Lords Sitting of 4 November 1998

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

Global Financial Crisis: Social Policy
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are proposing to take to address the social consequences, especially in Russia and Indonesia, of the current global financial crisis.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are responding through the international financial institutions, together with United Nations organisations, to address the deep-seated social consequences of the crisis in Russia, Indonesia and many other countries. In particular, following interventions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development at the 1998 World Bank/IMF annual meetings in October, the World Bank is working on a code of practice for social policy.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, while commending the Government on the efforts that the Chancellor and others are making with regard to the social consequences of the economic crisis, is the Minister aware that not only has the United Kingdom revised its projections for growth downwards from 2 per cent. to 1.25 per cent., but today the government of Japan have announced that the rate of growth expected for the current year has fallen from 1.9 per cent. plus to 1.8 per cent. minus, which suggests a continuing recession in East Asia? Given that the social consequences now include the exclusion from school of hundreds of thousands of young children in East Asia and the gradual breakdown of public health, and in Russia the payment of debt to commercial banks rather than the writing off of wage arrears, will the noble Lord be kind enough to ask Her Majesty's Government to reconsider the present policies of the International Monetary Fund, which appear to rely on the credit squeeze and very high interest rates? I ask him to look closely at that possibility.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I acknowledge that the noble Baroness is right about the impact on the rest of East Asia of the reduction in the forecast for Japan. We do not underestimate in any way the seriousness of the problem there. In Indonesia, the proportion of the population in poverty, which had gone down to 11 per cent. this year from 57 per cent. in 1970, is starting to rise again. In Russia, GDP has decreased by 10 per cent. in one year and life expectancy is actually decreasing. Those are two very different problems. In Indonesia, the problem is one, fundamentally, of social assistance, which is the responsibility of the World Bank. In Russia, the problem
264
primarily relates to the financial system and needs the co-operation of the IMF. I do not believe that in either case the rigidity of the IMF, which the noble Baroness is alleging, is relevant.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the situation is grave in human terms? In Indonesia alone, it is estimated that by the end of the year 100 million people will be living in poverty, which is four times the level in 1996, and 1.6 million children will have dropped out of primary and junior secondary education. Does the Minister agree that if that urgent problem is to be tackled, not only is it a matter of the World Bank and the IMF getting their act together so that one is not going for deflation and the other for the defeat of world poverty, but it is also a question of trade, and of ensuring more trade credits? Does my noble friend agree that talking about "level playing fields" is not sufficient, because we have to bring poor countries to the position where they have a chance of playing effectively on the playing field?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend has confirmed the figures that I gave about poverty in Indonesia. I thank him for that. As to the role of the World Bank and other development bodies, he will know that the World Bank has allocated 17 billion dollars for dealing with social consequences in East Asia and that the Asian Development Bank has an 8.7 billion dollar social assistance and poverty reduction programme. That is in addition to the Community Recovery Programme which has been drawn up by the civil societies in Indonesia.
The problem with Indonesia is that many parts of it are returning to a subsistence economy. I am not sure that increases in trade, valuable though they may be in part of Indonesia, address the whole of the problem.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many non-governmental organisations—I declare an interest as chairman of Plan International—are actively working in Indonesia? In the UK alone, we are raising £14 million, but world-wide the figure is £150 million, not all of which will be spent in Indonesia. I personally have seen the work in Indonesia. Is the Minister aware that DfID—formerly the ODA—is very good in terms of providing grant support to the NGOs and acts as an agent for moneys given by the British Government to help those people?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness's comments. I think she is referring to the Community Recovery Programme which I mentioned, which is designed by the NGOs and which covers community based projects for food security, basic social services, income generation and so on. Indeed the DfID has given £850,000 to that programme.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, are not all principal financial international institutions moribund on this subject? No mechanism exists whereby at judicial reviews of the WTO social consequences are factored in. What will the Government consider doing about that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I simply do not understand the noble Viscount's comment. The development committee of the World Bank and the IMF met on 4th October of this year and was given a statement by the Secretary of State for International Development and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—as the executive governors for those two bodies for the United Kingdom—which concentrated heavily on the social consequences of the problems in these countries. That is what I have been talking about in my responses.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, can the Minister say a little more about what the British Government are doing to relieve debt in poor countries, bearing in mind that poverty and social distress, which lead to political instability, also threaten international security? Therefore it is very much in our self-interest to promote the cause of debt relief for poorer countries.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, we have concentrated debt relief on the heavily indebted poorest countries, which does not include either Russia or Indonesia. However, she is right to say that debt relief is important for a wider range of countries. That will form part of the programmes which I have described.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the Minister say whether swap agreements are being considered, for example Russian nuclear weapons in exchange for Russian external debt, which I believe has reached 160 billion dollars?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not familiar with the solution which the noble Lord has mentioned. If I can learn anything, I shall write to him about it.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the proportion of the DfID's budget which ends up in Russia is set to fall, and does he think that is sensible?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the budget from year to year can change in a number of ways. What is required in Russia, as I made clear, was fiscal and financial stabilisation rather than direct financial relief. If that is reflected in the DfID's budget, that seems to me the right way to go about it.

Public Sector Housing
2.45 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the total amount they have committed to public sector housing since taking office, and how was the figure arrived at.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the resources already made available and committed by the Government for all housing capital investment in England by local authorities and registered social landlords between 1997–98 and 2001–02 will total £11.5 billion. Some of the resources made available go towards grants for private sector housing, but these are not separately identifiable for future years. Currently they account for about a quarter of housing capital expenditure by local authorities. This figure excludes expenditure on housing through the Government's regeneration programme, all housing revenue expenditure, and housing capital expenditure by local authorities financed from their own resources.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that detailed reply, but is he aware of the mountain we have to climb to get back on course? Is the Minister aware that in the three years of the Callaghan government over 300,000 public sector houses were built, 80 per cent. of which were built by local authorities, and for that year, 1979, the cost was £4.5 billion in government subsidy? The cost of constructing just over 80,000 houses now would be £13 billion in subsidy, which is well in excess of the sum that has been apportioned to housing now. The Conservative government, by a deliberate act of vandalism in their last year in office, constructed 32,000 houses, of which only 1,600 were council houses. Does not the Minister agree that as a government and a nation we ought to start according housing the same priority as the health service and education if we are to deal with the problem satisfactorily?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards the resources which the comprehensive spending review has allocated to housing there will be a substantial increase in the coming few years, partly through the release of capital receipts. My noble friend is absolutely right to say that house building, particularly social housing, declined dramatically over the period of the previous government. Social housing starts in the past few years have averaged about 26,000, as compared with 70,000 in the final years of the Callaghan government, and at one point the figure was 150,000. There has been a change in the pattern of housing. We now look at housing as a whole rather than defining it by form of tenure. We are giving local authorities the flexibility to put resources into all sectors of housing rather than concentrating on one sector.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I believe the Minister gave figures for England. As I believe we still have a

267
United Kingdom and Her Majesty's Government are supposed to be responsible for the whole of the United Kingdom, why did he not include the figures for Scotland and Wales?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, most figures that have been mentioned in relation to housing need and house build relate to England. The situation in Wales is similar to that in England in terms of the pattern of housing build. The situation in Scotland is somewhat different in terms of the local authority housing sector strategy. As the noble Lord will know, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive plays a strong role as regards housing in Northern Ireland. That situation is again somewhat different. If the noble Lord wishes, I will provide that information to him in written form.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, there is a widely held belief, which I think the Government share, that providing for the housing need of many groups of people is about more than merely providing a roof over their heads. I refer in particular to elderly people, those with learning difficulties and mental health problems, and families which break up for whatever reasons, sometimes domestic violence. What steps are the Government taking to make sure that much-needed capital projects for such people are not held back because of a lack of revenue funding to support them?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, a large part of what we are requesting local authorities to do in assessing their own housing need and the need for the conversion and improvement of existing properties, as well as new capital projects in all sectors, relates to the changing social pattern and to those vulnerable groups. However, it is primarily a question of local authorities prioritising on the basis of the social needs within their areas.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, how will the Government bring pressure to bear on local authorities to speed up the improvement and turn-around of their stock? Will they consider setting targets? If so, can success be measured by the number of lettings rather than the number of starts?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree that the total new access to housing is the key figure. It is not merely a question of starts and completions; it is a matter of conversions and other properties coming on to the housing market which we need to relate to housing need. I agree that lettings form part of that figure. There are a number of measures that can be taken by local authorities to improve their turn-around of stock. The additional resources that the Government are giving to local authorities to improve their stock will be spent partly on improving, and therefore turning round, the poorer local authority housing stock and helping housing associations in that regard.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the deliberate withdrawal, almost in total, of subsidy to local authority housing by the previous government has resulted in the massive deterioration of
268
some estates, which have almost become no-go areas? It will cost an enormous sum to put them into the right condition again.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are many estates around the country where, sadly, the condition of local authority housing has declined. That is partly a reflection of the previous government's lack of priority in that area. There has been an overall decline in the quality of local authority housing stock, as was revealed a recent debate in this House.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the Government intend to improve 1½ million local authority houses over the next three years. Will that bring the whole local authority housing stock up to scratch?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not recall using that figure. It is up to local authorities whether they put the money into new housing, improving their existing stock or helping the private and housing association sectors. Given the additional resources, local authorities can make a beginning in improving the total housing stock and the availability of housing.

Coal Industry
2.53 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to secure the future of the coal industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government inherited an electricity market that was badly distorted and are pursuing a reform programme to create a level playing field for all fuels including coal. In the meantime, the security and diversity of supply provided by coal will be guaranteed by a stricter consents policy on new gas-fired power stations.
We are also working with our European colleagues to minimise the distortions caused by state aid to the coal-mining sector in Europe. In particular, we will seek to ensure that the existing state aid rules are strictly applied. We have already had some success here in the case of graded anthracite.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the recent decision to continue restrictions on the building of gas-fired power stations is very much to be welcomed. However, will my noble friend say when the changes he mentioned in the working of the wholesale electricity supply, commonly known as the pool, are likely to come into operation? They are a matter of some urgency. Is he further aware that the industry needs longer and larger contracts with the generators if it is to be sustained?

269
Finally, does he agree that if there were an increase in manufacturing industry productivity similar to as that in the coal industry, the country would be in a better state?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that the new trading arrangements will be completed by April 2000. That is the time we are planning for. We shall depend on the Director-General of Electricity Supply to advise us as to when those arrangements are complete and when consents on the gas-fired industry are no longer necessary. Regarding sustainability, when that point is reached, we shall be able to change the arrangements. I agree that there have been major improvements in productivity. If they continue, they will help the coal industry enormously in obtaining the long-term supply contracts referred to.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, if coal is still to be used as a primary fuel in power stations, what steps are the Government taking to assist with the development of fluidised bed combustion to produce better warming, heating, burning and calorific exchange?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we are pursuing new technologies in those fields. We are totally supportive of combined heat and power systems, which play a major part in terms of energy efficiency.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, if we create a level playing field for British coal, we could cut back on the subsidised German coal imports; stop buying French electricity; reduce the 12 to 14 million tonnes of cheap coal imports; reduce open-cast coal-mining; and stop the dash for gas? What has he to say about that?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there are a number of different categories here. Our aim is to create a market where there can be true competition. Where that does not exist, as in the case of German coal, we are working with our colleagues in Europe to make certain that action is taken to reduce the subsidies.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following on the question raised about new coal technologies, will the noble Lord indicate what special assistance or support the Government will provide for the creation of demonstration plants in clean coal technology? Does he agree that the new clean coal processes which are so important for the environment are not being developed sufficiently fast, in spite of demand not only in the UK but also abroad?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, a new DTI clean coal research programme is being initiated. It will act as a focus for collaboration with industry and academia. It will enable the UK to maintain and develop its know-how in clean coal technologies. It will also help UK industry to attain a share of the growing market in these new technologies. I was recently in China,
270
where we held meetings with the Chinese government and signed an agreement to enable them to work with British industry on the new technologies.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I welcome the more constructive approach adopted by Her Majesty's Government and look forward to further progress. However, will my noble friend confirm that it is the Government's intention that the remaining British deep-mine industry will continue to be the safest in the world? Will he also confirm that the Government will not shrink from amending the current regulations if that seems desirable?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, our aim is to create a competitive market. Within that, we shall make certain that safety regulations are maintained and amended if necessary.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, even if the Kyoto targets are met, how will the Minister arrest the inevitable rise in emissions consequent upon the eventual retirement of the nuclear power stations by about 2020, and how will coal help the situation?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the new policy will not affect the UK's capacity to reach its Kyoto target of a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases averaging 12.5 per cent. between 2008 and 2012 compared with emissions in 1990. To the extent that new gas-fired stations eventually come on stream, this will aid the situation and make it easier to reach the targets.
Lord Lofthouse: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that on the sale of the electricity industry £1 billion was allocated to PowerGen for that company to produce a desulphurisation plant at Ferrybridge power station? That plant has never been produced. What has happened to the £1 billion?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, United Kingdom sulphur emissions are continuing to fall rapidly beyond what our international obligations strictly require. We are encouraging generators to run flue gas desulphurisation stations ahead of non-FGD stations. We have made clear that we believe that all major generators should have at least one FGD station. Eastern has announced plans to fit FGD at West Bourton.

EU Pre-accession States and UK Universities
3.1 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle The Earl of Carlisle asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether undergraduate and graduate students from the "5+1" nations negotiating for entry into the European Union and studying at United Kingdom universities pay fees at the European Union rate; and, if not, whether they plan that such students should do so.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, access to higher education in any member state on terms no less favourable than for home students, including fees, forms part of the package of rights and obligations that accompany full membership of the European Union. The Government believe that it would not be appropriate to extend this right to non-member states. However, a total of 11 pre-accession countries are, or soon will be, taking part in the EU's education programmes. One part of Socrates Erasmus allows students from those countries to come to the UK for part of their higher education without paying fees in the UK.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Is she not aware that at the moment the universities in the United Kingdom are pricing themselves out of the market and that as a result these "5+1" nations are not able to send their students to our universities? Does the Minister agree that that is unfortunate not only for our universities and our students but also for the students of the "5+1" nations who would return, having attended our universities for education, and assist the "5+1" nations, which include the four Visegrad nations and the northern Baltic state of Estonia? Will she approach European Union Ministers in other countries to see whether the system can be changed? If the system cannot be changed, will she increase the number of Chevening Trust scholarships available to these "5+1" nations?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am not aware that UK universities are pricing themselves out of the system. More students from the European Union are studying here this year than last and there are many more students from the European Union in the UK than there are British students abroad in the European Union. The British higher education system encourages students from the "5+1" countries to spend part of their time studying in the UK. As I said in my initial Answer, the new arrangements for students from those countries to come here on Erasmus programmes will be very beneficial for them.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness whether "5+1" is a term of art. If so, how does one qualify for entry?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I believe that "5+1" is something of a term of art. The "1" is Cyprus and the "5" are the pre-accession countries of Poland, Estonia, the Czech Republic and Hungary.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, perhaps I may help the noble Baroness. The fifth country is Slovenia. Will the noble Baroness answer the second part of my question, which concerned the Chevening Trust? Many of our ambassadors, including the ambassador to Estonia, Mr. Craddock, is not receiving any funds this year from the Chevening Trust because they have all been used up. Certain students from Estonia are denied access to education in this country.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, there are many good cases for support of students from all over the
272
world through the Chevening scholarship scheme. In considering priorities, we have to look at the former Commonwealth countries and countries in the third world as well as those in central and eastern Europe. I shall convey the noble Earl's comments about the particular needs of the latter group of countries to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary.

European Parliamentary Elections Bill
3.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reasons be now considered.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MOTIONS MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASONS
[The page and line refer to HL Bill 88 as first printed for the Lords]
LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out ("a registered party, or").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
1A Because it would result in a voting system which is undesirable.

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON
1B That this House do insist on their Amendment No. 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, That this House do insist on their Amendment No. 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
This is a relatively simple issue concerning the form of proportional representation system for next year's European parliamentary elections. Let me make it clear to your Lordships at the outset that I do not dispute with the Government or the Commons the decision to change our system for the election of MEPs from a first-past-the-post system to a regional list system. That argument is over. What I dispute is the way the regional list system is to be operated.
The United Kingdom is to be divided into large regions, with between four and 11 members in each region, the average being seven or eight. Each party standing in the election will submit a list of those it wishes to put forward for election to the European Parliament. Most importantly, it will put that list forward in its order of preference; that is, in the party's order of preference. On polling day next year the electorate will be asked to vote for the party of their choice—only the party, not the candidate. On the ballot paper will appear the party list as determined by the

273
party, and we are grateful to the Government for that. The individual voter, however, will have no way of influencing that all-important order. After the polls have closed, the total party vote will be determined for the region and a simple mathematical calculation, devised by a Belgian mathematician, Victor d'Hondt, will be used to decide how many seats each party should have. If the Conservative Party is entitled to three seats in a region, numbers one, two and three on the list will be elected. Your Lordships will see that, while it is open to the elector to decide which party to vote for, it is not open to the elector to decide on his or her preferred order within the list. Hence it is a called a closed-list system, and that is the one that the Government favour.
However, it does not have to be a closed list; it can be an open list. With the open list, as proposed in the amendments passed by your Lordships when we last considered the matter, the elector will vote for his or her party by voting for the preferred candidate on the list. There will be no party box; there will be boxes for each of the parties' candidates on the list. After the poll, the party total is achieved by totalling the votes for each of the parties' candidates, the d'Hondt divisor is used, and the number of the seats allocated to each of the parties is achieved in exactly the same way as for a closed list. But now comes the real difference. Again let us assume that the Conservative Party has gained three seats. Instead of the three winners being determined by the party, as in the closed list system, the three winners will be those three people who have achieved the highest votes from that party's electors. In other words, that is a people's choice and not a party's choice.
Your Lordships' amendment would therefore allow the European elections to proceed by proportional representation based on regional lists; but the people, the voters, the supporters at the ballot box of each of the parties, will determine who on the list would go to Brussels to represent them—the people's representatives, not the party's.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in his elegant defence of the party's choice and not the people's choice, suggested, the last time we debated this issue, suggested that it was important that the parties should be able to fix the list, essentially so that candidates who may not, for whatever reason, receive the endorsement of that party's voters can be elected. That is not so much trusting the people as telling the people that the party knows best.
Yet even in an open list system the party machine has significant input, if that brings comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. The party will be able to decide who will be on the list and the order in which their names shall appear on the ballot paper. I suggest that both lists give enough advantages to the party's favoured sons and daughters to satisfy even the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
Your Lordships will have read the well-argued Commons reasons:
"The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—Because it would result in a voting system which is undesirable".
274
They did not burn too much midnight oil thinking up that one. Is it not interesting that the Government think that the open list is undesirable?—because, in reality, that is what this means. They are almost alone in thinking that. I pointed out on the last occasion when we discussed this issue what the Electoral Reform Society had had to say in a press release:
"We are all for proportional representation and we give the Government credit for having moved so quickly in introducing PR for European elections. But there is more to electoral reform than PR. We want to see voters being able to exercise more choice, and certainly not less choice, over who their MEPs will be. Such a system"—
that is, the closed list—
"is bad for voters, bad for candidates and bad for democracy—[Official Report, 20/10/98; col. 1320.]
According to the Electoral Reform Society—which in every other way is delighted with the Government—the closed list system chosen is bad for voters, bad for candidates and bad for democracy.
In order to demonstrate that this is not a Conservative-inspired idea but has a broad base of support from those people who are particularly interested in electoral reform, Charter 88 said this:
"We believe that voters should be able to choose between candidates of the same party. We are especially concerned that voters are not given the impression that the new voting system is being introduced for party political benefit".
Perish the thought!
"We are concerned that if the Government insist on the use of closed lists voters may be left with the impression that the voting system has been manipulated for party political aims".—[Official Report, 20/10/98; col. 1320.]
Since the Commons discussed our amendments on these matters on 27th October and decided, in their elegant words, that the open list was undesirable, we have had the report of the Jenkins Commission, which was described by no less a person than the Prime Minister as making a well argued and powerful case for the system that it recommends. We have been over these issues a number of times, but I would like to read some of the words written by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, with regard to the list system which he proposes as the top-up part of the new system that the report recommends for the other place.
The list top-up system is very akin to the regional system that we are now looking at for the European Parliament. I will read it to your Lordships because the Commons should be allowed to consider this weighty addition to the issue. If they do not listen to me—and I do not particularly expect them to—if they are not too good at listening to your Lordships, if they do not seem to want to listen to the Electoral Reform Society or to Charter 88, they should consider what the commission set up by the Prime Minister has to say.
Paragraph 138 says this:
"Under a reform system it is crucial that the voters' right to express their view of individual candidates should be at least maintained and preferably enhanced. First past the post does retain the right, theoretical in most cases but occasionally practical as the last election showed, to get rid of a deeply distasteful candidate even in a nominally safe seat".

275
I suspect it is talking about Tatton.
"It would be a count against a new system if any candidate, by gaining party machine endorsement for being at the head of a list, were to achieve a position of effective immunity from the preference of the electorate. This is the essence of the case for open as opposed to closed lists for Top-up members".
It is also the essence of the case for the open as opposed to the closed list in the regional list system proposed for Europe.
In paragraph 139, the report states:
"Nevertheless it remains essential that the elector should have two rights; first, to bolt the party ticket completely with his or her second vote, in other words to vote for a candidate of one party for the constituency and then to cast his or her vote in a different direction for the Top-up representative or representatives".
This is particularly applicable to the system proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and also used for the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly.
"Without this right"—
the right to vote differently—
"the new system would not fulfil the objective of freeing the voter from the prison of having to suffer an unwanted candidate for the constituency in order to get a desired government. Second, however, it is equally desirable"—
and this is the real point—
"that the voter should be able to discriminate between the candidate put forward for the list by the party for which he or she wishes to cast the second vote. Only if this is so does the Commission feel that it will have sufficiently discharged its third requirement of providing for an extension of voters' choice".
There is no voters' choice beyond choosing the party in the system proposed for the European parliament. We should take this opportunity of enlarging that voters' choice and moving to the open list. In the light of the Jenkins Commission report, which has come to hand since the 27th October, I invite your Lordships to invite the other place to think again. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do insist on their Amendment No. 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
3.15 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he tell us whether it is the view of the official Opposition that they support the Jenkins Commission report?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have been over all the ground of PR before. I did not bother to say it, but the noble Lord knows that on each previous occasion I have made it perfectly clear that we prefer first-past-the-post.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I have studied the debate in the House of Commons very carefully. I think we at least owe that to our colleagues in the Commons, who have unhappily disagreed with our amendments. I have studied very carefully what the Home Secretary had to say to see whether I could discern there an additional reason or argument which we have not previously met and which might justify us changing our minds. I genuinely regret to say that I could find no such new argument of the case.
276
Self-evidently, it is surely better to have an open system and not to give so much extra power to the party managers. It is no longer the electors choosing their MP or MEP; it is a selectorate of a small, anonymous group of party officials; a selectorate which decides who are to be the MEPs of the future. It really is not good enough. It does not conform to the standards of democracy which we expect from the British parliament.
We have discussed the Finnish system before. I looked particularly again at that. It is very difficult, quite frankly, to find any reason at all why the electorate should not be given a list of candidates and be entirely free to choose from it. There is no disadvantage to that system, although there is one possible anomaly.
Let us imagine a seven member regional list and a situation in which the fourth successful candidate has slightly fewer votes than the fourth unsuccessful candidate in the party which has been allocated one seat fewer because of the proportional system. It is difficult to express this situation as clearly as one would like, but it is just possible that because of the allocation under the proportional system a party's last successful member could have fewer votes than the last unsuccessful candidate in the party that had been allocated one seat fewer. However, if that is an anomaly, it is one that arises straight out of the proportional system. Anyone who approves of the regional system and of PR would not object to that. So no serious objection could possibly be sustained on the basis of a remotely possible anomaly.
There are two other considerations that have weighed heavily with me in deciding my continued resistance to what is being proposed. One is how this House voted last time. I asked the Library to look at the composition of the vote and, being a good party man, I looked carefully to see whether the majority was not composed of perhaps ultra-critical Conservative Peers. I was reassured on that point because the analysis showed clearly that the whole of the majority—the extra 25 votes in favour of the amendment in the 165 to 140 result—was accounted for by Cross-Bench Peers. The Cross-Benchers voted overwhelmingly in favour of the rejection of the Government's proposal. That is important because, while I hope and believe that noble Lords who are members of the two main political parties are able on many occasions to consider matters dispassionately, Cross-Benchers have a special role in this respect. They are above suspicion. If the Cross-Benchers had not voted, the Government would have got their way. But they voted and the Government did not get their way.
I have a third and final point. Article 190 of the Treaty of Rome calls for elections to the European Parliament by a uniform procedure. That uniform procedure has not been put into place, largely, I suspect, because the British system has been, as it were, so distant from the practices of our Continental neighbours. If we were to go forward now with a list system of this kind I am quite sure that there would be an amendment to the treaty introducing and enacting a uniform procedure. Why does that matter? It matters because it blocks off any possibility that, if experience shows this

