Lords Sitting of 18 November 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by The Lord Bishop of Blackburn): The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

Food Standards Agency
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have abandoned their proposal to establish a food standards agency.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, the Government remain committed to setting up a food standards agency. I cannot, however, anticipate the Queen's Speech.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble Lord will not be accused of letting anything out of the bag! Is the Minister aware of how welcome the announcement back in January was that the old, arbitrary, uncertain and often bullying methods of enforcement were to be replaced by,
"modern, open arrangements which will deliver real improvements in standards"?
Is that wonderful prospect now to be indefinitely delayed? I am also anxious to know whether, after all that has been said, it is possible for manifestos to be thrown overboard.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the noble Lord, with his great experience, will know far more than I about throwing manifestos overboard. I can state with complete assurance that the commitment to establish a food standards agency was, as he suggests, in our manifesto. It was in our White Paper, which he quoted with great learning. The commitment was repeated by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons three weeks ago. The precise timing, of course, was not a commitment. We await the Queen's Speech and a statement by my right honourable friend shortly after the Queen's Speech to establish that.
As regards the behaviour, as it were, of the enforcement authorities, I share totally the noble Lord's view and the intentions that were set out in the White Paper; namely, that enforcement should be conducted in a proper way. Of course enforcement must be firm in order to secure the food standards in which we believe. Under the food standards agency, enforcement will remain with local authorities but the new agency will take over the Meat Hygiene Service and will co-ordinate local authority enforcement in order to ensure high and continuing standards. Like the noble Lord I assume that "little Napoleons" will not be involved in seeking high standards.
Lord Rea: My Lords, while I cannot ask my noble friend to anticipate what his right honourable friend will
1266
say in his statement after the Queen's Speech, can he assure us that it will confirm that the Government need to follow the general lines outlined in the White Paper, particularly that—I quote my noble friend's words of Monday—
"food safety and food health should be separated from the producer side"?—[Official Report, 16/11/98; col. 891.]
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those comments. That is the basic principle of separation, which is mentioned on page two of the White Paper. I cannot comment on what will be contained in the Queen's Speech, but whether it contains legislation or whether for the moment it does not, I believe that principle should remain in place. That should be the basis on which the new arrangements are progressed.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that there is a serious problem of an increase in food poisoning and resistance to infection control? Who should do the monitoring?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. That is one of our main concerns and a main concern of the Department of Health. It is in order to monitor and secure better standards of food safety that we propose to set up the food standards agency. It will operate as an independent agency but will report to the Department of Health. At that stage, to my great relief, questions will be directed towards my noble friend.

Ordnance Survey Maps
2.35 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn Lord Taylor of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the Ordnance Survey is no longer depicting county boundaries on its maps and whether it will revert to the original method of including both county and administrative data.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Ordnance Survey is obliged by an 1841 Act of Parliament to ascertain certain boundaries. The current administrative areas depicted on Ordnance Survey maps are the modern equivalent of those described in the 1841 Act.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. I am disappointed that she is answering the Question today on behalf of the Government rather than one of the other Front Bench Peers because I want to dwell on the situation in Lancashire. Is my noble friend aware that we in Lancashire are proud of our county and our county boundaries whether we come from Manchester, Liverpool, Blackpool, Blackburn or the administrative county? We are proud also that we are a duchy. Our magistrates are not appointed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor but by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Will my noble friend do all in her

1267
power to try to persuade the Ordnance Survey to re-institute the county boundaries as many of us are proud of that area?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as a happy resident of Lancashire and as the mother of a proud Lancastrian, I assure my noble friend that I am fully aware of the pride that those of us who are Lancastrians by birth or choice have in the most beautiful county in England.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I stress that that is not a government policy statement. I understand that magistrate appointments are based on petty sessional divisions determined by the Lord Chancellor's Department. At the moment the Ordnance Survey does not have a record of the Duchy of Lancaster boundary on maps. However, I assure my noble friend that when people reach agreement about which historic boundary of Lancashire they wish to see on an historic Lancashire map, that can be produced, although it would be a special production and expensive.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I declare an interest as my full geographic title is McNally of Blackpool. Is the Minister aware that these scandalous maps exclude Blackpool as well as Blackburn from the county of Lancashire? What is it about new Labour that, first of all, you steal our red rose, then you tell Blackpool it is not posh enough for your party conference, and now you seem to imply that residents of the Paris of the north cannot have the toast, "Her Majesty the Queen, Duke of Lancaster"?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am utterly convinced that no one in the Labour Party stole the red rose. We allow people to share it. The noble Lord could apply for membership. I, too, believe it is extremely important to have recognised that those who live in Blackpool and particularly those who were born in Blackpool see themselves as Lancastrians, as do noble Lords who were born in Southport when Southport was in Lancashire.
It is also true that many people born in areas that once were in Lancashire—as long as 100 years ago—still see themselves as Lancastrians. I am sure that no one wishes to deprive the people of Blackpool of their right to be Lancastrians, but, administratively, they are part of the new county of Blackpool.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that on Ordnance Survey maps many rights of way and "BOATs"—that is, byways open to all traffic—are not appearing to the extent that they did in the past? Some of those rights of way are no longer on the newer "Pathfinder" maps. Can anything be done to ensure that in future rights of way in particular are more clearly marked and transferred from the original maps to the new print?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I should be delighted to take up any particular examples
1268
or concerns that the noble Viscount has. Occasionally, particular rights of way and routes fall into disuse. I well remember my husband trying to navigate us on an old "white" road through the Welsh mountains. To our horror, we discovered that he was intending to drive us into a dam and a reservoir that had been created since the map was published. Some rights of way fall into disuse, but I shall certainly look into this point for the noble Viscount.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the European Commission has already drawn up, and has had ready for the past two years, a completely new map of the European Union, divided into the regional and local administrative areas that it requires, and that in due time, unless somebody somewhere, from here or from another place, intervenes, all counties will disappear under the new European regime?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I have never seen the sort of map to which my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington refers. As a former member of the Committee of the Regions, I know that within the European Union the various levels of local government are depicted on the maps that it uses for reference to functions and areas within. I also understand that the needs of particular regional areas are considered by the European Union when formulating its policies. I stress to my noble friend that the needs of those of us who live in the north west, whether in Blackpool, Preston or Manchester, may vary from the needs of those in the south west or the south east. On occasion, it is useful to have those different regional areas.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, perhaps an Essex nationalist may intervene in this parochial debate. Can the Minister explain why, if it was outwith the original terms of reference of the Ordnance Survey, it was deemed necessary for such a long time to include county boundaries? As they were included for such a long time, what has changed now to make it necessary to exclude them?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my recollection is that the government of the party of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, radically changed the boundaries. The Royal County of Berkshire, for example, no longer exists for administrative purposes. That is why the noble Lords, Lord Taylor of Blackburn and Lord McNally, among others, have raised concerns. However, the administrative boundaries were changed because of what happened. Far be it from me, on this day of all others, to argue in a hostile way with Essex man.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, although I come from Barnet and definitely not from Lancashire, I am delighted to see that the noble Baroness is answering this Question. Perhaps I may press her on what she said about the "modern equivalents" of the county boundaries on the Ordnance Survey maps. Will

1269
there be regional boundaries? In the Regional Development Agencies Bill, the Government used the areas of the regional offices as the administrative areas, but if we have regional assemblies, will we have "modern equivalents" (to use her term) of those boundaries, or will there be proper boundary reviews of regions so that we have proper regional boundaries?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is fully aware of the fact that the Government have made it quite clear that it is not our intention to impose the existing regional boundaries for the voluntary regional assemblies of local authorities as the model for the regions in the future. To answer the first question from the noble Baroness, the changes are not being made arbitrarily, but to depict the actual tiers of local government and the boundaries which cover them as that is of value to people.

Dietary Supplements
2.45 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it remains their policy that dietary supplements are sold under the law relating to food provided they are safe and make no medicinal claims.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, whether a product is subject to food or medicine legislation is a matter of law, not policy. Those products which fall within the legal definition of food must comply with the law relating to food. Among other things, this effectively requires that products are safe and prohibits the making of medicinal claims.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply so far as it goes. Does he recognise that there is a lot of concern among users and manufacturers about the impending European directive on dietary supplements, since there is pressure, particularly from big commercial interests here and abroad, to have anything above a minimal dosage of vitamins and minerals classified as a medicine, which I am sure he would agree is not in the best interests either of users or of the National Health Service?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the European Union is considering the subject. It has carried out a consultation exercise. We are not aware of any immediate intention to issue a directive. As the noble Earl states, there is a problem within the European Union in that countries take a different view of vitamin and mineral supplements. Some have tough legislation, as in Germany, licensing most as medicines. We take a more liberal view and where such supplements fall under the heading of "food", our view is that they can be sold, subject to safety. In so far as the moves towards harmonisation in the European Union are concerned, we shall argue strongly that it should be harmonisation on our liberal basis.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the expert committee on vitamins and
1270
minerals, which was announced last December, and which was going to look into the upper limits for vitamins, minerals and food supplements, has still to meet? Can he explain the inordinate delay and tell us when the committee will get down to work?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the setting up of the committee was announced in December. I believe that it has not had its first meeting, although that is imminent. One of the main reasons for that relates to the amendments to the membership. Originally, it was proposed that the committee should be composed of members of four existing advisory committees, but there was a great deal of pressure from the public, consumer groups, the industry and particularly from the Select Committee, that the membership should be widened. We have been involved in widening that. There are now four observers from the consumer side and the industry. We have added two further expert advisers, nominated from outside the industry, and from consumer groups. It is now a much more wide-ranging group. I believe that most people will accept that that is better and is an acceptable reason for delay.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it must be very tempting for the huge pharmaceutical companies to use their influence to load unbearable costs onto food supplements and herbal medicines, which a growing number of people are finding very much more helpful than expensive drugs, including even antibiotics, which are now rightly under the microscope?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I cannot answer for the heads of the large pharmaceutical groups. Our attitude is one of tolerance towards supplements. Provided that they do not come under the Medicines Act 1968—that is, that they do not claim to have curative effects and do not have an observable impact on physiology—we accept them as food supplements and, provided they are safe, they are on sale.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us are encouraged to hear that he and the Government take a liberal view on this matter? However, in the end, will the question be decided by qualified majority voting, or can it be dealt with under the subsidiarity rules of the Maastricht Treaty?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I cannot answer that question.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I am sure that all sides of the House will welcome the Minister's indication that we are to bat firmly on for our liberal interests in Brussels. However, is he aware that the Minister for Food Safety, speaking in evidence to the House of Commons Agriculture Committee in the summer, said that in his view supplements were foods masquerading as medicines? I am not sure that he did not mean it

1271
the other way round. Will the Minister confirm that the ministerial team in MAFF still uphold the principles for which they have traditionally stood?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, referring to the previous question from my noble friend Lord Stoddart, I will write to him on the matter of qualified majority voting.
The ministerial team in MAFF are united on this subject. We take a liberal position. I believe that my honourable friend in another place was referring to the difficult grey area between foods and medicines, especially when dealing with herbs and vitamins. Herbs have medicinal qualities but are often exempt. Therefore they often seem to be either foods appearing as medicines or medicines appearing as foods. I totally defend my honourable friend's comment. But it does not represent any change in our liberal approach to this issue.
Lord McNair: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the international pharmaceutical industry met in 1995 under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation and the German Government, and came up with a campaign which they called "Codex alimentarius"? Its purpose was to reverse the defeat that the industry had received in the United States. Is the Minister further aware that, according to a recent article in the Daily Express, attempts such as the recent one to deprive British citizens of their access to vitamin B6 are the result of the inordinate influence that the pharmaceutical industry has on the British and other governments?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we take decisions based on our own judgment and on the basis of independent scientific advice, and we shall continue to do so. As we have announced, the expert committee has been set up and will report on vitamin B6 within the next 18 months. Then we shall announce our conclusions.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, as the clock indicates twenty-three minutes, I think that we must move on.

Bangladesh Flood Disaster
2.54 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney Lord Shore of Stepney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they have taken to assist the government and people of Bangladesh to deal with the recent flood disaster; and what assessment has been made of their continuing needs and priorities.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Department for International Development has agreed to provide
1272
£22 million to help with relief and rehabilitation projects for the poor; £1 million was given very quickly to non-governmental organisations to help them provide food, water, medicines and shelter; £11 million is being used to provide food grains through the World Food Programme; and £10 million is being allocated to agricultural rehabilitation and the restoration of livelihoods and infrastructure. The priorities for the next few months are to re-establish agriculture and to help poor people who have lost their assets.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The needs of Bangladesh are enormous, and it is difficult to identify the main priorities. Will the Minister comment on two particular needs that have been brought to my attention? I should declare an interest as chairman of the British Bangladesh All-Party Parliamentary Group. The first relates to the silting of the rivers, which allows for the rapid accumulation of flood waters and acts as a brake on their dispersal; therefore the dredging of rivers is of enormous importance. Will the Minister inquire as to the need for dredgers in Bangladesh to help deal with that problem? Secondly, she will know of the remarkable work done by the Grameen Bank in the area of micro-lending to very poor people. It has been reported that the bank is in need of a loan of some 100 million dollars in order to help it to extend its activities in Bangladesh. I should be grateful for any information on that too.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his questions. In response to his point on the silting of rivers, the department has not been involved in river dredging works in Bangladesh. However, we shall continue to press those agencies that are involved in such work. In addition, we are concerned in terms of the longer-term effects of environmental damage that there is sufficient scientific research into these matters. We shall be pressing on that matter too.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State recently met Dr. Yunus from the Grameen Bank and was involved in discussions about anything that the department might do. He is particularly interested in commercial loans. We are waiting for the department's offices in Bangladesh to come back to us on that matter.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the major causes of the main drainage rivers in Bangladesh silting up is deforestation in the Himalayas, not necessarily in Bangladesh itself? What plans do the Government have to help with replanting in those areas, so that soil is not washed down into the rivers of Bangladesh and indeed of West Bengal in India?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I said in reply to the supplementary question, we are examining environmental degradation. We are looking at sustainability in the long term.

1273
The noble Lord may also be aware that one of our priorities at the recent climate change conference in Buenos Aires was to increase the assistance provided through the global environment facility. In addition, we are looking at greater scientific research on this matter.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, is it considered that relief aid from NGOs in the state of Bangladesh has been well spent?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are continually looking at our programme priorities and the ways in which spending is allocated in this area. We have looked at the effectiveness of what we are doing. We are in continual dialogue with NGOs and the government of Bangladesh on this matter.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the speedy responses of the Government and of the Bangladeshi resident NGOs enabled the Government of Bangladesh to manage the crisis very effectively? Does she also agree that there needs to be international discussion on the long-term management not only of Nepal's deforestation but also of the 23 Farrakha dam feeder canals? Can my noble friend tell the House whether efforts have been made to secure international dialogue on this issue?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the people of Bangladesh responded well to the exceptionally bad floods this year. The fact that few people have died from malnutrition and that there has been no serious epidemic confirms that arrangements were generally effective. With respect to the long term, we are in discussion with the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank with regard to infrastructure development.

Business
3.1 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on support in bereavement.
The House will be asked to consider the European Parliamentary Elections Bill later today when it returns from the Commons, although I cannot say exactly when that will be.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, since the debate on the subject of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill will be a very important one, perhaps I may ask the Government Chief Whip whether he can give us any parameters by which the House might work as to when he expects another place to have completed its deliberations on the Bill.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I advise my noble friend not to give any parameters to the Chief Whip on the Benches opposite because he only wants to make fools of them.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I cannot hope to match the elegance of my noble friend's reply! It depends on
1274
the timing in another place. Consideration is expected to begin there soon after the Statement on support in bereavement. I cannot be more specific at the moment. To put it another way, you will have to watch this space.

City of Westminster Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons Message of yesterday be now considered; and that the Promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in this Session in order to proceed with the Bill in the next Session of Parliament, notice of their intention to do so having been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 12 noon tomorrow;
That the Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than noon on the second sitting day in the next Session with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on the Bill in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to the Bill in the next Session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Business of the House
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I remind the House that, as indicated on the speakers' list, the time for each Back-Bench speaker in the debate will be six minutes.
Moved, That the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Palmer be limited to two and a half hours; and that Standing Order 38(5) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) relating to the precedence of Motions on Wednesdays be suspended this day.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Standing Orders (Public Business)
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to public business be amended as follows—
Standing Order 15
At end insert—
"(2) In order better to discharge his duties as a Minister of the Crown, the Lord Chancellor may, if he thinks fit, leave the Woolsack and sit in such other part of the House as he may find convenient; and in such circumstances his place on the Woolsack shall be taken by a Deputy Speaker or Deputy Chairman.";
Standing Order 16
At end insert "or such other part of the House as he may find convenient".—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee Report
3.3 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move that the Seventh Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be agreed to. In the light of the amendment to the Motion on the Offices Committee's Sixth Report, agreed by the House in July, referring the proposals to refurbish Old Palace Yard back to the Administration and Works Sub-Committee, it seems appropriate, in moving this Motion, to speak briefly in amplification of the proposals.
I believe that there was on that occasion some misunderstanding about the rationale behind this important project. The scheme is designed to restore the historical character of Old Palace Yard which, according to English Heritage, may well be the oldest definable public square or space in London. It will restore the original features with authentic designs which will improve the appearance and character of the palace and in particular of your Lordships' House.
The improvements will embrace the resurfacing of the square with granite setts, the replacement of street furniture and the elimination of car parking on the west side of Old Palace Yard. These measures are all consistent with the historical appearance of Old Palace Yard.
The Administration and Works Sub-Committee has considered with great care the reservations expressed in the previous debate. I shall touch on the more important of these. I can assure your Lordships that the scheme will have no adverse impact on road journey times to and from the House. With regard to cost, the scheme should be seen by your Lordships in the context of general expenditure on both the Palace of Westminster and the Abbey. The cost will be spread over three years, with no significant expenditure arising until the Summer Recess in the year 2000.
Questions were asked about car parking. Let me emphasise that that is an entirely separate matter which has no bearing on the Old Palace Yard scheme at this stage and which will be considered on its merits in
1276
due course by the Administration and Works Sub-Committee. This was the point on which there was the greatest misunderstanding. That was probably my fault for taking it too much for granted that we all understood that this is emphatically not a car parking plan. In mitigation, I point out that the project has now been under consideration by your Lordships' committees in three Sessions of Parliament. Your Lordships have had full knowledge of the proposals and there has been an exhibition in the Royal Gallery.
If your Lordships approve the Motion, the project will be the Palace of Westminster's contribution to the enhancement of this World Heritage Site. Since the end of World War II little attention has been given to the historical importance of Old Palace Yard and the overall setting of Parliament. I believe that we now have a unique opportunity to redress the situation, for which future generations will be grateful. I have no hesitation in commending the proposals to the House. I am not defending the project on behalf of your Lordships' committees; I am advocating it.
Moved, That the Seventh Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 153).— (The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
The Committee have met and been attended by the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentlemen Usher of the Black Rod.
Old Palace Yard
On 22 July the House agreed to an amendment to the Committee's 6th Report, which required that proposals to refurbish Old Palace Yard should be referred back to the Administration and Works Sub-Committee.
The Sub-Committee have reconsidered the proposals and have had the advantage this time to hear the views of English Heritage and of Westminster City Council, who both fully support the scheme.
The Sub-Committee have again agreed the scheme put to the House in July. This provides for:
the replacement of the tarmac surface of the whole area, including the carriage way, with granite setts (as can now be seen in position in front of Chancellor's Gate);
the replacement of street furniture. This will include, among other improvements, the provision of globe lamp standards and railings to designs by Sir Charles Barry, the rationalisation of the plethora of road markings and the simplification of the pedestrian crossing; and
the elimination of car parking on the West side of Old Palace Yard, so increasing the space available to pedestrians.
The Committee wish to emphasize that the scheme is not to enhance the House of Lords car park. Indeed, the House may in future years wish, on environmental and aesthetic grounds, to reduce substantially the number of cars now able to park in front of the Palace.
Nor will the proposals impede access to the House. The refurbishment of Old Palace Yard is linked with, but is not dependent on, a wider scheme known as World Squares for All. This entails improvements for pedestrians and better urban design in adjoining areas such as Trafalgar Square. These improvements could have implications for traffic around Parliament, but any adverse consequences should not be attributed to the Committee's proposals, which do not affect traffic movement.
The Committee's proposals are entirely directed to improving the environment of an historic part of London, which enjoys the status of a World Heritage Site. The cost of £2.44 million, spread over three years, should be seen in the context of the substantially greater total sum which has been spent in recent years on the exteriors of the surrounding buildings, such as Westminster Abbey, the Palace of Westminster and 6–7 Old Palace Yard. Because of the reference

1277
back to the Sub-Committee, the work cannot now begin until the summer recess 2000 and the money would therefore be spent in the financial years 2000–01, 2001–02 and 2002–03.
The Committee recommend that the scheme to refurbish Old Palace Yard, as again endorsed by the Administration and Works Sub-Committee, should be adopted.
3.8 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi Lord Strabolgi rose to move, as an amendment to the Chairman of Committees' Motion, after ("That") insert ("noting that the proposal has the support of many notable bodies, including the Royal Fine Art Commission, English Heritage, Westminster City Council, the House's Advisory Panel on Works of Art and, on Division, a majority of the House's Administration and Works Sub-Committee").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees said, this is not just a question of refurbishing the car park. The proposals go far wider than that. The Palace of Westminster has the status of a World Heritage Site. Old Palace Yard is probably the oldest public square in London. It is proposed to replace the ugly tarmac surface by granite setts, both in the car park and covering the whole area of Old Palace Yard, thus linking the Palace of Westminster with the Abbey. It is also proposed to install globe lamp standards and railings to designs by Charles Barry, the architect of this great building.
The proposals to restore the historic area conform with the World Squares for All master plan to promote a high standard of urban design in historic places. The scheme will eliminate car parking outside Nos. 6 and 7 Old Palace Yard, on the west side—the other side of the road—thus increasing the space for pedestrians. I stress that car parking spaces outside the Palace will not be reduced. The main road traffic flow outside this building will also not be affected. I stress that because one or two noble Lords were concerned about it the last time it was debated in July.
The costs are part of a much greater sum spent on the whole of the parliament building, which is certainly one of the most beautiful neo-gothic buildings in Europe—probably the most beautiful—and the most beautiful parliament building in the world. As the noble Lord has said, the costs have been approved and will be spread over three years.
The scheme restores an historic area and recreates the dignity and coherence of Old Palace Yard. It has the support of the notable bodies connected with the arts and national heritage, as listed in my amendment. I hope your Lordships will approve it.
Moved, as an amendment to the Chairman of Committees' Motion, after ("That") insert ("noting that the proposal has the support of many notable bodies, including the Royal Fine Art Commission, English Heritage, Westminster City Council, the House's Advisory Panel on Works of Art and, on Division, a majority of the House's Administration and Works Sub-Committee").—(Lord Strabolgi.)
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to speak now. I imagine that these two amendments would have been grouped together had we had a formal Marshalled List.
1278
I am getting a little worried about how we conduct our business. We have colleagues who serve on these committees who work conscientiously. We frequently do not have debates at all on the reports that come before this House—they go through on the nod—because our committees always try to move towards consensus. This is an unusual case because, on 22nd July, I moved the reference back of this particular part of the report and it was carried by the House. That was extremely unusual. At that time I quoted to the House what was said to the Administration and Works Sub-Committee when the matter was proposed:
"In conclusion, it was proposed that the sub-committee should examine the proposals in detail before confirming they should go ahead".—[Official Report, 22/7/98; col. 882]
The Chairman of Committees said that that would be impractical. So it was not really looked at in detail.
On 22nd July, the House referred the matter back and once again it went before the committee. In the minutes of 3rd November it is said that the committee had had the benefit of being addressed by English Heritage and that it put the case very strongly for the proposal. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, my old colleague, for the wording of his amendment. With my natural innate diffidence I have simply put into my amendment:
"in view of the substantial disagreement amongst the members of the Administration and Works Sub-Committee".
My noble friend has been much more specific by saying that the matter was approved on a Division and that a majority of the House's Administration and Works Sub-Committee voted in its favour.
As my noble friend raised the matter of the Division, I should like to look at that in a little more detail. I was there when the Division took place. The matter was carried by seven votes to five with two abstentions—this is after three years of being on the organs, going round and round. If we look at the two abstentions, one of those was by somebody who had changed their mind. That person would have voted against but felt that, in view of previous involvement in the matter, an abstention was better. Of the seven in favour, three included the Chief Whips. I do not complain about that because the job of Chief Whips is to push the business on—I have done it myself over a long period of time—but it does not exactly ooze the close scrutiny that we had been promised. We had a very close vote here even after all that consideration. I do not believe that it gives us the mandate or the authority in this House to spend £2.5 million of public money in this way.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, perhaps I may speak to both amendments. First, however, I should like to apologise to your Lordships for being late. My train was an hour late this morning.
I am a member of the Administration and Works Sub-Committee, as your Lordships know, and I voted against the proposal in July. As to the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, his proposal does have the support of the Westminster City Council, English Heritage and the Royal Fine Art Commission. But if one reads their submissions to the

