is moved by the Government today in the light of the reports of that committee on the Jobseekers Bill. Those noble Lords who sat through the Committee 1379 stage—I did not sit through the debates but I read every word that was uttered—will feel that the committee has been heavily critical of a heavily criticised Bill. I am not concerned in this part of what I wish to say with the merits or otherwise of the Bill as such. It is a thoroughly nasty, mean, unpleasant measure which will cause considerable hardship to some of the most vulnerable sections of our society. But leaving that point aside, I am much more concerned, at this moment on this Motion, with the way in which the legislation has been framed and what should now be done about it.
The reports of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee raise some fundamental questions, two in particular. The first relates to the convention in this House that we cannot amend and do not vote against regulations, delegated legislation, coming to this House. When we have a Bill of this nature in which all the meat is to be introduced by delegated legislation, if we pass the Bill in its present form we are in effect disenfranchising this House from taking a decision upon the real issues which will be legislated upon. We can take a decision on the general skeleton and framework of the Bill, but if the Bill remains in its present form we cannot take a decision on the actual pieces of legislation which will implement it and affect people in this country. We cannot do that because it will be done by delegated legislation and we have the convention I mentioned.
Secondly—this is important too—a fundamental point arises as to what is to be done with the reports of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. The report is in front of your Lordships tangentially today only because the Leader of the House has introduced a Motion in which the Government say, "We have looked at the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. We think we should do a, b and c in order to respond to that report." With respect, that is not wholly satisfactory. Surely there ought to be a procedure whereby, if at all possible, the reports of the committee come out before the beginning of the Committee stage of a Bill, and when they do come out they are debated perhaps at the initial stages of the Committee stage itself.
I am grateful for what the Leader of the House had to say in relation to Clause 6. In the middle of an offensive Bill Clause 6 stands out as perhaps the most offensive part of all. I wish to read one subsection of Clause 6 because in a sense it encapsulates what is wrong with the Bill and why in our submission to the House more of it should be recommitted than is contained in the Motion which the Government have put down. Subsection (1) states:
For the purposes of this Act, 'available for employment' and 'actively seeking employment'"—those are two very important phrases in the Bill—have such meaning as may be prescribed".In other words, the Government will tell us what "available for employment" and "actively seeking employment" may at some stage mean and they will do it in the form of regulations. We have a clause the like of which I have never seen before. It goes on to state:Regulations may prescribe circumstances in which, for the purposes of this Act—I have never heard such rubbish in my life! Quite frankly, if that is the kind of legislation this House is being asked to pass, it is time we had a full-scale recommittal of large chunks of the Bill. That part of the Bill is breathtaking in its imprecision, and we have to do something about it.
- (a) a person who is not available for employment is to be treated as available for employment;
- (b) a person who is available for employment is to be treated as not available for employment;
1380 - (c) a person who is not actively seeking employment is to be treated as actively seeking employment; or
- (d) a person who is actively seeking employment is to be treated as not actively seeking employment".
Perhaps I may say one thing to the Government about their proposal to recommit Clause 6. In our view it will not be enough merely for the Government to come along and provide two definitions—in other words, to say that "available for employment" means X and "actively seeking employment" means Y—and then to pretend that that satisfies what the sub-committee of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee asked for, which was "a more detailed framework"—that was the phrase it used in relation to Clause 6. Merely to supply two definitions will not be sufficient to do it.