277
system to be a real disaster, we could change it. We could not. We could change it only by a unanimous vote in the Council of Ministers. That is not on, and we know it.
Therefore, for those three reasons, I strongly urge the House, despite the difficulties of the Upper House having to, as it were, impose itself upon the Commons, to vote against the change that has been proposed. We would still be doing our duty. We are well within our year. If the Commons cannot bring themselves to consider the matter yet again, with the additional material supplied by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, which was quoted to us, we will probably have to accept the inevitable. But I hope that they will consider the matter again and I shall certainly therefore vote against the change that has been proposed.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I think it is important to correct him on one fact. The Commons will not get the chance to think again. They will either have to produce an amendment in lieu or we lose the Bill.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shore, for his indulgence. Further to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I hope the House has it clearly in mind that it would be open to another place to amend our amendment. Therefore, this need not necessarily be the end of the matter.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am awfully sorry but I think we have to get this absolutely correct. The Commons have to amend the amendment if we send it back. If they insist on it again, we lose the Bill. I was just correcting what my noble friend said. He said that the Commons had the chance to think again and to insist on it again. They cannot insist on it again. They have to produce an amendment in lieu.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, when this matter came before your Lordships' House before, I voted in favour of the open list system. I voted in favour of this amendment. I did so against the three-line Whip of my party but I did so in the knowledge that I was voting in the way that I had urged everyone else to vote and to argue since I joined my party in 1949 and the way that my party thinks the thing should be. The Commons have sent this back to us again. We sent it to them with the request that they think again. One might charitably suggest that they have possibly thought again, although there is not much sign of it. They have sent it back to us. At this moment I think we have reached a stage when if we want the Bill to go forward, as I do—and as I think most of your Lordships do—we have to swallow our pride and accept the situation. I am therefore going to change my vote. However, I am not going to do it without a protest.
The protest is not for once in my life that I cast any aspersions on the motives of the Conservative Party, as I know some of my colleagues do. I do not know what its motives are and I am prepared to give it the benefit
278
of the doubt. I protest extremely strongly about the way the Government have behaved. The Labour Party regards itself as New Labour and regards itself as having shed the bad traditions of the past. What it is putting forward now—party before people—is the old, bad tradition, the Stalinist tradition, if you like, of Islington, Lambeth and the great Labour councils of the northern cities. It should be absolutely ashamed of itself. It is not New Labour at all. It is the worst of old Labour. The only redeeming feature seems to be that some people, including the noble Lord, Lord Shore, and Ken Coates, the Member of the European Parliament, recognise the wrongness of what the Government are doing. With great regret therefore I shall vote against this amendment in the hope that the Labour Party and the Government will never go along this line again.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, one is often surprised, but never for long, at the capacity of Liberal Democrats to turn somersaults in your Lordships' House. This example will, I believe, go down as one of the most striking. Coming as one does from the groves of Academe, one is also impressed by the extraordinary political innocence of this House including members of my own party. They still appear to cherish the belief that the present Government are interested in the promotion of democracy in the sense that the voters should have some say in who represents them. We are discussing one example of their failure in this respect. However, since we have discussed it we have seen another. Here is Her Majesty's Government devoting enormous energy to parachuting into South Wales a candidate for the leadership of the Welsh assembly who clearly is not the first choice—or even a choice—of most active members of the Labour Party in Wales. One comes to a point where one wonders whether there is any need for elected institutions at all. Could not this country's policies and the people who carry them out be decided quite rapidly by Mr. Alastair Campbell or Mr. Mulgan, neither of whom has ever been elected to anything so far as I am aware? Why do we pretend that we live in a democracy when we have a government who repudiate the very idea of it?
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the arguments for proportional representation in elections to the European Parliament are overwhelming. We believe that a delegation to the European Parliament from any country which is a member of the European Union should reflect the broad balance of the political views of the voters in that country. A first-past-the-post system totally fails to do that. Labour is now grossly over-represented in the Parliament at Strasbourg, and the Conservatives were equally grossly over-represented in some earlier elections. Our supporters have been consistently under-represented, as were those who voted for the Green Party in 1989. We therefore strongly support proportional representation for the European Parliament.
The question is: what kind of proportional representation? As we have always made clear, we prefer the single transferable vote to any form of list system. STV happens in Northern Ireland without any

279
obvious difficulties or problems. Within the list system we prefer open to closed lists. My noble friend Lord Russell made a powerful speech at Third Reading of this Bill in support of open lists even in defiance of his party's Whip. My noble friend is not able to be here today. I am glad to be able to reassure the House that the rumours that he is bound, gagged and locked into a cupboard in the Liberal Democrat Whips' Office are untrue.
But no voting system is perfect and there are drawbacks as well as advantages in open lists as compared with closed ones. This is particularly true of the Finnish system proposed by the amendments we are debating today. The Finnish system does not allow voters to select a party list in preference to individual candidates as many no doubt would wish to do. One sees that happening in the US where many people choose to vote for the Democrat or Republican list as opposed to an individual candidate for the various offices. Indeed, the opportunity to vote for a party list as opposed to individual candidates was recommended by the Jenkins Commission. Therefore, the system proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is not that which has been recommended by the Jenkins Commission.
I shall not go into the merits of the different list systems because that is not the real issue today. I believe that I speak for almost all Members of my party both in your Lordships' House and in the other place in saying that the crucial issue is that the next European elections should be conducted under proportional representation. That is why my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley has very frankly explained to noble Lords that despite his very strong preference for the open list system he proposes to vote with the Government.
Compared with the importance of deciding that the next election should be conducted by proportional representation, the question of whether there should be open or closed lists, however important, is still an issue of secondary significance. It has already been fully argued. I remind noble Lords that on 24th June the Liberal Democrats proposed and voted for an amendment to substitute open for closed lists. On that occasion the Conservative Front Bench did not support us, although a number of individual Conservative Peers did.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord does not want to mislead the House. On that occasion the Motion was for a variation of the open list system called the Belgian list system which is quite different from a properly open list system.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, of course it is a different system but it is one that in many ways is preferable because it provides the opportunity, as the Jenkins Commission recommended, for a voter who prefers to do so to vote for the party list. I suspect that a substantial majority of voters would wish to do that. As a result, although a number of individual Conservative Peers voted with us, the amendment was lost by 16 votes.
Following that vote we on these Benches reluctantly accepted the Government's decision to go for a closed list system. We therefore supported the Government in
280
voting against these amendments both at Third Reading in your Lordships' House and in the debate on the Lords amendments in another place. But the issue in the debate today is not only about the comparative methods of voting or proportional representation itself; it is also about our constitution. The Conservative Party won quite properly a tactical victory at Third Reading. But what is it playing at by pursuing it? There are two possibilities. One is that the leadership of the Conservative Party intends to block the Bill if the Government do not give way. The second possibility is that the Front Bench is bluffing and will ultimately give way. If the first is the intention, the consequences of deadlock over the Bill will be chaos. The Parliament Act procedure could not operate in time for the 1999 European elections. We would have to go back, a mere seven months before those elections, to the old constituencies and first-past-the-post.
To frustrate the Bill would, frankly, cause a constitutional crisis. It is clear that if the Conservatives carry the Division today they will do so only by relying on the votes of hereditary Peers. To use hereditary Peers to block a government measure would be close to an abuse of the constitution. I do not believe that the public would stand for it. There are occasions when your Lordships' House should stand up to the Government. We did so in this House on the issue of fourth year tuition fees at Scottish universities in July. That was an issue where noble Lords on all sides of the House felt that there was a real and serious injustice being done to a section of the student population. The amendment was carried by a large majority and would have been passed even without the support of the hereditary Peers. An eventual compromise was reached. But the situation on this Bill is entirely different from that on the Teaching and Higher Education Bill.
It is plain that the Conservative Party does not care a fig for open lists. The motive for moving the amendment on Third Reading and insisting on it today is not to improve the Bill but to embarrass the Government. The Jenkins Report is just an excuse. Up to a point, that is a legitimate part of the political process. From time to time, we ourselves have sought to embarrass both the present Government and their predecessors. But a House to which none of us has been elected and in which many have inherited their seats cannot carry that game too far.
If the Conservative Party is serious in insisting on these amendments they risk involving what would likely be the most serious constitutional crises for decades. If they are bluffing they are wasting our time by raising once again an issue which has already been adequately debated.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who spoke from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, informed the House that the single transferable vote, was the preferred and long held option of his party. I remind the House that in Committee the Liberal Democrats were given the opportunity to vote for the single transferable vote, but voted against it.

281
The noble Lord also informed the House that the Liberal Democrats prefer an open list system to a closed list system. Again, they were given the opportunity to vote for an open list system on Third Reading, but voted against it.
The moral is clear. The Liberal Democrats, for all the high flown phrases they have uttered over the years about their principles, are more interested in gaining seats. I have no quarrel with that. It becomes just a bit rich when we in other parties who are often accused of being grubby politicians discover that those who claim to have wonderful principles are similarly grubby.
It is not my intention to delay the House for long. I do not intend to go over any of the systems which are possible and probable. We have been through them during the Committee stage, Report and Third Reading. The Commons' reason for disagreeing with the amendment is that it would result in an undesirable voting system. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, pointed out the irony in that. Of course, there is some truth in the Government's reason considering that we have at stake 11 seats in the south of England, 10 seats in Greater London and 10 seats in the north west. The result would be a wieldy list, as the Minister has explained during our debates.
The difficulty is that the open list which this House has proposed is far superior to the awful closed list, centrally selected list, which the Government are offering to Parliament and to the country.
I read with great interest the debates in another place on 27th October when they considered our amendment. I have known the Home Secretary for many years. I have worked with him closely and served for three years on the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party. I have the greatest respect for him, for many of the pamphlets that he has written and for his work as Home Secretary. However, I am sure that my right honourable friend will not be too upset if I say that his speech of 27th October was not one of his most profound.
Indeed, one could be forgiven if, on reading the speech, one thought one detected frivolity. He made one or two awful jokes. At col. 164 of the Official Report, Commons, he informed the House that he understood that "d'Hondt" meant "dog" in Flemish and stated that we were being dogged by the d'Hondt divisors. That was one of the better jokes that he cracked on that occasion!
It is obvious from the interventions from the Labour Benches that day that there was a considerable degree of disquiet and hostility among Labour Members about the Government's proposal. Apart from Home Office Ministers, not a single Labour MP or Member of this House has spoken in favour of the Government's proposals. Indeed, every Labour MP who has spoken to me on the subject has made it clear that they are opposed not only to the closed list but to the Labour Party's method of selecting the candidates.
I wish to make it clear that I do not intend to pursue that issue at this stage because this House can do nothing about the Labour Party's method of selecting its
282
candidates. However, I must say that I thought at times the Home Secretary was a little cynical about the measures he was proposing. I doubt whether his heart was entirely in it. In an amazing reply to an intervention at col. 172, he stated:
"With an open list, it would be possible for someone to be elected who did not have the unanimous support of the politburo of the Conservative party, the Labour party or the Liberal Democrat party".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/10/98; col. 172.]
His choice of the word "politburo" was significant on that occasion. I believe that it should be taken as a warning to all Members of the Labour Party that the principle of one member one vote for the selection of candidates, for which we struggled for many years, may now be under threat from people within the party who perhaps are not satisfied with the quality of candidates which one member one vote tends to produce. The party apparatchiks are anxious to control the system. They are anxious to choose the candidates and ensure that only those who reflect the official line at all times will be elected.
At Third Reading, when I voted for the amendment, I asked rhetorically whether this is a revising Chamber. I went on to say:
"An argument is being presented in relation to one aspect of the Bill. It is not an instruction to the House of Commons that it has to accept anything from the House of Lords; it is an opportunity for it to have second thoughts about this particular aspect".—[Official Report, 20/10/98; col. 1322.]
The Commons has considered the matter again—or at least the Home Secretary has considered the matter again—and has declined to accept the amendment. That is their absolute right. As someone who served for almost 24 years in the other place, in no circumstances shall I challenge the Commons' right in that respect. I fear for the future and will continue to fight for one member one vote within my party. I will not tonight vote for the Opposition amendment; I shall respect the Commons' decision. However, I must make it clear that I will not, indeed I could not, vote in the Government Lobby on this occasion.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I am a Life Peer not a hereditary Peer. My last experience of the closed vote was in the Soviet Union. There it worked admirably, in favour of the Politburo's wishes, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans, said. It usually had a turn out of 101 or 102 per cent. I shall be interested to see whether that is the result in this case.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, before making my few remarks I wish to point out that I have been chosen as number one in my party's list in the north-west. I am also a hereditary Peer. I wish to reiterate some remarks that I made on a previous occasion during the passage of the Bill and tell your Lordships that I have received conflicting advice as to whether I am allowed to vote. The advice I have received unequivocally from the registrar is that I am allowed to vote.
It seems to me that the issue is simple. The closed list is more illiberal than the open list. In changing the electoral system, we should move towards a liberal system rather than an illiberal system. It is right and

283
proper for the electorate to decide, as much as it can decide in those circumstances, to vote against people like me whom the party has put at the top of the list. For that reason, it is right and proper that we should press on and say that we still feel that an open rather than a closed list system is in the best interests of the people of this country.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall be brief. In a sense, I should like to reply to the wholly remarkable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, which performed the very type of somersault anticipated by my noble friend Lord Beloff.
To suggest that open and closed lists are matters of subsidiary importance when in fact they are the most important matters in this debate is a most curious contention. Secondly, to suggest that if we insist, this Bill will frustrate the will of government and in some way it must inevitably be lost is not so. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has explained already, if this goes to another place, as I understand the procedure it is open to another place to send back a reasoned amendment.
Apparently the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has not appreciated that we have a certain function to perform; that is, to provide some measure of constitutional protection and safeguard, in this case, for the MEP electorate in Great Britain. The authority for that function, if the noble Lord cares to look it up, is to be found in paragraph 12 of the report of the review committee chaired by Lord Home of the Hirsel on the future of the House of Lords.
We are here to perform a function. I would have suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that we are here to perform it beyond the confines of strict political allegiance. We are here to perform it according to our conscience. It is the people's choice against a party choice. It is as simple as that. It would be a shame if your Lordships, in those circumstances, did not treat it as a question of principle and insist upon this amendment.
We all know about the Burghers of Calais with the rope in the hand ready for the neck. As constituted, your Lordships' House has a duty to perform. If there is a Division, I shall go into the Lobby and insist.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, on Third Reading I voted for this group of amendments. I am pleasantly surprised that the Opposition are doing their duty today by seeking to insist on their amendment because it is perfectly in order and, indeed, highly desirable that they should do so. If we vote on this matter, unlike my noble friend Lord Evans, I shall vote to insist on the amendment. I shall be completely and utterly consistent because I believe that this House not only has the right, but the duty to put right legislation which it believes is wrong.
The legislation which was brought forward by new Labour and the new Labour Government—my own Government—was fundamentally flawed and completely wrong. Had it been brought forward by a Conservative government, I feel absolutely sure that it would have been resisted right up to the hilt by my Front Bench and by the Labour Party throughout.
284
What we do in opposition, we should do in government. That means that the Labour Government should not have thought of bringing forward such a system as this because it is undemocratic and breaks the link between the electors and the elected. That is fundamental to democracy and fundamental to the democracy of this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said that this is not a matter of pride. Of course it is not a matter of pride. It is a constitutional matter. I am not proud that I shall vote against my own Government but I believe that I have a duty to do so because they are doing something wrong.
I should say also to noble Lords that this matter is just as important as, if not more important than, some of the issues on which your Lordships' House has insisted upon its amendments; for example, in the matter of education, which I supported. I remind noble Lords that the last time a constitutional issue like this was brought forward was in relation to the GLC Bill when the then Tory government sought to dismiss the GLC before it had run its course. This House then said that that was unconstitutional and was against the best interests of good government in this country. On that issue, the House of Lords insisted on its amendment; it was right to do so; and I believe that it would be right to do so again today. Because of that, although it will be a matter of great regret to me, I shall vote in the Opposition Lobby.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I should like to say a brief word as an hereditary Peer, of whom there are many present. I believe that everybody in this Chamber—life Peers, hereditary Peers, Bishops and Liberal Democrats—should vote according to their conscience. We are all here to try to do our duty to our Queen, to our country and our people. As long as we are here, we should continue to do so.
I have been very much convinced by what the noble Lord, Lord Shore, and my noble friend Lord Mackay have said. I also believe that that is what we should do. I voted yesterday with the Government because I believed that they were right. Today, I shall vote against them.
4 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, O Absalom, O Absalom, my son, how are the mighty fallen! The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, put forward as his central platform that it is the people's choice, not the party's choice. That would not by any chance have been the same noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who spoke so elegantly—I use his word—and powerfully, although not persuasively, in favour of your Lordships' present arrangements.
The words have been used, "a closed, centrally-selected list". Some of your Lordships have experience of another place. All were then elected by the grateful multitudes on a closed, centrally-selected list.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I hear the words "no" and "nonsense". If I have to explain that we do not have a primary system of election for the Commons in this country, I am rather labouring in vain.
When I hear the words "democratic accountability" and "the people's choice, not the party's choice" in your Lordships' House, I sympathise with the late Marshal Goering who, when he heard the word "culture", felt tempted to reach for his revolver.
The fact is that we are offering a proportional system for the European elections, as we offered it in the context of the Welsh assembly and Scottish parliament elections, on the basis that the outcome will be fairer to smaller parties. That has been done quite deliberately in the context of Wales. The Conservative Party had 20 per cent. of the vote in the general election with no seats. Under the proportional system, which your Lordships have accepted and adopted for the Welsh assembly, 20 per cent. of the votes will produce 20 per cent. successful candidates in Wales. Is the Welsh system—I cannot quite remember at present—an open or closed system? As noble Lords have accepted, it is a closed system. So if I hear again the word "consistency", I sometimes raise a question in my own mind.
It is important for me to put the matter as neutrally as I can. What my noble friend Lord Carter said by way of observation about possible outcomes is correct. There is no prospect of a Commons insisting on this amendment. We are therefore coming to a crunch. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is right to that extent; and it is as well, I think—I say this respectfully—that we recognise that.
It is not right to say that this would be an unusual system. If we adopt the system the Government have proposed, which has been discussed at length on three earlier occasions, 70 per cent. of our colleagues in Europe will vote on the same system. It is wrong of course to choose selective quotations from the report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I see the noble Lord in his place. Perhaps I may look at paragraph 95; I should not wish the quotation to be uniquely selective. The noble Lord speaks of the kind of breakfast menu one can get in certain parts of the United States. By the time the waiter has come to the end of the list, one has forgotten what was on the menu. The noble Lord states:
"In voting rather than in breakfast terms exasperation may discourage going to the polls at all and randomness lead to the casting of perverse or at least meaningless votes. Some people want to be able to choose between candidates of the same party, but many are interested only in voting for parties, and would not appreciate being forced into choosing between candidates of the same party about each of whom they know little".
It is trite but nevertheless true and worth recalling that the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, were devoted to the Westminster system of voting, which is utterly and completely different in concept, construction and outcome from the systems that we are presently discussing. The constituencies will be very large. This amendment will not alter that. In the south-eastern
286
region there may be as many as 40 or 50 candidates. This amendment will not alter that. It is parties in a parliamentary democracy, or in any democratic context, which bring forward candidates; and the parties want to bring forward their candidates as they wish to bring forward their slate of policies at Blackpool. The voter then has the opportunity for decision in exactly the same way as he or she has the opportunity for decision now: Do you wish the candidate; and do you wish the slate of policies? You come to your own conclusions.
It is a fact—I do not apologise for repeating it—that women and ethnic minorities are significantly disadvantaged in all areas of our national life, not least in parliamentary representation. It is a legitimate desire, I respectfully contend to your Lordships, for a party to want to put women, or people from ethnic minorities, at the top of the list: to look for people with particular expertise and offer them—I repeat the phrase "offer them"—to the voters.
The debate has ranged quite far. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff complained about people not being elected and referred to Mr. Alun Michael, an MP for Cardiff West and a Welsh speaker, and who has spent much of his political life pressing the case for Welsh devolution. I do not require any lessons on that.
We have discussed this matter. People speak about duty, and principles. Different people have different views, quite reasonably and legitimately in a diverse society, about where duty lies. People also have views which differ about the value of a democratically elected assembly as opposed to one which is not elected by anyone.
The last word I offer is this. We asked the Commons to think again. Chaos will result if this Bill is lost. I do not put that by way of exaggeration, but by way of quotation. Mr. Robert Syms, a Member of the Conservative Party in another place said that we are coming to the end of a Session: to implement change at this stage would cause chaos and difficulty. Another place considered this matter. Whatever the intellectual, political or thematic content of their discussions is not a matter for me to comment on; others have been rather disparaging. What I say is that they were elected and we were not. When the Commons had considered these matters, it came to this conclusion after a full debate. It voted to overturn your Lordships' views by 338 to 131—an elected majority of 207.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I think that my memory does not deceive me when I say that the Government Front Bench found no supporting speaker from behind it, and had to rely—as is sometimes the case—on support from the Liberal Democrats.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, used most of the arguments he has used previously. I believed that I had countered his argument about party advantage by suggesting that even the open list system gives the party, I should have thought, sufficient advantage, even for the noble Lord. But I think his tactic about the 20 per cent. Conservative vote in Wales is a total diversion. The

287
Welsh Conservative Party will gain the same number of seats whether it is the open or closed list. The point at issue will be whether the Welsh Conservative Party or the Conservative electorate in Wales determines who is returned from the list. That is the important point.
As regards the argument that the majority of our friends in Europe use the closed list, that may be so in terms of the number of electorate. But it is a more finely balanced issue as regards the number of countries. The Germans, the Spanish, the French, the Greeks and the Portuguese have a closed list, but Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Austria and Ireland have different systems. However, they are all systems in which the order of the names may be changed by casting personal votes.
The noble Lord, Lord Shore, encapsulated the whole issue in a phrase which I regretted that I had not thought of myself: not the electorate, but the "selectorate". That is exactly what the closed list does. It is a "selectorate". had not intended to make any reference to the speeches in another place, in part out of respect for the Home Secretary, but the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Parkside, has tempted me. Not only did I read the Home Secretary's speech, but I listened to it. He was more intent on ridiculing the PR system than in defending the closed list against the open list system. However, perhaps I may say this to the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont and Lord Goodhart. I have always made it clear that I stand four square for first-past-the-post. I have never disguised that fact. So I take badly from them the fact that they think I am doing something underhand. I have always made the position clear. However, if we are to move to a PR system—and I made clear in my original remarks that I accepted that the argument was over in that regard so far as concerns Europe—then at least we should obey the two objectives of PR which I outlined: first, proportionality; and, secondly, voter choice.
I conclude by reference to my noble friend Lord Inglewood. My noble friend has more to gain from a continuation of the closed list than any Member of your Lordships' House. He is on the closed list in the number one position in an area where the Conservative Party is guaranteed to gain three seats. My noble friend could quite simply sit back—he will not do so because he is not like that—and wait for the seat to be delivered. He does not have to do a hand's turn. I do not think it is a wise system, and nor does my noble friend. He believes the Conservative electorate in his region ought to have some say as to which of the three or four Conservative Members are returned.
My last point concerns the position between your Lordships' House and the House of Commons. As I understand it, if we send this Bill back the other place will be able to amend my amendment and return the Bill to us for our further consideration. So the cataclysmic end is not inevitable. The Government will have the option of amending. They will have another option also. They will have the option of accepting the open list and of changing next year's European elections from being a vote for one of the party's choice to a vote for one of the people's choice.
288
We have listened to the debate. I am going to insist and ask for your Lordships' opinion.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his usual courtesy. It is theoretically possible that an amendment might be produced. But, given the shade of difference between these two positions, what conceivable workable amendment could be produced?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, for a fee and in private I might be prepared to advise the Government. But if the Government do not have enough ingenuity to come up with an amendment, I despair for them. If they do not have enough ingenuity, they can always fall back on accepting the open list system.
4.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 221; Not-Contents, 145.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cadman, L.

Ailsa, M.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Aldington, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Carrick, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Chadlington, L.

Ampthill, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Chesham, L.

Annaly, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Clarke of Kempston, L.

Arran, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Cockfield. L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Coleridge. L.

Attlee, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Balfour, E.

Craigavon, V.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Cranborne, V.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cross, V.

Bell, L.

Cuckney, L.

Beloff, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Belstead, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Berners, B.

Dartmouth, E.

Bethell, L.

Davidson, V.

Biddulph, L.

De Freyne, L.

Biffen, L.

Denbigh, E.

Birdwood, L.

Denham, L.

Blatch, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Boardman, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Bowness, L.

Downshire, M.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Dundee, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Brentford, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bridges, L.

Elton, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Exmouth, V.

Bristol, Bp.

Feldman, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Forbes, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Gage, V.