1279
committee it will be noticed that they are based on the premise that now or later some or all of the existing cars in the car park at the front of your Lordships' House would be removed. In other words, they supported a world square that looked like a square.
My concern with the amendments of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi and the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, is that we appear to be going ahead with the proposal to resurface the square and make it look like a square again, without any commitment in the short, long or medium term to reduce the number of cars at the front. We are not to discuss the car parking arrangements in your Lordships' House until the next meeting, which will take place in one or two weeks' time.
I have received some information from the Director of Parliamentary Works, who said that the number of cars in the front car park is probably only one-sixth of the total car parking spaces available to your Lordships at the moment. The House has taken steps to reduce the number in the Church House car park because they are not being used. I accept that some Members of your Lordships' House need car parks at the front because they may have difficulty in walking too far, but there are an awful lot of us who are quite capable of walking a few minutes further if that would reduce the number of car park spaces outside the front. That may start making the square look like a square rather than a car park.
I support the idea of a "world squares" project. I support the idea of making the square look like a square, but unless we take steps at the same time to reduce significantly the number of car parking spaces there, and make more space for pedestrians, then it will be seen by the outside world as resurfacing your Lordships' car park at the cost of £2.5 million. I cannot support that.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, after the references to the Old Palace Yard being the most ancient public square in this capital, does it not follow that the roadway ought to be removed altogether? This is what is being done in a number of parts of Westminster along with the changes in Trafalgar Square. Surely the Houses of Parliament, on the basis of the eulogistic statements that have been made, is much more important even than Trafalgar Square. Should not the whole of the area be pedestrianised as part and parcel of the proposal now before your Lordships?
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees for introducing this debate. Following the very useful review of the plans that we had after the last debate in July, has the Administration and Works Sub-Committee in fact sought expert highway engineers' advice on the proposed layout of what will continue to be a major thoroughfare, running from Parliament Square to Millbank across Old Palace Yard? If my noble friend remembers, I raised the query about the road layout as it was depicted on the plans. They provided no facility for vehicular traffic travelling north towards Parliament Square to wait in the middle of the thoroughfare for a
1280
gap in the traffic to enable them to drive into the car park at the entrance to your Lordships' House. It is also important that the advice of professional highways engineers should be obtained about the proposed surface, which I believe is to be granite setts imported from France, and whether that is a satisfactory and safe surface for the volume of traffic that will be using it.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, I wish to make a brief point about granite setts. They were insisted on by the chairman of the Royal Fine Art Commission for Black Rod's garden. They added £500,000 to the cost of the operation. They are excessively uncomfortable for men to walk on and I dread to think what they will do to noble Baronesses who may be on their stilettoes.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I did not intend to take part in this debate but I cannot resist coming to my feet on this occasion. The whole House should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, for what he has done. He has reminded the House that it is the authority which decides whether plans brought forward by various committees of the House should or should not go forward. He is correct to remind the House that very rarely are committee reports scrutinised effectively by the House. From that point of view, I am grateful to him for bringing the matter forward. However, this is the second time he has done so.
My interest in the subject is that I sit on the Administration and Works Sub-Committee and have dealt with this issue twice. I was impressed by the arguments brought forward by the proposers of the scheme. Old Palace Yard, which is at the front of the palace, has become increasingly degraded over the past few years. The quality of the tarmac is poor. The new designs are aesthetically much more attractive for such an important site. Your Lordships will also have noticed that over the past few years an enormous amount of money has been spent on this palace and on Westminster Abbey. The contrast between what was before and what we have now is quite striking.
I think it is right that we should now agree the report introduced by the Chairman of Committees. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, who has provided a great service to the House, will feel that he has had a good go on the issue and that he will let the matter drop. I hope, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will feel that he does not need to push his amendment any further. But if he does, I shall be supporting him.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches, having considered most of the issues that have been discussed, have come to the conclusion that we support the plan although we recognise the concerns raised in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cocks.
We know that there are two matters that exercise noble Lords' minds outside this Chamber: their accommodation and their car parking. I do not think that anyone looking at the prospect of changing the nature of Old Palace Yard could disagree that at the moment it is a mess. It is a mess largely because of the car parking to the west of Old Palace Yard. Part of the scheme is to

1281
take away the car parking on the other side of the road from your Lordships' House and to effect changes which fall in line with the World Heritage view that it is a unique site. It is a unique collection of buildings.
The proposal, with the pedestrianisation, will be a return somewhat to the character of Old Palace Yard before the fire in 1834. It will make sense of the old Jewel House which to many tourists is a great puzzle. Most wonder why it is on the other side of the road. They think that the road has existed since 1066, which of course it has not. Some of the other buildings are also unique. As well as your Lordships' House, there is 6 to 7 Palace Gardens, the Jewel House and Westminster Abbey. I have it on good authority that the architectural adviser to Westminster Abbey, a Dr. Buttress, has given the view that if the plans were to go ahead one of his first considerations would be to remove the railings around Westminster Abbey, which would contribute to the enhancement—if that is the right word—of what is a unique collection of buildings and a unique site not only for tourists but for visitors of all kinds.
While parking considerations are important, it is possible, if not probable, that there will be fewer Members of your Lordships' House in the future and that one might be able to anticipate less demand for car parking space. I am sure that car parking can be dealt with separately from the issues we have before us. It is paramount to make good at last what is a unique English site. We have a collection of extraordinary buildings of great architectural value. Paving and pedestrianising will to an extent bring it up to the standards which are required by, for example, World Squares for All.
Taken overall, the cost seems quite in line with what one would expect for alterations of this kind. To assume that the cost is being incurred to enhance the parking outside the House of Lords is mistaken. That is probably what has concerned many people who have not thought deeply about the issue. We take the view that, at a time when we are undergoing constitutional change, if we take some of the living historical remnants from the Palace of Westminster we can at least retain some of the buildings and enhance their historical importance. If there is anything those of us who may be leaving your Lordships' House shortly can do, it may be to contribute to that. Having said that, I hope that once the report is agreed the work can go forward with expedition.
Baroness David: My Lords, as a member of the sub-committee who voted for the scheme, I should like to put in a word for it as several criticisms have been made. I do not think we can say that we are spending £2.5 million on improving the car park. That is nonsense. When we remember that it cost £4 million to clean the Victoria Tower, that puts it in proportion, and the cost is spread over three years. I walked on the granite setts that were put outside Chancellor's Gate. It did not seem uncomfortable to walk on and I thought it looked very good. I hope therefore that the House will show some imagination and think of it as a big project which will enhance the area considerably.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I wonder if I may say a few words as an ordinary Member of your Lordships' House
1282
and as a member of the committee and not as the Government Chief Whip. As we have heard, we are now considering what is the oldest open public space in London. It is a unique site. We have a responsibility to the architectural heritage. Furthermore, the proposals before us have no effect on the House of Lords car park, which I know has concerned many of your Lordships. That is a matter for separate decision later and will be taken into account by the committee when we come to consider this proposal and its effect on car parking.
Those noble Lords who have seen the plan—I believe that it was available for all your Lordships to examine—will realise that it returns the square to something like the intention of Charles Barry. The plan is coherent in its own right and not dependent upon the World Squares project. It is worth reflecting that, in addition to the organisations referred to in the Motion on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, there have been consultations with the police, the Traffic Director for London, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Government Office for London, the Royal Parks Agency, the International Council for Monuments and Sites, Westminster Abbey, the Lord Chairman's Office and the Thorney Island Society. All of those bodies in one way or another have expressed support for this proposal.
Those of us who are lucky enough to come here every day and work in this building have a responsibility for the architectural heritage that we have inherited. I hope that there will not be a Division on these amendments and that the report of the Procedure Committee will be agreed to. If there is such a Division, as an ordinary Member of the House I shall be content to agree with my noble friend Lord Strabolgi but not my noble friend Lord Cocks.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I mention first the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I leave it to him to decide whether or not to press his amendment to a Division. Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that given a free hand—I am not in that position because I am in your Lordships' hands—I would be inclined to leave my Motion as it is. But if, as the noble Lord has every right—I am sure that it would be perfectly acceptable to noble Lords—he decided to press his amendment to a Division I would support what has been said by the Opposition Chief Whip. He supports that amendment. I would not be voting on the amendment, but your Lordships will appreciate that I would be very sympathetic to the decision of the Opposition Chief Whip to support it. I make one other comment about the very interesting and pertinent remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I thank him for his remarks about the report of the Offices Committee.
I refer next to the proposed amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe. Here again I find myself in agreement with what more than one noble Lord said, in particular the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about the previous proceeding and these proceedings. I agree with him that the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, has indeed performed a service to the House. I told him as much

1283
very soon after his victory on the 22nd July on which I congratulated him. I am sure that he will not object if I reveal to noble Lords—as I said to the Administration and Works Sub-Committee when it had a very lengthy discussion about this matter recently—that I told the noble Lord that there were both benefits and disadvantages arising from the reference back by your Lordships to the Administration and Works Sub-Committee. The disadvantages are obvious. If the project is to go ahead we cannot now start work on it until later than we intended. On the other hand, the benefit is that it has given time for pause and reflection and for your Lordships' committee to hear representatives of the various bodies who have already been mentioned, not least English Heritage and Westminster Council. That has been valuable. Even though the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, will be disappointed that we have returned to the original recommendation made to your Lordships at least he has the comfort of knowing that a very thorough examination has been made with the help of those experts.
Since the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, has referred to the narrowness of the majority in the Administration and Works Sub-Committee—seven votes to five—it would be wrong to fail to point out that he has not indicated his unhappiness with the narrowness of the majority on his amendment on 22nd July which was 148 votes to 142 votes. That was a majority of six in a total vote of 290. The sub-committee's vote was a majority of two in a total of 12. I hope that that helps to put the matter into perspective. I am sure that I shall not offend the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, whom I value very highly as a Deputy Speaker and Deputy Chairman—for one thing he does late turns very frequently and performs a considerable service to your Lordships' House—if I say that as a distinguished Government Chief Whip in another place he would have regarded, as I do, a majority as a majority. Whatever the size of the majority that he achieved in his period in another place as Government Chief Whip I am sure that he would have been very happy with these majorities.
I do not want to take up more of your Lordships' time than is necessary because of the weighty business that is to follow. I reply as briefly as I may to the other points that have been raised. A number of noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to car parking. This proposal will not affect what we decide to do eventually one way or another. Those options on car parking remain open. I note his comment about the abandonment of some car parking spaces in Church House. He will also be aware that there are parking spaces set aside in the Abingdon Street car park, not all of which are fully used. Those are matters that your Lordships will also wish to take into account in due course in considering the overall provision of car parking. All of the options are left open.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, referred to the roadway. I reveal that your Lordships' committees did not consider as an option the removal of the entire roadway. However, that is in any event a matter for Westminster City Council. Other matters have been referred to in this connection. For example the noble
1284
Lord, Lord Monkswell, asked about highway advice. The matters upon which he touched are largely for Westminster City Council. I have no doubt that with that council's customary efficiency it will have sought all of the expert and technical advice necessary for that purpose.
The noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, referred to the granite setts. I believe that some comfort has been provided to the noble Lord by the noble Baroness, Lady David, who has tested them. They are not like the lumpy granite setts or cobbles with which your Lordships will be familiar. I urge those of your Lordships who have not already examined the granite setts at the south end of the car park to do so. Noble Lords will be thoroughly reassured that they will be both attractive and convenient to walk upon—far better even than tarmac. I do not believe that your Lordships need have any fear whatever on this matter.
I am also grateful for the points that have been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland—he referred to the value of the area—which have been endorsed in the evidence from the experts who appeared before your Lordships' committee.
As far as concerns the proceedings this afternoon, I am not allowed to refer to the Government Chief Whip as the Government Chief Whip for the reasons that he has given. I am not quite sure about the extent to which we should be guided by that. I find it difficult to divorce the noble Lord from his office, so I shall refer to him as the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I confirm his remarks about the support provided by the various bodies referred to during the course of this afternoon's debate. To have that support has been a very great comfort to those of your Lordships who serve on the committees as I hope it will be to the House as a whole.
I hope that I have answered sufficiently all those who have taken part in this short debate. It only remains for me to remind noble Lords, if noble Lords need to be reminded, that this is a major project. It is of national and international historic importance. I am in no doubt whatever that the project will assist and attract future generations in this country and that in view of the attraction of this area countless thousands of visitors from overseas will also benefit. It is for that reason that I have no hesitation in commending the Motion that I originally moved to the House.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in the debate and for the support I received from all parts of the House. I noted carefully what my noble friend Lord Cocks said. He is my old boss, and I have the greatest respect for him.
As regards the sum being spent on the scheme, as my noble friend Lady David said, that should be seen in the context of the whole expenditure on the refurbishing of this wonderful building of which we are the custodians for future generations. I sense the feeling of the House and in view of that I do not propose to ask your Lordships to divide. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and to the Chairman of Committees, for the kind remarks they made about me. The Chairman of Committees dwelt a little on my previous existence as Chief Whip. In order to refresh your Lordships' memories, perhaps I might say that we lost our majority in government when the late John Stonehouse crossed the Floor of the House. By the time we finally fell, he was out on parole.
As regards the size of majorities, we had a Division on one occasion. I was not in the Chamber, I was talking to my friend, Ian Aitken, the former lobby correspondent. The result went up, and we had won by two. I turned to Ian and said, "There you are Ian, overkill". So I am quite familiar with those matters.
I do not want to go into the details of the scheme although I understand that if the surface is restored to its original condition it would not consist of granite setts but gravel. But I am not surprised by all the support from other bodies because the one thing that everyone is excellent at doing is spending somebody else's money. They are queuing up to approve of that.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, said that it is no good looking at this matter or thinking of it as £2.5 million being spent on a car park. I understand that, but that is how it will be viewed from outside. At this time, your Lordships are receiving a great deal of publicity. At the same time, in juxtaposition, we are asked to approve this scheme to spend £2.5 million. As stated by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, constitutional change is in the air. I should have thought that any scheme such as this should be postponed. Therefore, with great regret and resisting the blandishments, I beg to move my amendment.
Moved, as an amendment to the Chairman of Committees' Motion, leave out all the words after ("That") and insert ("this House declines to approve the Seventh Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 153), in view of the substantial disagreement amongst the members of the Administration and Works Sub-Committee on the question whether the scheme to refurbish Old Palace Yard be proceeded with at a cost of £2.44 million.").—(Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe.)
3.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 190.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Chapple, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Christopher, L.

Berkeley, L. [Teller.]

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Berners, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. [Teller.]

Blatch, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Blease, L.

Cross, V.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Davidson, V.

Butterworth, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Cadman, L.

Dixon, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Downshire, M.

1286

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Northesk, E.

Gallacher, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Harlech, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Hesketh, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hooper, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Howie of Troon, L.

Scanlon, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Islwyn, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Jopling, L.

Shepherd, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Stockton, E.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Monkswell, L.

Tebbit, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Acton, L.

Dubs, L.

Addington, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Alderdice, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Aldington, L.

Erne, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Exmouth, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Ezra, L.

Alli, L.

Falkland, V.

Amos, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Ferrers, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Forbes, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Geraint, L.

Attlee, E.

Gilbert, L.

Bach, L.

Goodhart, L.

Barnard, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Barnett, L.

Goudie, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Beloff, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Blackburn, Bp.

Gray of Contin, L.

Blackstone, B.

Grenfell, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Grey, E.

Borrie, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hardie, L.

Bragg, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Bridges, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Brightman, L.

Haskel, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Hayman, B.

Burlison, L.

Hayter, L.

Burns, L.

Headfort, M.

Calverley, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Carlisle, E.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Carnarvon, E.

Holderness, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hothfield, L.

Carnock, L.

Hoyle, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Hughes, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Chorley, L.

Ilchester, E.

Clancarty, E.

Jacobs, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

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

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Cockfield, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Cranborne, V.

Kenyon, L.

Crawley, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Cuckney, L.

Kimball, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

David, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Dearing, L.

Layton, L.

Denham, L.

Lewis of Newnham, L.

Dholakia, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Lockwood, B.

Donoughue, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

1287

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Sawyer, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

McNally, L.

Seccombe, B.

Maddock, B.

Serota, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Sewel, L.

Merrivale, L.

Sharples, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Simon, V.

Milverton, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Slim, V.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Stair, E.

Mottistone, L.

Stallard, L

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Stafford, E.

Munster, E.

Nicol, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Norfolk, D.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Sudeley, L.

Northbourne, L.

Swinfen, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Onslow, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Paul, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Thornton, B.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Thurlow, L.

Puttnam, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Tordoff, L.

Rawlings, B.

Trumpington, B.

Redesdale, L.

Uddin, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Varley, L.

Renton, L.

Walpole, L.

Renwick, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Warnock, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Westbury, L.

Rowallan, L.

Whitty, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Wigoder, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Sandwich, E.

Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Registration of Political Parties Bill
3.54 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 5 [Emblems]:
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn)The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 18, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group consists of Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. If it is to your Lordships' convenience, I shall speak to both.
These amendments leave out "two" and insert "three". At Report, your Lordships agreed to a series of government amendments, the effect of which was to increase from one to two the number of emblems a party may register. That was done specifically at the request of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and the noble Lord then in charge on behalf of the Liberal Democrat party, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who stood in for his noble colleague. Having agreed to two, as an extraordinarily generous concession, it was then realised that the Conservatives and the Liberal
1288
Democrats might require three. In the spirit of conciliation which so pervades our present discussions, I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for meeting the difficulties of both my party and the Conservatives. The provision will now allow all parties to have separate emblems for England, Scotland and Wales, which some have already or wish to have. In those circumstances, we are pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has taken this further step.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am delighted, especially in the circumstances of the past week or two, to be able to thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for listening to our concerns about emblems. It does not seem much of an issue, but I can assure noble Lords that it could have become a major issue and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and I might have been in deep water. I realised that the Scottish Conservative Party had its own emblem, different from the torch of the Conservative Party in England. I suggested to the noble Lord that it was not the intention of the Registration of Political Parties Bill to be restrictive, and that perhaps he might take that on board. He did so.
Much to my horror—and I suspect to his embarrassment for obvious reasons as your Lordships will see in a moment—we discovered that the Welsh Conservative Party also had a symbol. The thought of the Celtic divisions of the Conservative Party lining up in battle to decide which would be the second symbol caused me some interest. I am grateful to the noble Lord for preventing me having to buy grandstand tickets for the fight over who could have the second emblem. It is nice to be able to say that I much appreciate what the noble Lord has done.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their generosity. Your Lordships will realise that there is a deeper agreement here on the basis of quid pro quo because I understand that later on the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, may be able to help me when something comes back from another place.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Changes to the register]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 39, leave out ("two") and insert ("three").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 3.59 p.m. to 4.1 p.m.]

Support in Bereavement
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement given in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. The Statement reads as follows:
"I would like to make a Statement on the next stage of our welfare reform programme.
"We have already launched the New Deal—the biggest ever investment by government in jobs and training. We have begun to tackle child poverty—with the biggest ever rise in child benefit. We have introduced a national childcare strategy. We are modernising our tax and benefit system to make work pay, with a new working families tax credit that will benefit up to 1.5 million people, underpinned by the national minimum wage. And, three weeks ago I set out wide-ranging reforms to disability benefits, giving more help for severely disabled people and those disabled early in life and modernising the system to ensure that benefits go to those for whom they were intended. All those reforms are driven by our central objective—work for those who can and security for those who cannot.
"Today I am publishing a consultation paper on our proposals for the reform of bereavement benefits paid to people of working age. Copies of the consultation paper are available in the Vote Office. These reforms apply only to people of working age who lose their husband or wife. Women now widowed, widows over state pension age and war widows will continue to get the support we give them now. They will not be affected by the reforms I set out today.
"My announcement today is one in a series of long-term reforms that will form the basis of legislation at the earliest opportunity. My proposals today will not be introduced before April 2001, so as to allow time for implementation.
"The system of bereavement benefits we have inherited is out of date. When it was introduced 50 years ago, most women did not work—certainly not after marriage. Today, seven out of 10 married women work—almost as many as the eight out of 10 married men who work.
"Today, 1.5 million women benefit from their late husbands' pensions, compared to only 100,000 some 50 years ago. Indeed, about 40 per cent. of the women currently getting widows benefit are in the top half of the income bracket.
"The world has changed—and the benefits system needs to reflect those changes. The system also fails on four specific counts. First, it is unfair to men.
1290
Some 15,000 husbands bereaved each year—many with small children—get no help at all. That unfairness cannot continue. And it is an unfairness that is already being challenged in the European Court of Human Rights. So, doing nothing, as some urge, is not an option.
"Secondly, it does not provide enough help with the immediate costs of bereavement—such as unpaid bills or funeral costs. Thirdly, money often goes to those who have least need of it. Widows, without children, who have substantial incomes can get benefits for years. But a man, who may have growing children and modest means, gets nothing at all.
"Finally, the present system fails to help the poorest mothers on income support. Those widows, who have children to care for, lose their benefit pound for pound and so get no financial gain from their widows benefit.
"The reforms I am announcing today will change all that. Our reforms will, for the first time, get help to men who lose their wives, and on an equal footing with widows. They will provide extra financial help with immediate needs such as funeral expenses.
"We will continue to help those older people without children during the period immediately after bereavement. And, as with our other reforms, our priority is to provide security for families with children and to get the greatest help to the poorest. Our proposals will ensure the security of families with children, and we will do more for the poorest families and their children.
"First, I can today announce that men who lose their wives will get help on the same basis as women who lose their husbands. We will go further. Once those reforms are introduced they will apply not only to newly bereaved widowers but also to those husbands, with children, already widowed—for the first time, providing security for around 20,000 men and their children.
"Secondly, immediate help on bereavement: the loss of a husband or wife is traumatic and is a time of great need and anxiety. And we recognise the need for immediate financial help. Indeed, it is one of the strengths of the current system that on bereavement a widow gets a £1,000 lump-sum within four days. But, in my view, that payment is no longer high enough—the amount has not changed in 10 years.
"So today I can announce that we are doubling the lump-sum cash payment to £2,000 to give more help with a range of costs, such as bills, or the cost of a funeral.
"Thirdly, we want to ensure that we get help to those who need it most. But today long-term widows benefits may go to many who do not need them because they do not have the extra costs of bringing up children or because they have good incomes from jobs, pensions or insurance. Some argue that that is grounds for abolishing the benefit completely, but we do not believe that that would be right because we recognise that financial support is needed in the period immediately after bereavement.