But there remain in the Bill Clause 4, Clauses 7 and 8 and Clause 16. I shall not weary the House by going through them in great detail but I shall say this. All of them at some stage received the attention of the Select Committee. All of them were criticised by the Select Committee in different terms. Perhaps some criticisms were made in the first report and some in the second report, but they all fit into the general criticism made by the sub-committee:
There is nevertheless a strong argument that the bill is no more than a skeleton bill, in spite of the Departments' arguments as to why the powers are needed to the extent provided for. The Committee must accordingly draw to the attention of the House the extent of the powers Parliament is being asked to delegate to Ministers".Clause 4 relates to the calculation of the amount of the jobseeker's allowance itself. I should have thought that it is pretty fundamental to a Bill on a jobseeker's allowance that the precise clause which deals with the way in which the jobseeker's allowance is to be computed is blank. All it says is that regulations will be made to deal with it in the future. That clause, too, should be recommitted. The first report of the Select Committee raised the issue as to whether such a fundamental point should remain undefined. In our view, it should not.Clauses 7 and 8, which deal with the jobseeker's agreement, give enormous power to the adjudication officer—power which in paragraph 38 of their own memorandum, the Government say:
Clause 7 … has no precedent in the legislation relating to unemployment benefit and income support".Those clauses should be recommitted also.Finally, Clause 16 allows regulations to prescribe circumstances in which an adjudication officer is, and is not, to take into account in determining the period for which the allowance is to be paid. The first report of the Select Committee said that,
there is no indication of what is intended in substantive terms".It is quite wrong that this Bill should leave the House when citizens do not know and cannot ascertain their rights in relation to the entering into of the agreement, the criteria to be employed by the adjudication officer, the circumstances in which he or she might lose the allowance, the amount that the allowance is to be, and the circumstances to be considered when deciding whether 1381 the applicant is available for employment and/or actively seeking it. There should be a comprehensive recommittal of the relevant portions of the relevant clauses in the light of the Select Committee's report.That brings me to two further points. I am sorry to take up the time of the House. No, I am not actually sorry because, quite frankly, this Motion raises some fundamental issues and it is right that the House should consider them. I apologise to the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, if I am holding up his debate but these are important issues and this is the time when they have to be raised.
I turn to the procedures for the regulations—the affirmative procedure or the negative procedure. As I read the Bill, it is a most extraordinary provision. The Act is due to come into force on 1st April 1996. If the regulations are introduced before the Act comes into force it has to be done the first time by the affirmative procedure. Thereafter, any regulation, whenever introduced, has to be by negative procedure. We are giving powers to the Government and we are allowing them after 1st April 1996 to do everything by the negative procedure. That cannot be right. That is not the proper way for the Government to legislate in relation to rights and issues as fundamental as those dealt with in the Bill.
Secondly, the Government have from time to time said in various memoranda and pieces of paper what their intentions are. They have said, "It is our intention that we should do X or we should do Y". Intentions are not good enough. The Select Committee pointed that out. The Select Committee said that instead of intentions, what we should have is a series of ministerial undertakings. I should have thought that the least the Leader of the House could do for us this afternoon is, first, to deal with the issue of the affirmative or negative procedure and, secondly, to say something about whether or not he accepts the obligation to upgrade the Government's statement of their intentions into ministerial undertakings.
I am not sure what the Leader of the House has now said in relation to time. If the only result of this afternoon is that Clause 6 is recommitted I would hope that what he means is that on Thursday 11th May the half-day which is down for the consideration of the Bill shall be confined to the recommitted Committee stage. The Leader of the House shakes his head. If he does not mean that, I am bound to say that I do not think he is giving us anything at all. If all that is happening is that we are to have a recommittal of one clause of the Bill and that that is to take place on the same day that the Government have already slated for consideration of the Report stage, so that on that day we shall have the consideration of one Bill first, then the recommitted Committee stage of this Bill, followed by the Report stage, I am bound to say that I think that that is behaving with an arrogance and insensitivity to the rights of the Opposition and the rights of this House which I find profoundly disappointing.
I shall listen with great care to what the Leader of the House has to say in response to the debate but I have to tell him now that we do not find the proposals the Government are making satisfactory.
§ Lord Jenkins of HillheadMy Lords, we are not here considering a technical issue of minor import. The 1382 substance of the matter is that the largely skeletal nature of the Bill—the word "skeleton" is not the word of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, or my word but the word of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee—could lead to oppressive conditions being laid upon underprivileged and heavily disadvantaged groups in our society.
Furthermore, this Bill, as proposed by the Government, could have paved the way to a constitutional shift by which not merely the powers of Parliament as a whole in relation to the legislation but the influence of your Lordships' House, as compared with that of the House of Commons, could have been reduced, as it were, by the back door. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House elliptically drew attention to a convention in answer to a Written Question in yesterday's Hansard. If that is a somewhat contentious convention, and it is accepted that your Lordships' House does not vote against statutory instruments, then to the extent that legislation is done by statutory instruments and not by Act of Parliament we are surrendering a considerable part of our influence over what happens.