Burns, L.

Gainford, L.

Buscombe, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Butterworth, L.

Geddes, L.

Byford, B. [Teller.]

Gibson, L.

Byron, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

289

Gisborough, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Moyne, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Munster, E.

Glentoran, L.

Newall, L.

Hambro, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Norrie, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Northbourne, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Northesk, E.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Norton, L.

Harrowby, E.

Norton of Louth, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Hayter, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Henley, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Holderness, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Hood, V.

Palmer, L.

Hooper, B.

Palumbo, L.

Hothfield, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Howe, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Pender, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Ilchester, E.

Phillimore, L.

Inglewood, L.

Pike, B.

Iveagh, E.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Jeger, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Jellicoe, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Jopling, L.

Reay, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Rees, L.

Keyes, L.

Renton, L.

Kimball, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Kingsland, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Rowallan, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Saatchi, L.

Kintore, E.

St Davids, V.

Kitchener, E.

Sandwich, E.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Savile, L.

Knollys, V.

Seccombe, B.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Selborne, E.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Sempill, L.

Shannon, E.

Lawrence, L.

Sharples, B.

Layton, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Limerick, E.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Liverpool, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Slim, V.

Long, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Lucas, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Luke, L.

Strange, B.

Lyell, L.

Strathcarron, L.

McConnell, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Swinfen, L.

Merrivale, L.

Teviot, L.

Mersey, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Middleton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Trenchard, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Monson, L.

Vivian, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Waddington, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Warnock, B.

Moran, L.

Wilcox, B.

Mountevans, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Amos, B.

Addington, L.

Annan, L.

Ahmed, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Alli, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

290

Avebury, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Bach, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Barnett, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bath, M.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Longford, E.

Berkeley, L.

Ludford, B.

Blackstone, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Borrie, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Bragg, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Brookman, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McNair, L.

Burlison, L.

Maddock, B.

Calverley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Christopher, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Molloy, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Monkswell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

David, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Davies, L.

Newby, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Northfield, L.

Desai, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dholakia, L.

Parry, L.

Donoughue, L.

Paul, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Dubs, L.

Peston, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Ezra, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Puttnam, L.

Falkland, V.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Razzall, L.

Fitt, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Geraint, L.

Richard, L.

Gilbert, L.

Rochester, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Goodhart, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Goudie, B.

Sawyer, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Serota, B.

Grantchester, L.

Sewel, L.

Grenfell, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Grey, E.

Shepherd, L.

Hacking, L.

Simon, V.

Hampton, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hamwee, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hardie, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Taverne, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Haskel, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hayman, B.

Thornton, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thurso, V.

Hollick, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hooson, L.

Uddin, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Varley, L.

Hoyle, L.

Warner, L.

Hughes, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Whitty, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jacobs, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winston, L.

Judd, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
LORDS AMENDMENTS
4.23 p.m.
2 Clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—
("(2A) Each candidate shall declare that he is either—

(a) the candidate of a party (and shall name that party); or

(b) an independent candidate.

(2B) There shall be added together the number of votes given for each party's candidates in each electoral region.
(2C) The number arrived at under subsection (2B) shall be the number of votes for the party for the purposes of this Act.").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
2A Because it would result in a voting system which is undesirable.

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON
2B That this House do insist on their Amendment No. 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 2A.
3 Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
("(5A) After the allocation of seats to the parties, the order of candidates in each list shall be such that the candidates are ranked in terms of the votes each received, with the candidate with the highest number of votes appearing first.
(5B) If two or more candidates have the same number of votes, their order on the list shall be determined by lot.").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
3A Because it would result in a voting system which is undesirable.

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON
3B That this House do insist on their Amendment No. 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 3A.
4 Page 2, line 18, at end insert (",following the rearrangement required under subsections (5A) and (5B)").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
4A Because it would result in a voting system which is undesirable.

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON
4B That this House do insist on their Amendment No. 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 4A.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, That this House do insist on their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 en bloc to which the Commons have disagreed for the reasons numbered 2A, 3A and 4A.
Moved, That the House do insist on their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reasons numbered 2A, 3A and 4A.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill returned to the Commons with reasons.

Regional Development Agencies Bill
4.24 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Constitution]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very simple amendment that would require the Secretary of State to consult the Minister of Agriculture before he appoints members to a regional development agency. There are a number of reasons why the Secretary of State should do this. First, the Bill states that an RDA's purposes:
"apply as much in relation to the rural parts of its area as in relation to its non-rural parts".
As the Minister of Agriculture has joint responsibility with the Secretary of State over rural regeneration and the rural economy, it must make sense for him to be involved in the appointments of members to the RDAs. Secondly, farming and related businesses have a pivotal role in helping RDAs to meet their defined purposes both in rural and urban parts of their areas.
Here I so agree with the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Anelay of St. Johns at Committee stage, that it is always—I repeat always—appropriate to consult MAFF in metropolitan areas. I firmly believe, and so I thought did the Government, that the town relies as much on the country as the country relies on the town. However, although the national importance of direct on-farm agricultural employment may have decreased over time—and indeed it has—in many regions agriculture still provides a major source of employment. When upstream and downstream dependent jobs are included and the value of produce is taken into account, farming's importance in both the regional and the national economy is far in excess of what might be deduced from a straight analysis of direct employment in agriculture alone.
Thirdly, as a primary land user in the countryside, agriculture also plays a vital role in the Government's sustainable development strategy—something that your Lordships and the Government are always so keen about—a fact acknowledged in the recent Department of the Environment consultation on the Government's proposals for a revised United Kingdom strategy for sustainable development.
In its role both as a consumer and user of natural resources and also as a source of alternative energy, the agricultural dimension of sustainable development is crucial in our regions. I suspect that the noble Lord will tell me that of course the Secretary of State would always consult with his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, and no doubt he will point out that Clause 2(3)(d) makes my amendment otiose.
I would say that sometimes—just sometimes—Cabinet colleagues do not always agree on everything all the time. As the Bill is written, the Secretary of State would be legally correct if he considered that his

293
colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, was not a person he considered appropriate, as described in that subsection. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to the amendment which is in my name, which is grouped with that of my noble friend, at this stage. I understand from the Minister that it will be convenient for him to speak to the Government's amendments after other noble Lords have participated in the debate.
Perhaps I may begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley on his amendment and remarking on the importance of the part it would play in making sure that appointments to RDAs take proper account of the needs of rural areas. At this stage it is perhaps a somewhat unusual pleasure for me to be able to welcome also government Amendment No. 2. I should make it clear immediately that I shall not be moving Amendment No. 3 which stands in my name and which is grouped with Amendment No. 1.
It is right that there should be on the face of the Bill a requirement that the Secretary of State should consult people who represent the interests of those who know best the needs of rural areas—the people who live there, work there and who run businesses there for the enhancement of the economy of rural areas and elsewhere. I raised this matter in Committee, together with a rather more ambitious amendment which would have put on the face of the Bill the requirement that at least one member of each board should have direct experience of rural matters. At that stage there was considerable support for my amendments from noble Lords of all parties.
The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, offered a meeting to discuss the amendments further. I know that it is traditional on these occasions to thank Ministers for holding such meetings, but I do so not only as a matter of courtesy but also because of my personal gratitude. The meeting was held with dispatch and there was a constructive approach from the ministerial team. I also thank all noble Lords who attended that meeting. Because of the need to keep the meeting relatively small, we could not invite all those who took such an important part in the discussions in Committee. However, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and my noble friend Lord Bowness for attending. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, would have attended had not other commitments in the House prevented her from doing so. I thank her for the comments that she was able to make outwith the Chamber, which I am sure had some impact on the Government's decisions.
At that meeting, the Government repeated their arguments against both of my amendments in much the same vein as in Committee. However, the Government took some further steps which were helpful. They presented copies of draft documents on rural policy which would act as guidance to the RDAs. They are working documents and all who attended the meeting have respected the Government's request that they
294
should not be circulated outwith that group without the Government's express consent. I am, however, grateful to Ministers for giving me permission for the documents to be shown to the political adviser of the Country Landowners Association who assisted me, in the first instance, with the drafting of my amendment which is before your Lordships today. We all found it helpful that the Government provided us with those papers in which we found some promising material. That makes me sound rather like a headmistress, so I apologise; that was not intended.
All noble Lords who attended that meeting accepted the Government's good will—that when appointments are made to boards in the first instance, the Government expect that at least one person who is appointed will have direct experience of rural matters. Indeed, the White Paper states that that should be the case. All who attended that meeting expressed their great concern about what may happen in the future when substitute or repeat appointments are made. In its present form, the Bill gives no reassurance that those who are appointed with experience of rural matters will continue to be appointed on that basis in the future. There was a concern that, albeit unintentionally, there may be a drift away from appointing persons with such expertise.
As a result of that meeting with Ministers, I invited interested Peers to attend a meeting last Wednesday with a representative of the CLA to discuss noble Lords' views on how best to proceed on Report. On that same day, I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made it clear to me that the Government had considered my amendments further. On the first matter, the more ambitious matter, the Government retained their opposition and made it clear that there was no way in which they could accede to that. However, on the second matter, the subject of today's debate, the Government made it clear that the amendment was acceptable, but needed more felicitous drafting. Having seen the wording of the Minister's amendment, I quite agree. The Government's amendment is not only more felicitous, but will achieve my objective more effectively than would my amendment.
The response of noble Lords who participated in our debates in Committee and at various meetings since has been that the Government's moves should be welcomed. As a measure of good will, I then immediately withdrew my first, more ambitious, amendment from consideration on Report. I welcome the fact that the Minister has tabled his amendment today and I hope that the House will accept it.
When the Minister responds, I wonder whether he will give some indication of the nature of the organisations which the Government would expect to be consulted as a result of the application of the amendment to the working of the Bill. Obviously, because of my personal views, I have it in mind that one should seek consultation with the CLA, the National Farmers Union and the Council for the Protection of Rural England and other such organisations. I am sure that noble Lords with more experience of these matters than I will be able to come up with a wider but more effective list.

295
In welcoming the Government's moves on this, I end, as one might expect, by commenting that your Lordships have given the Government the opportunity to think again on this matter and, on this occasion, I feel sure that they have come to a better decision.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, during our previous business, I had occasion to draw attention to the fact that a number of northern cities are ruled, and have been for some time—that is changing—by rather Stalinist means and by heavy Whipping on the part of the ruling Labour Party. It is because of that and because such people often do not have much sympathy with the countryside and its real interests that I thought it important to put on the face of the Bill a provision to ensure that there is proper understanding of rural matters and consultation with those involved.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, for her work in getting the various bodies together to discuss the matter. I pay great tribute also to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his amendment. I suspected that the Government would not meet us on this matter, but they have managed to do so handsomely in their Amendment No. 2. We on these Benches fully support it.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, is to be congratulated on the way in which she succeeded in persuading the Government to adopt the substance of her proposals. She said that in the course of that she had abandoned the more ambitious of her proposals. I confess that I do not think that the alternative proposal that one appointee to each agency should have rural experience is either more ambitious or preferable. I think that the noble Baroness has the right answer. The Government and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, are to be thanked for having co-operated on that point. Having had the privilege of attending that meeting. I know that it is absolutely clear that the Government have taken a great deal of trouble about both the original constitution of the agencies and the rules and guidelines under which they are to operate.
My concern, which was also expressed by the noble Baroness, relates to appointments to be made in the future when the matter cannot be considered in the same depth as at the start. It is highly desirable and a great improvement that the interests and concerns of people in the countryside will be expressly considered.
I have one question for the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. He has chosen not to adopt the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, but to table his own. I quite understand that. The parliamentary draftsmen do not believe that any other hand should ever be allowed to touch a sacred Bill and that amendments must therefore be drafted by them and not by the mere riff-raff who sit on your Lordships' Benches.
However, one word in the amendment worries me. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness refers to persons who represent the "concerns" of people in rural areas. The Government's amendment refers to those who "represent the interests".
296
I say as a lawyer—one always becomes boring at this stage!—that "interests" is a much narrower word than "concerns". There are many cases which hold that you have an interest only if you have a financial interest or a property interest. Persons, for example, who are concerned about the conservation of birds or the amenities of the countryside but have no financial or property interest in those things might be regarded by the courts as not being within the scope of the Government's amendment, whereas they obviously would be within the scope of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
I am afraid that I have seen these amendments only today and therefore I have not had a chance to put this matter to the noble Lord. I am sure he will not wish to give me an answer on this occasion, but I hope he will consider that point and consider whether his amendment might be improved on Third Reading by substituting the word "concerns" for "interests".
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I wish to support my noble friend Lord Stanley and to reinforce some of the points he made. In so doing I mention as examples some agricultural points that concern the south-west. Of the 80 separately identified regions of the European Union, only Sicily, Northern Ireland, Scotland and north Pas-de-Calais in France had a higher proportion of their land areas devoted to agriculture than the south-west of England in 1994. As a proportion of regional GDP agriculture is more important in the south-west than in any English region and is second only to Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom.
The south-west accounts for 25 per cent. of the United Kingdom's dairy herd and 16 per cent. of its beef cattle. Nearly 60 per cent. of local farms are in the small category with an average income of under £8,000 in 1997. However, a combination of the BSE crisis, the fall in milk prices and the impact of the green revolution has reduced farm incomes by half compared with 1996. Many farmers in Devon and Cornwall—I know your Lordships have heard this many times, but it is a fact—are facing ruin and their uncertain future has a 15 to 25 per cent. knock-on effect on sales of farm machinery and agricultural supplies as well as upon the network of industries and services supporting agriculture in the villages and market towns of the south-west.
I hear that the only agricultural businesses which are growing at the moment in north Devon where I live are those selling tyres for tractors and such like. This implies that our farmers cannot now afford or risk buying new machinery. We should therefore expect them to have even greater problems tomorrow as their ability to compete will be further reduced by a lack of investment today. I think I am right in saying that MAFF is not currently part of government regional offices throughout the country. Therefore it is even more important that strong recognition is given to agriculture within the RDAs.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and I have been so polite to one another we are in danger of failing to speak altogether from our

297
respective Front Benches. I, too, congratulate and thank the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns. We are pleased that this reference will now appear on the face of the Bill. I said at a previous stage that I had much sympathy with the Government's concern not to specify direct representation. I think their objective to ensure that members have a mix of expertise to bring a far broader range of experience, background and concerns—to use a word which has been mentioned—to the agencies is a valid one. As I think I have said previously, I do not believe that it will be possible for the agencies to carry out their objectives unless the provision which is now encapsulated in the amendment is put in place.
I have one concern which I wish to place on record although it is not appropriate to push it further. At the previous stage one or two of us mentioned the membership of the London agency when that comes into being. We accepted that expertise in rural matters would be relevant to membership of the London agency. I appreciate that the commencement order for London will not arise at the same time as for the other agencies, and that the London agency will come into being in a couple of years as part of the new government for London. However, the amendment refers to representation of the interests of those,
"in rural parts of the agency's area".
I envisage that may be a little limiting for London. London has its rural parts but they are not extensive. When the London agency is formed it will be important to ensure that it has the right relationship with London's hinterland, as my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley describes it. I appreciate that this is not a comment to be addressed to the Minister but rather to the potential mayor, whoever he or she may be. Subject to that reservation we support the Minister's amendment.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, in Committee it was powerfully argued in all parts of the Chamber that the special concerns of rural areas should be recognised on the face of the Bill. I believe it was accepted that the consultation for the initial appointments would be wide and would cover all the necessary interests. However, I believe—I think this is a fear of many noble Lords—that as time goes by and pressures grow on regional development agencies for different interests to be represented, it will be all too easy for those interests to become dominated by the interests of the large conurbations within the individual regions. I welcome the Government's amendment which ensures that before any appointment is made, not just now but also in the future, those representing the interests of the rural community will be consulted. I take this opportunity to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and to my noble friend Lady Anelay of St. Johns for the work they have done in ensuring this outcome.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I intend to speak mainly to the amendment standing in my name and to the amendment spoken to so graciously by the noble
298
Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns. I welcomed her comments. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and the noble Earl, Lord Arran, that agriculture will be a central and important area of concern for the RDAs. The Minister of Agriculture will be involved in the decision making process. Decisions on appointments will be taken collectively amongst Ministers, and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be involved in those decisions. That is part and parcel of Cabinet government. As agriculture is so important to the regional strategies of many regional development agencies, the Minister of Agriculture will be an important component of the decision making process. I hope that in the light of my remarks the noble Lord will accept that the provision does not need to be spelt out on the face of the Bill.
Much has been said on rural interests generally. I appreciate the remarks of all noble Lords, and particularly of the noble Baroness, who was energetic and effective in lobbying the Government on this issue. We listened, both during the debate and in the meetings outside this House. We have brought forward a proposal which I believe meets the concerns of most noble Lords.
I wish to make a few points for the record. Reference was made to the original amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, described by her as more ambitious. It is important that people in rural areas understand why we have not been prepared to go along with that proposal. The Bill does not single out any board member for special areas of interest; all members of the board will be treated equally. Our view remains that we do not want to separate out the rural expertise in that way.
However, while we do not intend rural expertise to be ghetto-ised and represented by one member, we do, on the contrary intend to ensure that there will be rural expertise on the board. I cannot give an unequivocal reply in relation to London because of the role of the mayor in that respect, but on the other boards there will undoubtedly be someone appointed who has rural expertise. That is the Government's intention. We recognise that in bringing forward Amendment No. 2 noble Lords require this provision to be on the face of the Bill, and that people in rural areas require that assurance. The Bill as it stands provides a general list of people to be consulted. We are happy to add to that list the reference to rural interests; that is represented in our amendment.
In parallel with the passage of this Bill, and without pre-empting the view of this House, it has obviously been necessary for us to have started consultation with organisations on the initial appointments to the boards. Noble Lords who inquire, region by region, will know that the consultation has included identifying candidates with rural expertise. We are consulting numerous groups about board membership. In response to the noble Baroness's question, the consultation includes the Country Landowners' Association, the NFU and the Council for the Protection of Rural England. On the national list there are several more bodies with primarily rural interests. I shall be happy to let the noble Baroness have a list. Region by region, there are also local variations in those being consulted. We have received a

299
good response to the consultation. We will ensure that initial appointments will be made in the light of the consultation, and with rural interests very much in mind.
In addition to that, the concern represented to me in the interim between Committee stage and this stage was to the effect that that is all very well for the first batch but we need to ensure that the same will apply in future. I believe that my amendment will ensure that that happens in relation to future Secretaries of State and future appointments.
Perhaps I may explain to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, why we differentiate between the wording of the noble Baroness's amendment and the government amendment. We did not see the same distinction. There may well be more sophisticated reasons from the parliamentary draftsmen, but perhaps I may give just two. First, our amendment refers specially to people in rural areas rather than representing concerns. Secondly, the word "concerns" may be straightforward to a lawyer, but it is ambiguous to a layman in the sense that it can mean enterprises and institutions and not people; whereas we have referred specifically to people, and to those who operate businesses. As I believe the noble Baroness accepted, our wording is slightly wider than that in Amendment No. 3.
I am grateful for all the kind words directed towards the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and myself. Congratulations are probably due more to those who have brought these matters to our attention. However, I believe that this issue can now be resolved. I hope that at least in this instance the noble Baroness will recognise that the Government do listen to the House of Lords, and that on this occasion we can all agree on my amendment.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, there is one problem, although I do not want to pre-empt discussion on my Amendment No. 19. I very much welcome the Minister's remarks in regard to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Stanley. To paraphrase, he said that the stature of the Minister of Agriculture in this matter of consultation under Clause 2 would be on a par with that of Secretaries of State. I am grateful to see the Minister nodding. There is a problem, in that the Minister of Agriculture is not a Secretary of State. Will the noble Lord give an undertaking that the role of the Minister of Agriculture in the consultation will be of exactly the same weight as it would have been were he a Secretary of State? We shall go into this matter later. If the noble Lord would give that undertaking, it would be very helpful.
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords, in this context I can give an unequivocal assurance. The matter is more complicated in relation to the subsequent amendment, but however in this context the answer is, yes.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, first, perhaps I may refer to the point made by my noble friend Lord Arran. As he said, agriculture in the south-west is vulnerable. I hope that the Minister will bear his remarks in mind when we debate my Amendment No. 9 dealing with the strategy of RDAs.
300
My noble friend Lady Anelay made the valid point that unless there is a provision on the face of the Bill, there will be trouble in regard to repeat appointments. The Minister made the same point in moving the government amendment. He said that it was necessary to have the provision on the face of the Bill in order to remind successive governments. Who knows?—we might have a Tory government who forgot all about the countryside. That is why it is as important to have my amendment on the face of the Bill as it is to have the government amendment. I am concerned about the matter. I must not be ungracious. The Minister's remark that the Minister of Agriculture will make the appointments almost jointly with the Secretary of State is very welcome. However, being cynical and untrustworthy, as the Minister knows, I should have liked to see the provision on the face of the Bill. I cannot see why there could not be mention of both the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture.
I am afraid that I shall have to take this matter away and consult with my "rural constituents". If they feel that the provision is unsatisfactory, I hope the noble Lord will not think me churlish if I bring the matter back at Third Reading. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 4, after ("area,") insert—
("( ) such persons as appear to him to represent the interests of those who live, work or carry on business in rural parts of the agency's area,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Constitution of agencies]:
5 p.m.
Lord Bowness Lord Bowness moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 23, line 1, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State may remove a member of a regional development agency who, at the time of his appointment to the agency, holds office as an elected councillor for a local authority within the area of the agency if for any reason that member ceases to be an elected councillor for a local authority within the area of the agency.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee, we sought to persuade the Government that it would be appropriate to recognise the special position of local government in a number of different ways, particularly to ensure the representation of local authorities within the area of the RDA, and that that representation should feature on the face of the Bill. In that, we failed.
We failed also in terms of trying to achieve a reference to a specific number of local government members. And we failed equally in our attempt to ensure that, if people were appointed to the RDA to represent local government, that representation should end in the event of their ceasing to be members of a local authority.
The Government ask us to accept that in practice four out of 12 of the anticipated number of members of an RDA will come from local government but that the appointments of those people will not be as

301
representatives of local government, although local government will have been consulted before the appointments are made. We are asked to accept that these people will sit as individuals who, as the Minister said in Committee,
"have the appropriate expertise and background, which includes of course background in local government".—[Official Report, 7/10/98; col. 460.]
Reference was made in the debate on the earlier group of amendments to the Government's desire that members of RDAs should be fully involved in all aspects of the work of the agency rather than be perceived as representing a particular special interest. I cannot accept that someone who is appointed because they have a particular qualification will in some way be a second-class member or that they will be constrained in their activities by virtue either of their self-restraint or of their colleagues' wishes. I believe that there is a case for recognising the special position of local government.
If we are to rely on the Government's assurances that in practice four seats will be occupied by people who, among their other talents, number active, practical local government experience from within the area, it seems appropriate that, even if we cannot write that on the face of the Bill, we should include within the Bill a mechanism whereby the position could be restored if it went wrong at some time. That is the purpose of the amendment.
Perhaps I may take the time of the House to explain again why I believe the position of local government is special. Of course I understand that all kinds of interests and groups can make a case for representation, but none of them can claim that democratic element of representation which is true of local authorities and their members. As I said at Committee stage, whatever the turnout at an election may be, local authorities are more democratic and representative than any other organisation or group of interests within an area. People look to their local authorities to lead in many different activities, especially those listed in the White Paper as being within the proposed regional development agencies' interests. I therefore believe it right that those democratically elected bodies should have a voice within the regional development agencies.
I shall not revisit the question of numbers. I entirely accept the assurances given by the Minister about appointments. But, as was said earlier, times move on; there will be different ministers, and assurances, if not set to one side, can be overlooked. All that the amendment seeks is a power for the Secretary of State, if he chooses to exercise it, to remove a member who at the time of his or her appointment holds office in a local authority if that person ceases to be an elected member of a local authority, the purpose being that active local government within the area may be represented. No compulsion is proposed. If the Secretary of State has reasons for not removing a member, he does not need to do so. He does not have to explain, and the amendment does not bind him to any time limit for his action.
The Bill gives a great deal of power to the Secretary of State, a matter upon which we dwelt in Committee. He appoints; he gives guidance and directions; and he can enhance the RDA by delegation of his own powers. How that matches up to the description in the White Paper, I am not sure. It is stated on page 9 that:
"power should not be centralised in Whitehall, but that local, regional and national structures are needed for decision-making and for action to put those decisions into effect".
I cannot understand why the Government are not disposed to give to the Secretary of State a power which will enable democratic local government always to be represented on the RDA.
As was pointed out in Committee, it is quite conceivable that the four members—if that is indeed the number—of an RDA who held office as local authority members might, either by retirement or the electoral process, lose their local government seats. I accept that they would not immediately thereafter lose all the local government experience that they were able to bring to the RDA, but, as the Minister himself pointed out, members might lose their local government seats with three years of their term of appointment to an RDA still to run. Is it really suggested that the local authorities within the area of an RDA should remain unrepresented? It was suggested to your Lordships by the Minister that in those circumstances,
"we would need to review the situation to see what we could do to ensure that the RDA board continued to have some current experience from local government. Depending on the circumstances we could invite the four members concerned to put their RDA places at the Secretary of State's disposal — after all, we are allowed by the Bill to increase the size of a board up to 15 members".
But there would be many other pressures, and some of those places may have been taken up.
The Minister went on to say:
"It is not sensible to place on the face of the Bill an absolute requirement that all those members in all the circumstances I have described should resign the minute they are defeated".—[Official Report, 7/10/98; col. 462.]
I accept that, and the amendment does not make that the issue. The involvement of the local authorities in the regional chambers, if they come about, will not be any compensation for not having a seat on an RDA. It is with the regional development agencies, the centrally appointed bodies that will come into existence, that the real power will lie. In my view, in time the funds and the ability to deliver programmes on the many matters set out in the White Paper will rest with them.
I suggest that the amendment gives maximum flexibility to the Secretary of State. If the Government are serious in their desire for partnership between central and local government, they will recognise the need to ensure that they have the means to make certain that democratically elected local authorities can provide members who, in addition to their other talents, have an involvement with local government. The amendment gives local government fewer guarantees than I should like. It commits the Secretary of State to nothing. However, it will at least ensure that there will be a