1291
"So we will continue to provide a financial breathing space for bereaved spouses aged 45 and over who do not have dependent children, by paying a weekly benefit worth up to £64.70. That new bereavement allowance will be paid for only six months, providing transitional support at a time of particular need.
"We also recognise that for the generation of older widows and widowers aged 55 or over at the time when these changes are introduced special arrangements are needed because it could be difficult for them to make new plans. I can announce today that anyone from this generation who qualifies for income support and who is widowed in the five years after these changes are introduced will get support worth the same amount as the current widows pension.
"Fourthly, we are determined to ensure that the greatest help goes to those with greatest needs. So our reforms will continue to provide long-term, financial help to bereaved parents with children. I can confirm that bereaved husbands and wives will continue to get a weekly benefit currently worth on average £85, payable until their youngest dependent child leaves full-time further education.
"As with our other proposals, this help goes to both men and women who lose their spouse. But we will go further. Because we are determined to do more to help the people who need help most, we will ensure that the system helps the poorest widows and widowers and their children. Today I can announce that the poorest bereaved parents on income-related benefits and getting bereavement benefits will gain additional cash help worth up to an extra £10 a week, providing the greatest help to those with greatest needs.
"These reforms modernise this benefit; treat men and women equally; give immediate help when it is needed; and give more help to the poorest. And existing widows will not be affected.
"As with the reforms I announced three weeks ago, the structural changes will deliver significant savings; around £500 million in the long run. But we will do so by ensuring that greatest help goes to those with greatest needs. And in the short-term we are spending £140 million more to meet real need.
"As society gets wealthier, the amount that we spend on the most vulnerable should increase; but benefits must go to those who need them most. We must give more help to those in greatest need. We are planning now for the needs of the future to ensure that the system is affordable, fair and effective.
"Some will urge us to do nothing. And, yes, turning our backs on the failure of the current system would have been the easy option. But the real scandal would be for a government committed to social justice to ignore the unfairness—to ignore the needs of
1292
children—and to do nothing to help those in greatest need.
"These are fair reforms, providing real security, providing real help at a time of real need, for bereaved husbands and wives and their children. I commend the proposals to the House".
My Lords that concludes the Statement.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement which was made in another place. As is frequently the case with Statements from the Department of Social Security, it is not as simple as one might have hoped. However, it clearly bears the hallmark of all New Labour's approach to the problems—which is more means testing and a consistent policy of undermining the contributory principle on which hitherto the welfare system has been based. Of course we welcome the increase in the lump sum paid to those who are bereaved. Funeral expenses have escalated. Will the Minister confirm that the increased lump sum will not be means tested or taxable?
There are significant downsides in what the noble Baroness has said. The annunciator, no doubt as a result of government information, announced that there would be a support in bereavement, and that is the case. However, it should have mentioned the considerable cut in contributory rights which previously existed.
The Minister referred to the fact that the European Court of Human Rights—not a European Union body—has before it a case with regard to the equal treatment of men and women in the context of the benefits to which she referred today. I do not imagine that those bringing the case before the court originally envisaged that the equal rights would bring changes in the level of benefits. Presumably, those taking the case to court expected that, if the court ruled in their favour, the men and women would receive equal benefit at the level which then existed. That is not the case. There has been a considerable moving of the goalposts in that respect.
In a preamble to the Statement the Minister also referred to the working families tax credit. The Statement stressed that benefits will accrue more to those on lower incomes. There is an intrinsic inconsistency in the Government's policy on this matter. The working families tax credit will provide an increase to some people earning as much as £30,000 a year. On the other hand, the benefits to widows and widowers who may have incomes significantly less than that will be restricted. Therefore, the consistent attitude of the Government is in jeopardy as regards the overall treatment of the two issues.
The main objection is that the Statement clearly undermines the contributory principle. We have already had a number of examples—the noble Baroness previously announced them to the House—where people will receive benefits to which they have not contributed. However, the Statement declares that some benefits to which people have contributed will no longer be paid to the widows or widowers affected. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that. Men who during their working lives contributed to the national insurance scheme expected

1293
that when they died their widows would receive a certain level of benefit. Many will now find that that is not the case because significant restrictions are imposed. Will the Minister make clear exactly who loses under this operation? Some people will gain, particularly those on a very low income, and we welcome that, but others just above the income support level will find that having contributed all their lives they will suffer under this change. Am I right in believing that widows and widowers without children will suffer under the proposals?
I turn to some of the complexities of the system. Am I right in believing that people between 45 and 55 will receive only transitional relief? Am I also right in believing that that transitional relief will be taxable? If so, that is a significant innovation in our welfare arrangements. Perhaps the noble Baroness will confirm that people between 45 and 55 will receive transitional relief and that that relief will not be taxable?
I turn now to the issue of people aged 55 and over. Am I right in believing that there appears to be a strange gap in the proposal? Apparently, people aged 55 will continue to receive their benefits for the next five years. However, the pension age for widows and widowers is to be harmonised at the level of 65 years. Is there a gap in between? If so, it is an extraordinary arrangement. Before people become entitled to their national insurance pension they will suddenly lose their widows' or widowers' pension too. Could the Minister clarify the position?
And then there are those who are receiving—I think the exact expression is—a weekly benefit of £85 per week on average but, presumably, not if they do not have children. Indeed, that is the position, although those whose husbands who have contributed throughout their lives may have expected that to be so. Certainly if one compares the national insurance scheme and the obligation which governments have previously had to pay benefits in relation to contributions with the private sector, that certainly would not apply. If private pension schemes were suddenly to declare that they were altering benefits in that way, they would face an absolute public outcry.
The fact is that this proposal is Treasury driven—£500 million saving. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how that £500 million is broken down between the various groups which will lose as a result of the proposals. Clearly a number of people gain and that is to be welcomed. We appreciate the needs of those particular groups. But we believe also that it is important to recognise the entitlement of those who have contributed to the scheme and who had reasonable expectations that when they retired, they would find that their benefit was at the level which they had expected during the course of their working life.
4.20 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I begin by paying tribute to David Thomas, a former solicitor of the Child Poverty Action Group since it is he who is responsible for the case before the European Court of Human Rights which has led to this Statement.
1294
On these Benches, we warmly welcome the principle of equal treatment for widows and widowers. I have addressed this House several times recently on the need for equal treatment for men in the area of care of children. Those two principles are closely related. Apart from being required under the European convention, we believe that it is positively good.
I have one or two questions about how it is being carried out. Does it apply to those who are already widowers while bringing up young children or does it apply only to those who are to become widowers hereafter? What is to be done for those who are widowed over 55? At the end of receiving their pensions, are they to be required to return to the labour market or are they to be protected from the rigours of the actively seeking work rules under the jobseekers regulations? I am relieved to see the Minister nodding her head.
For the widows' benefit, we believe that six months is rather short. It takes quite a lot of adjustment to rearrange a life, especially with children. We wonder whether a slightly more generous statement might have been possible.
We are rather inclined to share also the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about how far that may undermine the contributory principle. One cannot have the contributory principle everywhere and yet it is an important part of maintaining consent for the social security system. Whittling it down too far could tend to produce the feeling that the social security system was just for them over there and therefore was not to be worried about. That could be a pity. While each individual case may be perfectly well justified, we might begin to become concerned if there were too many of those cases and they were to become a general trend.
The question of funeral costs is something which needed addressing very badly. However, I should have preferred the Minister to address them rather more constructively by bringing back and amending the funeral costs social fund regulations which my noble friend Lord Falkland, on my behalf, addressed shortly after this Government came into office. We have there a problem of a cap on funeral costs and, as my honourable friend Mr. Chidgey has argued several times, funeral costs are escalating well beyond that cap. It is always a problem when caps are imposed.
There are a number of other problems about those regulations into which I shall not go now. However, I should be grateful for the Minister's assurance that she will look again at the working of those regulations to see whether she thinks that all is well.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about the saving of £500 million. It is quite a large saving to be achieved from a very limited area. I too look forward to hearing the breakdown of how that saving is arrived at. It is another reason for wondering whether the changeover to means-testing in that area is entirely justified. It is really quite a feat of spin to present a saving of £500 million as being an act of warm generosity to claimants. In fact, I am interested in how much skill was put into the performing of the trick. I rather admire it as an exercise.

1295
The uprating of the lump sum is a consequence of the fact that it had not been uprated for the past 10 years. Almost every year I address the failure to uprate capital lump sums. We see here what happens. You move like a mountain ridge in a series of unpredictable first and second steps which makes some rather awkward climbing. Would it not have been better simply to uprate that by the usual little bit each year and then the lurch to the Treasury would have been rather less intense when it came?
I ask the Minister one precise, specific question. If you take that lump sum over the 10 years in which it has not been uprated and compare what it is now with what it was 10 years ago, is it now bigger or smaller than it was then? That is an interesting question and may demonstrate how generous this Statement really is. I shall be very interested in the answer.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank your Lordships for those comments. Perhaps one should just recall the present position. At present, women receive a widow's pension. That woman may have no financial need because she receives from her husband a generous occupational pension. She may not be unemployed. She may be in well or adequately paid work. She may have no dependent children. Therefore, she is not in financial need; she is not unemployed; she has no dependants; she has a generous income; and yet she is currently receiving a widow's pension until her retirement age.
I suggest to your Lordships that that cannot be sensible when at the same time a man who may have come out of work in order to support his children and look after them receives nothing at all. As we see, something like 40 per cent. of all widows' benefit expenditure is going on the top 50 per cent. of women's incomes. Therefore, as a result, we are spending rather a lot of money on women who no longer have the same financial need as they did when the scheme was first developed.
Back in 1946, only one married woman in eight worked. Now, something like 70 per cent. of married women work, almost as many as married men. In addition, back in 1946–48, a very few women—only 100,000—would have had access to an occupational pension. Now 1.5 million do so. Therefore, the old world in which the widows' benefit scheme was constructed—a world where a woman was not in work but at home without any access to an occupational pension—has gone. Therefore, it is right to review the benefit to see whether it is right that money should be going to support those who have generous alternative incomes of their own while at the same time men, whose need may be financially much greater, receive nothing at all. Therefore, we are seeking to target money on those in greatest need and to do so in ways which are fair equally to men and women.
The noble Lord and the noble Earl asked whether that represented a dilution or a thinning of the contributory principle. Yes and no. On the one hand, it is certainly the case that the contributory principle will no longer
1296
extend to widows who do not have dependent children and who are over the age of 45—a benefit for life—irrespective of their means. That is certainly true. However, it does extend to men for the first time a benefit based on the contributions of their former spouses. Therefore, men are enjoying a contributory principle which, so far, they have not been able to do.
In terms of the particular points which have been raised, I should like to deal, first, with the one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. I can confirm that the £2,000 lump sum is neither means tested nor taxable. We will write to the noble Earl with the exact figures involved, but we calculate that the doubling from £1,000 to £2,000 certainly is well above the price increases. My officials have not been able to do the necessary calculations in the time available, so we will write to the noble Earl with the precise figures.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, made a comparison with the working families tax credit and asked why we were concerned about the better-off widow when we were apparently going to throw away this benefit at families with £35,000 a year. Such families with five children, which is the example beloved of both the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the right honourable Member in the other place Mr. Lain Duncan Smith, represent precisely 1 per cent. of all parents. I suggest that that is a reductio ad absurdum. The noble Lord's party seems to stand for scrapping the working families tax credit, scrapping the new deal and scrapping the minimum wage; indeed, scrapping all the things which will lift women and men equally off poverty pay into work which is well paid enough to begin to float them off a dependency on benefits. We are making work rewarding. All the noble Lord can say is that he does not want it because someone on £35,000 a year with five children—that is, 1 per cent. of parents—may be affected. I believe the noble Lord's position in that respect is indefensible. He would consign such people to a life either out of work or, as currently, on a dependent hand out.
The noble Lord asked me to name the winners and losers as regards the new proposals. Among the gainers will be 40,000 new widows per year. They will gain the extra lump sum which will go up from £1,000 to £2,000. For the first time, some 15,000 widowers per year will gain the lump sum of £2,000. Approximately 5,000 new widowers will gain the widowed parents' allowance in the first full year rising to £20,000 as the scheme matures. Moreover, 20,000 existing widowers will gain on its implementation. On the other hand, among the losers, around 20,000 widows in the first full year will receive a weekly benefit for the shorter period of six months. They are the losers.
I believe that the noble Lord asked about a gap when a widowed mother would lose benefit before she might be entitled to a transitional payment. At present, the widows' pension, which does not go with having children, only kicks in at the age of 45. So we are not changing the situation in that respect. The noble Lord asked where the £85 figure came from. I can tell him that this is a compound of the average situation; namely, the widows' or widowers' benefit, with either one or two children, together with a SERPS accrual. I also

1297
believe that the noble Lord asked whether people would get the SERPS accrual for the bereavement allowance as regards the six-month period. The answer is no.
The noble Lord asked how the latter would coincide or how it calibrates with the equalisation of the state pension age. The harmonisation starts in 2010 and finishes in 2020. Therefore, I do not see why there should be a problem. The noble Lord also said that, if this had been done in the private sector, there would be an outcry at a default on a contributory benefit principle. That comes a bit rich when the previous government halved the benefit of SERPS in their period of office. That was indeed a commitment by government to a contributory principle. The noble Lord should be careful. He was halving SERPS, which was a benefit targeted at those men and women who were not eligible for occupational pensions; in other words, the poorer men and women in work. He halved the value of that benefit. What we are doing in terms of our reforms is ensuring that more benefit goes to those who are more lowly paid—that is, the poorer paid men and women equally.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the situation for current widowers. As I understand it, when this legislation is passed by both Houses in its present form, current widowers with dependent children will be entitled to the widowed parents' allowance. However, they will not be entitled to the lump sum if they are already widowed. The noble Earl was worried that the six-month period for bereavement allowance was too short, especially if there were dependent children. He is entirely right. If someone is bereaved with dependent children, he or she will continue to receive the allowance until the youngest child leaves full-time education at 16 or 19. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding in that respect. Finally, the noble Earl asked whether it was consistent with social fund regulations. The answer is yes. I checked the position earlier this morning and I can tell the noble Earl that it is indeed. However, if there is any aspect of this upon which he wants further elaboration, I shall be very happy to write to the noble Earl.
I can tell the House that, roughly speaking, virtually all of the money—that is, £600 million in time—will come from the loss of the widows' pension being for life where there are no dependent children. Netted off against that £600 million is the additional cost of the extra money going in the lump sum and to additional widowers.
4.36 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for repeating the Statement. This is a very complex matter and it will take some time to examine it in order to realise precisely what is involved. Of course, I applaud the proposal to make a bereavement allowance to widowers as well as to widows and, similarly, I also applaud the intention to ensure that children who are dependent are properly cared for.
As I am sure my noble friend the Minister probably understands, because she knows that I am a trustee of the Widows Advisory Trust, my concerns relate to the
1298
position of older widows, especially those aged over 45. As I understand the situation, the latter perhaps will be expected to attempt to join the labour market even though they may have spent their lives looking after their families. Of course, by that time, the children will not be dependent because they will have grown up. I am sure that such widows will find it difficult to secure appropriate employment. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said, the benefit is a contributory one for which their husbands will have made contributions during their working lives.
My noble friend the Minister said that many women now benefit from what she described as generous occupational pension provision. Many such schemes have provision for widows' benefit. However, that is by no means always very generous. Many pension schemes are predicated on the assumption that the resultant benefit will also take into account the fact that the recipient is entitled to the ordinary flat rate pension or, in the case of a widow, a widow's pension. So the whole assumption of that family, even in relation to an occupational pension, may have been that that would be built up by the addition of a widow's pension because the pension itself would not be sufficient by itself to keep the widow out of poverty.
We must be careful before we start to interfere with contributory benefits. Indeed, if we are not careful, this set of proposals may well prove to be a bonanza for life insurance salesmen. But, on the other hand, there may well be families who simply cannot afford to make private provision. It is people for whom private provision is simply not a possibility that I have concern. As we on this side of the House have always agreed, it is the job of government to care for the vulnerable. In this connection, I believe that widows in the age group to which I referred could rightly be regarded as the vulnerable—that is, those whose husbands may have felt that they were making provision for them through their contributions to the national insurance scheme.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am most grateful that my noble friend Lady Turner who knows so much about social security, and especially about widows benefits, has welcomed much of what I have said today. I believe that her concerns focus on the older widow aged over 45. I think she would agree that, to some degree, the problem is a generational one. Back in 1946, only one married woman in eight went to work, but today seven in 10 women do so. If we look at the statistics, it is interesting to note that of the women aged over 45 to retirement age—the group that my noble friend identified—50 per cent. are in work at present. However, as regards men who are over the age of 45 up to retirement age, only 57 per cent. are currently in work. In other words, the profile of women's and men's needs is increasingly converging. Virtually as many women are now in work as men. That is why it is right to seek fairness as between men and women in similar situations.
Further, if women—this is largely a generational phenomenon—have worked as married women, continue to work when they have unfortunately lost their husbands and do not also have dependent children, it is

1299
right to help them with a lump sum to meet some of the immediate costs. It is right to give them a bereavement allowance to deal with the difficult first six months when perhaps their lives are awry, but then to expect them—as men do—to remain in the labour market, as indeed they already do. I hope my noble friend will accept that that is right. Over half of all widows now have an income of over £150 a week, much of which comes from occupational pensions. That number will continue to grow. Those widows who do not have access to that and who are under the age of 55 will have access to JSA. If they are over the age of 55, as a result of the transitional arrangements we are making they will have access to income support without being required—I think this was a point raised by the noble Earl which I overlooked—to make themselves available for, or be actively seeking, work.
The Lord Bishop of Bradford: My Lords, I am sure that the Statement will be of considerable interest to ministers of religion. I seek the Minister's help on two points. I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that there is considerable unease about the escalating costs of funerals and the commercialisation of them, as many would see it. I know the Minister fully understands that bereavement is a traumatic occasion. It is a time when people find it extremely difficult to make decisions. There is a sense of shock and of denial. According to a programme on Radio 4 this morning such people are offered a chipboard coffin for £350 or a proper wooden coffin for £950. This is the moment when their dignity feels most threatened. Making such a decision on a commercial basis at that moment is extremely difficult. Can the Minister give us some advice as to whether the provision to be made for people who have been bereaved, not least younger people who do not have a great income, will enable them to make provision for a dignified funeral and will not make them feel that they are choosing the cheapest option because that is all they can afford?
The second point on which I should be grateful for some help is the following. It is a common experience for ministers of religion nowadays to conduct the funeral of a person who has died unmarried but who was in what is called a stable or fairly permanent relationship. The widow or the widower—if you can use that term—may still be in a state of shock and may be badly off and will have to make precisely the same choices. Is there any provision under this Statement to provide help for people in those circumstances for whom the experience of bereavement is equally awful?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate speaks compassionately and wisely about the problems faced when making decisions on funerals within a day or so of the death of a husband. The £2,000 lump sum is not, as such, a payment to cover funeral costs. It is often spent on funeral costs, but it is not so designated. The £2,000 can be used to cover the cost of a decent and dignified funeral without someone
1300
feeling obliged to buy the cheapest coffin and to do without flowers and other such things with which one may wish to mark the occasion.
The right reverend Prelate asked whether the provision extended to someone in a long-standing partnership who is not married. The lump sum payment and all the benefits we have been talking about today apply only where the people concerned have been married. It does not extend to co-habitees or to those in more casual relationships. That is because we recognise the special status of marriage in this situation. However, the social fund is available to some of the poorest people that the right reverend Prelate mentioned. The social fund does not discriminate between marriage and co-habitation. In other words, it will give financial support to the person who is accepted as having the most appropriate responsibility for arranging a funeral, whether that is a daughter, a son, a brother, a sister or a partner. In those circumstances people would receive appropriate support from the social fund subject to their income.