That real danger in the Bill has to some extent been frustrated by the two relevant reports of the scrutiny committee. The House is deeply indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, and to the other members of the committee for the work they have done. The Government have shown some response to that.
§ Lord StrathclydeOh!
§ Lord Jenkins of HillheadMy Lords, they could hardly have done otherwise, with respect to the noble Lord the Chief Whip. We welcome the recommittal of Clause 6 although a wider recommittal would have been desirable. The recommittal of Clause 6 would be welcome in itself, although not regarded as satisfactory if at the expense of squeezing the Report stage of the Bill down from a day-and-a-half. No doubt it will be clarified, but from the timetable spoken about by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, it is not exactly clear what squeezing is to take place.
This Bill is now a recommittal issue. The report from the scrutiny committee is now an issue of major importance. The matter should be dealt with at the beginning of the day's business. It should not be brought on at six o'clock, seven o'clock or eight o'clock in the evening and the Report stage should not be squeezed.
There is another point on which I would like to have the intentions of the Leader of the House made clear. The Motion not only provides for the recommittal, but also for the stages of the Bill—namely, the recommittal and Report stage—to be taken on the same day. That does not mean, I trust, that the Report stage of Clause 6 takes place on the same day as the recommittal. If that were to happen, it would make a total mockery of a Report stage as distinct from a Committee stage. Whatever else may happen on that day as far as Report stage is concerned, there should be an interval of at least 24 hours between the recommittal and its outcome and the Report stage of that particular and now highly controversial and important clause.
1383 We have had no indication of the Government's response to paragraph 8 of the further report of the scrutiny committee which states,
The House may wish to consider with care whether regulations under this Clause should not always be subject to the affirmative procedure regardless of when they are made".Important issues arise here. I always listen with interest—on this occasion it was with amazement—to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, the deputy Leader of your Lordships' House. Last week he proclaimed, as it were, the Government's principle that legislation was of itself undesirable. He said that if it is not absolutely necessary to make law it is absolutely necessary not to do so. I wondered whether I was listening to a history of a Government who have produced how many criminal justice Bills; how many education Bills; and how many local government Bills? I wondered whether the noble Earl was living in a fantasy world of his own.
§ Lord Jenkins of HillheadMy Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, must occasionally get used to listening to things which do not entirely fit in with her compass of views of the world.
I pose these questions without the slightest politicking. What can be a worse possible government approach to their theory of little legislation than the practice of Ministers, before moving bewilderingly from department to department, feeling that they must put their imprint by an Act on their particular department? The worst of all worlds would be to have a great deal of legislation but with very little content, leaving it all to be filled out by statutory instruments. Such an approach would be the worst possible solution. It would leave us with skeletal legislation almost wholly dependent on statutory instruments to give it meaning and therefore, in the last resort, insulting.
§ Lord Campbell of AllowayMy Lords, I wish to say a very brief word in support of the Government. They have acted with total propriety. They have acted swiftly and given the scrutiny committee the credence which all noble Lords would wish the Government to give. As regards the recommittal of Clause 6, when one looks at the amendments which have been tabled already that would appear to be sufficient.
I shall come very quickly to my reason for saying that. I support the concept that a little more time be given. The reason is that when one looks at the scrutiny committee report, and at paragraphs 4 and 5 in particular, one sees that they are requiring, or suggesting firmly, that there should be more detailed framework in the drafting. I have tabled an amendment under Clause 1 to deal with that. The Bill Office has arranged to redraft it and put it into Clause 6 so that I can speak to it. There is no other amendment down dealing with the framework. Surely the framework is the crucial part of the report. That is a matter which your Lordships and the Government would wish to consider, but there is not yet a government draft of that particular format. Sufficient time should be given. There are no other amendments tabled that cannot be redrafted 1384 under Clause 6. Therefore, as appears from the list of amendments, the recommittal of Clause 6 only would appear to be sufficient. I support the Government.
§ Baroness Williams of CrosbyMy Lords, perhaps I may follow what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said and recognise that in the drafting of his new amendments he has gone some way to try to meet some, but not ail, of the criticisms of the committee on delegated legislation.