303
means whereby the good intentions about appointments which are currently expressed can be continued if problems arise. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, at the previous stage of the Bill the thrust of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, was supported by these Benches. I share his views on this issue. Rather than repeating the arguments, I shall ask the Minister a question. In Schedule 2, which deals with the constitution of agencies, paragraph 1(1) refers to members holding and vacating office in accordance with the terms of their appointment. Can the Minister clarify whether the terms of appointment of individual members would go any way towards meeting the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness? I agree with the noble Lord that the position of local authority members is different from that of other members. Is there scope within the appointment to provide for the vacation of office upon an individual ceasing to be a member of the local authority?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I participated in the debate on this issue on the last occasion and spoke not only from my own experience of serving on a council but prompted by the views of the Local Government Association. Whenever one moves to another stage of any Bill, one should reflect on not only what a Minister said at a previous stage. To be fair, one should also reflect on the situation. I start from the basis of hoping that when councils and councillors in a region are given the opportunity, by whatever method, to produce four people from their midst to serve on a RDA, the people chosen will look upon their appointment as a very high responsibility. It is not, like many other appointments, "Buggins' Turn", or something which should be taken lightly. I hope that those in local government will be very careful about the people they put forward and nominate people who are likely to stay in the race for a very long time. We know that in a democracy people who have every confidence that they will last a long time fall at the next hurdle. That has happened to many people. It has happened to me more than once. As I am now a Member of your Lordships' House, thankfully it should not happen again.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, this is unless I am made into a hereditary Peer in the near future.
Viscount Bledisloe: What about reform, my Lords?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am all for reform. As I understand it, when we reform this House, the issue will be about the place of hereditary Peers. Without making any further comment, I happen not to be an hereditary Peer.
If serious players are nominated, then—whether one uses the term "representing the views of", or "from amongst the numbers of or "with experience in"—I
304
hope that the men and women put forward will look upon appointment to the RDA as achieving a very high post.
Reflecting on what the Minister said, even if there is nothing laid down—either in my previous amendment or in this amendment which makes removal mandatory—I sense that the Minister and his colleagues recognise fully the blemish that would be incurred if there were to be people in the circumstances mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. In such a situation—where very early into a four-year period board members cease to be members of a council—it should be possible, not for pressure to be applied, but for ministerial advice and guidance to be given.
I would hope that the colleagues of the person affected would say "Look, George, Mary, Joan or Charlie, we are sorry that you have lost your place on the council or have decided to retire from the council because you have other important business interests, but do you not understand that we would like someone closer to us after such events? Can we talk about your resigning?" I hope that councils will not put forward people as members who are not receptive to the views of their colleagues. My experience is not recent; it goes back a number of years. I can recall situations where positions were coveted and looked for. I hope that people in local government will respect that.
In view of what the Minister said at the previous stage of the Bill, if he and his colleagues have dug their toes in—which they have—then one will not get very far if one pushes this point. I am a great believer in seeing how things work out. I believe that the Minister is saying in good faith that he and his colleagues have reason to believe that, if the situation we have discussed arises, there are ways of dealing with it other than having it written onto the face of the Bill. Unlike those opposite who are shaking their heads, I say that this is a case where we can give the Minister an opportunity to prove to us, in the light of experience, that his advice at this stage is sound.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I would in spirit like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. I regret that he has put it rather in the negative so I am unable to do so. It is not constructive to think of the Secretary of State removing someone from office because they have ceased to be a member of their local authority. I would have preferred the wording to say that that person may be allowed to stay on in exceptional circumstances. If they are there by virtue of being a local authority member, they should cease to represent local authority membership on the board when they are no longer a councillor. However, I can imagine what a hornet's nest will be opened up. The noble Lord is right. These positions are sought after, with many applicants for all of them.
There was also discussion about political proportionality and so on. Given that elections for districts, counties and unitaries do not all happen at the same time, the electoral process is not clear at the moment; we may be going to annual elections and so

305
on. Where would it leave us, removing one member at one time and one member at another time? Suppose all the members were required to leave at one time? That would mean a loss of a third of the experience on the board.
The spirit of requiring members to resign when they no longer represent their local authorities is correct, but to require them arbitrarily to stand down is probably wrong at this stage. We should not leave it in the hands of the Secretary of State to remove a member. That might be viewed incorrectly in the region from which that member had come, however good the intentions were. I would welcome a statement from the Minister outlining the criteria that he would imagine using in such circumstances.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I appreciate the tone of the remarks on this issue. We debated it in Committee when a similar amendment, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, was defeated. I understand the objective of the amendment of the noble Lord. We obviously share a substantial amount in terms of the objective. We wish to see local government fully represented, in the broadest sense, on the board in that people with local government expertise should be members of the board. We have committed ourselves to appointing four members out of a 12-board executive, which is a very sizeable minority. But they are not representative in terms of the accountability in the sense in which the word has been used in this debate. They are not representative of local authorities. They owe their position not to their local councils or, in the last analysis, to their electorate. They are appointed by the Secretary of State and in that sense are the same as all other members of the board. One of the important points of our argument is that we wish to treat all members of the board in the same manner.
That is still entirely consistent with our intention that appointments made from local government should be of serving councillors. We intend to appoint to boards local government members who can bring the best possible local government expertise to bear on the work of the RDA. That must be best done by people who are serving councillors. Given the wealth of talent in local government, we should have no difficulty in appointing such councillors. However, that expertise is not wiped out automatically the day after councillors are defeated and cease to be members of the council. Election defeat does not make such people unfit to serve. In addition, I have a particular, almost technical, quarrel with the noble Lord's amendment in that the provision in Schedule 2 deals with people who are unfit to continue to serve because they are not willing to turn up, are bankrupt or are incapacitated in some way which makes it impossible for them to continue on the board. I do not think that that situation fits into the same category.
A recently defeated councillor will not suddenly become unaware of what local authorities are, what they do and what relationship they will need to have with the RDA. The Government wish to create balanced boards which reflect the range of interests concerned in the region. They must be kept to a manageable size and
306
some members will therefore have to bring experience of more than one aspect. To revert to a previous debate, one of the local councillors on the board could be someone who brings particular expertise of rural or agricultural matters. Surely the fact that councillors have just been defeated should not remove them from the board. That is our basic position and why we cannot accept the amendment.
However, I think I can bring some comfort to the noble Lord. As he recognised, I said in Committee that we would need to ensure that there was a continuing current reflection of local government in the membership of the board at all times. If, for example, all four members from local authorities who were on the board lost their seats at the same time, which was the situation referred to in a slightly different context by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, one might wish nevertheless to keep some of those on, but the total result would be that one would need to take some steps to ensure that local government was represented. Depending on the circumstances, we might invite some or all of those members to put their RDA places at the Secretary of State's disposal; or we might make additional appointments if we were below the 15 ceiling; or, as my noble friend Lord Graham indicated, we might look at other ways, in consultation with the local authorities, to ensure that the board continued to benefit from current local government experience.
I more or less said that on the previous occasion, but I shall go slightly further than that now. This is in reference to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. In this context we would still be treating all members of the board formally and contractually in the same manner. I am now able to say that all RDA appointment letters will include a provision enabling the Secretary of State to terminate the appointment of any member, local government or otherwise, within a given period of notice. The Secretary of State would have the means to change the composition of the board in such cases were the council element to be inadequately reflected. In the same way the Secretary of State could change the membership of the board for other reasons.
I therefore think that we should pursue the path laid out for us by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in that the appointments would allow the Secretary of State—in circumstances where, for example, all members on the board from local government disappeared at the same time in the sense of their being elected councillors—to take steps to replace them. That would not breach our approach whereby all members of the board are in the same relationship and under the same terms but it would give an opportunity in those circumstances for the Secretary of State, under the terms of the letter of appointment, to ensure that local government continued to have its interests fully reflected on the board.
In the light of that approach—I am putting a new position to the House today—I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press the amendment to a

307
vote. We all share the objective of ensuring that local government is fully a part of the boards of these important agencies in their regions.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, before I deal with the Minister's final point, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that my amendment is in no way intended to be mandatory on the Secretary of State. It may be badly worded, but if it was perceived as mandatory it was misunderstood. We should also bear in mind that those people with talent and experience, including a background in local government, who are appointed, will not be appointed from a list provided by local government. Local government may have been consulted but the appointments will, as the Minister pointed out, have been made by the Secretary of State. Indeed, as things currently stand, it is fair to say that were the circumstances I described in moving the amendment to arise, former colleagues of those appointees in local government and local government associations would have virtually no pressure to bring to bear.
Of course I accept that there are particular circumstances and of course I accept that people do not lose their expertise overnight. It would be foolish of me to suggest that and I do not want anyone to suggest it of me. One hopes it goes on for a little longer. However, I am grateful for the Minister's response. I accept that he understands the case I have sought to make and the position I am trying to protect. It may well be a way forward to deal with the matter through the letters of appointment.
We have had the Minister's assurances in this debate: they are on the record. I should like to read what has been said and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Purposes]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 26, leave out ("where it is relevant to its area to do so").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 which stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer.
With these amendments we return to the question of sustainability. It may be worth reminding ourselves of the objectives set out in the White Paper. Paragraph 8.1 of the White Paper refers to the regional development agencies placing the principle of sustainable development at the heart of their programmes. It tells us that the Government will give them the specific statutory objective of furthering the achievement of sustainable development, which would be monitored closely; that they will integrate environmental, economic and social objectives; and that they will engage directly in regeneration projects and set a priority for bringing back existing sites into productive use. It talks of working sensitively within the existing built environment and of seeking new uses for redundant buildings which would become part of the urban or rural landscape. The introductory paragraph concludes by
308
saying that in doing all these things the agencies will help to deal with growing pressures to bring greenfield sites into urban and industrial use. The White Paper also rightly points to the pressures on the environment which are wider than just local or regional. I accept that it is appropriate for the Bill to refer to sustainable development in the United Kingdom.
When this matter was discussed at Committee stage at col. 498 of Hansard the Minister contrasted the deletion of the words which are the subject of the first of these amendments,
"where it is relevant to its area to do so"
—the condition limiting the purpose of achieving sustainable development—with the wording of the other subsections. I did not at that stage, nor do I now, propose to delete the reference to the United Kingdom. That may have been a misunderstanding at the previous stage. I do not propose that the clause should read:
"to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in its area",
which appears to be the basis of the response to my amendment. I propose that one of the agencies' purposes should be to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, in the UK, without any limitation.
I have had sight of the draft guidance on the agencies' contribution to sustainable development, which I understand has gone to a limited number of organisations for consultation prior to more general consultation. The Minister may feel that he cannot win on this matter. Having seen that draft, and also the general guidance as to the agencies' strategy, I wonder whether it is appropriate to have separate sets of guidance. There has been a good deal of debate about integrating the agencies' purposes. Reading the two documents, I believe that there is considerable danger of projecting sustainable development as an add-on to the purposes of the agencies. In particular, paragraphs 7 and 8 of the wider draft guidance do not appear to bring the purpose of sustainability into the strategy at all, still less to place it at the heart of the strategy as the White Paper told us it would.
It is the question of integration that has prompted my Amendments Nos. 6 and 8. In Amendment No. 6 I propose that the agencies shall have regard to all of their purposes in seeking to achieve each purpose. In Amendment No. 8 I propose, in the clause dealing with strategy, that they should have regard to all of their purposes in exercising their functions. I do not suggest that it be a requirement that every project achieves every purpose but that with regard to every project the agency must not fail to address each of its purposes.
It is apparent from the draft on the general strategy that the economic work is moving ahead. I should like the agency to keep asking itself five questions based on the purposes in Clause 4(1). For example, how would the particular project further the economic development and regeneration of the area? How would it promote business efficiency, investment, competitiveness and so on? Your Lordships will get the point. I should like each agency to ask itself how each project will contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom.
Other noble Lords will have many examples of projects that can meet environmental as well as economic purposes. For example, there is much good work going on at the moment on energy efficiency measures that meet environmental objectives but also provide employment. I hope that my noble friend Lady Maddock, who has particular experience in this area, will be able to join in this debate and provide some examples.
These amendments seek to put on the face of the Bill an acknowledgement of the integration of the purposes. I suggest to noble Lords that it is easy to use the word "strategy" in guidance but that it is the mechanisms that count towards the outcomes and that to acknowledge sustainable development in particular is never irrelevant.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I have been invited by my noble friend to support her amendment. I believe it is very important when considering regional development, particularly economic development, with sustainability in mind, that we look very closely at energy efficiency. Noble Lords may be aware that I have a particular interest in this subject. We now have a good deal of information about the energy efficiency of our homes. Legislation that has been introduced has enabled jobs to be created locally and local industries to be used in the area of energy efficiency. Various government schemes give money to such projects, and job creation has been at the heart of the provision of grant and assistance to help people to do just that. The Government have provided additional money to the Energy Savings Trust to ensure that projects of this nature are supported, and innovation is very much part of that.
On the previous occasion when your Lordships discussed this matter I referred to housing and the strategic role of regional development agencies in regional housing issues. This is yet another area in which it is important for regional development agencies to look at their properties and to promote not only better housing conditions but to enable local authorities to get schemes off the ground and bid for projects. I believe that in a regional context this is one of the main areas where regional development agencies can develop thoroughly in line with progress by government in other areas. One of the problems in the area of energy efficiency is that projects do not tie up. Here is a golden opportunity for the other projects that the Government promote in this area to be gathered together in a region so that they are much more effective.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, in referring to these amendments I do not necessarily support the words that have been adopted to try to acknowledge on the face of the Bill a number of important concerns. However, the amendments reveal, in their tortuous language, real concern about the duty of RDAs to promote sustainable development, the extent to which they will integrate their requirements for sustainable development across all of their purposes and strategies and, in a later amendment, how far they have
310
regard to regional planning guidance and local plans. This matter was raised at Committee stage. At that time my noble friend the Minister informed the Committee that it would be reassured by the guidance to be given to RDAs on the various matters that the noble Baroness has already mentioned. Some of that guidance is now out for consultation and the rest is in draft.
We remain to be assured. I believe we all acknowledge the importance of RDAs fulfilling some of their primary purposes to deal with decentralisation, to bring decisions to a more local level, to respond to regional needs and to develop real regional identities. Nevertheless, there needs to be more than a passing nod at some of the national and international commitments that the Government have already made and which should at least be reflected in the guidance if they are not on the face of the Bill.
The Government have given a strong commitment to a national sustainability strategy, which is in preparation. There is already a UK biodiversity action plan. Biodiversity and its fate will be a key test of whether regional development agencies make decisions that are truly sustainable for the future. I do not believe that the Government's commitments can be ignored by RDAs. It would be false to imply through the guidance that economic development was the only primary purpose of RDAs and that environmental and sustainable development outcomes were a bolt-on extra. That is the tone that the guidance is currently adopting. The indicators of whether RDAs will have been successful relate almost totally to economic outcome rather than to the environment or biodiversity.
We were not assured by the Minister's first assurance, so perhaps we will be assured by the finalised guidance. There is real concern that unless we achieve a rounded framework with the three legs of sustainable development—economic, environmental and social—we will be doing a bad job by setting the RDAs off on their very important task.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we had a relatively brief discussion of the sustainable purpose in Clause 4 of the Bill at Committee. Amendment No. 5 is a repeat of the amendment then tabled by the noble Baroness. She expressed concern then, as now, about the words,
"where it is relevant to its area to do so",
which apply to the sustainable development purpose. Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 are about how the RDAs' purposes relate to each other. But of course the concern that the noble Baroness has, and which has led her to table these amendments, is how the sustainable development purpose relates to and will work in conjunction with the other purposes. So, if it will help your Lordships, I wish to explain more fully why the sustainable development provision is drafted as it is.
The RDAs' sustainable development purpose can be looked at in two ways. First, as one of the five purposes of the RDAs, it will inform the RDAs' actions in relation to all the other purposes where sustainable development is an issue. It will not be open to an RDA

311
to decide that this purpose is "irrelevant" if it is in fact relevant, and where it is relevant, and an RDA must take sustainable development into account in taking a decision. It will not be possible to ignore the factor. It will be incumbent on each RDA in all actions it takes in pursuance of its purposes to take account of all its purposes and in particular whether and how its action will contribute to sustainable development. There will be some occasions when some of the purposes will have less relevance to a policy or action than others; not all the purposes will be equally relevant to all decisions. Different purposes may also suggest different decisions or policies. In such cases, the RDAs will have to strike a balance between competing considerations. But the point is that all the purposes must be considered—none can be ignored—and with the nature of sustainable development as an all-pervading concept, it is likely that it will feature to some degree in all decisions and policies. That point was raised by my noble friend Lady Young.
Secondly, RDAs will in practice be able to take action which contributes to sustainable development, even where that action does not fall within one of the other four purposes. It will be open to an RDA, for example, to host a conference specifically on sustainable development, which does not, of itself, further any of their other purposes. I hope that clarifies the position.
The point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, about energy efficiency is important to sustainable development. The development of the technology relating to energy efficiency may well form part of that category. On the other hand, the RDAs would not be housing authorities, so the component would need to be taken into account. Against that background, let us consider the two limitations on the RDAs' sustainable development purpose in Clause 4(1)(e); that action should contribute to sustainable development and that it should be relevant to the RDA's area. These limitations will in practice have an effect only in relation to decisions and action under the second scenario; that is, when the sustainable development purpose is the sole driver of action by an RDA. The limitations are not relevant to the first interpretation—when sustainable development is influencing action under the other four purposes—because any action under the other four purposes which was relevant to sustainable development would also be relevant to sustainable development in the UK and relevant to the RDA's area. Thus, for example, in furthering the regeneration of its area, an RDA will have to have regard to the need for development to be sustainable development. It will, in doing this, clearly be contributing to sustainable development in the UK; and it will clearly be relevant for the RDA to do this.
If we removed the limitation "where it is relevant to its area", as Amendment No. 5 proposes, we would allow an RDA (indeed, give it a duty) to take actions contributing to sustainable development which were not relevant to its area. I am sure your Lordships will agree that that would not be sensible.
The whole purpose of RDAs—as is clear from Clause 4—is that they will take action which is relevant to their particular areas, rather than action which is relevant only to the rest of the UK.
312
On the other hand, a limitation which confined RDAs to action only within their region would be too restrictive. There may be projects where action outside the region would be relevant to sustainable development within it. A good example of this might be in relation to transport links between regions; for example, across the Pennines, or between the West Midlands and Wales. Limiting an RDA to action physically within its region might jeopardise projects of that kind.
So, given that it is sensible to restrict the relevance of some of the RDAs' actions, we think we have a provision which enables RDAs to make an appropriate contribution to the achievement of sustainable development, without unduly restricting them to action and effects solely within their individual areas.
I ought also to remind the House that we intend to issue guidance to the RDAs on the operation of the sustainable development purpose. I note the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about whether it should be outwith the general guidance or treated separately. At this early stage in formulating the guidance, consultation being ongoing, changes might be made to the draft as the process continues. I hope that the noble Baroness accepts that we are listening to her points about the process and contents of the guidance.
English Nature and other interested bodies, such as the Environment Agency, the CPRE, Friends of the Earth to name but a few, are actively participating in the consultation.
Officials are currently working on an early draft. It is important to reassure the noble Baroness that it is not our intention through procedure or guidance to marginalise the sustainable development consideration or the development of the strategy within it.
The draft guidance stresses the need for an integrated approach. The aim of the provision on sustainable development in the draft guidance will be to ensure that we develop the best strategies for ensuring that sustainable development is taken seriously. The guidance will seek to explain how an RDA should seek to meet its statutory duty under Clause 4, making clear in particular the need to consider alternative options, to assess the impact of policies, programmes and projects on society, the economy and the environment and stressing the importance of consultation and public scrutiny in the decision process.
The current draft is very much work in progress. We know that a number of organisations will continue to offer their thoughts on what the guidance should say. I shall ensure that your Lordships are kept informed about the development of the guidance and that when, in due course, the department consults formally on the guidance, I shall ensure that a copy is placed in the Library.
I apologise for speaking at length but this is an important issue. There is quite clearly a widespread knowledge of and concern about sustainable

313
development and the role it will play in RDAs. I hope that I have managed to reassure the noble Baroness and that she will not press her amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, not entirely, although I shall not push the matter further at this stage. However, I take this opportunity to make a few points and to ask a question. First, I hope that in view of the concerns about the relevant weight of what may be two documents, the consultation on both of them will run absolutely in parallel and that neither will be concluded before the other. That would disable the Government from taking account of responses in one area in that integrated approach to which the Minister referred.
I accept entirely that the test in Clause 4(1)(e) is objective. It is not a matter subjective to each agency to decide whether or not sustainable development will be relevant to its area. I have not sought to overturn that. My point is to ask whether it can ever not be relevant. If the wording of the Bill accepts that there may be circumstances in which it is not relevant then—I use the noble Baroness's example of the balance between competing interests—that makes it easier for an agency to say that, in those particular circumstances, the balance is against an environmental concern.
As the Minister was describing the complexity of expressing those thoughts in wording which will stand up in legislation—and I can quite see that that must have been a challenge—I wondered whether the difficulty was as regards the term "where it is relevant", and I do not mean that in the sense of the narrow geographical "where". I wondered whether the draftsman had considered referring to sustainable development "which is relevant". Rather than detaining your Lordships on that point, perhaps the Minister may be prepared to write to me on the detail or perhaps discuss the matter with me before the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the three points which the noble Baroness made. While the conclusion of the consultation may be at slightly different times, the view taken of the outcome of the consultation will not be taken on one area in advance of the other.
As regards the noble Baroness's concern, I hope that on reading Hansard, she will feel that we have not in any way allowed people to use the term "where relevant" as a way of avoiding the issue although no one, including the noble Baroness, would deny that there may be some difficult judgments to be made. But those cannot be made on the basis of denying the relevance of sustainability.
Finally, in relation to the exact language to be used in parliamentary drafting, I should be far happier to take the course which the noble Baroness suggested and write to her on that matter.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 27, at end insert (", and
( ) have regard to regional planning guidance for its area").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this amendment, we return to the issue of regional planning guidance and its relationship with the strategies of the various agencies.
In Committee, when we debated this matter on an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, the Minister referred us to the draft guidance which was to be published on the strategies. She made the point that the RDAs must work with the regional planning body but that the new institutions which will create the regional planning guidance do not exist as yet and that their relationships with the RDAs will have to evolve.
I accept that, but a distinction needs to be made between the bodies which are responsible for regional planning guidance and their product; in other words, the guidance. The development of the bodies creating the guidance does not preclude dealing now with the relationship between the guidance and the agencies' strategies.
The Minister said:
"Like any other body, an RDA will be expected to work within the framework"—
by that he meant the framework of the regional planning guidance and development plans—
"This is not at issue".—[Official Report, 7/10/98; col. 521.]
However, he then went on to describe what seemed to be quite a circular relationship.
We now have the draft guidance on the strategies which, at paragraph 23, refers to the complementality and mutual responsiveness of regional planning guidance and the agencies' strategies. Yet, it states that,
"the proposals in regional planning guidance for the provision of regionally or sub-regionally significant housing, transport and other infrastructure should have regard to the agency's strategy".
In other words, there is a sentence in there which makes regional planning guidance subsidiary to the agencies' strategies.
I believe that either regional planning guidance on the one hand or the RDAs' strategies on the other must be paramount. That is not to suggest that in the development of regional planning guidance, the body responsible for it would not have regard to the agencies' own developing strategies. Indeed, I should expect a close, detailed and careful dialogue between the two organisations. But when push comes to shove, which is paramount? Which is to govern?
I do not suggest that there is any lack of importance in the work to be carried out by the RDAs but I believe strongly that they should be subject to the same planning framework as everybody else. The creation of regional planning guidance is often a pretty tortuous process. That is because of the work that goes on to ensure a dialogue with all interested parties. There is a whole area which I shall not develop at this point, but I have in