Security for Private Road Works (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1998
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 30th June be approved [40th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move. Under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 a local authority may adopt a private road on to its list of public roads provided that it meets a specified standard. When an authority adopts such a road, it then has a duty to maintain it. Where roads are required to serve new housing developments, Section 17 of the 1984 Act enables the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the developer to lodge a security, known as a "road bond", with the local roads authority to cover the costs of constructing these roads or, where there are existing roads, to bring them up to the authority's standard.
Such regulations were introduced in 1985 by the previous administration. The Security of Private Road Works (Scotland) Regulations 1985, as they are known, were designed to protect the rights of the individual house purchaser. They ensure that where a housing developer fails to construct a road to serve his housing development, for example, because of bankruptcy, sufficient funds will be available, through the road bond, to enable the local roads authority to complete the road's construction.
Although the regulations were well intended, it soon became apparent that they were not working as well as they might. For example, difficulties were experienced by some roads authorities where developers began work without lodging appropriate security, leaving the authority potentially exposed to the cost of completing the works. Also, some developers considered that roads authorities did not release their bond security as soon as they might, thereby incurring an unnecessary burden on

1301
the company. Following discussion and consultation with those concerned with the practical application of the regulations, the Government have brought forward some amendments to them. We believe these amendments not only strengthen the spirit of the 1985 regulations but also make them more effective. I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of this House will welcome these measures as an improvement to the existing legislation.
Although roads authorities considered that they should not have to complete roads where a developer defaults, the amendment regulations make absolutely clear that this is the case. We do not consider it appropriate for the house purchaser, who has already paid towards the cost of construction in the price of his house, to pay for it again. We also consider that shouldering this responsibility encourages roads authorities to make as much effort as possible to ensure that developers do not start work without lodging the appropriate security. By requiring housing developers to provide local roads authorities with at least two weeks advance notice of their intention to commence developments, the amendment regulations provide authorities with more time to ensure that a bond is lodged. The amendment regulations also aim to discourage developers from not lodging a road bond by increasing the penalty for non-compliance of the 1985 regulations from £2,000 to the statutory maximum, level 5, fine of £5,000.
In addition, the new amendments now stipulate the circumstances when a roads authority should return the bond in whole or in part, as appropriate, to a developer. These are when the proposed development has been abandoned, when the authority considers that the security is no longer required or when the bond amount exceeds the cost of the proposed development.
Under the existing regulations, a roads authority does not have to release any of the road bond until it is satisfied that the road has been completed to a suitable standard. Unfortunately, this does not reflect the actual process of building roads. Roads are constructed in defined stages and provided each stage is constructed to the authority's standard, there is no reason why the entire bond should be retained until the road is fully complete. Also, as there can be quite a time lag between the completion of one stage of a road and the next, retaining the full bond can place an unreasonable financial burden on the developer. Our proposed amendments now require the authority to release parts of the bond when specified stages of the road's construction have been reached, provided, of course, that each stage has been completed to the authority's required standard.
Under the existing arrangements authorities are permitted, on completion of the road, to retain 20 per cent. of the bond until either the maintenance period for the road has expired or it has been adopted as a public road. However, we believe that in practice this is a little excessive and our amendments will reduced the maximum an authority can retain during the maintenance period to 10 per cent. of the bond.
The Government are committed to ensuring that individual house purchasers are not held to ransom by developers who default on their commitments or by authorities which have failed to ensure that appropriate security is lodged to cover the costs of roads for new developments in their areas. These amendments reinforce that commitment, clarify the responsibilities and roles of both parties and ensure that while the local authorities have the security needed to complete roads, developers also benefit from release of the road bond security as soon as possible. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 30th June be approved [40th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale.)
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to a bond. Can she confirm that the developer actually deposits the cash with the authority?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I welcome the regulations. The original provision was brought forward in 1985 by the then Secretary of State for Scotland, now my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie. These are sensible measures. When new roads are constructed, it is important that the householders who contribute to them should have some certainty that they will be properly maintained and eventually, when they are of the correct standard, taken over by the roads authority to which the householders will pay council tax.
Historically, private roads always cause difficulties, as I remember from my old constituency. That is why it is important that these matters are properly attended to where a new private road is developed for new private housing. That would ensure that some of the problems that have arisen with roads prior to provisions such as these will not recur.
In the spirit of consensus politics, and so on and so forth, for the second time this afternoon, I warmly welcome a measure from Her Majesty's Government and congratulate the noble Baroness on bringing it forward—although I do not intend all these warm welcomes to become habit-forming.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, perhaps I may first answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. As I understand it, that is indeed the case. That is what the bond means. If, by any chance, that is not correct, I shall write to the noble Lord. However, I am absolutely sure that it means exactly that.
Secondly, I very much welcome the warm words from the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I take on board his health warning that such welcomes will not necessarily become a habit. Nevertheless, I welcome what he said about the regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Channel 4 (Application of Excess Revenues) Order 1998
4.55 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th October be approved [45th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order forms the second and final stage in the phasing out of the Channel 4 funding formula. The first stage was completed last year with the Channel 4 (Application of Excess Revenues) Order 1997. In July 1997, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced that the funding formula was no longer justified in the current broadcasting environment and that the Government would, therefore, take action to bring it to an end.
Under the terms of the Broadcasting Act 1990, Channel 4 is guaranteed funding from the Channel 3 companies if its income from advertising falls below 14 per cent. of total national advertising revenues. The liability of the Channel 3 companies is limited to 2 per cent. of total national advertising revenue in any one year.
On the other hand, if Channel 4's income from advertising rises above the 14 per cent. threshold, the excess revenue above that threshold must be distributed according to arrangements also specified in the 1990 Act: 50 per cent. of that excess goes to the ITC for onward distribution to the Channel 3 companies and 50 per cent. can be added to Channel 4's current expenditure plans. As I said, the first stage in the phasing out of the funding formula was completed last year with the 1997 order which reduced from 50 per cent. to 33⅓ per cent. the percentage of the excess revenues that Channel 4 must pay to the ITC.
The present order is made under Section 27(7) of the Broadcasting Act 1990, as amended by Section 83(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1996. It will reduce from 33⅓ per cent. to zero the percentage of excess revenues that Channel 4 must pay to the Independent Television Commission (ITC) for distribution to Channel 3 companies from 1999 onwards. This will, in effect, end the Channel 4 funding formula.
The funding formula was introduced as a safety net as part of the new arrangements under which Channel 4 was to sell its own advertising rather than rely on financing from the Channel 3 companies. Before the 1990 Act, Channel 4 had been financed by a subscription from the ITV companies which sold Channel 4's air time. The safety net was provided in case the new arrangements did not provide Channel 4 with enough income to fulfil its remit. In fact, since the funding formula provision came into force in January 1993, the flow of funds has always been from Channel 4 to the Channel 3 companies—to the tune of £346.5 million to date.
During the passage of the 1996 Broadcasting Act, there were calls to abolish the Channel 4 funding formula. Many, including Channel 4 itself, believed that, in the light of the success that Channel 4 has enjoyed since it began selling its own advertising, the financial
1304
safety net was no longer required and the payments being made by Channel 4 to the ITV companies should be ploughed back into the channel's programme production.
The previous government were not persuaded by those arguments. It was accordingly decided to retain the basic framework of the funding formula, but to take steps to increase the level of income Channel 4 can retain. So the Broadcasting Act 1996 introduced the power to adjust by order the distribution of Channel 4's excess revenues above the statutory threshold of 14 per cent. of television advertising revenues. It is under those provisions that today's order is made.
Phasing out the funding formula will, of course, strengthen Channel 4's financial position. That is why the Secretary of State, in announcing his conclusions on the funding formula in July 1997, asked the ITC to review Channel 4's licence to ensure that its income is used to further its distinctive public service identity. Following public consultation, the revised licence was published by the ITC on 23rd February 1998. It includes an increased commitment to and targets for original productions, first run programmes and productions commissioned from outside the London transmission region. It includes a specific commitment to assist the British film industry and new requirements for multi-cultural and disability programmes.
The Government welcome the terms of the revised licence which both meet our original objectives in phasing out the funding formula and reflect the response to the public consultation exercise. The new Channel 4 licence better reflects the corporation's core public service ends. It is excellent news for both UK viewers and UK creative industries.
The Channel 4 funding formula is outdated and unwarranted. The Government have announced their intention to bring it to an end and have already effected the first stage of that process. The order before the House today completes the process. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th October be approved [45th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for such a clear and fair account of a rather curious episode in the history of British broadcasting. He has announced a satisfactory conclusion to a long and unsatisfactory broadcasting saga. Channel 4, warts and all, remains a remarkable and unique achievement in British broadcasting and is widely admired around the world.
The original plan as set out in the Broadcasting Act 1990 was well-intentioned in its way. It was intended as a safety net, to provide a protection for Channel 4 once it went independently into the advertising market-place in case its remit for special programming—dealing with minorities and innovative, creative programming—were to suffer. It was never remotely intended to be a subsidy to the populist programme makers of ITV. It was extraordinary that as a result of the 1990 Act, which had many other major flaws attached to it, the ITV companies should enjoy a subsidy of £365 million over

1305
the period. It is a very good thing that that should be brought to an end. I assume that in due course, when there is an opportunity for fresh primary legislation in the broadcasting field, the provisions under which this order is made will disappear totally from the statute book.
I was also glad that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned the conditions that have been attached to Channel 4's licence at the initiative of government. Channel 4 has a distinguished record. It has been of great importance to Britain as a whole in the field of independent film-making. I wish to underline the importance of the new condition in the licence; namely, that Channel 4 should devote its increased resources to increased original programme making outside the London area. Television programme making is a terrific magnet for the London area. It is easy to slip into an over-concentration. I emphasise the great importance of that condition being fulfilled.
In previous debates on the future of Channel 4 under earlier broadcasting legislation there was a vigorous campaign to save Channel 4 from the privatisation that was being urged from many quarters—including many high quarters within the government of the day. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, has gone on to much higher things in the agricultural sector of our economy. But the noble Lord and together with noble Lords on all sides of the House, fought a vigorous campaign at least to prevent the privatisation of Channel 4. It would be an extraordinary irony if, after that successful campaign, in which the Labour Party in opposition played such a leading part, a Labour government, in search of funding, were again to be tempted to go down the road of privatisation. I could not of course then hope to have the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, as a fellow campaigner. But many of us on all sides of this House would want vigorously to resist any attempt on the part of the Government to go down that road.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. I agree with many of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. They are based on his great experience in this industry, which I do not have.
On a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and by my honourable friend Mr. Spring, are there any plans to remove the provision from the statute book now that there does not seem to be so much need for it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the reception that they have given to the order, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, because of his distinguished service in the television industry. He is right in saying that Channel 4 has been a unique achievement. It is the Government's prime purpose to ensure that it continues to be successful not only financially but in fulfilling and enhancing its public service remit.
The noble Lord is also right in saying that the safety net was originally devised with good intentions. Some feared that Channel 4 by itself could not sell its advertising. Indeed, I remember a number of advertising companies, and the ITV companies themselves at the
1306
time, believing that they were uniquely qualified to sell Channel 4 advertising. In fact, they were uniquely unqualified. They tended to sell Channel 4 advertising as a sort of "come on", a loss leader as part of a much larger contract for Channel 3 advertising. The result was that before the change Channel 4 advertising was not particularly appropriate to the programmes around which it was being shown and did not take advantage of the availability via Channel 4 of nationwide minority audiences. That is what Channel 4 has proved by the way that it has been selling advertising since the change. The result has been that the safety net has worked only one way and has provided money entirely towards Channel 3 and away from Channel 4.
Both noble Lords asked why we could not get rid of the order altogether rather than reduce it to zero, presumably having to keep it at zero. The answer is simply that it would require primary legislation and we do not have a slot for primary legislation. As soon as we do, this will form a small and uncontroversial part.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, for his remarks about the increased requirement for original programming. The requirement will be that 40 per cent. of programming most of the day is the upper limit for repeats, and in peak periods 20 per cent. That will mean a considerable improvement in the quality and originality of Channel 4 programming.
I am also grateful for the noble Lord's remarks about privatisation. I confirm that we expect Channel 4 to continue to be part of the public broadcasting sector, playing a vital role in providing high-quality distinctive and innovative programming and experimental programming, which was added to the remit. The Government have no intention of privatising Channel 4. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agriculture
5.9 p.m.
Lord Palmer Lord Palmer rose to call attention to the present state of agriculture in the United Kingdom with particular reference to the upland regions and Scotland; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I should like to put on record how very grateful I am to the Chief Whip and the charming and helpful staff in his office for allocating this crucial debate at such short notice. Monday's emergency aid package will be most welcome to many farmers across the United Kingdom. I thank the Government most sincerely for at last realising how serious the problems are facing the United Kingdom farming industry.
It is interesting to note that, although not many of them are in the Chamber at present, 66 per cent. of the speakers due to take part in the debate tonight are hereditary Peers. I am sure that those of us who are doing so are not doing so for our own interests but because we care passionately about the countryside and those who live and work in it.
The United Kingdom's agricultural industry is in the most terrible financial mess, or, as we say north of the Border, in a terrible pickle. Farmers have, unfortunately, a reputation for crying wolf. But this cry for help is very real, as real as it has ever been in the history of farming.
I was doing the odd calculation over the weekend at home. Our wheat income alone is down £63,000 on two years ago, and thankfully we are luckier than most.
I shall not mention too specifically the upland areas as I know that other noble Lords will do so. Suffice it to say that many hill farmers are living well below the Government's recommended minimum wage and in conditions reminiscent of Victorian times.
With half the world's population starving, this is a shameful state of affairs. One of my neighbours sent away what was admittedly a fairly mediocre crop of wheat to his merchant. While he was not expecting a large cheque for it, he actually received a bill for £8.25 a tonne. If one thinks of the expense of growing that crop, particularly for a tenant farmer, it is a very sorry state of affairs and, I must emphasise, through no fault of that farmer.
The latest UK statistics show that in the past 10 years 510 farmers have committed suicide—510, my Lords. When times are good, farming can be a lonely existence, but in bad times the burden of worry is impossible to share, and, of course, one of the saddest things of all is that today there is absolutely no job satisfaction in any aspect of farming.
I tried to think of some similarities in other professions. Perhaps the most apt is to compare it to the idea of the noble Lord the Minister having to pay Her Majesty's Government to stand at the Dispatch Box and defend Her Majesty's Government's record and their actions—not a thrilling thought, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, would agree.
In the countryside there are horrific stories of farmers shooting their pigs, their sheep and their calves in order to minimise the horrendous losses. At home we are desperately trying to sow next year's wheat crop—with great difficulty as the ground is so wet and a lot of the present year's harvest has still to be combined. There are still thousands of acres of straw to be baled or disposed of. We have no idea what the crop will cost to grow, what it will yield, what it will cost to harvest, what it will cost to dry and, most importantly, what it will be worth.
A third of the Scottish "tattie crop" is still in the ground, and we have already had severe frost and, not to be forgotten, a record rainfall. This will no doubt lead to increased prices for potatoes and potato products, which is not always good for the industry as housewives will buy cheaper products such as rice and pasta. Very often these have to be imported, which in turn cannot be good for our balance of payments.
Farmers have no control whatsoever over their destiny and those of us involved in the industry now find this a very worrying and frightening aspect of life. No other business has such an incredibly unfair lot, and it is only right, just and proper that Her Majesty's
1308
Government must come to the aid of the UK farmer, bring that aid to the forefront of their agenda and put something in place that will prevent farmers from having to come, cap in hand, at times of adversity. What is desperately needed is a sensible and proper long-term strategy, and it was encouraging that the noble Lord's right honourable friend mentioned this in his statement on Monday. But we now need action.
Until 20 years ago we were told that more food was required. We were financially encouraged to drain the wetlands. The banks were happy to lend us the shortfall. Now we are told: "Stop, set it all aside, and here is a grant to do so". It was and is sheer madness.
Often people say to me: "You farmers are just like the miners or the steel workers". We are not in that category. We have simply done what we were told to do. We cannot just change production overnight, and the poor hill farmers have no choice whatsoever in diversification. This is a very important and significant difference and one which I am sure the Minister will take on board.
I know that the Government are not responsible for the weather, but the appalling situation has had an exacerbating and knock-on effect. Here I should like to give one or two examples. A four-metre drill would usually drill 40 acres a day on average. This year those drills are down to about 28 acres a day due to the wet conditions, which result in a lower forward speed. This also increases the bill for wearing parts such as power harrow tines. This also leads to higher fuel usage. For example, 40 gallons of diesel would normally sow about 30 acres. This year those 40 gallons are doing only 18 acres.
Due to the extreme weather conditions, winter cereal sowing will not be completed, leading to an increase of spring-sown acreage, I suspect mostly of spring barley where there should have been wheat. This will undoubtedly lead to an over-supply of spring barley, which will certainly depress prices even further next year. Due to demand, spring barley seed will be in short supply, leading once again to increased prices for seed. The situation is dire and again farmers are in this vicious circle through absolutely no fault of their own.
What winter crops are presently being sown are going in in far from ideal conditions and therefore a yield reduction of, I suspect, a tonne an acre will undoubtedly be incurred next year. In financial terms this is a horrendous thought and a worry to those of us involved in agriculture, especially at today's ridiculously low prices.
Turning to the livestock sector, heifers with calves at foot were selling for £1,300 per head two years ago. Last year they were selling for £1,000 a head. This year they were selling for £660 a head. Over the two years that is a 49.2 per cent. drop.
Turning to the sheep sector, 18-kilogramme lambs were selling for £40 a head. This year they were selling at only £27 a head, a 32½ per cent. drop. Old cast ewes were selling last year for £15 a head. If you are lucky, you might get £6 per head this year, which is a 60 per cent. reduction—and that figure is before deductions.
Turning to pigs, why was there no mention on Monday of aid to pig producers, especially when they are suffering the lowest prices for 50 years and making losses of £6 million a week? UK pig producers are disadvantaged by a number of unilateral decisions by Her Majesty's Government on welfare and food safety which do not apply in other EU countries. Could the Government ensure that all pigmeat-derived products imported into this country meet the same high standards as exist in the United Kingdom?
What can be done? And what must be done? If one looks at the interrelationship between UK farm income and the agricultural green rate, your Lordships will see that there is an almost perfect fit. In other words, farm incomes have in recent years been almost directly related to the level of the green pound. I say this because it shows how disastrous was the decision of the Government not to compensate as permitted under EU rules for the strength of the UK currency through 1997 and 1998.
The main reason given by the Government at the time for refusing to agree to such compensation was that under the rules agreed at Fontainbleau they would have been obliged to pay some 71 per cent. of the £950 million compensation that was due to the industry under the green money rules. That argument can be criticised on a number of grounds.
But, to me, the principal point is that, in taking this line, the Government have totally ignored the adverse effect of a slump in agricultural incomes on the whole of the rest of the rural economy, particularly those reliant on agriculture, both upstream and downstream. It is a matter of fact that those reliant on agriculture—such as merchants, machinery suppliers, et cetera—have all been experiencing an extremely difficult time and, as such, many redundancies have not only occurred in the farming industry but also, sadly, in all the allied trades.
I believe firmly that if the direct cost of this in terms of additional social security payments, and the indirect cost in terms of lower incomes and, hence, tax payments all round, were totted up, the loss to the Exchequer would be considerably greater than the payments it would have made under the compensation arrangements. In other words, and in simple terms, the Treasury has cut off its own nose to spite its face.
However, although any assistance at this stage would obviously help farmers, there would also be a hugely significant spin-off benefit to the wider rural economy, through the multiplier effect. In my part of the world it is conservatively estimated that for every direct job lost in agriculture, three in the allied trades will disappear. Given the pivotal role that farming still occupies, and always will, in rural areas, a relatively small amount of support for the industry will create a virtuous circle beneficially affecting a much wider economic area of activity.
Conversely, if agriculture continues to be in a free-fall situation, many of its members will not be in business at this time next year. This vicious circle will continue to the detriment of the rural economy as a whole.
Often when we have been discussing agriculture in your Lordships' House, I have pleaded for a higher degree of investment into research and development, especially for alternative crops where, for example, they could be used for bio-fuels. North Sea oil will not last forever and I beg Her Majesty's Government to look again at this plea.
Farmers are the real-life custodians of our countryside, which has been loved and nurtured by them for centuries. In order to have a living and buoyant countryside, we must above all else have a thriving and, most importantly, a profitable agricultural industry. The very landscape of our countryside, its wildlife and its environment are seriously at stake. I urge Her Majesty's Government to put further measures in place to achieve this long-term goal. I beg them to do it as soon as it is possible. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for initiating this debate tonight. I should start by declaring my interest as the owner of a dairy enterprise in Cheshire.
I do not need to underline the dire state of agriculture today. I am sure that when the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, replies, he will tell us of the initiatives and steps that the Government are undertaking to alleviate the situation.
Agriculture has reached this position through its own success. It has responded to the call for production, the payments for produce, with annual growth rates unequalled by any other industry, with the result that we are now virtually self-sufficient or better in every sector. Farmers are now faced with a future of having to maintain incomes from unsubsidised production at world market prices. They are in a dire situation with subsidies at the moment. Thanks to the strength of the pound and for other reasons, they see themselves already being paid at levels below world market prices. For example, I understand that the world market price for wheat is assessed to be about £80 to £85 per tonne. Prices today under the present CAP system are around £70 to £75 per tonne. Under this pressure farmers look for a change in the system that condemns them to poverty for their success.
Clearly a rethink is called for. It cannot be a solution to keep on paying for agricultural produce that nobody wants. If world market prices are to rise and agriculture continues to support the rural economy, decoupled payments such as bonds must be paid as an interim while communities readjust. Payments must be transferred from production support to environmental goals.
The impetus for change seems only to be realised when under pressure. Now is the opportunity to integrate farming with the environment. With the need for financial assistance, farmers will respond—and with the same likelihood of success as they responded to the call for production. In this regard the announcement on 29th October of a further £2 million to be spent on countryside stewardship schemes is opportune. These

1311
schemes are already over-subscribed. Farmers have already recognised that subsidies for production are unsustainable.
Add to that the pressures from enlargement of integrating Eastern Europe and the potentiality of production from vast areas of exceptional quality of land, and it means that change has to come. The opportunity must be grasped with confidence by the soon to be formed regional development agencies. The landscape is a by-product of the rural economy. These agencies must be imaginative in developing transitional schemes and development opportunities for farming communities. A re-think on planning controls and how they can be made to preserve the environment while encouraging change is desperately needed.
During this debate on common agricultural reform, we must ensure that we are logical in what we demand of agriculture. I refer to the situation where consumers ask of our farmers that they bear added costs as regards welfare codes and processes of production, yet that same consumer is happy to purchase from stores the same produce, at a lower cost, as it comes in from other countries that do not maintain the same standards. Can the Minister say what can change immediately under EU law to ensure that British agriculture can compete fairly with imported produce?
I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister to clarify the position regarding the British Retail Consortium's announcement last week that all pig meat will be purchased to the same standards as the UK agricultural standards. In this regard, I understand that the original announcement that all pig meat was to be purchased to UK standards has now been altered such that only own-label or fresh pig meat will be to UK standards. Can the Minister clarify this in his final remarks?
The Government's response to the debate on Monday shows that they are clearly aware of the situation and are willing to respond to the challenges ahead.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I have to declare an interest in that I farm in both Wales and Oxfordshire. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for spelling out so eloquently and so well the problems affecting agriculture today.
I would like to thank the Government for at last appreciating the short-term financial crisis that applies throughout the agricultural industry. Serious though this short-term crisis is, I believe most producers will weather the storm if the Government could give them a clue as to the long-term future and plans for agriculture. Although I have always supported the case that British farmers should prepare to compete in the world market, not least because the GATT rules will force us to do so—and I believe the majority of farmers accept that position—I am now very badly shaken to learn that the New Zealanders and Americans, who have gone down this particular path, have come unstuck and have had to bail their farmers out, the Americans, as I understand it, to the tune of nine billion dollars, so making the playing field not just unlevel but totally unplayable.
1312
So, following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, I ask the Government to reappraise their policy and encourage the EEC to do likewise. I do not quite know how for I certainly dislike quotas, set-asides and everything that goes with them. Conservation schemes are totally and utterly useless unless they encourage a profitable agriculture. However, an outright belief in a totally free market will not work and, as noble Lords have said already, is not working today. I hope the Minister will agree that the matter requires urgent consideration by the Government; by someone perhaps younger and wiser than I am.
5.31 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, on introducing it. I am sorry that I was not in my place when he started. I was caught out by the earlier than anticipated start of the debate.
It is a most timely debate. In welcoming the debate I welcome also the Government's announcements on Monday. I declare an interest. I am co-owner of a hill farm on Exmoor so I speak of the uplands and not of Scotland. The uplands are areas where the value of the landscape is often in inverse proportion to the viability of the farming economy. We have to remember that because it is that landscape which is dependent on the economy. Agriculture in these areas is not just incidental to the landscape but is an intrinsic part of it. However, regrettably, in many areas it may be intrinsically uneconomic.
The economy of the uplands is certainly on the brink, as I know only too well. It risks wholesale contraction, disinvestment and fragmentation of holdings. Many hill farmers do not feel that their efforts are respected or appreciated by a public who too often are seen as wanting rights, imposing duties and sharing none of the attendant risks. It is not sustainable. It is a dependency economy kowtowing to successive governments for hand-outs. We need to reappraise that. It needs to stand on its own feet because if it does not the future is bleak. Even now, with upland farmers often having no willing successor to take on the holding, it is a very dangerous situation.
We need a complete rural policy and not palliative aid. I was particularly pleased to note the reference in the announcement on Monday under the heading "The Future". Item 16 refers to developing a blueprint for a successful and viable agricultural sector. I say "Hear, hear!" to that. But it is not just agriculture; it is the broader spectrum of what is happening in the rural economy that we need to look at.
A rural policy has to add value to land management and not take it away. Tourism, public amenity, environmental goods, access, organic produce, the biofuels, to which the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, referred, fibre and food production all need to be looked at in terms of being provided for gain and reward. Agriculture needs to be supplemented by broad spectrum, rural economic endeavour. Such a policy needs to be backed not only in government guidance but