I wish to address only the constitutional implications of the extent to which we are dealing with matters of the greatest importance to many of our fellow citizens through the method of secondary legislation. I often have the privilege in this House, as I did in the other place, of hearing people refer to parliamentary sovereignty. The exercise of parliamentary sovereignty by the method of negative resolution as regards regulations is a deeply unsatisfactory part of the exercise of parliamentary sovereignty.
I am not going to raise partisan considerations. In this Bill matters of the greatest significance are to be dealt with by secondary legislation only. Perhaps I may mention just two in addition to those mentioned by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and my noble friend Lord Jenkins. At Committee stage we attempted again and again to get on the face of the Bill a reference to the limitation of the possibilities of discrimination against a jobseeker on grounds that seem to be wholly inappropri-ate.
I give only one example. It is a matter on which Members of the Committee were lobbied by both the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches. I refer to the fact that an unwillingness to work on the sabbath has not been accepted as grounds for refusing to take a particular job although that might lead to the jobseeker's allowance being unacceptable and benefit being with-drawn. Furthermore, there are no references to race, origin or disability on the face of the Bill.
The crucial question of the level of the jobseeker's allowance has not been put on the face of the Bill, despite the reference in paragraph 8 of the report of the scrutiny committee to which my noble friend referred. There is also the crucial question of whether a jobseeker can be forced to take a job on pay that is below the minimum income support level. That has not been put on the face of the Bill although those provisions come very close to compelling people to work against their own rational interests.
Finally, the disturbing distinction between people who are sufficiently disabled to find it hard to hold a job but who are not so disabled that they might draw a disability income allowance—the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, made repeated references to that—is not dealt with on the face of the Bill.
I believe that one of the most significant roles of this House is the protection of our unwritten constitution and of the custom and tradition of the liberty of the individual in this country. A former Poet Laureate, Lord Tennyson, once said that the greatness of English law was that it,
broadens down, from precedent to precedent".1385 I ask noble Lords to consider whether at this moment we are not being asked to "narrow down" from precedent to precedent. I beg noble Lords to take seriously this effective limitation on the powers of this House, the guardian of our unwritten constitution.
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, before my noble friend responds, I really do think that—
§ Lord ShepherdMy Lords, since the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, does not seem to want to pursue that point, perhaps I may address one or two matters briefly to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. I do not think that my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition was being critical of the scrutiny committee when he said that he understood that the objective was that a report from that committee should be available to this House prior to the Committee stage of the Jobseekers Bill. That has always been our objective. Unfortunately, because of the Easter Recess, there was a slight delay in receiving the memorandum from the department explaining the purposes of the Bill and, without it, we could not proceed. That became available to members of the committee on the Monday of the week when we rose for Easter on the Thursday, so there was no time to do anything other than make an interim report. It is only since then that we have been able to consider the whole issue and produce our report which, of course, meant that the Committee was unable to take into account the views of your Lordships' Select Committee to which the Leader of the House himself attached importance.
I can see the Government's difficulty in having the whole Bill recommitted. Clause 6 of the Bill was specially mentioned in the report because it seemed to us to be perhaps the most important issue. However, the report also refers to Clause 4 and to a number of other difficulties that arise in the Bill. I know that the Leader of the House has gone a long way in recognising the need for recommittal of Clause 6. However, will he recognise that other parts of the Bill can be identified as causing concerns? If the Government allowed more time for their consideration, I believe that the wishes of the whole House could be met. I do not think that we should spoil what has been an effort on the part of the Government by not doing a little bit more so that all can be satisfied.
In my view, the Bill is unique. I do not think that there is a precedent for it or that there has ever been a Bill of this nature before. It would be unforgiveable of the House to allow the Bill simply to go through late at night. This is not a party matter. It is not a matter of seeking delay. This is a matter for the House, and I think that the House should at least recognise the nature of the Bill and the way in which it is constructed. We should remember the people who will be affected by it and ensure that the Bill receives much more careful consideration. Perhaps the recommittal could relate to something more narrow than the whole Bill, but that is 1386 something that could be identified. With a little willingness from the Leader of the House and a little willingness from our side, I am sure that we can come up with an admirable solution.
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, I really do think that I should say just a tiny word. First, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on getting us back to the Motion and away from what I can only describe as Second Reading speeches on the Jobseekers Bill.