315
mind the democratic aspects of the formation of regional planning guidance and, indeed, the whole consultation process.
Therefore, while I accept and support the role that regional planning guidance will have in helping to achieve an urban renaissance by reconciling rural and urban interests, and so on, it seems to me that RDAs should work with the grain within the framework of the planning guidance of their own regions and not be put in a position where that can be set aside or ignored. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I do not wish to repeat the points made by my noble friend, but this is a subject about which that I feel most strongly in connection with all the amendments. That is partly because we have now reached a time when it is most important that the public should receive the right messages as regards what is happening in this respect. Planning guidance that is on the table now has taken literally years to develop and will be effective for years into the future. It will send the wrong message at the start of the establishment of the development agencies if they were able in any way to disregard or not pay very full attention to a process in which dozens of local authorities have participated. Indeed, hundreds of meetings have taken place in various areas and that work has finally come together in the form of planning guidance. We should not be so cavalier as not to take that fully into account.
We frequently hear about how we must consult members of the public and the latter often turn out on a rainy night to voice their opinions. Indeed, there are few subjects that they turn out for so strongly than matters concerning planning for their area, especially when it comes to housing development and transport. Therefore, if we wish to send the correct message to them about how development agencies will be responsive to their regions, this amendment will prove to be particularly important. At a time when we are all promoting the message that we will involve and consult members of the public and act upon that consultation, I should like to think, like my noble friend, that for the forthcoming years the relationship between the development agencies and the regional chamber will be a good one. We have conceded that that is not defined at present but, as we have a lack of definition, I believe that we need to be very clear about the role of planning guidance.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that we do not want to send the wrong message in this respect. Whatever I said in Committee and, indeed, what I will say now is not intended to cut across that at all. We should make clear that the current position, whereby regional planning guidance provides the land-use planning framework for the regions, will not be changed by the creation of regional development agencies. RDAs will, like any other body, work within the land-use framework provided by RPG and local authority development plans. RDAs will, like anyone else, be required to seek planning permission from local authorities in the normal
316
way. Any proposals that they make will need to be consistent with RPG and local development plans; otherwise they will be subject to the normal arrangements for applications from anyone which depart from the development plans. Similarly, in formulating their regional strategies, RDAs will have to have regard to the strategic planning context for the region as set out in RPG.
That is the position for all organisations which are making plans with land use implications. That is why we did not think it necessary to put a provision on the face of the Bill in the manner suggested by the amendment. The amendment also raises a slight legal difficulty by not limiting the reference to regional planning guidance to that issued by the Secretary of State.
As I said in Committee, this is an organically developing process. Noble Lords will undoubtedly be aware that RPGs are currently being reviewed in most regions. The arrangements for producing RPGs themselves are under review in order to improve regional accountability. My honourable friend Dick Caborn, the Minister for Regions, Regeneration and Planning, has consulted on proposals which are intended to provide a greater input from the regional planning body into RPG and to bring some broader considerations into land-use planning. Thus, while under the previous arrangements draft RPG was prepared by government for consultation in the region, in future it is intended that the regional planning body will prepare draft RPG and be responsible for consulting within its region. Such a draft RPG will then be submitted to the Secretary of State, for him to issue if he is content with it following a public examination in front of an independent panel.
Therefore, in practice, revised regional planning guidance will be reviewed and developed more in parallel with RDAs formulating their strategies. As these strategic documents develop, I agree that the relationship between the various bodies producing them is of the highest importance. The draft guidance on the strategies of RDAs that has been issued for consultation, and to which the noble Baroness referred, seeks to outline the relationship between RPG and RDAs' strategies against that background to make it clear that the RPG and the local development plans provide the land-use planning framework for the RDAs. However, that will also recognise that the review of RPG and the strategies of RDAs will be an iterative process which will require constructive and collaborative working and on-going dialogue. Thus, in developing its strategy, the RDA will need to have regard to RPG, and to the developing thinking of the regional planning body, as it reviews the planning guidance. By the same token, the regional planning body, in reviewing RPG, will need to be responsive to the developing thinking of the RDA on its regional strategy.
Moreover, because this is an iterative process it would not be appropriate to seek to impose a hierarchical relationship between the RDAs and the regional planning bodies. Their work has different purposes. The RDAs will certainly have to observe the planning procedures but the focus of the two strategies will be

317
different. Inevitably there will be issues of mutual interest for those who are drawing up both strategies, but the focus of each strategy will be different.
However, having read the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, I looked again at the wording in the draft guidance on the RDAs' strategies which has been issued since the Committee stage. I think that I would accept that the drafting of the relevant sections may not be as felicitous as all that and may not bring out as clearly as it might the relationship that we intend. Whatever the result of the debate on this particular amendment, I can assure the noble Baroness that I shall draw these comments to the attention of my honourable friend the Minister for Regions, Regeneration and Planning so that he can take that into account In terms of the final version of that guidance. In the light of my assurances and the slightly complicated developing situation, I urge the Baroness not to press the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am particularly grateful for the Minister's last comment. When considering responses on the draft guidance, I had intended to ask the Minister whether he might consider that the reference in paragraph 2 to proposals in RPG having to have regard to the strategy of the agency might perhaps be better if set out as, "proposals in draft RPG". In other words, that would reflect the contribution of the objectives of the agency and take into account its concerns as to how it can carry out its purposes in the framing of RPG, rather than RPG, once formed, being set on one side in some way.
I accept the point made by the Minister about particular development applications. However, my concern was not about applications. I appreciate that the usual planning arrangements will have to apply to particular developments. Indeed, my concern is that regional planning guidance once formed, and once that exercise of consultation with all the partners or—to use the current term—stakeholders has been completed, should have its place in something of a hierarchy to which the agency must have regard. Therefore, I do not to that extent agree with the Minister. I wished to have that on the record. However, having got it off my chest, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 27, at end insert—
("(1A) In formulating a strategy in accordance with this section, a regional development agency shall carry out consultation with government departments, statutory bodies, organisations representative of business and such other bodies with an interest in its work as it considers appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank the Minister for sending me an up-to-date list of groupings. Noble Lords may find that there are two sets of groupings at present. I refer to the most up-to-date list. In moving Amendment No. 9, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.
The Bill places a duty on RDAs to consult with regional chambers on the preparation of the strategies which they will have a statutory duty to formulate under Clause 7. I accept the importance of local authorities in furthering the agenda of RDAs. But they are not the only key players. A number of other agencies play an equally important role in enabling economic development in the regions. I refer, for instance, to government departments, the Environment Agency, passenger transport companies, the Ministry of Defence, and so on. The need to consult those bodies is recognised in the draft guidelines for RDA strategies which were placed in the Library on 20th October. I draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 1b of that document which states:
"to promote business efficiency, investment and competitiveness in their area".
I cannot see how the agencies can do so unless they consult with those organisations. Paragraph 20 is headed "Consultation" and states that,
"in formulating its strategy the Agency should consult widely with Government and other interests nationally, and within the region".
However, as it stands, the Bill does not guarantee that that vital process will take place. My argument is similar to the one that I put forward on my last amendment.
Amendment No. 9 gives the RDAs a duty to consult government departments, statutory bodies, business organisations and any other bodies considered appropriate within the RDAs' discretion when they formulate their strategies. The amendment merely places on the face of the Bill the Government's intentions in respect of consultation on RDA strategies as set out in the draft guidance. I have enumerated two points from that guidance.
Amendment No. 11 is technical and consequential. I beg to move.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I support my noble friend. The objectives that he seeks to achieve are clearly in the draft guidance but that is not the same as being on the face of the Bill. If the RDAs are to get off to the start that we wish, proper consultation will have to take place with those groups and bodies to which my noble friend referred. It is important that that is done at an early stage; otherwise the strategies formed are likely to omit key ingredients which could contribute to those many interests and groups which wish the agencies to succeed.
It is important that all interests are considered and that different sectors do not feel that they will be discriminated against. Unless we have a provision like this on the face of the Bill, there is a danger that that may happen. My noble friend is right. I hope that the Government will accept what is a simple and straightforward amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 11 which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. It amends Clause 7(2)(b) by providing that social, environmental and other issues be taken into account in formulating the agency's strategy.
We debated this issue at Committee stage. Amendment No. 11 provides for reference in the strategy to social, environmental and other issues. I suspect that the Minister will say that it is unnecessary because that is what the Government will require in any event. If so, I shall give the usual response: if the Government require that, why do they not take the credit for saying so? How will the Government ensure that a future, perhaps less benign, Secretary of State will issue similar guidance?
At the previous stage the House accepted that social and environmental matters are of enormous importance and cannot be separated from economic matters. There have been many contributions on this issue. One of the most recent is Shelter's report on urban and rural renaissance.
The Minister said in Committee that he concurred with the view expressed by me, and far more eloquently, by the right reverend Prelate, and that we could be reassured that it was already government policy. He also said that to put the words on the face of the Bill might be misleading. Having read the Official Report, I cannot find an explanation for such references being potentially misleading. If those matters are not included in the Bill but are government policy—they may not be the policy of a future government—what good reason can there be for not including the references on the face of the Bill unless it is because they were not invented here. However, I am sure that the Government are not so small minded.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, I support all three amendments and speak to Amendment No. 9. In passing, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and urge that the words in her amendment are included on the face of the Bill.
I wish to make two points on Amendment No. 9. I am hampered by my failure to get hold of a copy of the draft guidance. The Printed Paper Office is having difficulty identifying the document. A number of individuals who have spoken to me are concerned that the guidance makes it difficult to measure the problems of rural areas. It is another aspect of the constant anxiety expressed to me in Hampshire and in material received by bishops from individuals in rural areas about proper representation of rural areas and rural issues.
I wish to make a substantive point in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. However, I wish to broaden his concern. His amendment refers to,
"government departments, statutory bodies, organisations representative of business and such other bodies".
I wish to include a specific reference in,
"such other bodies with an interest in its work".
320
There is a sad lack of reference on the face of the Bill to voluntary organisations. I include among those the Churches. It is an important issue to raise. The fact is—this takes us back to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—that in rural and urban areas voluntary organisations across the whole range (the Churches included) will be better informed about pockets of detail, about issues of poverty, social exclusion, disadvantage and disability than are the statutory organisations, much as I respect their work and those who struggle to serve them. It is a serious matter that there is so little mention of the whole voluntary section at point after point in the Bill where it would be relevant. I want us to understand the words "such other bodies" in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, as referring specifically to the whole range of the voluntary sector.
That means that more serious consideration needs to be given to some specific engagement of the voluntary sector in the membership of regional chambers where, again, they need to be active parties. They bring a skill and often detailed experience of small geographical areas. However, that should not be left to the charity of others. The Government need to make some distinct commitment to and proper engagement with the voluntary sector across this whole range of issues.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in speaking to the amendment perhaps I can begin by responding to the penultimate point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester regarding regional chambers. It is important to place on record that this legislation is not legislation to establish those regional chambers. As such, his point will be a matter for future legislation.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, for tabling Amendment No. 9 and allowing me the opportunity to make clear what we expect of RDAs in relation to consultation on their regional strategies. Consultation is an important aspect of this work, as several noble Lords stressed. The Government are quite clear that unless RDAs consult fully on their strategies—indeed, unless they promote a partnership approach to the formulation and the delivery of their strategies—they will not be successful. Moreover, it is very important that the strategies are drawn up in a way that enhances national policies, so that central government and national agencies will respect the strategies as they take forward their own policy thinking. The noble Lord has, in his customary way, hit on the heart of the matter.
This amendment would add to the face of the Bill a requirement that RDAs must consult with interested bodies and government departments, as they consider appropriate, when formulating their strategies. Clause 7 allows for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the RDAs on a range of matters relating to the formulation of their strategies. Indeed, during Committee stage of this Bill my noble friend and I said that the Government intended to issue guidance on the formulation of regional strategies, for consultation. Several noble Lords referred to the fact that it was launched on 20th October. The guidance has been distributed widely and comments

321
have been invited by the end of November. Copies of the guidance were also placed in the Library. Also, perhaps I can reassure the right reverend Prelate that the voluntary sector is referred to in the guidance on strategies.
Those noble Lords who have seen the draft guidance will see that it is not excessively prescriptive. That is in line with the Government's view that the guidance should provide a framework within which the RDAs can produce their strategies and should not dictate what the strategy should be or how the RDAs should go about producing it. It is important that there are regional solutions to regional problems: that is at the heart of the Government's wish to decentralise decision taking to the regional level. However, I hope the noble Earl, Lord Peel, will accept that the draft guidance stresses the need for RDAs, working within their own circumstances, to build consensus in their regions and to work closely with their regional partners.
During the course of this short debate several noble Lords referred to the people and organisations that they would like to include. But I suggest that the people and organisations listed may stand at six now, but at a later stage in the Bill the list may become extremely long and would never be capable of including all.
The draft guidance specifically covers the question of consultation during the preparation of the strategy. It says that the RDAs should consult widely,
"with Government and other interests nationally and within the region".
It also says that RDAs should include in their strategies a statement on the consultation arrangements they made and a list of those consulted during the preparation of the strategy.
We envisage that it will include the Government Offices in the regions, which will be the normal liaison point between RDAs and government. Government Offices will have close contact with all government departments, including MAFF, which I hope will please the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. As the substance of the amendment has been included in the draft guidance that we issued for consultation, I urge the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Amendment No. 11 seeks to specify on the face of the Bill the Secretary of State's powers to give RDAs guidance on "social, environmental and other" issues to be taken into account in the formulation of their strategies.
RDAs are to be development agencies, set up, as our White Paper of the regions made clear, to promote sustainable economic development and social and physical regeneration, and to co-ordinate the work of regional local partners in areas such as training, investment, regeneration and business support. The purposes of RDAs are therefore essentially economic and their strategies will essentially be aimed at addressing the economic problems of their region.
The Government are quite clear that economic performance can be improved only by taking a broad approach to tackling the problems our regions face. We believe that solutions integrating economic, social and
322
environmental issues are needed. That integrated approach will, in our view, be central to the success of the regional development agencies in improving the economic prospects of their regions.
The draft guidance for the RDAs on their strategies, on which the Government are currently consulting, commends that approach. The guidance highlights the broad spectrum of activity covered by the RDAs' statutory purposes and stresses that, in order to develop an effective strategy, RDAs will need to take an integrated approach to tackling business competitiveness and the need to increase productivity, but also the underlying problems of unemployment, skills shortages, social exclusion and physical decay.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, tempts me—but not a lot—with her suggestion that I should contemplate a less benign Secretary of State. I cannot imagine life without my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State and would not wish to do so. Therefore I cannot concede that there could be a less benign Secretary of State at any time in the future.
The draft guidance also makes clear that RDAs should include in their strategies an appraisal of the contribution that a strategy will make to sustainable development and how it will integrate social and environmental objectives. The provision in Clause 7(2)(b) empowers the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the issues to be taken into account in their strategies. It does not limit him to certain types of issues and would certainly encompass social and environmental issues. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel, as we do, that her amendment is unnecessary.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it was the Prime Minister before last who talked about going on and on and so I would suggest a little caution in suggesting that any Minister, however benign, goes on and on. Experience shows that they do not!
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, having been a church warden in the diocese of Oxford for a number of years, I have to tell the right reverend Prelate that I did not always agree with my bishop: far from it. But on this occasion I am delighted to say that I agreed, I think, with all his ideas.
With regard to enumerating bodies, I have to agree with the noble Baroness because I have tried to enumerate before and I did not mention the Ministry of Agriculture. However, it is nearly always a mistake because they always remind you of the bits that you have missed. Of course I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate. He has made a very important point that I feel strongly about.
The noble Baroness started off very well, so far as I was concerned. She said that RDAs must consult with local and national organisations to be successful and she said that they must not be dictated to. However, my amendment is not dictating to the RDAs. In fact when the noble Baroness began I really thought I had hooked a fish for once, but sadly as she went on, as so often happens to me, the fish got away and I never landed it.

323
I am not happy, for the following three reasons. First, I think it is vital, as I said earlier in connection with my first amendment, to have matters on the face of the Bill. My noble friend Lady Anelay pointed out how important it is. Governments change and things are forgotten. Secondly, I was reminded—I am beginning to feel very old—that the drafting of Bills now has become quite permissive, perhaps like our society. For instance, if the noble Baroness were to look up the Welsh Development Agency Act of 1975 she would see that it is written in a far less permissive way. It was laid down, left or right, and I think we have become too permissive.
I am sorry to pontificate, but it is important that your Lordships make sure that all the i's are dotted and all the t's are crossed: it is indeed the purpose of your Lordships' House. I must repeat something that I shall probably get into trouble about, because all the way through the Government of Wales Bill I was told, "Trust the Assembly, trust the Government". I do not trust the Assembly and I do not trust the Government—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would forgive me? Perhaps it would be helpful if I could remind your Lordships of the precedent set by the Pepper v. Hart case. The commitment and the clear explanation that are given are, in a particularly important way, recorded because of what has been said in the course of the debate today. Certainly I did not wish to deny the noble Lord the opportunity to go fishing. All I was saying was that perhaps we had already caught a good fish, and that perhaps he would like to eat ours.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I have not caught the fish: it has wiggled off. But as far as Pepper v. Hart is concerned, if I got my noble friend Lord Renton on it he would say that, good though that case was, it is not as good as having it on the face of the Bill. I am still convinced that you have to argue it and the judge might say, "Well, Parliament did not quite say that". So I am not entirely convinced.
I will just conclude by saying why I do not trust any of these organisations. As I said earlier, I have farmed for nearly 50 years and have found that if a thing can go wrong it jolly well does go wrong. This will go wrong. My second reason is that, as I am sure the right reverend Prelate will agree, my name is Thomas. Thirdly, it is the job of your Lordships to make sure that everything is watertight. I am sorry to have to say this because the noble Baroness was very helpful, but I really will have to think about this point for Third Reading, because it really ought to be on the face of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Regional consultation]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 8, leave out from beginning to second ("to") and insert ("in the exercise of its functions under section 7(1)(a), to consult and have regard").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12 and to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 13. If there is any relationship between these two amendments it is perhaps to do with transparency. At the last stage I put down an amendment seeking to provide for consultation with the regional chambers on a non-optional basis: in other words, that the consultation be wider than as directed by the Secretary of State, since our potentially non-benign Secretary of State might give a very narrow direction. The Minister at that time said that this and related matters would be crucial in another Bill at some other time but it was not for this framework. I accept her point that perhaps I was trying to push the limits of this Bill a little further than they are intended to go.
However, reflecting on her words, I began to wonder about the operation of Clause 8(2)(a) and (b). Clause 8(2)(a) talks of the agency having regard to any views expressed by the regional chamber and, separately, consulting the chamber in relation to the exercise of its functions—but only those functions as are specified in the Secretary of State's direction.
Would it not be more helpful to the agency and the chamber if there were to be a more general consultation to give a framework to the views of the chamber to which the agency must have regard under Clause 8(2)(a)? No doubt a regional chamber, doing its job thoroughly and energetically, is going to express views on pretty well everything, but I believe that those views might be more helpfully expressed if they were in response to a structured consultation.
Amendment No. 13 deals with the agency's annual reports. This provides that the report must, among other things, set out directions which have been given to the agency during the relevant period. My amendment suggests that the agency should also report on how it has complied with the direction, since unless compliance with the direction is within the information which the Secretary of State specifies under Clause 17(2)(a), the reader of the report will be left to guess if and how there has been compliance with those directions.
I appreciate that this is a late stage at which to raise such a relatively small matter, and I assure your Lordships that I am not intending to try to score points off the drafters of this clause, because I know one can never achieve that result. However, there is an underlying query about how extensive the reports of the agencies are intended to be. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise to give general support to the amendments and to repeat a word of caution which was issued in Committee. The new body needs to be careful to concentrate on strategy (with a capital S) and to ensure that it is not seen to interfere with the functions of similar existing bodies. Of course, we know that each RDA will be unique. The remit of the RDAs is very broad. I doubt whether they would have the time to interfere. However, it is timely to remind the new bodies that we are talking about strategy and consultation on strategy. All of us

325
understand that that is the broad picture; we are talking about general guidance and direction, but not about interfering with the activities of existing bodies.
In Committee, I raised a number of points on behalf of the Local Government Association, which, like many other bodies, awaited the publication of the document. Its initial response welcomes the guidance given, but raises several points which have already been fairly well covered. The main point is to ensure that we do not duplicate the effort, money and time that have already been devoted to this matter. We do not want turf wars in regions. We know that that can easily happen. This is the stage at which the embryo RDAs should be reminded that they are charged with dealing with strategy (with a capital S) and not with running the area, county or district. Good people have been placed in those organisations by the Minister or have been appointed by bodies, and they are every bit as capable of continuing to do that with which they were charged as are members of RDAs. I hope that the Minister and her colleagues will hear that in mind.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendment No. 12 seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State has the power to issue directions to RDAs which would require them to consult with, and have regard to the views of, designated chambers when producing their regional strategies. Those powers are contained in the Bill as drafted. Subsection (2)(a) allows for directions to be issued by the Secretary of State requiring the RDAs, when formulating and reviewing their strategies, to have regard to any views expressed by the chamber.
In addition, subsection (2)(b) allows the Secretary of State to issue directions to RDAs requiring them to consult the chamber when exercising any functions specified in the directions. This could, of course, include the preparation of the RDAs' strategies, which is a function of RDAs under Clause 7 of the Bill.
In practice we hope that it will not come to that. As I have said on more than one occasion, the success of the RDAs' strategies will depend on the extent to which RDAs are able to build a consensus in their region, and their ability to secure regional ownership of the strategy, and regional commitment to delivering it. Clearly, the commitment of the regional chamber will be a key objective for the RDA. Arguably, therefore, the issue of a direction on the subject of consultation with the chamber would be a sign of the breakdown of this crucial relationship. My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton referred to the sensitivity of that matter and the need for people to respect complementary roles.
However, I can assure the noble Baroness that her amendment is unnecessary and that the Secretary of State will have the necessary powers to require the RDAs to consult with the chambers in the formulation and review of their strategies should it ever be necessary. In those circumstances, I ask the noble Baroness not to press the amendment.
326
Turning to Amendment No. 13, I recognise the good intentions that lie behind this amendment, which would require RDAs to include in their annual reports details of their compliance with directions issued by the Secretary of State. However, I believe that the amendment as drafted is not only unnecessary, but unfortunately is also flawed in some fundamental respects.
It is unnecessary, because under Clause 17(2)(a) the Secretary of State will have the power to give directions to the agency as to the contents of its annual report and this could be used to achieve the same effect. It is flawed, because if directions had been given towards the end of the period covered by the report, it might be too soon for the agency to report in any meaningful way on its compliance with them. Also, the clause requires the RDAs to include in their annual reports only directions made during the period covered by the report. In terms of compliance, it is at least—if not more—relevant to consider what action has been taken to comply with directions issued in previous years.
As I have said, under the Bill as drafted the Secretary of State already has powers to direct RDAs as to the contents of their reports. However, I very much hope that on a matter such as this RDAs would never need to be formally directed, before including details of their compliance in their reports. In view of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with regard to Amendment No. 13, I referred to the use of Clause 17(2)(a) to deal with compliance. I recognise that that is a possibility. With regard to Amendment No. 12. I accept the danger of turf wars, to which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, referred. I am certainly one of those who is persuaded of the desirability of the RDAs exercising powers which are currently exercised by central government and not taking over the functions of local government. Frankly, I still find indigestible the centralised nature of the provision, with everything being dependent on the Secretary of State's directions. However, I have heard what the noble Baroness said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Clause 25 [Power to alter regions]:
Lord Bowness Lord Bowness moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 12, line 36, at beginning insert ("For a period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that in Committee we sought in the first instance to involve the Boundary Commission in establishing the areas of the regions. The amendment sought to limit the time which the Boundary Commission had for that task, but the Government rejected the proposal on the basis that further reviews would not be in anyone's interests as the imminence of the RDAs had already led to a substantial amount of co-operation. Whether that co-operation was voluntary or enforced, I leave your Lordships to judge. However, the Minister recognised