1313
also in a clear remit for both the regional development agencies and the new countryside agency to foster and promote a rural economic strategy. At present this appears to be absent, almost studiously ignored.
The tax regime, to which the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, referred, needs to be in line with planning policies that look beyond food and fibre and themselves foster diversification, but they must foster it in a way that assists the process of traditional land use and does not turn farms into mini industrial estates. Not everyone can diversify. So many types of diversification are not wholly consistent with land management. There needs to be a culture of buying the produce of our countryside—the temperate foodstuffs which we import in such vast quantities. When we import such foodstuffs we export the fundamental economic backcloth to our countryside. We cannot leave it to Europe to sort it out. There needs to be a domestic rural policy. This is long-standing, unfinished business. On the back of that the uplands countryside is not a free good; it is part and parcel of a business activity. We need to remember that.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I apologise for arriving late. I was told that the debate would not start until around 2 a.m. tomorrow morning.
This is a timely debate and I am only sorry it is so time limited. The financial package announced by the Government the day before yesterday is of course greatly welcome. It comes at the eleventh hour, perhaps too late for some hill farmers, whose desperate plight we are discussing, and of no help at all to pig farmers. And yet, although this financial help is important, farmers do not wish to be thought of as scroungers. They would far rather earn their money by selling the goods they produce at reasonable market prices.
As a former MAFF Minister, I am well aware how quickly out-of-date one becomes. However, even during the time I served in that capacity, on my many visits to hill farms during those years up to 1992, I was aware of the struggle that those farmers endured. How much worse is it now?
On 19th November I heard a Minister—not this Minister—in this House in answer to a Question say that farmers should adapt. When asked how, he replied that,
"it is necessary for all engaged in industry in this country to adapt to changing conditions".—[Official Report, 9/11/98; col. 503.]
My Lords, picture a small farmer strip farming in the Yorkshire Dales. He has stone walls to maintain, he has ever-ageing machinery, he has his sheep or perhaps a small suckler herd, and he has his land to look after. His income has been ever decreasing and this year it has plummeted. And the Minister has the nerve to say he must adapt. I wish he would tell me how—perhaps by starving.
In the Lake District, with its wonderful scenery, tenant farmers struggle to make a living. I am told that the National Trust, whose tenants many of those farmers are, take an extra rent from those farmers who have gone into B&B in order to try to stay solvent. If that is true, I deplore it.
1314
Speaking of B&B makes me think of the farmer's wife, as surely she has the hardest job of all. She really is a Jill-of-all-trades. I have just carefully read a glossy production produced by the Government entitled Better for women, Better for all. There is not one mention of farmers' wives or families. I bet that a farmer's wife would laugh in your face if you asked her when her husband had had paternity leave. I salute those women of the countryside who sustain their men throughout this difficult time.
A recent leading article in the Farmers Weekly was not about prices. It was a serious and heartfelt plea urging farmers not to hide their feelings of despair; to recognise the signs of behaviour that lead to suicide and to seek help before it is too late. I am proud to be a patron of the Rural Stress Information Network, an organisation set up to provide a support and information network to those living in rural communities. It works closely with the Samaritans and others and I applaud its work. It is, however, a sombre thought that such an organisation is necessary.
The Welsh hills and those that I have already mentioned are lovely to look at. The passing tourist is spellbound with admiration for them, but to maintain that beauty lawnmowers are required; in other words, sheep. Without sheep those hills would rapidly turn into unsightly scrub—hardly the lure for British and foreign visitors which is so important to the tourist industry in those areas. The hill farmer not only maintains the landscape but contributes to the economy, provides indirect employment and supports local institutions such as schools, local government and other bodies that are so important to the life of a small community. The Government's financial package is a help, but I wonder how close we are to watching the hill farming industry become extinct.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Rathcavan: My Lords, like other noble Lords I apologise for not being in my place at the beginning of this debate. I was also caught short by the timetable. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for introducing a debate that has particular relevance to my own province, Northern Ireland. A very high proportion of small farmers and hill farmers face their farming future with despair. The Ulster Farmers Union paints a grim picture of the value of the output of the agricultural industry in Northern Ireland. It has fallen by nearly 30 per cent. over the past two years while income from farming has fallen by nearly 80 per cent. Debt to the banks has increased by 25 per cent.—that represents £500 million, but Northern Ireland is not a very big place—and debt to the feed merchants has increased by 80 per cent.
In his Statement earlier this week the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, announced a special package of assistance to help hill and livestock farmers in particular face the financial pressures over the winter months by increases in the suckler cow premium and HLCA payments on cows and sheep. He has been particularly generous to Northern Ireland within that package. Our farmers will be grateful for the increase in the livestock

1315
headage payments but it will make up or substitute only one third of their loss of income during the past 12 months.
Welcome and essential as this aid may be, it does not address the central issues that face the small and the hill farmer. What does the future hold for his type of farm? That is a question to which other noble Lords have referred. What kind of business will he pass on to his sons and successors? On Monday the Minister was honest enough to state quite clearly that his proposals were short-term measures to buy time to introduce long-term measures. He gave some useful reflections on the future of the rural economy and the living countryside. As other noble Lords have said, I hope that this evening the Minster can throw further light on the future options that may be available and anticipate the timetable for agreement on measures on the lines proposed in Agenda 2000, and say whether the target date of the end of June is feasible, if not probable.
In particular, I believe that we need a run-down in dependence on livestock headage payments which mislead farmers in planning for the future. We also need further environmental measures: the extension of environmentally sensitive areas and countryside management schemes. I should like to see more help for organic farmers or measures to make it easier for farmers to consider achieving organic status. It is a long and difficult step to take but there is an undersupplied market with premium prices. I hope that the measures to be introduced will encourage farmers to think more in terms of what the market needs, not what they can produce.
As a member of Sub-Committee D of the European Communities Committee of your Lordships' House, earlier this year I was involved in a report on reform of the CAP and the effects on the rural economy. I remember that during one of our visits to Brussels to take evidence we were told by one of the officials that,
"the future for farming was not farming".
He compared the farming industry with the coal mining industry of a decade ago. That was rather brutal. I hope that we can put that comment out of our heads. I hope that farmers, particularly small farmers and hill farmers whom I know so well, will have some future options to consider in the coming year.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I declare an interest as largely a grain farmer in Essex. Today I wish to talk about other matters. On many occasions in my boyhood in the early 1940s I was trailed around by my father who was very active on the War Agricultural Executive Committee. He then sought to influence—if he could not influence he bullied—farmers whose land was then wholly derelict as a result of the depression of the late 1920s and the 1930s. In those days the countryside was enclosed. Hedges were 30 to 40 feet in height and of the same width. Brambles spread out across fields and nettles were everywhere. In many places all that flourished were rabbits. Since that time agriculture has
1316
had its ups and downs. But however bad the downs of the past I never felt that I might see that situation again. I must say that this time I am not so sure.
Last week in the Farmer and Stockbreeder it was announced that Bury St. Edmunds Market would close down on 16th December. That is the fourth major cattle mart in East Anglia to go in three years. The reasons are simple. I refer first to the consequences of BSE. I need say no more about that because enough has already been said about it in this House. Next, there has been a slump in pig and sheep prices. There has also been the effect of much more direct selling to processors. As a consequence of those factors commission income to the market has decreased by more than 50 per cent. in 12 months and it cannot afford to continue.
One or two matters flow from that. I disregard the immediate impact on employment. Many of the carcass contracts which are the result of direct sales to processors are based on market prices. As the number of markets erodes—markets are diminishing rapidly—the validity of that price in determining the price of a contract with a processor is lost. In the long term this strengthens the hand of the processor. That is one problem. It would not matter so much if one had seen the price of the commodities in the shops reduce. That might give the farmer some hope of increased consumption and help his recovery; it might even help the market price. But that has not happened. While one looks to a recovery in the market one wonders whether a situation in this country has been created in which the market no longer works.
That is one aspect of the problem. There are other things happening at present. The veterinary services are finding that their large animal practices are suddenly disappearing. Large animal practices are mainly agricultural business; that is, cattle, sheep and pigs. If vets are not being called to treat sick animals, what happens? It is not a pleasant picture. We can all imagine it. We are not particularly blood-thirsty as farmers, but the short answer is that if you have a very sick animal and you cannot afford to call a vet, you have your own bullet and you use it. That is not a pleasant thought.
In other areas we have to face similar effects in related industries. Thankfully, there has been some recovery in cereal markets recently as a result of the slightly weaker pound against European currencies, but that sector is still under pressure. That is illustrated quite nicely, but not very pleasantly, by the fact that tractor sales were down by 37 per cent. in the first nine months of this year. That impact, directly on the manufacturing industry, will be repeated again and again across that sector. So, the impact of this agricultural wind-down, if that is what it is, will be much wider than just to the agricultural community.
I am grateful for the Government's acknowledgement on Monday that there is a problem and for the financial assistance they have offered. However, I am bound to say that it is placed into a ghastly perspective—for which I hope I may be forgiven—by saying that it was announced on the same day as an unfortunate individual received just short of £4 million compensation as a result of a medical accident. We are talking about an

1317
industry here and thousands of people. However, I have to accept that all too often—and I am grateful that this is the case—events are beyond Government control. There are many world events that have led us to that situation.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for initiating this debate and for his excellent grand tour of the situation. However, I see no alternative but the remorseless trend towards fewer and fewer farmers left on the land.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for raising this issue and for the elegant way in which he described the present plight of the agricultural industry—an industry I fully support.
My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith described very well some of the by-products throughout the rural community of the poor situation within farming. I support his last comment that one cannot see any long-term solution when the present policies apply throughout Europe and Britain. The £120 million will clearly be welcome to the few people who receive a small amount, but, as the Minister said when he announced it, it is no solution to the long-term problems of agriculture. Noble Lords referred to the fact that we need to use this situation to look at the longer term solutions that could be applied.
The overall position has been described as one which will continually worsen. It hits the marginal farmers. They are the ones who cause our hearts to bleed for their plight. One issue which has not been addressed and which has been suggested to the Government on a number of occasions is that we want an effective retirement policy. Clearly, the only solution to many of these marginal issues is for farmers to leave farming. Only yesterday I heard of a farmer in Cumbria, an oldish man, who wanted to leave farming. He hoped to leave last year but found it difficult. He tried to leave this year and found his resources were even worse. He did not have sufficient money on which to retire and to look after his family. His only solution was to kill himself.
There are lots of incidents where, if that has not happened, it has been seriously considered. I should like to see the Government come up with a sensible retirement policy which would allow those who wish to do so to leave farming with sufficient money to keep them for the rest of their lives. That could be structured in such a way that it would cost less overall to buy them out than to support them continually over a long period of time.
Another issue which must be addressed more positively is that of the rural community. It is only by introducing alternative wealth-creating opportunities in rural areas that more money will be put back into some of the pockets of deprivation now seen all over Britain. In that respect, I should like to see more positive steps taken to look at the kind of solutions that the Government have found in the past in urban areas. Specific projects have been built and funded—in some cases funded by Europe—to create new jobs and investments.
1318
Contrary to what the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, I believe there are many opportunities for new investment. There are successful examples of farming and of estates bringing in other industries. They have developed their properties without in any way destroying the appearance of the buildings. They have kept the traditional look but changed the inside to encourage new jobs and new bases of wealth creation within these rural areas. Therefore, I should like to see the Government establish a positive policy to create rural projects. I believe there have been trial developments of that sort in the Trough of Bowland in Lancashire. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that. I understand that they have been extremely successful and would be an example of what could be achieved in other areas of deprivation.
The Government must also review more strongly the CAP and how it operates. That was a Sub-Committee D proposal last year. The one thing that the CAP has not done is to bring wealth to the agriculture industry. It has cost a tremendous amount of money and where that has ended up I do not know. From the examples we heard today, the money has not ended up in the majority of the farmers' pockets. It certainly has not brought any benefit to them. It has brought more deprivation to the rural areas than there was before. Can I ask the Minister what will happen about enlargement? That is now an issue which must be addressed. It keeps being put off, but somehow we must decide on whether we put much more money into the CAP and have enlargement or refuse to put more money in and be faced with cheaper imports and products. That issue must also be addressed.
In summary, I see no proper future that will mean a return to the traditional ways of agriculture and a prosperous rural community. In order to achieve that we must have a new approach to the CAP, to other economic opportunities and planning issues and to the encouragement of new investment in rural areas. We must have a system which allows for those on the margin to get out of farming and find other ways of using their land which would be more in keeping with what the people of Britain really want.
5.58 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Palmer for his enthusiasm and dedication in getting this debate extended. I congratulate him on his excellent speech. This is a sombre and serious debate.
I must declare an interest as I farm a small farm of 200 acres on my noble husband's estate in north Yorkshire. Also, I have a niece who, with her husband, farms in Caithness in the north of Scotland—my old home. They have four young children. Their situation is very difficult.
It is not the large commercial farms I want to mention today but the small farms. Many people will say that the small farmer cannot survive and shrug it off, but what will happen to the countryside? It is often those farmers who care. The countryside is their way of life. They have pride in their stock. Many are tenant farmers. This year has been a disaster, not for any party political

1319
reason but for world reasons and the weather. The endless rain in the north has not only been depressing, it has made it almost impossible to make hay in some areas; and bringing in the much needed crops, especially in the north of Scotland, has been an almost impossible task.
It was welcome to hear the Minister of Agriculture's announcement this week. Many people who are living in severely disadvantaged areas do not know whether they will qualify for help. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell them soon.
I have a flock of pedigree attested Texil sheep, some Welsh Badger sheep and some Shetlands, as well as a pony stud. My niece has cross-bred sheep, for which Caithness is famous. This year wool prices are down. Russia is no longer able to give as much for the skins, the prices of which have dropped by between £8 and £10 per skin. Those in rural areas, and especially hill farmers, have to spend 71.9p a litre for diesel. That is a big problem. It can cost small farmers £40 to £50 per week just travelling to auction markets. The haulage charge can be greater than the take-home price of the sheep. There is increased bureaucracy at abattoirs, but there should be the strictest surveillance of health and hygiene for the stock.
Farmers are concerned that the new regulations concerning dipping could cost farmers up to £1,000 next year due to new groundwater rules and licensing on every farm. One needs the safest procedures, but the expense is an added worry. The pound being so strong has made the export market almost stand still. Southern Europe urgently wants small lambs. The Government's help is needed to get exports started very soon.
Just before the September sheep sales there was a scrapie scare. Will the Minister say something about that? Can scrapie be passed from sheep to man? I found it sad that some excellent breeding stock was so badly priced that breeding rams were going for no more than meat prices. One has only to look at the UK stock at the Royal Show or the Highland Show to see that it is as good as any stock in the world.
As one of the few women to speak in this debate, perhaps I may say that the biggest query and injustice seems to be to the housewife. The supermarket giants are still selling lamb at high prices. Yet the farmers are getting the lowest prices for years for their lambs. Why is that? The supermarkets demand that the farmers produce the best meat R3L. With winter coming and farmers having to feed stock, the bills pile up, as does the stock; and there is a real dilemma. Is it true that some sheep are being culled? How awful that there are starving people in some parts of the world and unsold sheep in another.
Veterinary bills can be astronomical yet farmers have to contend with many difficult conditions. The mild damp weather has been perfect for encouraging such conditions as persistent sheep foot rot. There is also the problem of resistance to wormers. Farmers need help and advice.
1320
In rural hill areas there is a problem of isolation and depression. Farmers are working their guts out—for what? As has been mentioned, the suicide rates have increased. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that. My noble friend referred to the figure of 510. The Samaritans are very concerned. The difficulties involve a combination of many factors. People from the towns come to the Yorkshire Dales for holidays. They love walking in the countryside. I only wish they could learn about the hard work that goes into keeping the countryside in good order, and that they would shut gates. Two of my stallions got out last week and had a fight. They were battered and bruised. The gates are now padlocked.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I, too, must declare an interest as a farmer in a less favoured area. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for introducing the debate and apologise unreservedly to both him and the Minister who will reply for not being in my place at the beginning of the debate. I was at another meeting and the debate began a little sooner than I anticipated.
Farming undoubtedly is in a state of crisis. The combination of the strong pound, the green pound, BSE, no foreign beef exports, cheap imports of all agricultural products, few British buyers as the local butcher seems to have gone and the few who are left seem to be operating a cartel for the supermarkets, jittery bank managers, scientific professors with various so-called expertises creating scares, salmonella outbreaks, E.coli outbreaks and many more have created a despondency such as I have never seen in the farming world before.
The £120 million package announced on Monday—£36 million of which relates to Scotland—will of course help. Increased headage payments of 55 per cent. must help. But with the time they take to come through the system, and as they work out at an average of only £3,600 per farm, they may not be enough to stave off the threat, or all too often the realisation, of bankruptcy for many. One has only to pick up the Scottish Farmer, a well known farming magazine in Scotland, to see that it is now full of impending displenishing sales—and no wonder, with lambs in November last year fetching £26 and today only £13. Yeld ewes, at the end of their life, which last year fetched £20 now fetch £3. Hoggs on remote Scottish islands fetch 25p. What hope is there for a secure future in our farming industry? The aid announced on Monday, welcome though it was, is short term only. We must address the long-term programme to put confidence back in the farming industry.
Without government and EU aid farming cannot survive. But it is often asked by those outside the farming industry: why should farming receive aid? The mining, steel, shipbuilding and manufacturing industries all too often have had nothing. The EC is struggling under the weight of CAP, and as the EC expands so do the problems of CAP. And CAP is changing. It is a market manipulator. People now expect agriculture to provide more than just food. It is that which makes the essential difference. That is the reason why agriculture is a multi-functional industry. It is the provider of food but it is also the cornerstone of rural communities and

1321
the custodian of the environment. There is surely nothing wrong with expecting to be compensated when the Government and the EU change the marketing conditions for which they are responsible.
Price support from all sources looks certain to reduce, so the asset value of the farmer must reduce also. So the farmer struggles to survive with a smaller income and less collateral. While the relative economic weight of agriculture has diminished, it remains an important economic generator—often the only one in rural areas. In Europe 80 per cent. of land is rural and 25 per cent. of the population live in the country. In Scotland the situation is similar, with 90 per cent. of the land being rural and 33 per cent. of its population living in the country. But there the similarity stops, for 85 per cent. of Scotland is classified as being a less favoured area and 77 per cent. of that is classed as rough grazing making it suitable for livestock rearing only. It provides 34,000 jobs directly and many more indirectly. Ninety per cent. of the breeding ewe flock and 85 per cent. of specialist beef herds are found in those less favoured areas. All too often, governments no longer control the levers of supply and demand, so new ways must be devised for ensuring the future of the farming industry.
The distribution of rural development funds should be fair throughout the EU. They can be used to support infrastructure spending as an indirect aid and for on-farm and off-farm business developments. Farmers must be further encouraged to diversify. I run an equestrian centre on my farm, alongside my sheep and dairy herd. My neighbour has a thriving bed-and-breakfast business. It still galls me, as the Minister knows, that I have to pay business rates on my equestrian buildings but not on the cattle sheds next door. It would surely be more sensible to encourage such diversification even in the short term, to enable it to be set up, rather than be hindered.
The National Farmers Union and the farming community like headage-based payments, which are simple and easy to understand. However, we are rapidly moving towards area-based payments. On the face of it, they look generous at 40 to 200 ecu per hectare. Up until Monday, that computed to the equivalent of 12 ecu per hectare that we were receiving in Scotland. After Monday's announcement, the figure has risen to 20 ecu per hectare—but that is still only half the lowest proposed payments and one tenth of the highest. As so often is the case, we cannot say how good an idea is until we look at the detail. The obvious first concern is that larger holdings, often having lower stocking densities, will receive more and that the tenant farmer could again find himself involved fighting his landlord, in the same way as with quotas.
The last round of GATT talks had a so-called peace clause, which comes to an end in 2003. What then? The next round of talks and the guaranteed further enlargement of the EU will ensure more changes. Moves towards a more market-based system should be accompanied by a programme of compensating payments, to allow all European farmers the chance to adapt to the new regime.
1322
The Government are often accused of being anti-country. Now is the time for them to prove otherwise—not just in the short term, as they did on Monday to a large extent, but in the long term too. A very good starter for 10 would be to get the EU to lift the beef ban immediately.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for giving the House the opportunity to raise this subject. The noble Lord is one Scot and there are others. Perhaps 50 per cent. of your Lordships present might be Scottish, some living in less favoured areas, some not. I must declare an interest, as a farmer with both a suckler herd and a sheep flock, which I have attempted to develop over the past 40 years.
The Statement made earlier this week was especially welcome. It would be remiss of me, let alone other speakers, not to say thank-you for small mercies. I am reminded of one happy little motto, which might have been repeated yesterday by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain—every little helps. I see that slogan when I shop at the supermarket in Kirriemuir and other areas, and it rings true for all farmers who are represented in this debate and for all my friends and neighbours in Scotland.
In the Statement made on Monday and repeated in your Lordships' House, it was gratifying to learn that £85 million more is to be given in agrimonetary compensation. That is most welcome, but I have not a grudging "Yes, but." Even this year my own farm office, which is particularly IT-competent and literate, found some difficulty in dealing with the tranches of HLCA aid and other agrimonetary funds coming to us—some from 1996–97 and some from 1997–98. It can be difficult to trace the amounts of money involved and more study might be useful for the purposes of the £85 million.
The Statement went on to reiterate that there is £48.3 million more for beef—for which I as a producer, having declared my interest, am immensely grateful. We are impressed also by the advance from 60 per cent. to 80 per cent. in the beef premium. I think that just means a slight shift in the arrival of funds. Nevertheless, every little helps and that aid can be of considerable assistance to small farmers, their advisers and the banks—who are increasingly supporting small rural farmers, especially in upland areas and the glens of Angus so well known to my noble neighbour Lord Mackie of Benshie.
According to the Statement, the HLCAs increased by £60 million—an increase of up to 55 per cent. in headage payments. I am always interested in departmental speak. The average will be a little below 55 per cent. but that increase is of help in the current climate. As my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton pointed out, the efficient marketing of produce from farmers is a continuing struggle and is growing more difficult. The noble Lord, with the excellent cheeses that he produces from time to time, will be aware that if the farmers are not winning, they are not losing in that particular market.
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is able to confirm whether I am correct in thinking that England, Scotland and Wales—not Northern Ireland, in