I should like to comment on what will happen if we do not pass the Motion. As I understood the speech of my noble friend the Leader of the House—reading between the words, if one can do that—the Government are offering to do something which has been demanded in both Houses for a number of weeks; namely, to put into the Bill a definition of "available for employment" and "actively seeking work". If I am wrong, perhaps my noble friend will tell me. However, on the basis that I am right, I am absolutely convinced that the right way to do this is to have a recommittal of Clause 6, which is where those words appear; otherwise, we shall go straight into Report and have only limited debating time in which to consider the matter.
Viscount CranborneMy Lords, were it not for the solemnity of the occasion, I would have been tempted to congratulate the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, in particular on managing to manufacture a great deal more time on this Bill than even I had hoped to be able to concede. However, I hope that the House will forgive me if I am not tempted down the path of discussing the individual merits or otherwise of the Bill. Naturally enough, I can do nothing but disagree with the way in which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition characterised the Bill and its contents. Its desirability seems to me to be self-evident. I am sorry that he disagrees.
On the substance of the noble Lord's complaint—and, indeed, that of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead—I am sorry that both noble Lords felt that it was appropriate to discuss the merits or otherwise of the Bill on a purely procedural Motion. Nevertheless, I hope that they will recognise—I do not think that they were trying to imply otherwise—that both I and the Government mean what we say when we say that we take seriously the reports of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee.
We have done the very best that we can to meet the substantive point about Clause 6. I must point out that we have already spent six hours discussing Clause 6 in Committee. We have already had three days in Committee on the Bill. That is a substantial amount of time during a crowded summer's legislative programme.
As a number of noble Lords have said, the reports of the Select Committee were originally intended to be produced in time for the Committee stage of the Bill. The fact that the Easter Recess intervened was an unfortunate occurrence, and I take seriously the strictures that various noble Lords have made on that point. We shall try to ensure, as best we can, that my noble friend is able to publish the reports of his committee in time for consideration of them at the 1387 beginning of the Committee stage of a Bill. That is a right and proper procedure. I can do no more than agree with noble Lords who have made that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was anxious that, as he put it, the Report stage should not be squeezed. I have already offered conversations through the usual channels to try to provide additional time above the day and a half that remains to us. I am sorry if that was not clear in my original remarks. I tried to make it clear that during the original representations about recommittal made to me by a number of your Lordships in the wake of the devolved powers scrutiny committee's report that the question of extra time was not raised.
Nevertheless, I have heard subsequently that in a number of parts of the House it was thought sensible that more time should be given. I should be happy for the usual channels to discuss the question of additional time over and above the day and a half that has already been given. I wish to point out to your Lordships that the half day is already additional time over and above what was discussed through the usual channels in the first place. I am glad to see the Opposition Chief Whip nodding his head. This would be a second tranche of additional time that we would be discussing, and I hope that the usual channels will take serious note of the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, to try to ensure that the Committee stage is not squeezed by the demands of time on Report.
I could go on for even longer, and further delay the start of my noble friend Lord Whitelaw's debate. I hope that I have demonstrated that I think it undesirable that we should discuss the merits of the Bill in this forum. Equally, I understand clearly that there are number of noble Lords who are concerned by the contents of the report and have strong views on the subject. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me repeating this, but if the business of the House is to be conducted in the civilised manner which is in the best traditions of your Lordships' House, I believe it right that the Government's business managers do their best to meet concerns.
I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that my noble friend the Chief Whip and I have done the best we can in the short time (24 hours) following the original representations made to us to meet a substantial number of concerns and that therefore noble Lords will not seek further to impede the passing of the Motion.
§ Lord RichardMy Lords, before the Leader of the House sits down, will he say something about the other two points—the affirmative/negative procedural point on the regulations themselves, and ministerial undertakings as opposed to statements of intent?
Viscount CranborneMy Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me betraying a confidence in public, but he raised both points with me in earlier private conversations. I hope that he will agree that I took note of his concerns and undertook to raise them with my right honourable and honourable friends. Since we will have considerably more time on the Bill than was originally budgeted for, I hope that both those concerns will be able to be addressed by my noble 1388 friends when they return to the Bill. I cannot give a categorical undertaking, but we shall endeavour to be as sympathetic as possible.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.