327
that the boundaries were not immutable and referred to the ability under Clause 25 to make changes to the extent of the regions. In the debate on Clause 25, the Minister steadfastly refused to contemplate reviews which might alter the number of regions. My amendment, which sought to allow that, was defeated.
Among the arguments deployed by the Minister against the amendment were those which appear at cols. 559 and 560 of the Official Report of 7th October. The Minister said:
"The objection that we have to re-opening the question of the number of regions as distinct from relatively minor changes to the boundaries of those regions is that we believe that, in order for the development agencies to work, people must believe that they will be, broadly speaking, permanent areas".
I say in parenthesis that I would like people to feel that the regions are in reality regions in which they are able to work together for the purposes of the Bill rather than being led to believe that they are the right areas and that they have no alternative. The Minister continued:
"If we were to re-open the question of the number of regions, it would lead to local pressure groups trying to alter what has begun to be a constructive dialogue to make the RDAs work…The point is that the Government want to maintain that number of regions. They believe that that puts pressure on people to co-operate. That co-operation is beginning. If we remove that constraint some of that co-operation may be lost and that would not be to the benefit of the purposes of the Bill or the future development of…our regions".— [Official Report, 7/10/98; col. 560.]
I find that troubling. We know that the regions as set out in this Bill were established by the previous government for the administrative convenience of delivering the functions of central government. It was never envisaged or suggested that they should be the basis for organisations which are to deliver policies locally, even if they are policies delivered in partnership with central government.
If the regions have to be maintained as they are to get the RDAs up and running, I accept with reluctance the argument that is advanced. However, I can find no good reasons for a commitment to a figure of 12, no more and no less, at least not without primary legislation. The reasons given by the Minister for rejecting the amendment in Committee smacked more of centralisation than devolution to local communities and more of central government convenience than of whether the arrangements suited local people.
We were assured that the proposal has nothing whatever to do with the possible introduction at some time in the future of regional assemblies. I must accept the Minister's assurances but the Government have said that the figure of 12 regional development agencies and no more and no less is the right number. They have created within those regions not just the development agencies but also the regional chambers. Ministers say that the Bill has nothing to do with regional chambers. They may be voluntary chambers but if there is to be central government guidance and central government approval of what is or is not to be recognised as a voluntary chamber, I believe that the Bill has everything to do with regional chambers, voluntary or otherwise. I believe that by taking such a restricted view—whether deliberately or not—of the area of the regions we are
328
pre-empting our view about the regions of England if, at some time, the Government were minded to try to go down the road I have mentioned.
The Government should consider that in some instances the areas of the regional development agencies will need changes which may alter the number of regional development agencies. I believe local people, local businesses and local authorities within those areas may find that the areas are just not right and cannot be put right by a mere alteration to the boundary of the region. I take the point that the Government do not want to encourage the concept of immediate secession and that they want the different interests to get together to work on regional policies. Having imposed these constraints, the organisations may after a period of time acquire their own identities and the desire to change may not exist. To try to meet the problem perceived by the Government I have limited in the amendment the Secretary of State's ability to change the number of regions to prevent him doing so for the first five years.
I submit to your Lordships that if within five years a regional development agency has not been able to build its identity, has not established its role and has not achieved acceptance within the region it seeks to serve, it should be possible to change the regions in extent and numbers in a way that meets local needs and wishes and not the convenience of central government and the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, at the previous stage I was among those who argued against setting the number of regions in stone. I was attracted by the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. I had not expected his passionate argument as to the effect of the legislation on future regional government to have the opposite effect on my thinking.
Clause 25 provides for orders by affirmative resolution. Regional government will be a major area of constitutional development; it is one to which I and my colleagues on these Benches look forward. I would be most unhappy at the prospect of the shape of the regions being pre-empted by an order rather than by the whole subject being fully debated in primary legislation. I can see that in five, six or seven years' time we may be presented with an order varying the number of regions and that a year or two after that we may be told by the Government that it would not be appropriate to make a further change to the number of regions when the country is involved in the much wider debate that primary legislation would provoke and assist. I had not expected to find myself disagreeing with the noble Lord on the amendment, but I fear that I do.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, for slightly different reasons I, too, disagree with the noble Lord. I am not entirely sure that I shall be able to adduce many new arguments. I shall merely try more convincingly to explain the arguments given in Committee.
I believe that part of the concern over our insistence that Clause 25 while allowing for changes of boundaries, should not change the number of regions is that there is still a fear that these will be taken as the boundaries for the regional assemblies or any other

329
institutional regional organisations. I do not accept that. The question of whether the number of RDA areas should be increased or decreased can be considered entirely within the context of the Bill and the powers and responsibilities that are going to RDAs. For that reason the Government believe it right to stick broadly to the regions identified in the Bill for the. RDAs. That will provide a certainty and stability which we believe is desirable for RDAs as they face their new challenges. The noble Lord's proposal for a five-year moratorium does not provide sufficient certainty. Indeed, in a sense it would do the opposite. It would raise the expectation that matters might well change within five years. That is a relatively short period of time for the kind of medium-term planning operation we wish to see the RDAs achieve.
We want to see the RDAs established as quickly as possible as strong, influential and stable bodies able to bring the right economies of scale to the regions and to bring regional stakeholders together. We have chosen to use the areas already served by the Government Offices. We accept that in a number of regions, regional identities have not hitherto been strong, and in some regions there have been pressures on us to take a different approach. In some cases there has been pressure to provide an agency for an area much smaller than the region that we are proposing—proposals involving single counties such as Cornwall or the Isle of Wight.
As regards preparation for the establishment of the RDAs, the evidence is that people, broadly speaking, now accept the boundaries for that purpose and acknowledge that an area of approximately the size we are talking about is required in order to achieve the benefits that the RDAs will bring. People are working together constructively to make regional partnerships a reality in all parts of our regions and to bring together for all parts of those regions the benefits of the new approach.
If we set out the prospect of a change in those boundaries after five years, through those five years there will be protracted arguments about boundaries when the important task is to address regional economic performance. That is why we chose relatively uncontentious boundaries in terms of Government Office boundaries, which are well-established. And that is why we wish to stick to the number of agencies we are talking about. We do not accept the proposition that lies behind the noble Lord's argument; namely, that after five years the need for certainty will have disappeared.
Perhaps I may indicate why a proposal regarding a change to the boundaries could be counter-productive. The RDAs' regional strategies will be crucial to their success and, more importantly, to the success of regional economies. We envisage these strategies looking five to 10 years ahead and encouraging investment in that kind of timescale. We envisage their being regularly reviewed over that period. Their delivery and the economic improvements we want them to bring will depend on the will and commitment of regional partners across the spectrum of regional activity and across the
330
whole of each region. The RDAs' role will be to bring people together, to break down barriers that may exist, and to foster regional working. Leaving open the prospect of break-away regions or mergers between different regions, as the amendment might appear to do, is not in the Government's view helpful to RDAs in their task or conducive to constructive regional working.
The noble Lord may regard this approach as one of excessive centralisation. I regard it as common sense. And it appears to coincide with the views of most of the people who are working to establish the RDAs region by region.
I accept that in certain circumstances it may be necessary to change the broad framework at some future date. If, when the time comes, regional assemblies are developed and put into law, and if at that time, as a result of consultation and the democratic process region by region, we, or a future government, reach the conclusion that the boundaries for regional assemblies should be different to the extent that there are a different number it would then be sensible to re-examine the regional development area boundaries.
As I said earlier, and as my noble friend Lady Farrington repeated, the establishment of regional assemblies, their number, and the implications for the RDAs and other bodies would be a matter for future primary legislation, not for this Bill. That legislation would provide the opportunity, when we are establishing a different configuration of regions for regional assemblies, to alter the RDA boundaries in the light of that alternative configuration.
I should have said that I congratulate the noble Lord on achieving in his opening remarks—I am not sure he was entirely aware of it—without changing a single dot or comma of the schedule to the Bill, an extension in the number of regional development areas from nine to 12. There are in fact only nine—
Lord Bowness: Sorry, I am not very good at numbers.
Lord Whitty: That could explain a lot. Such developments as might follow the establishment of regional assemblies are beyond the scope of our discussion today. We believe it right for the Bill to stick with the principle of nine. I underline that there are to be nine regional development agencies for England, including the London agency.
There is an additional meso-economic point, as I believe it is called in the jargon. The main pressure would not be for the merger of regions; it would be for the splitting of regions. I know that it is superficially easy to argue that sub-regional identity is stronger than regional identity and that RDAs serving smaller regions should therefore be permitted. However, that rather misses the economic point of what we are attempting to do in relation to RDAs.
All the evidence we have seen from other members of the European Union in regard to the development of regional policies indicates that in order to be an effective economic unit—and we are talking only of economic instruments—regions need to be large and influential

331
enough to make a difference to regional economies and to the contribution that those economies make to the national and European economy. A certain scale and a certain level of economic generation are needed to improve competitiveness and to make a regional approach to economic and industrial policy work.
That does not of course mean that we cannot have sub-regional sects within a regional development agency framework. Of course we can, for particular purposes where it makes sense to do so in particular sectors and for particular products. That would be a matter for each RDA to decide over time. But where regional policy has worked and where there has been an effective study of the matter, the evidence suggests that regions should probably be slightly larger than the smaller region we have included, which represents over 2 million people. Any area smaller than that would not be able to achieve the economies of scale and economic performance we are looking for as a result of establishing the RDAs.
I have attempted to give one or two additional reasons for not accepting the proposal. If the noble Lord's objection is basically that the Government's view is being imposed from above, I assure him that all those whom my honourable friend Dick Caborn has consulted and continues to consult in establishing the RDAs also believe that it is necessary to provide that stability and certainty to make the RDAs work. Telling everyone concerned, including those who are doubtfully involved at the edges but who have now begun to see the advantage of these structures, and giving the impression that in five years' time the whole matter will be thrown up in the air again, would not be helpful. Therefore, while I understand some of the noble Lord's arguments, it would not be sensible to alter the Bill in this respect. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. My argument is not about regional assemblies. I accept the Minister's remark that he is not endeavouring to pre-empt the discussion. My concern is that, as a matter of fact, in setting up these structures and determining that at no stage can the numbers be changed we are, whether we wish it or not, pre-empting those decisions.
I accept that people are working together to make these structures work. People tend to do that. They are not destructive. Of course they work together; they have no alternative. There are already chairmen-designate of the regional development agencies. Matters have gone on apace, notwithstanding the fact that we are still debating the Bill in your Lordships' House today. People will make the best of it. My point is that I am not convinced that one can say with certainty that these regions, established by the previous government for central government purposes, are the right areas in which to try to achieve the objectives of the regional development agencies as set out in the White Paper.
I am intrigued by the Minister's suggestion that the regions must be this size in order to be effective economic units. The core functions and the issues to which they will contribute—the policies and
332
programmes on transport, land use, environment, further and higher education, crime prevention, public health, housing, tourism, culture, sport and infrastructure—are all matters which would normally relate to local government. Certainly, there are structures which are much smaller than the proposed regional development agencies that deliver policies and programmes on these issues.
I listened with care to the Minister. I shall read and reflect upon what he said and talk to other people. I may return to the matter at another stage, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton Lord Monk Bretton moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 16, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) An order made under subsection (1)(c) shall in particular make provision for sustaining a network of rural volunteer organisations throughout rural England that will act to reduce social and economic exclusion in all rural areas.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 15, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 16. At Committee stage I expressed anxieties about the future and the funding of rural community councils, a rather smaller issue than that dealt with by the previous amendment but nevertheless important. I was grateful for the assurance given by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, who said that she hoped she had given the degree of assurance sought. I am afraid that she had not entirely done so, hence my amendments.
The second of the amendments, Amendment No. 16, is a probing amendment which suggests that funding for rural community councils could come from a national agency, which, by definition, means not a regional agency. I wonder whether any decision has yet been made as to which agency or agencies will be responsible for this funding and what the parameters will be. If it is to be undertaken by a national organisation, that could be the new countryside agency; or it could be ACRE, the charity that is owned by the rural community councils, which would be an interesting alternative.
The first of my amendments, Amendment No. 15, is the more important one. It seeks to put on the face of the Bill what are effectively the objectives of the rural community councils, to ensure that these bodies are retained and that they continue to be used by the new agency or agencies in the way that they have been in the past. Rural community councils have been the eyes and ears locally for the Rural Development Commission. It is acknowledged that the Rural Development Commission has been a highly authoritative source of information on the rural sector and its needs, and that is very important to the rural areas.
I do not need to say much about rural community councils themselves, since I believe that most noble Lords will know about them. Most counties have one. They are all registered charities which guide a great deal of voluntary effort and bring together statutory authorities and voluntary organisations to look after the

333
needs of rural communities. I am sure that it is not necessary to list their various functions. I believe that they come cheap at the price because of the voluntary element of their work. Core funding comes from local government as well as from the Rural Development Commission.
It is not clear at present how the rural community councils will fit in with the two new agencies. However that works out, it seems imperative that the respective roles of the two bodies should be complementary and clearly defined. Meanwhile the social work of helping rural communities must continue in the long term, preferably more strongly than before, particularly bearing in mind the sombre agricultural outlook at present. However, to me the omens do not look favourable.
The question of how to break up the Rural Development Commission is not a simple one. I do not know what further news there is about that. Parallel with the passage of the Bill through Parliament, much discussion has taken place about the future of the agencies and of the rural community councils. I am not happy about the outlook for that.
It appears that the funds of the rural development agencies are to be targeted on a small number of closely defined areas of social disadvantage. My concern is that that hardly meets the rural case, where often small pockets of need exist across substantial rural areas. If the rural development agencies are to pick up this task, I believe that big changes will be needed to the current thinking on how their assistance will be targeted, and I wonder how much would be left over for scattered rural needs after the main targets had been satisfied.
The grapevine tells me that the merger between the Rural Development Commission and the Countryside Commission seems more like a takeover than a merger, and I fear that there may be a difference of culture between the two. The Countryside Commission began its life by managing national parks. I do not believe that it was entirely popular in the way it did that, but I will let that pass. Its field of operations since then has been environmental protection and enhancement and access to the countryside. It has concentrated on those. It is quite a different field from the Rural Development Commission, which has dealt with people. It has been very successful in dealing with people because it works through the rural community councils. There was always each-way communication. We do not want to change that. We do not want to change to a top-down type of organisation. I would not wish to see such things as demonstration projects, initiated from on high, or short-term, pump-priming approaches to different projects from time to time.
I do not feel too happy about the prospectus for the new agency, on the grounds that I have mentioned. There seems to be no reassurance that the new agency will commit sufficient funds over the long term to equal the Rural Development Commission's achievements. Too much of the prospectus looks like proposals for research projects or exhortations to others. This has its place, but the ability of the new organisation to exhort others will be dependent on its long-term understanding
334
of the rural issues. It will need an ear to the ground. That ear to the ground is the rural community councils. That should be understood by all, particularly those making reports and involved in negotiations about the new organisation.
I would like to see this amendment, or something very like it, on the face of the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness will appreciate the merits of the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I wish to support my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton. It is absolutely vital that the new RDAs do not lose sight of the valuable work already in progress in rural areas. The risk is that the RDAs will try to start with a clean sheet and spend three years re-inventing the wheel. There is also the risk that some of the work in progress will fall between the two stools of the RDA and the Countryside Commission and that time will be wasted in deciding who is responsible for what. For example, the RDC's support for rural volunteer bodies, which is key to overcoming social and economic exclusion, is also key to enabling the rural community to adjust to change with a sense of purpose which comes from a local ownership of issues faced.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I too praise the work of the Rural Development Commission. It has been extremely good. I am glad to see in the development guidance so much use made of its indicators, although I disagree with one particular area. I look forward with much optimism to the Regional Development Agency allowing us to address issues that are not defined by rural development areas. This has hampered the Rural Development Commission's work considerably because, up until now, we have had geographical boundaries, drawn up by the use of imperfect indicators, which have cut very arbitrarily across areas which suffer considerable social exclusion.
For that reason, the move that we are now making is likely to produce a much easier working environment for the voluntary organisations. It was no fault of the Rural Development Commission that it was unable to offer the sort of service it would have liked to the volunteer organisations. Those organisations worked across broad geographical areas whereas the development area was, in many cases, smaller and did not cover the same geographical boundaries. We are moving into something that will produce a far more cohesive pattern.
Rather than,
"sustaining a network of rural volunteer organisations"
we are still at the development stage. It is much easier to be a volunteer organisation in an urban area than a rural one, and the development of volunteer organisations in rural areas would be high on any development agency's agenda.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, seeks to specify details about the way in which the new

335
countryside agency will carry out its future role in relation to the rural voluntary sector and rural community councils.
The powers in Clause 35 of the Bill include powers for the Secretary of State to transfer functions of the rural Development Commission to other public bodies or to confer on another public body all or part of a function of the Commission. The order to be made under Clause 35 to put this into effect—and the transfer scheme made in accordance with it—will transfer functions, staff and funds of the Rural Development Commission to the new countryside agency. This will enable it to support the rural voluntary sector and the rural community councils.
As in the case of all the RDCs' live contracts, it will also transfer to the new agency the contractual liability to support funding of the RCCs. I hope that the noble Lord will be comforted to know that this has recently been renewed under a service level agreement. This relates to a specific question which the noble Lord put to me and I hope that that will please him. This renewal of financial support for the RCCs has been notified formally to each one of them. I hope that this goes some way to meet the requirements of the amendments which the noble Lord seeks to put on the face of the Bill.
The Government are committed to a partnership approach with the rural voluntary sector, and I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, about the importance of the voluntary sector. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that in many areas it is not only the sustaining of the voluntary sector to meet the needs of rural communities but a more comprehensive approach in helping to develop a voluntary sector where none exists now.
We are committed to a partnership approach with this sector and believe that it is right for the agency to decide in due course how to build on this. The setting up of the new agency offers a valuable opportunity to enhance its role by thinking afresh and imaginatively as to how government policy can be carried out in rural areas. The RDC and the Countryside Commission are paving the way for this with their recently published draft prospectus. It is extremely important to recognise that the countryside agencies merger is intended to build on the strengths of the existing organisation, to sustain and develop that which is good and to ensure that the new body is able to carry forward the undoubtedly valuable work that has been done. An extensive consultation process has just been launched and the new countryside agency will listen to the views of interested parties about its future work and the way in which it carries out its role. The Government are confident that consultees will be emphasising the role of the rural voluntary sector, just as noble Lords have in this debate. We are committed to ensuring that their voice is heard before the new agency is established.
We therefore believe that we should be cautious about putting requirements on the face of the Bill which could unduly restrict the new agency, especially as it will need to work towards the true integration of the RDC and the Countryside Commission functions. Noble Lords, who
336
are extremely knowledgable about the needs of rural communities, recognise the importance of ensuring that the new agency does that.
The draft prospectus for the new agency makes clear the significance of the agency's national advisory role and countrywide work and the need to maintain effective links with all rural agencies and organisations in order to support its work. We recognise that the RCCs have a central role in the RDC's programme for village halls and are also active in rural transport and rural housing. As was said in the debate, the RCCs provide a valuable role in supporting the commission's national advisory role. They work hard in tackling rural problems and are appreciated by local people. As I have said, the arrangements to be made under the Clause 35 order will fulfil the requirement that the noble Lord's amendments would put on the face of the Bill. The Government have absolutely no intention of directing the termination of funding to the RCCs. Such a step would be contrary to government policy. It would not be appropriate to put on the face of the Bill the details of single examples of activities which support the functions of the new countryside agency, or how it should fund particular activities or organisations.
The noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, asked about the future funding of Action with Communities in Rural England. Given that it provides services to the RDC, this will continue with the new service level agreements and RDC funds to ACRE are to be continued under these arrangements.
The new countryside agency will need to ensure that it reflects changing circumstances, including an enhanced role in advising regional development agencies on rural needs. The rural community councils, voluntary bodies in rural areas and many other interested bodies have a part to play in helping to shape the new countryside agency's remit. The Government and the new countryside agency are committed to listening to all their views as this is an important part of the process.
In conclusion, I should like to mention the rural guidance on which work is still in progress. It refers to the range of issues that have been touched on by noble Lords in the debate: the need to be successful in tackling the problems of rural regeneration and the deprivation that exists in rural areas; the need to encourage co-operation and integration between different organisations and sectors; and the need to take account of the often poor level of basic public services, such as transport in rural areas, and to deliver programmes in ways which encourage take-up by those who are most in need of them. The RDAs could build on existing strategies and programmes for the rural development areas designed by the RDC for the targeting of the rural regeneration programme.
I have tried to answer all the points that were raised. Should there be any outstanding questions, I should be only too happy to answer them between now and the next stage of the Bill. In the light of all that I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness most sincerely for that thorough reply and I thank those noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment. I was grateful for their support. I am still disappointed that it is proposed that I should withdraw the amendment. The amendment makes a very definite statement which I felt the Government would be pleased to have on the face of the Bill. But there we are. If they feel they can do without it, I am quite surprised. I agree with my noble friend Lord Stanley that we should put these matters on the face of Bills.
I am glad that the noble Baroness agrees with much of what I said about the way in which rural community councils function, the Rural Development Commission has functioned and the importance of keeping that going. I very much trust that the Minister will bend all efforts to ensure that the future is as successful or better. I expect that that might be quite a task—there are difficulties ahead—and I hope that it does not become too steamy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 16, line 42, leave out from ("provision") to end of line and insert—

("(a) requiring the Commission to make one or more schemes for the transfer of such of the Commission's property, rights and liabilities as appear to the Secretary of State appropriate to be transferred in consequence of the order, and

(b) applying Schedule 8 in relation to a scheme under the order, with such modifications as the Secretary of State thinks fit.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 [Powers in relation to the Agency]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 18, leave out line 7 and insert—

("(a) requiring the Agency to make one or more schemes for the transfer of such of the Agency's property, rights and liabilities as appear to the Secretary of State appropriate to be transferred in consequence of the order, and

(b) applying Schedule 9 in relation to a scheme under the order, with such modifications as the Secretary of State thinks fit.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41 [General interpretation]:
Lord Jopling Lord Jopling moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 20, line 26, at end insert—
("notwithstanding the provisions of section 5 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Interpretation Act 1978, "Secretary of State" shall be interpreted to include the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of the hour, I shall try to be brief. Perhaps I may begin by apologising to the Minister for intervening during the debate on the first amendment after he had spoken. I am afraid that 33 years of bad habits at the other end of the
338
building had not allowed me to realise that the rules in your Lordships' House for Report stage are different from the ones I am used to. I am sorry about that.
This amendment arises from a point I raised at the Committee stage when I noticed that throughout the Bill there is reference to the Secretary of State. It occurred to me, as a former Minister of Agriculture, that the Minister of Agriculture has no role in the Bill with regard to a great many issues in which he has a great interest. I have in mind agriculture, fisheries, the food manufacturing industry and sea and flood defences, among other things. It seemed to me that that was a mistake.
At this stage I think I should explain why the Minister of Agriculture is the only Minister in the Cabinet who does not have the rank of Secretary of State. It is purely a sentimental and historic reason. I think I am right in saying that every Minister of Agriculture in recent years has been begged by the Cabinet Office to agree to become a Secretary of State. Over the years every one of us has said, "No, it has always been the Minister of Agriculture", and we have resisted the blandishments of becoming a Secretary of State. I can remember the invitation coming at the time. I know that the late Lord Peart and our friend, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, turned down that same invitation.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is excluded on the face of the Bill from a number of those important functions purely by historical quirk over the definition of a Secretary of State. I raised this point in Committee. The Minister was extremely kind and referred me to the Interpretation Act 1978. I looked it up—I had not been aware of it—and read that "Secretary of State" was defined as "any Secretary of State". In this Bill there are a number of areas in which the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food can have a most useful function in relation to both himself and the regional development agencies, but he is precluded from doing so because he is not a Secretary of State. For example, in Clauses 7 and 27 the Secretary of State may give the rural development agencies a certain amount of guidance and direction. As to guidance, I would have thought that as far as concerned the RDAs that was something that the Minister of Agriculture could usefully do.
In Clause 11 power is given to the Secretary of State to give grants to regional development agencies. One can envisage a situation in which functions can be usefully carried out on behalf of the Minister but he is precluded from giving them grants for that purpose. That does not seem to be very clever. Finally, in Clause 16 one sees that the Secretary of State can receive such information, advice and assistance as he may require. That is all very nice for the Secretary of State for Wales who is also the Minister of Agriculture for Wales, but the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by definition cannot receive such information, advice and assistance as he may require. That appears to be a ridiculous state of affairs.
This anomaly is caused by a quirk of history. In moving this amendment I have no desire to suggest that the Minister of Agriculture should be the lead Secretary of State in this matter. All I ask is that in the provisions