1323
case the blood pressure of the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, rises unduly, although he will have the opportunity to correct me later—account for only 77 per cent. of self-sufficiency in beef? That may be a one-off figure from the Meat and Livestock Commission for 1997–98, as a result of the BSE problem—but perhaps the Minister and farmers could give some guidance.
I am reminded of the many happy times that I spent in Northern Ireland. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, might think of my personal performance across the water, I was immensely grateful for the professional help given by the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland, which typically gave good advice to small farmers. I hope that the equivalent department in Scotland will be able to work on the same basis. I recall that across the water in 1988–89, coloured pieces of paper were used, because even then we had in Northern Ireland a passport scheme for every bovine moving from its home to market and on to various other markets. At each stage of the journey, even if the animal was to return home, a different piece of coloured paper would be used to identify it. I am somewhat concerned that we might be following that example in Great Britain, thanks to the cattle tracing programme.
I conclude by thanking the Scottish Office, using an anecdote from my own area. We had a problem with one of the tranches of the HLCAs as to how the money was paid and its purpose. My farm office rang the Scottish Office in Edinburgh and the answer to our query came back within three minutes. That shows how efficient departments can be. It may not be in the gift of every farmer in Angus, Argyle or Inverness, at the end of a hard day, when the department may be closed, to be computer literate and obtain all the information and funds that have been announced as being available to small farmers. I am personally very grateful. I know how hard Ministers work, and I hope that they will be able to give encouraging news this evening to small farmers in Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales.
6.18 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and the Chief Whip—both of whom understand the critical importance of this subject—on achieving today's debate.
We all know that livestock incomes have suffered worse than ever during the past year. We have heard most of the reasons—beef bans, foreign imports, the green pound, rising standards and disgracefully low prices. LFA cattle and sheep average income fell to £8,400 a 41 per cent. drop according to the Farm Business Survey. In the south-west, according to Exeter University, the average net hill farming income on which a family has to live after farming costs fell from £19,000 to £7,800—a 59 per cent. drop. This is a crisis barely disguised by the sales of personal assets and private sacrifices on which the long-term future of the family depends.
No one imagines that the LFA farmers, while deserving of aid, are the only ones affected. The FBS figure for lowland cattle and sheep is the worst of all; a
1324
63 per cent. fall last year compared to 1996–97. Even in the Dorset downland, which can go above 800 feet but does not qualify as disadvantaged, farmers around me are suffering severe falls in income year on year. Farmers in west Dorset are among the country's most resilient and uncomplaining, even in hard times, but they feel trapped in a paralysis which afflicts our whole national attitude to farming. It is not just paying the bills today; it is the view out of the window tomorrow.
There is a lot of talk about alternatives. But if you are a farmer—and that includes women—you automatically diversify in any direction you can. If that fails you improvise. You have to lay off your extra labour while your son or father-in-law comes in to help. Your wife runs the B&B or works at the petrol pump. Farmers already know far better than any of us how to balance their sources of income. What they find more unpredictable, even more than rainfall, are the Government's intentions.
Can farmers be sure that they will not be abandoned by us just as, under the previous government, we abandoned the miners? Is there a genuine government vision of the future living countryside, or are they just hoping that with Agenda 2000 and the eventual lifting of the beef ban farmers will cease to complain and income prospects will be rosier again? We have heard soothing words from the Minister this week, and of course farmers like refunds, even when they are wrapped up as Christmas presents. But is it not time that the Government came out with something other that dips into the Treasury and small amounts of emergency aid which only postpone the evil day?
It is true that the HCLAs have made an important contribution to incomes—already equivalent this year to about £1,800 per head—and obviously farmers are relieved that these have been increased and the calf processing scheme extended. Indeed, the NFU press release even states that farmers,
"cannot afford to be seen as ungrateful professional grumblers".
What the industry needs soon is a statement of confidence in its future within the economy as a whole. I know that that is easier said than done in the first year of a new government, but they have been in office for more than 18 months and farmers have a right to expect a more comprehensive policy. From what the Minister said on Monday, I am sure that he wants that. If this Government cannot provide it, no government can.
The strange thing about agriculture is that there is consensus about change and yet so little is done. Everyone knows that the CAP has helped the richer farmers at the expense of smaller farmers, hill farmers and poor farmers in developing countries. The Government know that Agenda 2000 is not enough, that there has to be a major shift in European policy, and I believe that they are right to take a much more positive stance in Europe.
However, it will all take a long time and what is going to be done in the meantime? For example, what lessons have been learnt from agri-environmental schemes such as those recommended in the excellent Select Committee report on Agenda 2000? Does the success of the stewardship scheme signify a major shift away from

1325
subsidised production towards a new culture of countryside management, which is already familiar to those of us who live with SSSIs and heritage schemes? Can the Minister say anything more about the planned expansion of the ESAs and the greater take-up of existing ESAs, a point which the noble Earl, Lord Stair, would have made if he had been able to remain? Those things would be a major strategic shift in favour of the countryside.
Can organic farmers and high quality producers be given more encouragement with start-up and marketing if they cannot be shielded from price cutting in the supermarkets? Will more upland rural areas be redesignated as national parks and their farmers to be turned into environmental managers? Farmers need the answers fairly soon or their children will move out and one more farm will become another holiday home. As noble Lords have mentioned, one thing is certain—many more farmers are going out of business. Farm workers are suffering and the agricultural charities will have to support many cases of hardship. There has already been talk tonight of planned retirement. I look forward to the Government's response and hope that they will play their part here, too.
Perhaps I may take one more minute and briefly declare a hereditary interest in one aspect of agriculture; namely, fast food. The sandwich, which started as a private habit of the fourth Earl, is becoming one of this country's major agriculture product and even exports, employing tens of thousands of people. On behalf of the British Sandwich Association, I recently attended the Paris food fair, alongside the junior agriculture Minister, to proclaim this industry's success in part due to the skills of British baking. The sooner the beef ban is lifted the more we shall be able to return to our traditional filling. I therefore hope that the Minister will remember that during his next light lunch.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for introducing the debate. I apologise for arriving late; I was taken by surprise by the timing. Finally, I declare an interest as a farmer.
I shall not deal with the fall in prices because they have been dealt with already. Suffice it to say that over the past two or thee years the price of most of the store sheep, breeding lambs and so forth, has about halved. Furthermore, farmers have taken their sheep to market and have then had the cost of bringing them home. The average upland farm profits have been estimated to be reduced by two-thirds from 1996–98. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, dealt with the wider problem of the loss of jobs in machinery firms, markets and related trades.
On 22nd December 1997, the Minister announced that the Government intended to open early consultations with the farming industry on restructuring in the livestock sector. He noted that major changes in the beef sector were likely over time, with fewer producers and a more viable industry emerging in the UK and in Europe generally. The Minister went on to indicate that the Government would explore with interested parties whether the European Union's early
1326
retirement scheme and other EU structural measures could play a part in assisting the process of change and achieving their longer-term objectives.
The reduction in farm incomes and increasing borrowing levels due to farm losses may encourage some older farmers to consider retirement. However, the current reduction in beef stock values due to the knock-on effect of young stock prices is a disincentive to sell up at the current time. Farmers are hanging on in the hope that values will improve. They cannot retire at present because of the low values and that is causing a log jam in the tenanted market.
That will reduce the opportunities for young farmers to start farming on their own account, taking advantage of reduced breeding stock values. An early retirement scheme to encourage the viability of holdings by expansion in the specific product sectors was adopted in 1992 by the EEU Regulation No. 2079. If such a scheme were introduced for a specific period, in time some farmers may consider it preferable to retire now—taking advantage of the EU payments—rather than hanging on for the higher stock values and losing the retirement incentive.
The Government asked for industry consultation on the proposals. I should like to request an early report on the progress of the consultation procedure. I hope that the UK adoption of the early retirement scheme is encouraged.
In addition to the problems of the upland farmers, we are now threatened with a pesticide tax. I do not know the reason—whether it is to produce revenues, crop protection or is vaguely green—but it will do little to stop the use of pesticides. No one wants to use them because of the expense. But a high quality of produce is demanded. If we are not allowed to use pesticides or are discouraged from using them—and we shall certainly be discouraged from using GMO pest-resisting gene seed—it will be more difficult to produce high quality food in this country. In that case, we shall have to import high quality food which has been produced using pesticides from outside, which would be mad. It would damage farming. In Sweden the tax has been a flop and it has failed in Denmark. It would be the last straw if it were to be introduced in this country along with the fuel tax, which is another tax threatened on the countryside.
I welcome the package of £120 million which has been promised to the industry. It is a help even if it is small. The other day a farmer went to his landlord and asked for a reduction in his rent. He asked for a reduction of £100 per year. He got a great deal more.
I am glad to say that, at present, the banks are also helping small farmers. Each bank is hoping not to be the first to have to pull the plug. That is extremely commendable. However, as has been mentioned, the supermarkets have not reduced their prices and are not contributing to the welfare of their suppliers. If they want people to continue to supply them, they must look after them, just as the landlords and the banks have done. They must look after people when they are in trouble. Their actions are counter-productive and they will regret it unless they join with everybody else in looking after people when they are in trouble.

1327
The farming structure is basically sound, leaving aside the problem of price. But, at the moment, farming is haemorrhaging and haemorrhaging fast. Recovery will come but it will be of little use if, by then, farmers have been driven out of business.
6.32 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, first, I apologise to the House for not being here for my slot. Unfortunately, wires were crossed and I was given the wrong information. However, I accept that that is no excuse and it is entirely my fault. However, I gather that my noble friend Lord Addison is not here so perhaps I am grateful to him.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for instigating this debate. It is timely and, as all noble Lords have observed quite correctly, we have a serious crisis in the farming industry at present. I shall not comment on the Statement because I was here when it was repeated yesterday and I made my remarks then, so I do not wish to repeat them now.
I should like to concentrate on the future. My noble friend Lord Rowallan quite rightly asked whether farmers are worthy of support. That is an interesting question. We are discussing principally the hill farmers. I declare an interest in that I own land in the hills in England and hope that that does not preclude me from making comments about Scotland. I believe that the role of farmers in the hills is absolutely essential in producing livestock and breeding stock because 75 per cent. of breeding stock for the lowland farms comes from the hills. However, their skills are also essential in maintaining the infrastructure and the landscape of the uplands in Great Britain which are appreciated so much by so many people. It is interesting that the majority of those areas have now been designated as SSSIs, SPAs or whatever. That bears testimony to the fact that the role of those farmers is absolutely essential in relation not only to farming but also to the environment.
However, that does not mean that there are not opportunities for reform. There are. It has always seemed to me absolute madness that we have tried to support farmers through the headage system, through the HLCAs and the ewe premiums. That has encouraged over-grazing and a major deterioration in much of the heather uplands and the pasturelands of Great Britain.
It seems to me that that madness is compounded by the fact that it takes private money from investment by people with grouse-shooting interests to put that heather back on the hills when it has been destroyed in the first place by public money. On top of that, additional money comes from English Nature and the Ministry of Agriculture through all the various schemes, which I welcome. But surely we must be able to pull things together so that we are all going in the same direction. I hope that the Government will bear that in mind and perhaps the Minister will comment on that when he winds up the debate.
For all that, I firmly believe that the hill farmers deserve support. It worries me greatly when I hear that their percentage of money from the CAP may fall.
1328
I suggest that one way to make available more money to hill farmers to carry out all the tasks that we want them to carry out is by streamlining some of the many organisations involved in distributing all the money. When one is dealing with an environmental issue, it is not unusual to find oneself at a meeting dealing with five or six different agencies which are all basically doing the same sort of thing. I question whether that is a good use of public money.
Perhaps I may comment briefly on the future. CAP reform is vague. It seems that we do not know whether we shall move towards free markets or whether the European stance of trying to support production and then control it through quotas, which has always struck me as a fairly dotty idea, will continue or whether we shall move to a more comprehensive and radical reform of the CAP.
Whatever the outcome in cash terms, we must have rural policies which embrace the support of careful development. I should like to see a substantial increase in the percentage of the CAP devoted to the agri-environment. The CLA has put that very strongly and effectively in its response to the Government. I hope that its ideas will be implemented.
Despite the depression that we see at the moment, we must be optimistic. I believe that our farmers will come through this. They are quite capable of holding their head up high in any world markets. They will have to diversify. They have done much already. They must continue to adapt, and, I suspect, reluctantly they may have to enlarge. But if there is one message that I should like to put across, where I do not believe they have been as effective as they might, it is in the sphere of marketing and marketing local products in local areas. The French are extremely good at it. We must learn from them.
I believe that the British farmers expect to feel confident that they have the full support of Her Majesty's Government. It is sad to say, but I do not believe that that has been as forthcoming as it might be. We had the Statement yesterday. Let us hope that that heralds a new beginning and that British farmers will feel that we have a Government who will help them to deliver high quality food in an environment of which we can all be proud.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me for speaking in the gap, but I was not sure that I would be able to be here for the debate. I am associated with and speaking in particular from the point of view of hill farms and wetlands in Northern Ireland where I have spent the largest part of my life. Therefore, in that regard, I declare an interest.
Most of the farms around us are bankrupt or near enough. Change is undoubtedly necessary. I welcome very much the Statement which the Minister made yesterday which detailed the provision of help for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland farmers. When I congratulated the Minister some time ago on his appointment, he admitted that he knew very little about agriculture at that time. But I know and we all know

1329
that he has an exceptionally good brain and he has been putting it to work on behalf of the farming industry. I wish to concentrate on change and the future, a point which the Minister made almost as a key point yesterday.
Change needs energy, youth and, usually, it needs capital. I believe that the latter are vital ingredients for bringing about change in the agricultural industry as it is now, and especially in the areas in which I am involved. One of the questions which have to be tackled by the Government is how they should do this. How does today's elderly farmer, perhaps like myself, get out with dignity and without losing everything? How much of the uplands, the hill lands, does the nation want? Further, who will look after it?
I am told, although it seems strange, that set-aside is probably the most efficient economically of all the subsidies within the agricultural industry. It may be possible that something linking set-aside to hill land—that is, valuable land from an environmental and recreational point of view—is a possibility. There is increasing pressure to have access to the countryside. If the general public and those who love the countryside are to have the benefit of it, not only to look at it but also to enjoy it, that will cost money. Private owners and farmers who are using traditional methods today cannot fund that.
However, change must take place; indeed, I support it. I just hope that the brains and all the technology now available will be able to bring forward constructive ideas which will keep our hill lands and wetlands, available to people, available as habitats to those who use them and, to some extent, available to the livestock which has always been there. But we must find a satisfactory way to facilitate such change not only as regards new methods; we must also help the people who wish to change. Incidentally, I also understand that there was, and still is today, some quite beneficial taxation for retirement from farming which will end in April 1999.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, like other speakers I should like, first, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for introducing today's debate and for doing it so well. Indeed, the noble Lord did much work on it and produced an admirable opening speech. We have heard many good speeches and most speakers have declared an interest. I am afraid that I must tell your Lordships that I now have no interest. After 44 years, I retired from farming when I was 70 years old. I must say that I am very glad that I am not farming today. The situation has been described by everyone. I do not believe that the Minister can be in any doubt that it is a real and serious crisis, unequalled since the 1930s.
I had prepared a list of things to say, but I shall only mention one of them. I was told by one of my noble friends that a small tenant farmer of his had a very good three year-old Galloway heifer. He took it to market and received £60 for it, where he might previously have got £500. Such situations are repeated all over the country; indeed, it is hitting the small farmer. Many of my nephews and cousins are still farming, but the House
1330
need not feel sorry for them. They have good farms and know how to farm. They have diversified, and so on, so I believe that they will survive. However, the small farmer on the hill land has no real chance whatever. He has found himself under pressure even in a good year when the average income was about £10,000, which is way below the income of any industrial worker. I suppose that he lived a happy life, but he did not have a great deal of money. There is certainly no way that he can build up reserves.
I believe that the Government have done well in producing the money that they announced on Monday. I believe that it will be a great help; indeed, £3,000 on average at this time is most helpful to a chap who is struggling with his bank, the weather and everything else. The Government must consider further schemes. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, mentioned a possible retirement scheme. Of course, we must have such schemes and many good ones are available. The bond scheme, whereby a farmer is simply given an income of so much for 10 years which he can market if he wishes, has been put forward. It is quite a good one and one which could do a great deal to help those people who are absolutely stuck and do not know which way to turn. If we are to help the industry and turn it round, those people must be helped.
Moreover, there is no doubt that the Government must ensure that the countryside is full of small and big industry, but preferably environmentally-sound industry. That will enable farmers, their wives and children to find work and hold on to a small farm, which they can farm well and from which they can obtain an income. That will keep them in the countryside and keep the countryside bright.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, mentioned the hedges in Norfolk before the war which measured 40 feet high and 40 feet wide, with weeds abounding everywhere. That is what some environmentalists want today. Indeed, they complain bitterly about the hedges being trimmed and about there being no weeds in the fields. We must be practical in this respect. Of course environmental measures are necessary and something upon which the Government could spend money. That could greatly help the situation in the hills.
The noble Earl, Lord Peel, talked about the sheep on the hills. He is certainly quite right; indeed, there are far too many sheep grazing on too little grass or heather. The ewe breeding flock in Scotland has gone up by 2.5 per cent. to 3.76 million and the number of lambs has gone up to 4.71 million. A large part of the reason for that is the subsidy per head of sheep. If a farmer receives a subsidy per head, it is obvious that he will carry as much stock as he can. But that has been overdone. Therefore, the Government should be looking at a complete reversal of that policy. The money should go direct to the farmer, according to the amount that he was getting, together with all the conditions for improving the environment. It is perfectly true that, when looking at a great many pieces of hill, if it is a sporting estate, it will be seen that on one side the heather is good, while on the other side there is grass because the farmer had to keep more sheep to survive. I notice that the Irish are trying to get a scheme into

1331
operation to cull sheep and pay a certain amount per head if the flock is reduced. That is an idea which, again, the Government should consider.
Many of the measures suggested today have been short-term and designed to alleviate the genuine distress involved, which everyone has emphasised. However, we should look at Agenda 2000 and realise that all three main political parties are committed to what we call, "competitive agriculture", or free trade; or, indeed, whatever the system was that destroyed the plains of America between the wars and grew the hedges in Norfolk to 40 feet high and 40 feet wide. I do not believe that we want to go to that extreme.
The main aims of Agenda 2000 are set out rather well in the publication of the Scottish Agricultural College. It states that the agricultural proposals aim to achieve,
"increased competitiveness for farm produce on both internal and external markets so that EU producers can take full advantage of 'positive world market developments'".
I do not know what is meant by that but I presume it means that in the future China and Japan will again be able to buy grain from the West and put up the price of grain.
I hope that this competitiveness does not mean a return to the 1930s system. I hope that the Government accept the need for another aim; namely, that of a fair and stable standard of living for farmers. I do not see how that will be achieved unless the Government stick to the policy of paying money directly to farmers—that is, subsidies, or whatever you like to call them—and do not relate it to a crop. In that way one could give the farmers of Europe a fair standard of living and enable them to compete in world markets.
The integration of environmental considerations is another factor to be taken into account. The countryside is a place to be enjoyed by everyone. However, I also believe that reasonable sums of money should be paid to farmers to maintain the countryside. They should be paid direct to the farmers. If that were done, farmers would stand a chance of maintaining standards and enjoying prosperous agriculture.
The paper also mentions simpler European Union legislation. That would be a blessing. It would be much simpler if the money were paid direct to farmers. I hope that the Minister will say something about opinion on Agenda 2000. Happily, France and Germany are much closer to their country populations—their "country cousins"—than we are in this country. We have been an industrial country for so long that most people regard farmers as strange creatures, whereas in France and Germany people realise that farmers are their cousins and relations. I trust that France and Germany will be able to keep our Government—whom I do not trust for one moment to "dish out" any money they do not have to—on the right lines. That would be a blessing.
6.52 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for giving us the opportunity to debate this vital matter.
1332
The aid package announced on Monday is welcome as far as it goes. On Monday my noble friend Lord Luke referred to the Statement as something akin to the curate's egg; namely, good in parts. It provides only short-term measures to assist for one year one part of the food production industry. That is a vital part but nonetheless it is only a part. The greatest concern of farmers and growers was expressed clearly recently at the poultry industry conference in Brighton. To that industry it appears that there is no overall government strategy for food and agriculture. What farmers need is a long-term solution, not special treatment but fair treatment. Later I shall attempt to suggest examples of that fair treatment.
What happens to the farmers and growers matters to all of us. The crisis in agriculture has not been "magicked" away by one Statement made on Monday. The Minister made that clear when he repeated the Statement in this House. After all, no one would look a gift horse in the mouth—not that I am suggesting that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, is a horse, although like other noble Lords I appreciate his great interest in the turf—and reject the aid package of £120 million. However, we should take note that farmers have lost almost £3 billion over the past year. I am sure that the Welsh livestock producers who rallied in London today under the banner "Farmers in Crisis" would not let us forget that fact.
The NatWest Bank believes that 25,000 farmers—up to 15 per cent. of full-time producers—may be forced to leave the industry. Farmers' incomes are at their lowest level in real terms for 60 years. They fell by almost 50 per cent. in 1997 and are expected to fall by a further two-thirds this year. Other noble Lords have referred to price reductions. I have taken my figures from the NFU. The price farmers get for their beef is down by 35 per cent. in two years; the price for milk and chicken is down by about 22 per cent. About the only farmers who have seen prices rise are those growing potatoes. As we have heard, those in Scotland have had a terrible time trying to get them out of the ground.
Unlike most recent troughs in the industry, this time the crisis is hitting farmers across the board. Arable and livestock sectors are suffering together. If farmers are in trouble, it matters to the rest of us, and it matters a lot. It means that other country people will face financial difficulty too. It means that shops will find it harder to keep going. Rural shopkeepers are already reporting a 25 per cent. drop in takings this year alone. It also means that rural transport services will have fewer passengers. More people, especially young people, will move to the towns and rural schools will be that much emptier.
As noble Lords have mentioned tonight, farmers also maintain the countryside. If they are not there to do it, the countryside we cherish will change drastically. Much of our countryside is not "natural", as some urbanites such as myself might at one time have imagined. It is the product of centuries of human activity. It is what we are used to and what many of us value. Farmers are the people we have to thank for that.

1333
We need the United Kingdom's farmers and they need us. They need us to give them a fair deal. There should be a fair deal for farmers and growers when they compete with imported produce which at the moment is cheap because of the strength of the pound. Our farmers need to be able to compete on a level playing field as regards produce which is grown, reared or manufactured under conditions abroad that are no longer acceptable in this country. I think in particular of pigs and poultry in this respect. At the very least this will involve honest and clear labelling. In some cases it might even mean that one needs to press for an outright ban.
Earlier the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, spoke of the confusion that appears to surround the selling of pigmeat. I hope the Minister can tell the House what steps the Government are taking to make sure that the pledge on pigmeat labelling which they gave in a press release on 3rd November becomes a reality. The situation is confused. The press release was entitled,
"Consumers win as Brown and retailers agree on labelling".
However, they do not seem to agree at all. A MAFF press release stated,
"Britain's major supermarkets today gave a commitment to Agriculture Minister Nick Brown that they would not sell imported meat processed in the UK under a British label".
That pledge was confirmed in another place by Mr. Brown. However, later the BRC said that the pledge applied only to fresh imported meat. It was only that part of the pledge which the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, repeated in this House on Monday. What is the Government's response to the BRC spokeswoman who said,
"MAFF press officers were not at the meeting and were mistaken in assuming the BRC statement covered all meat and not just fresh meat when preparing their press release"?
Is that true, or is it true that a senior member of MAFF's press office team was at the meeting and he has said not only that he did understand, but that a BRC representative agreed that the MAFF press release was correct? He has said that the retailers' representative also agreed the position statement covered bacon, fresh and frozen meat. We need to know what progress has been made on unmuddling that muddle.
We need to give farmers a fair deal by cutting the burden of regulation and the input costs not faced by their competitors. My noble friend Lord Gisborough referred to the threat of a pesticides tax. Surely we must be careful about new and unnecessary burdens, especially such a tax. Pesticides are an expensive input which farmers do not want to use unnecessarily. A tax would surely not serve to control pesticide use, but would be yet another burden imposed on British farmers, and one not faced by all their competitors either within the EU or internationally.
Farmers need a fair deal by encouraging all areas of government to purchase British-produced food. Farmers need a fair deal by encouraging supermarkets to show greater responsibility in their dealings with farmers and particularly by reflecting falling farm-gate prices in the prices on their shelves.
Farmers also need a fair deal by planning for future changes, something to which many noble Lords have referred. My noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton
1334
referred to the fact that some progress should be made on the question of farmers' early retirement. I recall that the Minister's right honourable friend in another place, Dr. Cunningham, said in a Statement in December 1997 that the Government would be looking urgently at the question of early retirement for farmers and that it would be part of the Agenda 2000 negotiations. Can the Minister tell the House what progress the Government have made on such negotiations since last year? What is their objective?
On CAP reform, surely what the farmers and the country need is reform which does not discriminate against UK agriculture and which would redirect savings into agri-environmental schemes and rural development.
Reference has been made to the problems that farmers face in trying to diversify. At Question Time on 9th November (col. 502.) referring to Welsh farming, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn—I note that he is now in his place—stated that,
"the current problems in farming bring into sharp focus the need for Welsh agriculture to adapt".
That is quite right. As my noble friend Lady Trumpington made clear, one cannot underestimate the fact that farmers have already grasped the nettle of diversification very hard—and have got stung very hard on occasions. For some farmers, diversification is simply not an option. For all of them, we must attempt to plan for the future.
Finally, I believe that farmers are not asking for special treatment from anybody. They are used to hard graft and to getting on with the job, but they deserve fair treatment. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House an idea of what future the Government see for farmers and growers in the UK, for their future must be of concern to all of us.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, on raising such an important question. I sympathise with the several noble Lords who missed the opening of the debate due to our early start. I nearly missed it as well and, in fact, did not see my officials beforehand or my final speech, so I hope that I do not veer too much away from the MAFF party line—not too much! So many questions and points have been raised that it may take me a little while to answer them. I trust that your Lordships will be patient with me.
The Government acknowledge that the agriculture industry is going through a very difficult time at present and that times are hardest for those in the livestock sector. We know how hard that is. In opening, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked, quite directly and personally, how I would feel if I were badly rewarded for standing at the Dispatch Box. I shall not disguise the fact that I do feel painfully badly rewarded for standing here and that I have to pay for it in many ways—not all monetary. Therefore, I have a strong fellow-feeling for farmers, especially those who work for even less.

1335
The recent drop in farm incomes is at the heart of the problems described by many noble Lords. Incomes in the agricultural sector have benefited greatly in recent years from devaluations and improved productivity, and incomes rose in real terms 74 per cent. between 1992 and 1996. That was quite a bonanza. Now, the pendulum has swung back dramatically, with the strengthening of sterling and falling commodity prices. Other sectors of UK industry face similar problems brought about by the strength of sterling. That has been the main contributory factor to the fall in farm incomes, with the strong pound hitting exports and boosting imports across the board.
However, that is not the only reason. The continuing weakness in the beef sector following the BSE crisis has not only hit beef farmers but has had knock-on effects in other areas. The collapse of the important export markets in Russia, as mentioned, and in the Far East has exacerbated the problem. Also, over-optimistic assumptions about the scale of future demand were made in some farm sectors. One thinks of the pig sector. All of that has hit many farming incomes. I do not accept all the figures presented by the noble Baroness opposite—
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will give way. As I made clear at the time, the figures that I quoted are from the NFU. Perhaps the Minister would like to take up any complaints with the NFU. I believe that those figures have been published nationally and not, as yet, contested.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, many different figures have been published. I do not take up in a hostile manner any point made by the National Farmers Union. Whatever the figure one takes, it will have a serious impact.
The livestock sector has been hit worst of all. For beef producers, there has been a continuing structural surplus, falling market prices and falling demand. That is at the heart of the long-term problem. The ban on the export of British beef has led to the loss of important markets. For sheep producers, there have been two consecutive years of delayed finishing and poor market prices. We acknowledge that the strong pound has also made beef imports attractive and sheep exports unattractive.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and my noble friend Lord Grantchester, referred to pigs. I was asked why pig farmers were not part of the package. That is fairly simple. It is because we cannot aid pig farmers within such a package under the CAP regime, under which state aids are not allowed. We object strongly when other fellow member states attempt to introduce state aids. We have tried hard to help the pigmeat sector. We have helped it with a new scheme of private storage aid and with export refunds.
Perhaps I may mention a point often raised on supermarkets. The supermarkets have said that all the pigmeat - fresh and processed - that they buy for their
1336
own labels will be produced to UK welfare standards. They do not insist on such standards for imported products that are to be sold under other labels for the practical reason that they cannot control standards in other countries of origin. However, I believe that that step is significant progress; it is a great step forward that assists the pigmeat industry; and it is a step that was not sought or achieved by the previous administration.
I am involved in a campaign to promote sales of UK pigmeat to the domestic catering sector. I attended and spoke at a conference on the subject this week and I have spoken at a previous conference. I met representatives of the pig industry in Blackpool. We are committed to encouraging and helping the industry as far as possible.
I now wish to touch on the Scottish dimension. I noted that my noble friend Lord Sewel sat beside me for a long time to ensure that the Scottish perspective was not neglected. Farmers in Scotland have of course suffered from the same problems as their counterparts throughout the rest of the United Kingdom, but those problems have been worse in a number of ways. The weather has been particularly threatening to winter planting. For a variety of reasons we acknowledge that Scottish agriculture can be more susceptible to the various pressures that currently operate. Some 83 per cent. of Scottish farmland is designated as a less favoured area, as compared with the UK average of 43 per cent.; and Scotland has a higher dependency on specialist beef and sheep farms. It was therefore relevant and pleasing that in the large package of aid that we announced on Monday Scotland was a major beneficiary, receiving a total of £37 million from the £120 million.
Ministers are aware of the problems and concerns in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. We have been listening. That is why Monday's package was based specifically on the requests put to us by the National Farmers Union and by the farming community when we visited them.
I should stress that even before Monday's package we had recently implemented a large number of measures to assist upland producers across the United Kingdom. Those measures recognise the particular difficulties of the Scottish uplands that have underlain much of this debate.
In February this year £85 million was distributed to livestock producers. It was targeted particularly on hill farmers. Scottish beef and sheep farmers received £24 million of that package. That makes a total to them this year of over £60 million. Our lobbying in Brussels has achieved an agreement from Brussels to grant private storage aid in the UK for a maximum of 2,400 tonnes at a flat rate of 1,400 ecu per tonne. Present indications are that significant quantities of lamb will be removed from the market as a result. It has also just been agreed to increase the advances payable under the beef special premium and suckler cow premium schemes from 60 to 80 per cent. That will bring forward some £100 million of payments to the industry which would otherwise not have been available until the spring of next year and it should help to ease producers' cash-flow problems.

1337
These measures must be viewed alongside the significant amount of money that has already been directed towards livestock producers. Since March 1996, £2.5 billion will have been spent on BSE-related measures. In addition, beef producers are receiving around £500 million each year in normal beef subsidy payments and in 1996–97 over £450 million was paid out to sheep producers in ewe premium payments. That represents considerable support for the sector at this time. It makes it not possible for critics to state that we do not aid the farming sector. The scale is massive.
On the consumption of beef by the Armed Forces, we have already achieved success in persuading the Commission to allow us to make intervention beef stocks available to the Ministry of Defence for Her Majesty's Armed Forces. I understand that all its requirements for beef for forces serving in the United Kingdom will shortly be met from product of United Kingdom origin. We are also considering how we might increase the amount of lamb from United Kingdom sources, although that is more difficult because there are no intervention stocks and frozen lamb from overseas is very competitively priced and offers good value for money. I have personally been involved in negotiations with Defence Ministers on this subject. I have found them extremely understanding and helpful.
Therefore considerable measures have already been implemented, and I now turn to the significant additional measures that we have announced this week. One or two noble Lords spoke as though this had been our only response, and that it was tardy or too late. I have made clear that there have been many earlier aid measures and that this week's aid package is the second this year together totalling over £200 million.
I am pleased that some noble Lords welcomed this week's aid package. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, said that it was not enough. But I should point out that in addition to all the billions of pounds per annum in aid to farming, these are subsidies to 1 per cent. of the economy. Before the package they are already greater than aid to any other sector. They are two-and-a-half times as much as to the next subsidised sector, and three-and-a-half times as much as goes to manufacturing—namely, 20 per cent.—as compared to 1 per cent. of our economy. So the scale of subsidy is already massive, and we are now discussing adding to it. As it was for our predecessors, the choice for the Government has been to spend £120 million in farming. I can see the case; indeed I have advocated it. However, the subsidies represent £120 million that is not now available for disabled children, nurses etc. So the decisions are not easy.
In announcing the package, my right honourable friend the Minister stated that, subject to consultation with the European Commission, it is the Government's intention to draw down £48.3 million in compensation from the EU under the agri-monetary heading.
Similarly, we have listened to the concerns of farmers and farmers' organisations in relation to the planned closure of the calf processing scheme, given the absence of an export market for British beef. As my right honourable friend the Minister announced, the
1338
Government have decided to continue to operate the scheme for the remainder of the present financial year. That is in the light of the Commission agreeing to fix a special rate of aid for the United Kingdom of 80 ecu—around 70 per cent. of the current rate—to attract the poorer quality calves from the dairy herd, leaving the better quality calves to find their own price level on the market. We shall wish to keep the scheme under review with the industry.
The plight of the hill farmers has been a theme throughout this debate. It was mentioned, impressively, by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, who has great knowledge of Northern Ireland, and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. The Government are committed to supporting farming in the hills. That should be in no doubt given that over £600 million in livestock subsidies are being distributed to hill farmers this year alone. My right honourable friend's announcement on Monday of our intention to increase hill livestock compensatory allowances for the 1999 scheme year by £60 million responds to the particular difficulties that hill farmers currently face. That package was deliberately targeted to hill farmers because the Government are committed to maintaining our nurtured uplands. We do not want them abandoned, and they are one of our main priorities. In the longer term the Government want to replace the hill livestock compensatory aid schemes with a newer scheme.
A major way to assist the beef sector is to achieve the lifting of the beef ban in Europe. The Scots especially should be concerned with that, Scottish beef having an international reputation for quality. We need to persuade colleagues that all the measures that we have taken to prove that British beef is safe are working. We have made progress and I believe that we now have all the conditions in place for an early end to the ban.
Looking to the future, whatever can be done in the short term—and we have attempted to do a great deal—the outcome of the negotiations on the Agenda 2000 proposals for the beef sector will be vital to the future of the sector in the long term. If the current proposals are agreed, they will provide for a significant reduction in beef prices, together with an increase in direct payments to producers to compensate for the reduction in prices. This will provide the sector with the opportunity to become more market-oriented and may boost consumption.
More broadly, for the longer term I noted the interesting points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, from his great experience, and by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. They are right to emphasise the long term rather than the short-term crisis and the serious difficulties of managing change, which is I believe the biggest challenge facing us and the farming community.
I note what the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said about the puzzling rescue intervention in the United States. I assure him and other noble Lords that we are focusing on the long term. My right honourable friend stated on Monday that we would urgently consult on this and that we hoped to make a statement in due course.

1339
On the wider rural economy, I note the points made, from his great expertise, by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, about the broader economy. It is, of course, the Government's aim to make rural areas better places in which to live, work and visit and to have a prosperous and living countryside. Rural development proposals form a part of Agenda 2000. The Government are looking at these issues and will make an announcement shortly.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to some of the many other questions that were asked. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked about cereal prices. We are aware of the difficulties in that regard, with the problems of over-supply and poor weather. The Government have obtained relaxation of moisture content limits for intervention to reduce the drying costs, and the payments of main arable subsidies are on target.
The noble Lord also raised the question of bio-fuels. MAFF spends some £400,000 a year on research and development on alternative crops, including bio-fuels. The Commission is working on a report on this matter, into which we shall have an input.
The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, raised the issue of farmers' wives. It is true that they have a crucial role in supporting and sustaining the men and the family generally through the crisis. We too salute them. I always try to include them and the women's farming union on my regional visits.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised the question of whether scrapie can be passed from sheep to man. As the noble Baroness knows, scrapie has been known to be present in commercial sheep flocks for over 200 years and there has never been anything to suggest that the disease can be transmitted to man.
The question of organics was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. This Government have doubled the aid for conversion to organics and increased research, and this is one of our priorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, mentioned the enlargement of the European Union. Discussions with the countries seeking enlargement include an examination of how their systems can adapt to European Union conditions. The United Kingdom aim in Agenda 2000 is to move away from production payments for existing and future members. Without such reform, it is likely that stocks of key agricultural commodities will build up. We are pressing the case for payments to be degressive and time-limited.
The noble Lords, Lord Wade and Lord Gisborough, and others mentioned the early retirement scheme. The Minister has said that he will consider an early retirement scheme once the Agenda 2000 proposals have been finalised. A detailed examination of the draft began in June under the UK presidency and is continuing under the Austrian presidency. The current
1340
draft proposals remove the requirement that land be amalgamated or taken out of production, which should provide greater flexibility for possible implementation in the United Kingdom. However, no conclusions have yet been reached.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, will the noble Lord say how the consultation regarding the retirement scheme is progressing?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, in view of the time constraints, I would rather write to the noble Lord on that matter.
The Government are very concerned about the high level of farmers' deaths and suicides, an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. The Department of Health already provides large sums of money, backed by MAFF.
With regard to the timetable for Agenda 2000, the aim is still to adhere to the Cardiff timetable and to settle the agenda in March 1999. Much depends on the handling of the matter by the Austrian and German presidencies. We continue to press for timely and radical reform.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, asked whether Great Britain was only 77 per cent. self-sufficient in beef. The figures for the first six months of this year indicate that beef produced in Great Britain represents 79 per cent. of the total of beef marketed in Great Britain.
I think I have filled a very large gap. I hope that I have managed to answer most of the points raised. It was a fine debate, with many good speeches. I hope that we have demonstrated the Government's commitment to British agriculture and to giving it fair treatment. I again thank all noble Lords who participated in this excellent debate.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, as the Minister said, we have heard some very powerful speeches and I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate this evening. It was perhaps the House of Lords at its very best. Even the timing went haywire. The Minister said that he only just got here in time. I scraped in even after him, otherwise we would have had no debate at all!
It was very sad to see how few members of the Government Bench took part in, let alone listened to, the debate. It is comforting to know that the Minister understands many of the problems facing farming today. I thank him most particularly for his very full response to the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

European Parliamentary Elections Bill
7.29 p.m.
Returned from the Commons with their disagreement to the Lords amendments insisted on, with their amendment in lieu not insisted on but with a further amendment proposed in lieu thereof.
Lord Carter: My Lords, this is more fun than farming at the moment! I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure for 15 minutes until 7.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.29 to 7.45 p.m.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, on this occasion I beg to move that the Commons amendment be considered forthwith.
Moved, That the Commons amendment be considered forthwith.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
MOTION TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF A COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to HL Bill 88 as first printed for the Lords]
LORDS AMENDMENTS
Clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out ("a registered party, or").
2 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.").
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.").
4 Page 2, line 18, at end insert (", following the rearrangement required under subsections (5A) and (5B)").
COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU TO WHICH THE LORDS HAVE DISAGREED
4C After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
REVIEW OF ELECTORAL SYSTEM.
(".-(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint one or more persons—

(a) to review, in accordance with subsection (2), the operation of the system of election provided for by section 3 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 as substituted by section 1 of this Act, and

(b) to make a report to the Secretary of State within six months from the day of appointment.

(2) The review shall consider, in particular, how the ability of electors to vote for particular persons on a party's list of candidates might affect the results of an election.
(3) The Secretary of State shall carry out his duty under subsection (1) within one month from the date of the first general election to the European Parliament which takes place after the coming into force of section 1.
(4) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of any report received under subsection (1)(b) before each House of Parliament.").
FURTHER COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU
The Commons insist on their disagreement to Lords Amendments Nos. 1 to 4, do not insist on their Amendment No. 4C in lieu thereof to which the Lords have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu of the Lords amendments—
4L After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
REVIEW OF ELECTORAL SYSTEM.
(".-(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint one or more persons—

(a) to review, in accordance with subsection (2), the operation of the system of election provided for by section 3 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 as substituted by section 1 of this Act, and

(b) to make a report to the Secretary of State within six months from the day of appointment.

(2) The review shall consider, in particular, how the ability of electors to vote for particular persons on a party's list of candidates might affect the results of an election.
(3) The Secretary of State shall carry out his duty under subsection (1) within one month from the date of the first general election to the European Parliament which takes place after the coming into force of section 1.
(4) Before making an appointment under subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall consult such persons appearing to him to be interested as he thinks appropriate.
(5) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of any report received under subsection (1)(b) before each House of Parliament.").
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 to which the Commons have disagreed and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4L in lieu thereof.
I feel a little bit like the Home Secretary, who said in the other place a few hours ago "I find myself back at the Dispatch Box on this issue". He made exactly the type of speech that we have come to expect—full of intervention in debate and full of humour—which left me, as always, with the distinct impression that his heart was not really in it and that if he never heard about proportional representation again, it would be too soon. He said that his major contribution was to make Victor d'Hondt famous. I think I can claim to have shared in that. Like him, I hope that this will help people with their Trivial Pursuits at Christmas. That is the one thing that I was left with from the Home Secretary's contribution.
Looking at the amendment now sent to us from the other place, it hardly moves us on a millimetre. Of course I welcome the review; I asked for it earlier in the Bill. I was dismissed out of hand. What has changed? A review does not address the issue before us. Do we

1343
use a closed list or an open list for PR in the European elections? I have made the argument for an open list and few, if any, voices have been raised in support of the closed list, either in your Lordships' House or in the other place.
Today, a few more brave souls from the Labour Benches were pushed into service—by the Whips, I have no doubt—but a few more brave souls braved the Whips and expressed their opposition to the closed list. So while the number of those who voice their approval of the closed list grows, it does not grow at half the pace of the number voicing their disapproval.
There are really no new arguments, but I have to look at the two or three that have been made. The first one—and we heard it very heavily down the corridor and in the briefing all day—is that hereditary Peers have no right to have an opinion on this. In the Navy I think they call it "Putting up a smokescreen". Many of your Lordships—hereditary Peers, life Peers and the great majority of the Cross-Benchers—having listened to the argument—have voted consistently in favour of the open list.
The other argument that is continuing to be put is about Northern Ireland. Yes, as I said last time—but obviously I am going to have to say it again so that the Government might perhaps listen—the closed list was used to deal with the exceptional circumstances in Northern Ireland. Is the Government saying that the same exceptional circumstances apply here? The body was a deliberative forum, set up to bring in as many parties as possible in order to have negotiations. Is that what the European Parliament is about?
Lastly, we have kept having John Major quoted back at us. But John Major made clear that the system was not ideal. As I pointed out to your Lordships a day or two ago, these were the words used by the current Prime Minister when he said on the 21st March 1996:
"As I am sure that the Prime Minister would agree, the solution on the election process is certainly not ideal".—[Official Report, Commons; 21/3/96; col. 499.]
How then can it be ideal for Europe?
My noble friend Lord Bethell raised some points which were used in the debate in the other place earlier today. As I remember his speech, my noble friend did not approve of the closed list but he expressed some concern about the consequences of the open list. I accept, of course, that candidates in the same party will to an extent be competing against each other for the electors' attention and approval. But the d'Hondt formula means that they will also have to co-operate and increase the total vote. In that way, more of them will be elected. A balance will have to be achieved by the candidates. Dare I say that this is a problem for the parties and the candidates to resolve? It does not seem to be such an important point that the electors should be allowed no say at all over which individual on the party's list they would like to represent them in Brussels.
1344
The other point of which we hear a good deal is about manifesto commitments. I have read out the Labour Party manifesto before on this issue. At the risk of appearing to be a devotee of Labour's manifesto, here it is again—
A noble Lord: All of it!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: No, my Lords, I do not think I will read out all of it. I think it might be too embarrassing for the Government if I read out all of it. One bit will do! It states:
"We have long supported a proportional voting system for election to the European Parliament".
There is no mention of the system to be used. There is no mention of a closed list. Indeed, there is no mention of an open list. Therefore this Bill, if we amend it with the open list, honours in every possible way the commitment given by the Labour Party in its manifesto.
The Home Secretary this afternoon prayed in aid the grandfather of my noble friend Lord Cranborne and the Salisbury convention. Your Lordships are not breaching that convention. Noble Lords would be breaching it if they removed PR from the Bill. But noble Lords are not removing PR from the Bill; they are just saying, "Let's have an open list and not a closed list". So, in my view, the Labour Party's manifesto would be honoured just as well with my amendment as with the Government's original suggestion. Indeed, I suggest that it would be better honoured, because the open list system is a more honourable system than the closed list system.
If the Government are keen to obey their election commitment and, more importantly, to obey their pledge to the Liberal Democrat Party, they can just accept the amendment and have the open list. There is nothing wrong with it. In fact, it is in the tradition of the voting system of this country that one votes for party and for individual. I believe that your Lordships have been insisting, and I hope will continue to insist, on standing on a major constitutional principle about how our citizens actually vote. That was a point put in another place by Mr. Martin Bell, who actually knows a thing or two about individuals versus the party system. As I do not have the Hansard report, I have to hope that my memory and my writing were quick enough. He asked earlier today whether the British, as a free people, should have a right to be able to choose a candidate by name to represent them. That is a very valid point.
A closed list, however, could be more acceptable to us all if the actual choosing of the list was democratic. We and the Liberal Democrat Party, to be fair to it, have made an effort by opening up decisions to our party members; not, however, to those who vote for our party, so it is a fairly narrow "selectorate", even although we have widened it. The elector has no choice, but at least the party members have some choice. It might encourage more people to join parties. However, the problem is that the way the Government have approached the closed list shows us all how a party can deny all choice; deny choice to the people and even deny choice to its own party members.