339
of this Bill the Minister of Agriculture should be treated on the same basis as every other Secretary of State. It is absurd that in some of these arrangements the Foreign Secretary can do various things that the Minister of Agriculture is not permitted to do. I hope that the Minister will accept this simple amendment to the Bill and put the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the same footing as he would be if he had broken with the old historic tradition of having the title "Minister of Agriculture" and not "Secretary of State for Agriculture".
7.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the situation with which we are dealing results in part from the historic diffidence of Ministers of Agriculture in refusing the title "Secretary of State" even when offered it, and in part, I believe, from the noble Lord's misinterpretation of what the generic term "Secretary of State" means. It is right that the term "Secretary of State" is defined in the Interpretation Act 1978 and that it includes all Secretaries of State. Therefore, were the Secretary of State who currently deals with this Bill, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, indisposed, somebody else would sign for him. It does not however mean that other Secretaries of State have powers within the Bill that are denied to the Minister of Agriculture.
The term "Secretary of State" is used partly because, unlike the Ministry of Agriculture which, by and large, has kept the same boundaries for many decades, other ministries in Whitehall have altered their configuration; most recently my own department following the coming to power of this Government. Therefore, the term "Secretary of State" must stand for the Secretary of State who is responsible for the areas covered by this Bill. Likewise, Home Office legislation gives powers to the "Secretary of State" but for practical purposes the powers are the Home Secretary's, not the powers of the Foreign Secretary or any other Secretary of State. In this case the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is the lead Secretary of State. The DETR is the sponsoring department for RDAs and, incidentally, the lead department on rural policy. Therefore, it is appropriate that the term "Secretary of State" should be used. It does not give powers to departments other than those which are inherent in the collective responsibility to make sure that the RDAs work.
I do not believe that the Minister of Agriculture is disadvantaged by this arrangement. Although he is not directly responsible for any of the functions of RDAs, MAFF as the sponsoring department for agriculture has an important interest in their work and is fully involved both in the process of deciding board appointments and, more generally, the preparatory work for RDAs, particularly on the rural side. For example, the rural guidance fully involves the Ministry of Agriculture.
I accept that there are a few pieces of legislation where a different approach is adopted and that while the term "Secretary of State" is used and it is assumed that that is the Minister who has main responsibility, there are references in parts of the legislation to other
340
Ministers, including the Minister of Agriculture. For example, Part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which regulates the use, release and marketing of genetically modified organisms, gives power to the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State jointly, but that is because they have joint responsibility for those areas. There is an agricultural and environmental dimension. There are a few other examples, in particular the Water Resources Act 1991 because the Minister of Agriculture is directly responsible for flood defences.
In so far as the arguments of the noble Lord are predicated on the assumption that the Minister of Agriculture is disadvantaged, I do not accept them. I believe that in relation to the one example cited by the noble Lord—grants—government finance for RDAs from whichever department, whether it be DTI, DfEE or the Ministry of Agriculture, will be channelled through the DETR. Therefore, with respect to other Secretaries of State and other departments the Minister of Agriculture is not disadvantaged. There is one particular respect in which the Minister of Agriculture would have powers under this Bill. I refer to Clause 6 where power is given to delegate functions to the RDAs. That power is exercisable by a Minister of the Crown. That would include explicitly the Minister of Agriculture.
Although at first sight this is a strange way for legislation to operate this is how it has operated for decades. In this particular respect I hope that I have said sufficient to indicate that the Minister of Agriculture and thereby the agricultural interest is not disadvantaged by the fact that he and many of his predecessors have declined the title and with pride have kept the title "Minister of Agriculture". The agricultural interests will be represented here. The Minister of Agriculture will have no fewer powers than Secretaries of State who have an interest in the areas covered by RDAs. I hope that with that explanation, which has been a little complex, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving the very clear undertaking, as I understood it, that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would not be in any way disadvantaged by the reference in this Bill to "Secretary of State" rather than a specific reference to him or her. Therefore, with that undertaking I feel a good deal more relieved than I did when I rose to speak. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Working Time Regulations 1998
7.48 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool Lord Alton of Liverpool rose to move. That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Regulations (S.I. 1998/1833), laid before the House on 30th July, be annulled.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in introducing this short debate this evening I can do no better than to draw

341
your Lordships' attention to an article in the Sunday Observer penned by the admirable Melanie Phillips in which she said:
"The Government is to give employers the unprecedented legal right to force employees to work for 12 days on the trot. This is awful both in the substance of the proposal and the manner in which it is being implemented.
The measure is the implementation through Parliament of the European Working Time Directive. The way our Government are interpreting the directive's weekly rest day provision raises the spectre of the kind of exploitation which some of us thought was now history".
Alerted by that article, and by representations which many of us have received from organisations which are anxious to protect workers' interests, I believed it right to pray against these measures and to give your Lordships the opportunity of debating the matter tonight. I chose to do so for two reasons: first, because of the way in which the regulations have been implemented; and, secondly, because of the substance of the regulations, to what I refer to in shorthand as the "Trojan Horse nature" of the regulations.
My first concern, therefore, is the way in which the regulations have been implemented. They were laid in another place the day before the Summer Recess. Obviously, that was a time when Members of another place were about to go on their summer holidays and were not preoccupied with the regulations. They were implemented in October. Therefore they received no parliamentary debate or scrutiny in another place or in this House. That begs many questions about our role as parliamentarians and the way in which we safeguard the interests of those who will be affected by such measures.
The second and more major issue is the Trojan Horse provision within the directive. It is the erosion inside a measure which has many fine attributes and with which I would not quarrel, not least the number of hours that a worker should be required to work each week. That is a most worthwhile safeguard, but the Trojan Horse provision is to remove the worker's right to have one day off within each working week.
In parenthesis, I should also make it clear that this is not another example of Euro-madness. Other countries have implemented the directive differently from us. They have placed a cordon sanitaire around a day of rest for their workers. In a country such as Germany, its insistence on one day off in a seven-day period, even safeguarded by its constitution, has not notably had a disastrous or calamitous effect on its economy—indeed, quite the reverse.
I also draw your Lordships' attention to a speech by Mr. Ian McCartney, Minister of State in the other place, on 27th October. He claimed that it was totally misleading to suggest that the regulations diminish the rights of workers. He said that they included the right to a day off each week. He said that that was a new right; one that did not exist before 1st October. He continued:
"Therefore, I fail to see how the arrangement could do anything but improve the lot of workers".
342
But then he added that a day off may be averaged over a period of two weeks for the sake of flexibility. And so in one sentence he immediately destroyed his argument. He added, rather unconvincingly, that,
"In most cases rest will be taken on a weekly basis".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/10/98; col. 237.]
The experience with Sunday opening reveals that precisely the opposite will happen in many, many cases. Since 1994, when the breaks were taken off Sunday shopping, within months others were following the retailers in the quest to build the 24–hour society. Prior to 1994, banks, building societies, libraries and theatres could have opened on a Sunday but chose not to do so. Once the large retailers were given the go-ahead for seven-day opening, a Pandora's Box was opened. The result has been tremendous pressure on thousands of people to work on a Sunday. This is despite a clause in the Sunday Trading Act designed to protect those who do not wish to work on Sundays. How can it now be said with any confidence that there will be no additional pressure to make people take on 14–day working contracts, thereby committing them to arduous 12–day stints? The floodgates have been opened and unless the Government build in protective legislation, as has happened in other EC countries, many more workers in this country will suffer.
Perhaps I may illustrate my point. I ask your Lordships to imagine the following scenario. A husband's employer is given Monday and Tuesday off every two weeks; his wife, in retailing, is given Thursday and Friday off every two weeks; their children aged five, eight and 11, are home on Saturday and Sunday. How does that match up with the Government's rhetoric about deep concern for the family? We all know that, in general, employers put their shareholders first and the quality of life of their employees is always a poor second when profits are threatened.
In almost every publication we pick up these days there are articles about people in all walks of life suffering from rising levels of anxiety, tension, fear and guilt. Common complaints are sleep loss, exhaustion, headaches, skin diseases, digestive disorders and depression. At the root of all of them is stress; stress which, according to the experts, is caused by an overactive work environment where the number of hours you stay at your task is used as a measure of your competence and your enthusiasm. Many seminars and courses have been arranged in an attempt to come up with methods of lessening the effects of pressure in the workplace, but rarely does anyone want to admit that one of the greatest mistakes of this decade was the destruction of Sunday as a family day of rest.
In the four years that have passed since the enactment of that legislation we have gone for the lifestyle which includes a weekend and at least one day which the family can enjoy together: this 24–hour society where the time parents spend with their children can be measured in minutes rather than hours. It is not uncommon to find households where parents have a day off in the week and children are left to fend for themselves at weekends. There was a time when we

343
used to say, "Thank God its Friday, now we can enjoy a weekend break". But for many that is no longer a possibility and there are disastrous consequences.
Not content to preside over the destruction of Sunday as a regular shared family day off, the Government have now allowed this otherwise commendable Working Time Directive to be used as the backdoor introduction of a work pattern which could lead to at least one member of a family working for 12 days in a row. Anyone who has had the experience of missing a weekend and plunging back into the office at 9 a.m. on a Monday morning will know just how debilitating this can be.
As well as the obvious physical and mental stress such a practice can cause, there is another less talked about outcome of making each day of the week a working day, and it is equally undesirable. I refer to recent surveys. One was commissioned by the Keep Sunday Special Campaign which produced sound evidence of the decline of family life in this country. If the family is the building block of society, this is very bad news indeed.
I strongly welcome the Green Paper published today entitled Supporting Families. It is a consultation document. The Government, through the Home Office, are right to spell out on page 5 that they must make it,
"easier for parents to spend more time with their children by helping families to balance work and home".
But now we have to square that rhetoric with the reality of what is in the regulations.
In a recent DTI White Paper, Fairness at Work, there is a section devoted to family-friendly policies. It states that:
"work and parenthood can create conflicting pressures. Parents, both men and women, need time with their children and time to create a supportive home in which their children can thrive. To ensure that all parents are better able to balance work and family life, voluntary measures need to be underpinned by a statutory framework".
The paper then goes on to argue that the Working Time Directive will enable people to balance better their work and home lives and will do this by providing minimum and weekly rest periods. That is absolutely right. But if a weekly rest period falls on a day when one partner is at work or when one's children are at school, the suggested good balance between work and home life is completely lost. The days that family members have off need to be common in order to allow the family to remain a strong and fundamental unit in society. Indeed, it was the European Commission report in 1989 which stated that family life was under constant threat, resulting from a lack of shared time together. But instead of addressing this issue constructively, either wilfully or inadvertently, we are compounding the problem.
If there had been more opportunity in the other place to discuss in detail some of the clauses of the Working Time Directive I am sure that we would not be here today discussing a working pattern—a 14–day reference period—which could inflict further harm on family life. Some closer scrutiny of the directive would certainly have resulted in the kind of correction we are seeking today; namely, that adult workers should be entitled to an uninterrupted rest period of not less than 24 hours in each seven day period, not 14. If a reference period of 14 days remains in the directive, there is no doubt that many
344
unscrupulous employers will exploit it just as many employers have pressurised shop workers to work on Sunday, despite the clause in the Sunday Trading Act which technically allows them to opt out.
We argue frequently that our House is here to permit a more reflective approach; that it is our task to scrutinise legislation in great detail. The debate this evening gives us a belated opportunity to do precisely those two things and to send back this directive to the Department of Trade and Industry so that it may be recast in a way which allows the rhetoric about workers' protection and the protection of families to be matched by legislative reality.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Regulations (S.I. 1998/1833), laid before the House on 30th July, be annulled.—(Lord Alton of Liverpool.)
8.1 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is concerned about the manner in which these regulations were introduced. I am sure that the Minister will respond adequately to that point. However, I am convinced that we all knew that this was on the agenda. The previous government had been speaking about it since 1993, so much so that it was featured in the 1997 election. In that general election, there was a promise in the Labour manifesto to introduce the working time directive. Equally, there was an undertaking in the Tory manifesto that the party would do its best to exclude it. The people have spoken and we must all listen.
The effect of the noble Lord's Prayer will be to protect the wrong people. He will protect the bad employers instead of their victims. These regulations are designed to protect the victims. Of course there are those people who do not wish to work at weekends or on Sundays. Equally, business must be flexible to be competitive. Some industries have their own special work patterns which require that kind of working. That is why the Minister in the other place was right to say that the day off can be averaged over a period of two weeks to allow that flexibility and to allow time off at the weekends.
The noble Lord is concerned about Sunday working. If I remember rightly, the Shops Act and the betting shops regulations still protect people's right to insist that they do not work on a Sunday. The working time directive takes nothing away. If the employees are victimised, that is what industrial tribunals are for. However, I remind noble Lords that until these regulations came into force, workers were not even entitled to that day off.
These rights have also closed a major loophole regarding employment agencies. They are now also obliged to provide their workers with paid holidays. The regulations also stop certain agencies and cowboy employers colluding to take away legal protection from workers.
My real concern is about the effect of the regulations on the nation's economy and on our competitiveness. For 18 years the previous government tried to improve productivity by reducing employment rights and by

345
curbing union power. The McKinsey Report published last week showed us how unsuccessful those efforts have been.
The regulations will not affect our competitiveness. The few firms and organisations which may be affected by them are those which are run by poor employers and by cowboys. Some firms may be forced out of business but it will be due to competition by the better-managed competitors, not by these regulations.
I do not recognise the work pattern explained by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. The vast majority of employers will not be affected because they treat their employees fairly. They work reasonable hours because it is right and because it is good for business and for competitiveness.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for bringing this important matter before the House today, the day when the Government's Green Paper, entitled Supporting Families has been published, with many positive proposals to support families and parents in their most important job; that is, raising their children.
I remind noble Lords that shortly after the last election the Prime Minister said that it should be the role of any government to include in the assessment of their policies the impact they will have on the family. Sadly, some of the decisions taken since that speech seem to be in conflict with the Prime Minister's concerns for the family, and we are here today to discuss one in particular. If the Government are concerned to strengthen family life, surely it is important for employees with children to be guaranteed either Saturday or Sunday off, otherwise the family can never be together.
We know only too well that since the Sunday Trading Act was passed in 1994, employers have found all manner of ways to make sure that their more conscientious employees are unable to take advantage of their right not to work on Sundays. Pressure has been exerted on many fronts with the result that many young people, especially in retailing, work on Sunday against their will. These same employers will now have in front of them a clause in the working time directive which will allow them to say to their staff, "We need you to work for the next 12 days but you can have a two-day break after that." With the Christmas period approaching, it does not need a lot of imagination to see how some workers will be exploited. There will be families, who in the past could have looked forward to a long Christmas break spent together, but will now be lucky if they have a few hours on Christmas Day.
The family Green Paper recognises that,
"families are at the heart of our society",
and that the stability children need is best provided by two participating parents. Sadly, the opportunities for parents to spend quality time with their offspring is gradually disappearing in the rush to create the 24–hour society. I do not think many people realised the sort of monster they were unleashing when they supported
346
more shopping freedom on a Sunday. It had been popular sport for many years to rail against the boredom of the British Sunday. That was nonsense, because there was plenty to do for those with the smallest amount of imagination.
What few considered were the negative effects which the lack of a shared day off would have on children. A British Medical Journal article earlier this year stated that,
"parenting is probably the most important public health issue facing our society".
The article goes on to say that it is the biggest variable implicated in childhood illnesses and accidents, teenage pregnancy and substance misuse, truancy, school disruption and underachievement, child abuse, unemployability, juvenile crime and mental illness.
Now I am not trying to say that being together for a day is going to solve all these problems, but it goes without saying that if we are still to believe in family life in this country then a family has got to spend some time together, thrashing out problems and sharing the good times. We know that no board of directors is every going to achieve anything if it never meets! Families are no different.
The DTI has received many letters from people concerned with this latest development but, despite the department's support for family-friendly working developments, it is doggedly refusing to recommend what would be a very small, and sensible change to a working time directive, which is, like the curate's egg, good in parts.
My plea is for a weekly, regular and common day off work which could in theory be fulfilled by having any day of the week marked as a day of rest. But in keeping with the Christian and cultural traditions of this country, my candidate for this day would certainly be Sunday.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in this debate but I should say at the outset that I cannot agree with the Prayer of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to annul the working time regulations.
I start by congratulating the Government on honouring their manifesto commitment to bring this country into line with our European counterparts by applying this directive, which establishes a decent, minimum, fair standard of protection for those at work who need it most.
It is my view that the British people would wish to compete with their European counterparts and they much prefer to do that on a level playing field. I am sure that they would not wish to gain advantage over European industry by taking away some of the rights of those who most need them.
I spent years negotiating in a large cross-section of industry in the north of England with employers who, in many cases, were just as keen as I was to improve standards for their workforce. It is sensible to assume, in any case, that a workforce that enjoys reasonable standards at work will produce better results and enjoy

347
good industrial relations. I always found that the best agreements were mostly arrived at by co-operation and understanding from both sides of the industry. It is also important to progressive companies, which wish to compete at the highest levels, to have a content and committed workforce who are motivated by the knowledge that their employer cares about them. I suppose that the companies to which I am referring will either be slightly affected by these changes or not at all. That is why those to whom I have spoken have made it quite clear that the provisions of the working time directive are not excessive and that they will have very little difficulty in applying them.
What are we talking about here? We are talking about issues like the 20–minute break after six hours, a day off per week—indeed, that relates to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, with which I find it hard to agree on the basis that employers can really apply consecutive days of much longer than 12 hours' duration at present, if they so desire—three weeks paid holiday and the right not to work more than 48 hours in a week, unless by agreement.
It has always been clear to me and to my union, the GMB, that, where there is a need for constant excessive overtime, there has to be a question mark over the competence of the management. There is also more chance of mistakes occurring and a greater risk of industrial injuries, plus the fact that there is evidence of reduced productivity levels as fatigue increases. So these changed arrangements for working hours will at least redress the balance a little for those who are working excessive hours.
I should also like to point out that the working time directive has been around for quite some time, so it can hardly be claimed to have been suddenly sprung upon us. Indeed, it was discussed in 1993 and should have been implemented in November 1996. We then had the previous government's unsuccessful attempts in the European courts to prevent the implementation of the directive. Therefore, it is a little late in the day for those who come along with the excuse that they have not had the opportunity to make their points due to the method applied to the legislation's progress.
I know that much trivia has been spoken about the issue. Many of the examples which have been used have been gross exaggerations, especially in the area of the 48–hour working week. I have even heard it said that there are those in your Lordships' House who delude themselves by thinking that being here for more than 48 hours can be classed as working. There may be some difficulties which arise out of the application of these regulations, but I am sure that the benefits to sensible employers and to workers generally will make it all worth while.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Alton most warmly for the manner in which he introduced this important issue and for the great clarity of his approach. I support him tonight and speak from my own experience. I am the owner of a herd of dairy cows which require milking twice a day, seven days a
348
week. My herdsman has extra help provided by a relief milker. Under the existing contract the herdsman has one full day off per week, plus one full weekend free per month consisting of a Saturday and a Sunday. Under the new regulations it seems to me that I could insist on the herdsman working 12 days continuously and then having two days off. He would thus be worse off than he is now, and could, I think, be compelled to take most of his two-day breaks during a mid-week period. I am sure that the Minister will tell me whether my interpretation of the regulations is right. If he says that agriculture is an exception under Regulation 21, can he also tell me whether my example would hold good in other industries? In particular, can the Minister say who has the right to choose whether to base the work period on a seven-day or a 14–day schedule? Would it be the employer or the employee? Further, does Regulation 17 come down in favour of the employee?
If the option lies with the employer in hard-pressed businesses such as farming, it seems to me that the employees are likely to be the ones who suffer. The same may be true of many other marginal businesses and possibly also of new "start-up" situations. Can the Minister say whether the directive which lies behind these regulations was ever discussed by one of the European sub-committees of your Lordships' House? If so, what was the result?
Have the Government fully considered the implications of these regulations for health and safety, for social and family life and for religious and spiritual practice and care? Those truly important values may well be at risk, even if they are difficult to quantify. I ask: is it not better to have a contented working population rather than one operating in a theoretically efficient paradise?
Finally, have the Government thought through the possible adverse effects of the regulations? Are they certain that the legislation does not contain within it the seeds of unintended consequences? I regret that, so far, speakers from the Government Benches have not addressed in the slightest way the impact of the regulations on family life. The noble Lord, Lord Burlison, said—I believe that I heard him correctly—that it would be a matter for employers and employees to agree on what basis future working contracts should be arranged. But what will happen if there is no agreement? For example, will the issue then have to be submitted to an industrial tribunal? I do not believe that that would be a desirable outcome. Surely we should try to reduce to the minimum possible the amount of likely contention.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I should like first to say that I wholly reinforce the family and Christian way of life. However, I do not believe that the proposal before us is the way to achieve that. Indeed, I find it somewhat incredible that this Prayer has been laid before your Lordships' House. Here we have the working time directive consisting of 43 paragraphs and two schedules all of which provide an enormous amount of benefit in terms of working time, holidays, time off and young people's benefits. Those provisions and

349
benefits have been enjoyed by workers in Europe over the past six years but have been denied our workers because the previous government were not prepared to embrace the directive.
Against that we have a prayer which tackles just one element of the whole document, referring to paragraph 11—and only one part of it. The other part is quite distinctive. Young people are entitled to one day off in seven whereas for an adult worker it can be averaged over a 12–day period. It reminds me a little of what my father told me when I was a small boy. A man finds £1, loses sixpence and becomes obsessed with looking for the sixpence. That is what seems to be happening here.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to shopworkers. I declare an interest. Having represented shopworkers for 30 years, I think I know a little about their circumstances and those of their families. I fought and campaigned against low pay, discrimination against women, exploitation of part-time workers and the abolition of the wages councils. I campaigned strenuously against the abolition of the Shops Act 1950. But times changed and it was necessary to protect shopworkers. I was in the frontline of my union, USDAW, in so doing. The noble Lord said that the directive forces people to work 12 days. It forces no one to do anything except as regards unscrupulous employers who deny their workers genuine paid holidays and reasonable working times during the week. Many do not have holidays.
We should look more closely at the working time directive. The new rights include the right to a break where the working day is longer than six hours; a guaranteed rest period of 11 hours every working day; a guaranteed rest period of 24 hours once in every seven days—and that is the average; a ceiling of 48 hours on the maximum average working week; a ceiling on night work of an average of eight hours in every 24; a free health assessment for nightworkers with a possibility of transfer to day work where available if health is being damaged; and three weeks paid leave a year rising to four weeks in November 1999. New rights for under 18 year-olds involve a rest period of 12 consecutive hours each working day; a rest break of 30 minutes when the working day is more than four and a half hours; and a prohibition on working between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., with some exceptions.
What do we have at present? People are forced to work long hours over long periods without protection. They are given no time off for holidays; and if it is time off they do not get paid. All that is to be changed. It would be diabolical if this House threw out all those benefits simply because of one small part which may not be perfect. It will be for organised workers and trade unions to ensure that where possible we have a day off during the period of a week rather than a fortnight, but that may not always be possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to the Keep Sunday Special campaign. In the 1980s my union had some collaboration with Keep Sunday Special over the shop trading legislation. We did not want legislation to be introduced to enforce trading on Sundays. However, long after the campaign was formed, Keep Sunday
350
Special decided to embrace workers' interests in its campaign. I am not against its activities. Its documentation refers to having a Sunday off as a shared day off every week. I do not mind its members battling to have Sunday off, for whatever reason. But do not express that desire as being in the interests of workers! The working time directive is in the interests of workers, and it would be foolish to see it damaged.
I believe that the Prayer is ill-conceived, misguided and, to some extent, mischievous. I ask noble Lords to reject it.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I, too, wish to speak against the Prayer of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to annul the working time regulations. In an earlier debate he described the regulations as a hostile attack on the family. He repeated that charge today. I say that that is cynical scaremongering. The danger of his Prayer is that it brings together two unholy lines of attack on entirely worthwhile legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth than to say that this is other than family-friendly legislation designed to provide better protected times for work, rest and play. In another place Members of the Opposition accused the Government of introducing measures which increase burdens and costs on business. In practice, the regulations will simply provide for UK employees to benefit from measures which are common across Europe and among our European partners, and are common practice in the UK for most employees.
As I understand it, the regulations give effect to an important element of the social chapter—and not before time. They provide for a limit on the number of hours to be worked, and set the figure at 48. They make sensible provision for paid leave of three weeks rising to four weeks in 1999. They put in place measures to protect night workers; that is, those most at risk from accident and injury.
The Government have been sensitive in the manner in which they have sought to implement these important regulations. They have been sensitive to both employees and employers alike in carefully designing exemptions which recognise the special position that some industries occupy. I refer to transport, sea fishing, others who work at sea, and doctors in training. By agreement it is also possible for employees to waive their right to the limitation on hours at work. Choice is thus preserved.
How will it work in practice? I checked with my own local authority. It acts as an employer and enforcer of the working time regulations. It made clear to me that it welcomes this legislation. Local government welcome the legislation because it establishes a decency threshold in the workplaces of our nation. It raises standards among employers. It provides a balance between encouraging hard work and fair employment practice. It protects the most vulnerable in the workplace, the low paid, and makes special provision for adolescent workers over school-leaving age and under 18.
There will no doubt be some problems. But in enforcing the regulations, the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities will I am sure tread

351
carefully. Most councils will want to achieve compliance not through high profile prosecutions but by persuasion, education and advice. If my own authority is a yardstick to go by, officers there are already preparing to give advice and guidance. The retailers, shops and small workplaces of our city, for which the local authority is responsible, are seeking that guidance as a constructive way of implementing the regulations.
I see only two small areas of difficulty. The first is the question of bureaucracy. No doubt there will be a prize for the organisation which comes up with a cute and clever data collection package which manages easily to put together the information which we need to collect in order to enforce the regulations.
The second problem is simply that of ensuring that enforcement agencies establish a level playing field and common standards of application. I know that employers and local authorities are anxiously awaiting some guidance from the Health and Safety Executive on the implementation of the regulations. I hope that the Minister will give us some idea when it will be published and will assure us that the necessary consultation has taken place between employers, small business and the local authority sector.
In conclusion, the regulations are welcome. The debate is timely with the publication of the Government's consultation document, Supporting Families, which lays considerable store by creating the right framework to promote parent-friendly employment practices. The Government say, quite rightly, that they want to set a basic model for family-friendly employee rights on working hours, flexible working arrangements and parental leave so that we can all take time off for those family crises which arise from time to time. The regulations will encourage the best from employers and will raise the standards of those who do not match our minimum expectations by creating a common decency threshold. It cannot be right that as we approach the millennium, we have a labour marketplace which actively encourages excessive working hours, punishes good employers, rewards poor practice and, as the CBI has found, contributes through stress and poor health to a bill of some £25 billion per annum through absenteeism.
The public sector has led the way. Now is the time to extend the benefits of sensible working practices across our country and our nation.
8.30 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I should like to make plain that I consider the Government to be right to bring forward regulations in accordance with their manifesto commitment. I want to question only one small part, as did the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in relation to Regulation 11.
Regulation 11(1) says that,
"an adult worker is entitled to an uninterrupted rest period of not less than 24 hours in each seven-day period".
But it takes away that right in paragraph (2) of the same regulation. All I ask is that the Government withdraw the regulations with a view to deleting Regulation 11(2)
352
with consequential amendments and reintroduce them, as amended, next week, which I understand they are perfectly able to do.
Most of the European Union countries included in their directives the equivalent of paragraph (1)—allowing one day off in seven. That also follows the directive originally given by the Almighty himself in the book of Genesis and is a good standard to follow. I understand that many countries also recommend that that day should be Sunday, but that is not my point.
I have three reasons for wanting the Government to withdraw Regulation 11(2). The first relates to the health and safety of employees—already mentioned by a number of noble Lords. Article 118A of the treaty says that member states should pay particular attention to encouraging improvements, especially in the working environment, as regards the health and safety of workers.
To give employers the right to make people work 12 days on a stretch unilaterally does not improve the conditions for employees in their workplace, though many other provisions in the regulations with which I am not concerned do just that. That provision will increase stress. I am sure that a number of government Ministers will be aware that working for 12 days without a break increases the level of stress. It also increases sickness and compromises safety.
Napoleon tried a 10–day week; Stalin tried a much longer week than seven days and Scottish coal mines tried it in the Second World War. But it does not work. Given the encouragement of the express authority by the Government to force employees to work for 12 days, some employers will try it to their own and their employees' disadvantage. I therefore regret the inclusion of paragraph (2).
I want to refer to the employees' community and family. In 1929 Moscow workers wrote: "What do we have families for?" when they were being made to work longer than seven days at a stretch. Employees with families need time off work when spouses, partners and children are also at home and they are able to join in community activities. That is well brought out in the Green Paper Supporting Families. On page 25 it says,
"Well-managed and competitive businesses ensure that their staff work sensible hours and are able to agree appropriate work patterns with their employees. Some firms however do coerce staff into working excessive hours. To support the responsible majority the Government is underpinning voluntary co-operation on working time with a set of minimum statutory standards".
I believe paragraph (2) to be unnecessary and feel it should be deprecated.
Noble Lords have already mentioned employees' religious liberty. Christian, Jewish and Moslem communities have a specific day off each week and leaders of different religious communities have expressed concern about this provision. To reiterate, my only complaint relates to Regulation 11(2) which I should like the Government to delete.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I can speak briefly because a number of my noble friends have already

353
explained the importance of these regulations. I should like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for initiating this debate. It has done two things. First, it ensures that a number of noble Lords read the proposals and check out what they do; secondly, it gives Members of your Lordships' House an opportunity to express an opinion.
I felt that unfortunately the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was based on a false premise; that is, that prior to these regulations workers had certain rights to paid holidays, limited working time and so forth. That is not the case. As a number of my noble friends pointed out, this is a major step forward in providing for the first time limits on the amount of time that workers can be forced to work and provision for paid holidays.
I was interested to read the debate in the other place on this subject. Apart from root and branch opposition to any regulation imposed on employers—my noble friend Lord Burlison quashed that argument—the other argument put forward against the regulations was that they were too complicated; it would be too difficult for employers and workers to understand them. I did not come to that conclusion. The argument was that workers would have to employ lawyers to interpret the regulations for them. That is nonsense. One of the reasons for the existence of trade unions is to provide advice and assistance to workers when technical difficulties arise. I am sure that the trade unions will rise to the occasion in this case.
I should like to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench who is to respond to ensure that the Government monitor the provisions of the regulations and take note of what the trade unions say about the way they are working in practice. I have a query in relation to one or two specific points. The first arises in Regulation 10(3), which identifies an exemption for the daily rest periods for young workers; and a similar exemption arises for weekly rest periods for young workers under Regulation 11(8). Will my noble friend give an assurance that it is not the Government's intention that young workers should be treated worse than adult workers, but that in fact they should have better conditions than adult workers?
My second point relates to the long list of exemptions in Part III which identifies a number of industries and working occupations which are exempt from different parts of the regulations. Can we be assured that the Government will keep those exemptions under review to ensure that they are not used by unscrupulous employers to abuse their employees?
Finally, will my noble friend confirm also that, where applicable, health and safety provisions will override the provisions of these regulations to ensure that the health and safety of workers are not damaged even though employers work strictly to the regulations that we are debating tonight.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, being as anxious as any of your Lordships for my dinner, I will be extremely brief but, with your leave, I should like to draw attention to
354
a couple of things which I think I can squeeze into three minutes. Although the noble Lord suggested four minutes, I think I might manage with three.
I think there is a certain amount of misapprehension here. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, said that there was really only one thing wrong in the regulation that was being picked out and that one should not throw the rest of it away for that. That statement demands two responses. One is that if you had a new car and the brakes were wrong you would not preserve it unchanged for that reason. The other thing is that if the Prayer were to be agreed to, the rest of the benefits would not be lost: they would be brought back in a form which was acceptable to your Lordships.
This is not throwing away the benefits to workers: it is trying to add to them. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that it would be an encouragement to bad employers if we were to throw the regulations out. What we are actually trying to do, and what the noble Lord appears to be trying to do, is to remove from such bad employers one possible bad practice. Our aim is actually to give more power to the workers and not less.
A number of your Lordships have said that there ought to be a day off a week and not a day off a fortnight. In considering that situation, I ask your Lordships (a) to consider the family, which the Green Paper has put the Government squarely behind and (b) to cast your minds back different distances in time to the moment when you were six or seven, and consider how far apart the end of one fortnight was to the end of the next. If you saw your parents only once a fortnight, how enormously impoverished you would be, compared with being able to see your parents once a week. I do not doubt that your Lordships saw your parents once a week.
That is what this Prayer seeks to make possible, where the employer does not want it to happen. To pass this Prayer would not be to put us out of line with Europe, as has been suggested, because the Germans already have what the Prayer wants to have. Nor would it be a breach of the manifesto agreement because the commitment was to implement the directive and no one is saying that the directive should not be implemented. Noble Lords on the other side of the House should understand that noble Lords who wish to pray against this regulation are in fact trying to make things better for the worker and worse for bad employers. That would be the only effect. It would also give the other House an opportunity to consider these highly important regulations, which so far they have not done.
8.42 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I too welcome this opportunity to debate this very important issue and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for bringing it to our attention, but I cannot agree with his Prayer to annul the regulations. My colleagues and I do not agree with the noble Lord that to agree with this Prayer would not be to throw the baby out with the bath water. We believe that these working time regulations are sensible and generally well designed. We take issue, however, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned,

355
with the manner in which they have been introduced. We also feel that they are not as clear as they ought to be and that industry, commerce and the unions are concerned as to how the regulations will apply and how they will be implemented.
I should like to begin by saying why we on these Benches feel that these regulations are to the benefit of the country as a whole. They guarantee, as the noble Lord, Lord Burlison, has made clear, minimum working conditions, in terms of setting limits to the working day and to the working week and setting a minimum amount of paid leave. There are, as the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Monkswell, have made clear, extensive exceptions written into the regulations. They are so extensive, if I may say so, that when they were being developed in Brussels they were generally referred to as the "gruyére regulations" because there were so many holes in them.
However, if we are concerned about family values we should also be very concerned about current employment practices. Many of the provisions put forward in these regulations are thoroughly to be welcomed from the point of view of employment practices. We are all well aware of the lengthy hours that junior hospital doctors—who are among the exceptions to these regulations—have to work. A friend of mine not long ago was helped by an AA patrol man. When they asked him how long he had been on duty his reply was "20 hours". I do not think the health and safety of the nation are actually helped by those lengthy working hours, and these regulations will help to prevent that sort of thing.
There is considerable evidence also that Britain as a whole has been overtaken by a culture of long hours. In Spring 1997 a United Kingdom labourforce survey showed that over a quarter of employees in full-time employment worked in excess of 48 hours. Among the self-employed it was over 50 per cent. Recent Eurostat data show that the United Kingdom has the highest proportion of full-time employees working longer hours: over 30 per cent. compared with 12 per cent. on average, the next highest being Greece at 17 per cent. A recent survey by Austin Knight of about 13,000 workers in major firms who together employ over one million people, found that although three-quarters of the respondents had contracted for working hours of between 35 and 37½ hours each week, two-thirds of them—these are white collar workers—worked over 48 hours a week, 25 per cent. over 50 hours a week.
I do not think this would matter if these long hours were voluntary, but there is considerable evidence to show that many of those undertaking these long hours do so because they cannot complete the tasks allotted to them in the time available. Many feel that they are now dragooned into long hours and that we are now into a culture of long hours in this country. It is taken for granted that they will put in the hours that are required to fulfil their jobs decently. The Austin Knight survey of white collar workers showed that 47 per cent. of those surveyed said that they felt their families suffered from their long hours; over 50 per cent. said that their health
356
suffered; women in particular felt pulled between work and family; and two-thirds reported physical stress symptoms.
We support the spirit of the directive. Shorter hours will be good for Britain. As the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said, they will help to raise productivity rather than the reverse, and the NHS will benefit in terms of the size of stress bills. The quality of family life will be improved. I go back to what I said at the beginning. The regulations are very complex. They apply extremely widely across the workforce. There is currently much confusion on such basic issues as precisely what constitutes working time, who is affected and who is not, and so on.
The debate today about the implementation of the right to one day a week off work illustrates again the confusion. That confusion is particularly evident among smaller and medium-sized businesses. We fear that the regulations, as they stand, will create a field day for lawyers and industrial tribunals trying to sort out the muddle.
In brief, we support sensible, clear working time regulations, but we feel that the Government still have a long way to go to address the genuine concerns of those who have to operate them. I hope that we can get a commitment from the Minister that he will provide more guidance for those who have to implement the regulations.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I am sure the Government appreciate, we do not care for the directive and care even less for the manner in which it was introduced. The regulations were sneaked in on the last day before the Summer Recess. That is not an observation made in the name of "huff and puff" or in the name of parliamentary pomposity. The regulations are very complex and confusing. The likely consequence of the manner in which they were introduced is that businesses, largely unaware of what is being proposed are, I fear, likely to over-react. And that, contrary to the Government's wishes, may have a damaging affect on employment in this country. But whatever misgivings we may have about the regulations, we shall certainly respect the convention that we should not vote to annul the regulations in the event of a Division being called.
Both on this side of the House, and in earlier days on the other side of the House, I have rehearsed the arguments why we believe that the introduction of this directive into the United Kingdom is undesirable. I do not propose to rehearse those broader arguments again. It is our view that it will damage competitiveness; that it will destroy jobs and limit prosperity; and that it will undoubtedly restrict the advantage that we have hitherto enjoyed in attracting inward investment into the United Kingdom in comparison with our other European rivals.
On the Government's own calculation, the implementation of the directive will cost employers something in the region of £2 billion every year. However, in spite of that problem and a looming recession, the Government seek to introduce the regulations. It does not give us any satisfaction at all that they should press them forward in this way now.

357
It is interesting that in introducing the debate the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, has not only identified the inflexibilities and rigidities of the directive which will be difficult for employers to introduce and which are likely to damage employment, but he has also identified the inflexibilities and rigidities within this complex approach to employment law, which does not even help a large number of employees in whose name, we presume, there was supposed to be some advantage.
When we argued that the introduction of the regulations was alien to the spirit of British "voluntarism" in this area, we were accused of taking a one-sided view of the regulations in favour and on the side of employers. Both the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and a number of my noble friends have observed perceptively that the regulations will not be of assistance to employees. We fear that those problems will be of disbenefit, not only to those who will lose their jobs, but also to those who remain in work.
We reflect with dismay that the Government have rushed forward with the regulations at this time. There may be a certain aptness that we are debating them a day after the Chancellor of the Exchequer offered predictions of the future of the British economy with an optimism that seemed to show an increasingly tenuous grasp on the realities of the economics of this world. Looking at the position as a whole, we are concerned that not only are those predictions seriously out of kilter with reality, but, worst of all, the Government have not understood that the regulations and directive will introduce a reduction in employment. For a considerable number of those who remain in employment, far from improving their lot, the regulations will seriously disadvantage them.
8.53 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as we have been reminded in the debate this evening, the implementation of the working time directive is a manifesto commitment of the Labour Party and therefore a commitment of the Government. We are not only proud to have introduced the working time directive, but we are also especially grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for giving us an opportunity to debate it this evening. I say, incidentally, to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that a similar debate took place in another place last week—but perhaps it was not very similar because it was much less cerebral—and that debate ended in a Division which supported the Government. Surprise, surprise!
We are proud to have implemented the working time directive because we believe in a flexible labour market, but one which is underpinned by fair minimum standards. Throughout the centuries there has been an imbalance in the relationship between workers and employers. That is the whole basis on which the labour movement grew in the first place. Some employers still seek to take advantage and to abuse this, and so workers need support. It is not right that employers should be able to force workers to work excessive hours against their will, for fear of getting the sack.
358
I was brought up on the history of the 19th century. I was brought up on J.L. and Barbara Hammond's The Village Labourer and The Town Labourer. I was brought up on Flora Thompson's Lark Rise to Candleford. I was brought up on the efforts of many liberals and other reformers who sought, first, to reduce the working hours for children and to abolish child working and then to reduce working hours generally. That has been the history of the labour movement throughout the past two centuries. Indeed, when this House came into use in, I think, 1851, there must have been many noble Lords on the Tory Benches who argued then that if you stopped children of six or eight working for 12, 14 or 16 hours a day the employers would go bankrupt.
This is not the end of it, but this is the first time in this country that we have had working time regulations of any kind for adult workers, let alone the kind necessary to preserve the fairness which we believe to be important. We see these regulations, together with the national minimum wage which will come into force next year, as going a long way towards improving the position of the most vulnerable workers.
I shall not repeat the provisions of the regulations, although they would, indeed, bear repetition. My noble friend Lord Davies of Coity and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, both referred to them. It has to be said that not forcing workers to work over 48 hours on average; and establishing a right to three weeks' paid annual leave; rest breaks during the working day; rest periods from work, including the right to a day off a week; special protection for night workers; special protection for adolescent workers and protection from unfair dismissal for asserting these rights, are not extreme demands. They are very moderate. A day off a week is not excessive; three weeks' paid holiday a year is not excessive. Those rights exist in most other countries in Europe and it is right that workers in this country should have them as well.
Perhaps I may assure my noble friend Lord Monkswell, who is afraid that something is being taken away, that the health and safety protection which exists under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act is retained in full and that nothing is lost.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Ashbourne and Lord Bassam, referred in friendly terms to the Government's Green Paper on the family which was published today. In preparing for this debate, I have not had an opportunity to read that yet but I am pleased to hear their responses.
The regulations will contribute positively to the Government's wider goal of promoting family-friendly employment. Combining paid work and parenting, or caring for dependants, is a constant juggling act. Being a parent and a worker is not easy, as many of us know, and working parents need as much support as possible. The long hours culture has historically not only created barriers to work for women with caring responsibilities, but has also prevented many men from taking an active role in their children's upbringing. Providing limits on working hours, minimum rest periods from work and an entitlement to paid annual leave will help working

359
parents to spend more time with their children and to balance their home and work commitments more successfully. I hope to convince your Lordships that the Green Paper on the family and the working time regulations work together, rather than against each other.
I also hope to convince your Lordships that there are benefits to business from this measure. It is an old fashioned idea that business should involve the exploitation of workers. All modern business nowadays recognises that agreement, collaboration and co-operation between employer and employee are the secret of success.
It has been suggested that the regulations will impose a burden On business. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, mentioned a figure of £2 billion. I am aware of that estimate but I am not at all convinced that it is fully worked out. However, we have also been reminded in the course of this debate that the cost of absenteeism in this country is estimated—again, this is only an estimate—at £25 billion. If we can reduce that by 10 per cent.—I am sure that we can—we shall have already overcome any cost to business. The £25 billion was a CBI estimate.
We are seeking for many aspects of working time to be resolved by agreement between workers and employers. It is much better for that to be settled locally in the workplace rather than by government. That is the theme throughout the regulations. It is a theme of constructive dialogue between employers and employees.
I turn now to the issue which prompted the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, to raise this matter. I repeat the quotation he mentioned from Melanie Phillips in the Observer. She stated that the regulations,
"give employers the unprecedented legal right to force employees to work for 12 days on the trot".
Nothing could be more wrong. That is not what the regulations achieve. It has been suggested that the measure weakens the position of workers by introducing a 12–day working week. In fact at present there is no regulation. There is no protection for workers. There is nothing to prevent workers from working a seven-day working week, week after week after week, with no rest period whatever under the present law. This is the first time a provision such as this has been introduced.
My noble friend Lord Davies of Coity was too modest. He compared the situation with finding a pound and losing a sixpence. My noble friend Lord Monkswell said the same. However, we have not lost a sixpence. We have gained a pound but we have not lost a sixpence. Everything is to the benefit of workers and everything is to the benefit of proper working relationships.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to agriculture and to dairy herds. The noble Lord is clearly a good employer. He has sensible relationships with his workforce and he gives them time off. He suggests that employers would be given new rights to enforce 12–day working. Nothing could be further from the truth. My noble friend Lord Grantchester has advised me on this matter as he knows about these things. As I understand the position it is quite common for those who work with
360
dairy herds to work one weekend and one week off. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, does not follow that practice and that is fine. The point about the regulations is that they will encourage agreement between employers and employees. If employees prefer to work as the workers of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, do rather than as others do, that will be no less possible than it is now. There will certainly be a failsafe protection. My noble friend Lord Haskel said that nothing is taken away from workers. He is quite right.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it would be most helpful if the noble Lord could explain the effect therefore of Regulation 11(2) which states,
"If his employer so determines, an adult worker shall be entitled to either"—
the choice is with the employer—
"two uninterrupted rest periods each of not less than 24 hours in each 14–day period…or one uninterrupted rest period of not less than 48 hours in each such 14–day period".
It is that which causes anxiety.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that has to be taken in context with the whole of the rest of the regulations which concern agreement. This flexibility for a period of two days in 14 days rather than one day in seven days was introduced with the encouragement of employers who wanted that degree of extra flexibility to avoid unnecessary burdens on business.
We are talking about a new right and about something which could indeed force people under certain circumstances to work on Sundays, but that is in place of the free-for-all which exists at the moment. As regards rights under the Sunday Trading Act and the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act for workers in betting shops, I can give the House an unqualified assurance that the protection introduced in that legislation is not taken away by these regulations. There is no question of any rights being taken away from workers. Those rights exist as they did before 1st October.
Therefore nothing is lost. No sixpence has been lost and a pound has been found. When noble Lords mention Sundays I am bound to remind them that the original European Community directive in 1993 stated in Article 5 that the day of rest should in principle include Sunday. Why do the regulations not include Sunday? That is because the Conservative government challenged that provision in the European Court of Justice and had it struck out. At their behest the European Court of Justice determined that Sunday was no different from any other day. Under those circumstances I think noble Lords opposite should be a little cautious about accusing this Government—
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to protract the debate at this stage and wishes to introduce a discordant note of that nature I am perfectly prepared to "mix it" with him for as long as he likes. He may care to reflect that I did not mention Sunday at all in what I had to say for the very good reason that it seemed to me a proper approach to this matter would be to respect the religious convictions of

361
other groups in our society. Sunday may not be the day they would necessarily focus upon. If the noble Lord wishes to bring this debate to a reasonable and early conclusion I hope he will reflect on what he has just said.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, from the history I have recounted, I understand why the noble and learned Lord did not refer to that matter. In a more emollient mode, perhaps I may say that we do indeed hope that employers will look sympathetically at the possibility of matching the rest day with Sunday or whatever other day is appropriate—whether it is a Saturday for those of the Jewish faith or a Friday for Moslems—for those with religious beliefs. I accept the noble and learned Lord's rebuke that I was to some extent acerbic. I was taking advantage of an opportunity which it was a little difficult to resist.
In the same mode, let me say that I think it is always unfortunate if an order is introduced at the end of the summer Session and brought into force before the House reassembles. In defence, I would say only that these regulations have been in the pipeline since 1993; that there have been not one but two exhaustive consultations, one by the previous government and one by this Government; and that the regulations should have been implemented in November 1996 were it not for the legal challenge—I am sorry!—by the Conservative Government. No one can say, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, said, that they have been rushed forward. They have been given a very thorough debate. I was asked whether they had been debated by your Lordships' European Communities Committee. There was a report by a committee chaired by my noble friend Lady Lockwood in 1990 on this subject, but in all candour I must say that the committee concluded that it was open to question how far there should be a rigid approach to the issue of working time. There has been adequate consultation and consideration of these regulations.
I am conscious of the time. My noble friend Lord Monkswell made a point about young workers and Regulation 10. The exceptions from the 12 hours' rest requirement for young workers are in very strict circumstances. For adults flexibility is laid down in Regulations 20 to 23.
My noble friend also asked about the exemptions, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, made the point that they apply very widely. The exemptions are under review by the Commission and we await its views with considerable interest.
We believe that the regulations provide minimum fair standards of protection for workers exploited by unscrupulous employers. The introduction of these regulations is long overdue and I hope that your Lordships will not accept the Prayer against them.
9.11 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has gone out of his way to address a number of the issues raised during the debate and I welcome the spirit in which he has done that. As a matter of historical record, I disagree with him on two points. First, he laid all the blame for the fact that the regulations do not include Sunday at the door of the previous Conservative government. I would remind him that Mr. Tony Blair, the then home affairs spokesman in another place, voted against my own successful amendment to the Sunday trading legislation to exclude Christmas Day and Easter Day and that from the Front Bench of the Labour Party there was consistent support for the deregulation of Sunday.
Secondly, although I am familiar with the literature he mentioned and I would perhaps add Tressle's Ragged Trousered Philanthropist to the list of books that influenced me, too, I would say in fairness to the Conservative Party that it was, after all, Lord Shaftesbury who pioneered the reforms that stopped children from being exploited. Perhaps there is less of a partisan issue here than we sometimes make out.
Without going too far into the recesses of history, I believe that this has been a useful debate. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, about it being cynical scaremongering. It is surely our duty to scrutinise these matters. There was no debate in another place and no debate here on these matters. As I made clear in my opening remarks, I strongly welcome what the Government have done. This protection is long overdue. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, that two out of three of the workers in this country are not even in a trade union, and it is they who are most adversely affected by many of the issues that we have been debating here tonight. His colleague and comrade in these causes, Ray Powell, was an ally of mine in another place during those battles. We worked strongly together on his Private Member's Bill—I served on the Standing Committee—and on the Bill that subsequently followed. I was disappointed when USDAW changed its view, though he did not change his, during the course of that legislation. It is the repeal of the Shops Act 1950 which has led us to the position where workers can be so badly exploited. And many already have been. So, far from being cynical scaremongering, we have only to look at those examples of workers who are given no choice under the so-called conscience clause, who are told to "take it or leave it" and, "If you don't work, then there won't be a job here for you". We all know that it is those bad employment practices that we must try to root out.
Never mind the sixpence or the pound; in this regulation here is one item which could undermine much of the good that is in the regulations. If we had had a considered debate on this matter we could have moved an amendment, the provision could have been removed and there could have been consensus across the Floor of the House. So, far from cynical scaremongering, it is proper and is the duty of this place to scrutinise measures such as this. Where we

363
believe that there are weaknesses, we should try to have changes made to the regulations and Bills that are laid before us.
The debate has allowed us to air those concerns and to place our reservations on the record. Given the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has dealt with the remarks made, and his promise to keep these questions under review, to watch these issues as
364
they develop and, I hope, to be prepared to come back with amendments if necessary if it is felt that there has been the widespread abuse that some of us fear may follow, on that basis I thank noble Lords who participated in the debate and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at a quarter past nine o'clock.