1345
In Wales, for example, the current MEP, David Morris, who received overwhelming support from his own constituents, has been replaced—rather, dropped down the list—by the parachuting in from the Millbank high command of Mr. Lyndon Harrison, who is an MEP over the Welsh border in Cheshire. The whole way in which the Labour Party behaves over selection brings the closed list into suspicion and disrepute. It is its obsession with control that will so damage the electoral system if we proceed with the closed list. In London it is to stop Ken Livingstone; in Wales it is to stop Rhodri Morgan; and in Scotland it is to stop Dennis Canavan. My concern is that if this were to be taken on board by other parties it would bring the whole electoral system into disrepute. The electors would find that they had no say at all on who represented them in Brussels. The people would have no choice. Only the party would have any choice at all.
Your Lordships are not alone when it comes to thinking, as we have done, that the open list is hugely superior to the closed list. In an amusing article in the Daily Express today, Mr. Andrew Marr said this:
"To our left, crusted hereditary Tory aristocratic relics, reeking of pipe-tobacco, brandy and Reaction. To the right"—
do not laugh too soon, I say to the Government Back Benches—
"our sleek, modern People's Government, composed of smiling touchy-feely types who care—really care—what we think. The issue: Democracy!".
He goes on to say:
"But here is something truly strange. This time it is the crusted reactionaries, not Labour, who are on the right side, defending democracy".
The Daily Mail said:
"This clash between the peers and the self-proclaimed party of the people could not be more rich in political irony. For, even while their Lordships are being caricatured by Labour as dodos who have too long outlived extinction, it is they who are championing the true interests of a modern electorate by dramatising this governing party's most dictatorial tendency".
Lastly, The Times, which heads its leader:
"LET THE PEOPLE CHOOSE
The Government should abandon closed list elections".
The leader goes on to say:
"The debate is not about the hereditary principle, as they suggest, but whether people's choice should be replaced by parties' choice"—
I am deeply grateful to The Times' editorial for picking up the phrase I used first, but it is the truth—
"In this case, the unelected peers are protecting the power of the electorate".
My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 to which the Commons have disagreed and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4L in lieu thereof.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I have little to add to what has already been said. I am as happy as other noble Lords that this long and unnecessary debate—unnecessary in many different ways—is at last coming to an end. I have nothing at all to say additional
1346
to what has been said about the merits of the argument. It is self-evidently preferable to have an open system. Goodness me, it is part of the Liberal Democrat Party's official policy, yet it is constantly voting to vote it down. I know that there is great unhappiness in my own party about what is being proposed.
We heard some very impressive speeches yesterday. I refer in particular to the speech of my noble friend my former leader, whose words always reinforce my natural tendency towards conformity—when allied to the leader of the Labour Peers it is a formidable combination. When I listened to what he said I felt that he really did deserve a reply. I do not mean a reply in any hostile or personal sense but a reply on the very heart of the matter. He put it to me, and not just to me but to other former MPs, "What right have you to oppose the will of the House of Commons? Have you that right?" I thought about it a great deal overnight because it would not be proper, frankly, to do other than to give the closest attention to what so experienced and admirable a man as my former party leader had to say. I think I have the answer. If I did not think I had the answer, I would join my colleagues tonight. But I have an answer, and I shall give it, and I think the House will understand why I shall persist yet again in voting against what the Government are proposing.
The crucial question is: what right? The answer is straightforward. It is self-evident that we have not breached the Salisbury convention. There is a special obligation that when a particular proposal is written into a manifesto it shall be treated with great care and tenderness and accepted by the House. But that is not so here. It is the principle of proportional representation that is part of the manifesto, not the method—so much so that the Home Secretary himself was not able to make a recommendation on Second Reading because he wanted to examine the various possibilities.
That is not the main answer to the question. The main answer is that I have the right to oppose this because Parliament has given it to me. In the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 limited power is entrusted to the House of Lords. That power is to revise, amend and turn down particular proposals within the limit of those Acts. As noble Lords know better than I, the limit is a one-year period. That period will lapse very shortly. Thereafter, if the Commons persist in what I regard as folly it will have its way. But up to that moment we have the right to turn down proposals that we believe to be grievously mistaken. That is the answer to my noble friend. With great regret, I shall adhere to my original intention.
8 p.m.
Lord Garel-Jones: My Lords, when noble Lords debated this matter yesterday my noble friend Lord Tebbit spoke disparagingly of party apparatchiks. We live in a time when "outing" is all the rage, so perhaps noble Lords will not be too shocked if I confess to being an apparatchik. No doubt after such a heinous confession I shall receive letters of sympathy from many of your Lordships, perhaps even a written note from Mr. Jeremy Paxman.

1347
When my noble friend Lord Tebbit held very high positions with verve and skill in my party I did not find him notably squeamish in availing himself of whatever skills those of my profession had to offer. I am content that my noble friends on the Front Bench have tweaked the Government on this issue and have won the argument. My noble friend Lord Mackay made a bravura speech yesterday and followed it with another this evening. My inclination is against PR. As to open or closed lists, while there are arguments on both sides I remain a first-past-the-post man. But I do not believe that PR with open or closed lists constitutes a crime against humanity or a mortal assault on the democratic process.
Today's debate is no longer about the narrow issue before us. I make three brief points. When I was in the other place I had a number of dealings with the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, who may be described as an arch apparatchik. The noble Lord does not enjoy the affection and esteem on those Benches that he deserves but among those of us who are apparatchiks he is an important figure. I see the noble Lord in his place. On one occasion the Government in which I had the privilege to serve under my noble friend Lady Thatcher had a Bill in progress through the House of Commons. We were in danger of losing that Bill because of the loquacity of a Labour Member. After a brief discussion with the noble Lord he went into the House of Commons and arranged for an intervention. When the Labour Member of Parliament took his place the following conversation took place. The noble Lord, Lord Cocks: "Shut up!" The Labour Member of Parliament: "But, Michael, it's a bad Bill". The noble Lord, Lord Cocks: "Of course it's a bad Bill. We have a Tory Government and all their Bills are bad. Shut up!".
Just so, my Lords. This is a bad measure. My Front Bench was right to raise it and I am pleased that it has won the argument. But the Government must have their business. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, I suggest to my noble friends that it is time to shut up.
Secondly, I am a new Member of your Lordships' House. I am proud to be here. In my short time here I have been amply reinforced in my view that a wise, responsible Second Chamber is an essential brick in our democratic edifice. The Government have plans as yet undefined to reform your Lordships' House. I have not yet despaired of the hope that my noble friend Lord Cranborne will be able to steer us through to a settlement that will provide Parliament with a revising Chamber that serves our country as well as your Lordships' House has and does. Denial of the Government's business today will damage that prospect and provide ammunition to those whose motives and intentions towards your Lordships' House are entirely partisan.
I ask myself: what are the motives of the Shadow Cabinet in inviting us to vote against the Government yet again? I hope that your Lordships will understand if I spare myself the embarrassment of speculating upon them. I believe that these matters are best discussed indoors. Suffice it to say that at this stage they can
1348
hardly be related to the relative merits of the issue that is before us. Even in the short term for us on this side of the House it is heads we lose; tails we do not win.
In conclusion, if the Government are defeated tonight I believe that it will be a defeat for your Lordships' House. It will also be a defeat for my party. Politics is about being grown up. Your Lordships' House is not a sixth-form debating chamber but a grown up, integral and influential part of the parliamentary process. Its place and high reputation are based not only on the high quality of debates in your Lordships' House but on the instinct that your Lordships have shown for knowing to what point the elected Chamber can be pushed. I respectfully submit to your Lordships that that point has been reached.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I have not spoken before in this debate but I feel impelled to do so this evening. I am pleased to do so after the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones. I make much the same points. I shall be brief. I am passionately against the closed list system. I voted against it the first time around. I abstained on the second occasion because I hoped that the Government would think again. However, on subsequent occasions I have voted in the Government Lobby. As a former Speaker of the House of Commons I think it is wrong that this House should seek to frustrate the will of the elected House. We would have been wise to have accepted the offer of consultation for a different system of election after these European elections have taken place.
We were not greatly helped yesterday by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, when he said that this was not in fact a Labour Bill but that it was "our" Bill. That did not help this House at all. Nevertheless, like the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, I was a Whip for some 12 years and I know something about parliamentary tactics; I can see a trap when it is being set for us. I believe that that is what has happened in these subsequent debates.
I still believe in the open list system and I hope that something may be done about it in the days to come. However, we should not forget that we are an unelected House. I believe that we would be very unwise to frustrate the will of the elected Chamber for the fifth occasion. As has been said by others, the argument has been won; that is not in doubt. But that will not be remembered in the days to come. What will be remembered is that this unelected House frustrated the will of the Commons on five occasions. We should think very carefully before we do that this evening.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the House knows my views on the substantive issues. They have not changed and I shall not repeat them. One thing has changed since I last took part in a debate on this subject on Thursday last. Then, there were seven days left before the end of the Session and now there is one. As I am addressing a completely different situation, I have the right to think through again what the consequences of my acts are likely to be.
It was never my intention to lose this Bill. It was my intention to go to the wire in the hope that it might produce some thinking and desirable compromise on the

1349
other side. It was not my intention to go beyond that. At this stage, to send a Bill back to another place would be like playing Russian roulette with only two chambers left in the revolver. That is not a new thought. If any of your Lordships would care to look at my speech of last Thursday, I made two points. One was that, although I regard the closed list as a blow to democracy, I would regard the loss of this Bill also as a blow to democracy; for we, on these Benches, are united in the conviction that if the results are out of proportion to the votes, those results are unfair no matter which party they may favour. I also said that I had taken advice. That advice was that there was time for one more round of ping-pong. We have had that round. It produced no result. The time has come to make up our minds; to do or to die.
I also took advice on the potential of the Parliament Acts. I received advice that, while in theory it might be possible that the Parliament Acts might be used in time, it was in practice extremely unlikely unless it was in the circumstance of the Bill enjoying the Opposition's consent. If that is what the Opposition intends to do at the end of the day, it might as well save its own prospective candidates a great deal of anxiety and do it now. If it is left until then, the words "prospective candidate" will painfully literally mean exactly what they say.
Therefore, we have to decide whether we want to stick to the amendment and kill the Bill or accept the Bill unamended. We do not have to decide which of those is the worst option. We may think that killing this Bill for the House would be a bridge too far—it usually is but not quite always. However, killing a Bill of which we approve in principle is, as far as I can see, two bridges too far.
I hope that in the next Session we will be very sure, before we put through any stage one, that another place is committed to the principle of a revising chamber once it has one that it recognises to be legitimate.
I shall conclude with the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, on ceasing to press an amendment against his own government, "Let them have their silly way"!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, as have others who have yet to speak in this debate, I have attended all of the issues. I am delighted to follow the noble Lords, Lord Garel-Jones and Lord Weatherill. Together with those two, I think that I represent a "Whip round". I can claim to have served in the Whips Office in both Houses. I have served in the Whips Office for 19 of the past 25 years.
I learnt when I came up here, which was a great privilege, the conventions, agreements and understandings of this House. Until the Opposition decided to do what it has done here, one of those conventions was that it was proper, right and legitimate for this House to defeat the Government and to send its amendment to a Bill to the other place. But, it was infra-dig; it was not done. It was done to defeat the Government twice. Now, the Opposition has not only
1350
defeated the Opposition twice; it has defeated it three and four times. And it is bent on doing it for the fifth time tonight.
I have a question for the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. I have done some research but I cannot find any Bill, over the past 30 years, that has been amended by the same amendment more than twice. In fact, on only three occasions has there been an attempt to pass the same amendment to a Bill twice. My question to the noble Lord is this: will he please explain to the House what is different about this occasion? I do not refer to the context of the subject but in relation to how this House works; the understandings and the arrangements. The Whips Office is often called "the usual channels". A great deal depends on the confidence and credibility which has built up among senior parliamentarians.
If the Opposition persists, I want the noble Lord to tell the House why. If he pleads in aid that the issue is important, I remind him—unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is not in his place—that I well recall an occasion when we were debating the Railways Bill and an important issue on pensions. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, moved an amendment against his government which was carried. When it went to the other place, of course his government overturned it. When it came back here, there was a great determination on our part and on the Liberal Democrat Benches that we should seriously consider beating the government a second time. We did not do that because of the understandings of which I had been told by Chief Whips and other senior Members: that is, the right of this House to insist upon its will once, but not twice. I should like to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, tell us what is special about this occasion. We have a long life ahead of us—some of us—and we want to be in business for a great length of time.
The other point I should like the noble Lord to deal with is the argument that if the Government have got it wrong, it is open to them to use the Parliament Act. I remind the House that in the knowledge of many people here the Parliament Act has been used only once; that is, on the War Crimes Bill in 1990. Is the noble Lord telling us that this issue is on a par with the contents of the War Crimes Bill? I say to noble Lords on the Cross-Benches, who have listened carefully to these debates, that my noble friend Lord Callaghan said that it was of a different level; and it is. I should like the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, to answer the question: why should the Government be pleaded with to bring in and use the Parliament Act?
The final point I wish the noble Lord to answer is this. Constant reference has been made to the need or ability of the Government to treat seriously the views of this House and to bring forward a compromise, or amendments. Every time the Bill has returned to the Commons an attempt has been made by the Government to move slowly to the centre. Will the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, tell the House how often he has suggested a compromise or made a conciliating move?
The House is faced with a simple proposition. The issue is important. But more important is the manner in which we conduct our affairs. I believe that the

1351
Government are entitled to seek their will over the House of Lords on this occasion. I hope that they will prevail tonight.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, possible answers to the questions asked may be that we are dealing with a quite exceptional issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, reminded us, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has told us in so many words that this is not a government Bill. It is a Bill from the Liberal Democrat Party; and the conventions which have been quoted relate to government Bills.
That is quite important because it is part of the effort by the Liberal Democrats. Since last week there has been a new announcement of further collaboration. We know what they wish to gain. They wish to get Mr. Ashdown into the Cabinet. They wish to have proportional representation for Westminster. And in order to gain that they will sacrifice any principle, even the principle of having at least an open list. Therefore we are in a very different position.
It may be argued that all this is shadow boxing because we know perfectly well that the Labour Party will not give any of the sweeties that the Liberal Democrats expect as a result of their kowtowing to the Government over and over again. In fact the Liberal Democrat Party reminds me nowadays of a lady of doubtful virtue who is willing to sell her services for a promissory note on a failing bank.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney. I believe that he put the position correctly and concisely as to the rights of this House and why the House is entitled to exercise those rights. There is no need for me to elaborate further on that.
However, I wish to make one further point. We are in our difficulty tonight, as my noble friend Lord Evans of Parkside has pointed out, because of the leisurely pace at which the Bill has gone through the Houses of Parliament. That is why we are in this position. Indeed, I can understand the embarrassment that will be caused to all parties: they had selected their candidates before the Bill had completed its passage through Parliament. In other words, they took this House for granted. I do not believe that in a democratic and proper parliamentary system one can afford to take either House for granted. But that is what has been done and I think that the Government may now regret it.
I shall certainly, regretfully, vote again in the Lobby with the Conservatives. Nevertheless, I shall do so because I think that the system which is being proposed, as I have said so many times before, is not a good system. It is not consistent with what I believe is a democratic system; and it takes away the relationship between the elector and the elected. I believe that that is entirely bad for our democratic system.
1352
In conclusion, I believe that the electorate generally—this was demonstrated by a poll on BBC2 this morning—understand what the issue is about. They do not like closed lists. If the House of Lords throws the provision out tonight the people will be on their side.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Mackay on again exposing the damaging effect of the closed list system which the Government seem determined to foist upon this country. There is no case for saying that this is an open and shut matter about closed lists or open lists. However, a good 70 per cent. of right belongs to the open list system.
However, having supported my noble friend on many occasions, I have come to the conclusion that if we do as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, advises, we are in danger this evening of doing what the English cricket team do so often: grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory. We may not succeed in fulfilling the promise that came from the early achievements of my noble friend Lord Mackay. I have seen the issue grow like Topsy. It started as a technical matter about the number of boxes on a ballot paper; and whether there should be the name of a party or just the name of candidates. But over the past few days it has become a debate about the rights of your Lordships, about whether candidates should be allowed to carry on their achievements, and about the practicalities of reselecting new candidates after tens of thousands of people were involved in the previous process. It has become a matter of arrangements between the Liberal Democrat Party and the Labour Party. It has become an issue of many colours.
I must therefore finally conclude that I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Garel-Jones and Lord Weatherill, and vote with those who want the Bill to proceed within the next 24 hours.
Lord McNally: My Lords, there is no doubt that over the past 24 hours we have heard some good speeches and some great speeches, from both sides and with great personal commitment. If it helps the noble Lord Lord Beloff, and the Cross-Benches, let me say at once that I am under no illusion that this is a government Bill fulfilling a government manifesto commitment.
Despite making a speech in a bearpit at present, the point about the debate has been its good humour. In many cases that has been due in no small measure to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. I have grown very fond of him over the last three years. The noble Lord is a parliamentary bruiser whose skills we all appreciate, but this amiable and unambitious Scot has, I am afraid, fallen victim to some more sinister forces. It is clear that the Conservative high command saw in this relatively minor and technical piece of legislation the confluence of three deep prejudices—Euroscepticism, hostility to proportional representation and hostility to reform of this House.
Our debates in recent weeks have exposed how bogus is that sudden hostility to lists, which have been accepted by your Lordships in other legislation. The open list system is itself not without flaws. The freedom of the open list compares with the freedom to dine at

1353
the Ritz. In an electorate of 8 million people, only the rich and famous would benefit. The political reality is that to have the freedom that the times require from an open list system would need American-style primaries and American-scale individual promotion to obtain the required name recognition. As the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said yesterday, that is indeed the Jeffrey Archer amendment.
Why else in the last couple of years have we been striving to put party names on ballot papers and register the names of parties? As the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, was honest enough to admit, the vast majority of people vote for parties. An open list system, about which he was equally honest, would take away campaigning between parties, their manifestos and messages and replace them with battles between personalities.
The new synthetic enthusiasm for European parliamentary democracy has been entirely absent from our debates every four years, for the quarter of a century that successive governments have ignored treaty obligations to send to Strasbourg British contingents that have been the very perversion of democracy. Let us not forget that if we lose the Bill, we would revert to first-past-the-post. We would revert to a system that totally distorts British political representation in Strasbourg, which has been elected by closed lists of one.
Your Lordships will remember the musical "Salad Days" and the great song with the lyrics
"These are not our happiest days
But our happiest days so far."
This may not be the fairest system of voting for Europe but it is certainly the fairest system so far. It will send to Strasbourg MEPs roughly in proportion to the number of votes cast. It will give a geographical spread of representation, with Labour Members from the west country, Liberal Democrats from the Midlands and Conservatives from the north east.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord McNally: I do not understand why Conservative Members are so hostile to stopping 20 per cent. of the people having their representation in the European Parliament. That will create a different kind of regional politician. I ask noble Lords to think this through. One cannot have in an electorate of 8 million people the relationship between an MP and his constituency that is so dear to existing and former Members of Parliament. As the system develops, and develops in Wales and Scotland, we will see a different kind of political relationship—but a democratic one nevertheless and one that will have an important part to play.
I say to members of the Government Front Bench that if they blink now, they will embolden those who oppose constitutional reform across the board. Stop them here, and the Government will save themselves a lot of blood, sweat and tears.
I have listened to wise counsel and to what has been done in the past few days, with people mouthing commitments to democracy. I entered politics with a
1354
profound belief in democracy, which I retain. I have listened to speeches about the responsibilities of this House. The responsibility of this House must stop short of defying the elected Chamber. That is an essential part of our parliamentary democracy, which has been fought for over the centuries. That is on the line tonight. I urge Conservative Members to think again, and I ask noble Lords on these Benches and all who believe in parliamentary democracy to be with us in the Lobby tonight.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, everyone here tonight knows the genuine regard that I have for this place, which grows—as for all of us—from year to year. I say "everyone here tonight"—even those noble Lords whom I have never seen before.
Noble Lords: Name them!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot name them because I do not know their names.
It is only fair that I should put the Government's view, I hope not brutally but plainly, right at the outset. This is the end of our road. Prorogation is upon us. If the Government are again defeated tonight, the Bill will fail. The Government will therefore have failed to secure safe passage for a manifesto commitment.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, one of the agreeable things about this place is that one is always allowed to finish a sentence.
The Government will have failed—your Lordships will not like this—because of the clout of the hereditary vote. The other place was elected. We were not. Defeat, if it comes to us, will be from a Chamber with no elected mandate. I say with all humility, because I never stood for the other place, that former Members of Parliament have spoken in our debates, not only tonight but on other occasions, and I wonder how they really feel.
The arguments have been rehearsed time and time again. On closed lists as opposed to open lists, honourable people can honourably differ. Our manifesto commitment was clear. It was to have a proportional representation system. May I say this one word? It cannot be denied. A PR system introduced by a Labour Government with a vast majority gives power away to Opposition parties in Europe, Wales and Scotland. The Tories have no representation in Wales in the other place but they had 20 per cent. of the vote. If Conservatives stand for the Welsh assembly with a PR closed-list system, they will have 20 per cent. of the seats.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is right to say that we did not specify in the manifesto an open or a closed list. It was reasonable to go for a closed list for four reasons. First, the overwhelming bulk of our colleagues in Europe have closed systems—more than 70 per cent. if we join. None of those points is determinative or absolute, but a sensible mind would take them into account and put them each in their proper proportion.

1355
Secondly, the only other comparable system in the United Kingdom is the closed list system for Northern Ireland introduced in 1996 by a Government of which Mr. William Hague was a prominent Member. Thirdly, the system has been proved perfectly acceptable as a concept for Wales and Scotland in the Bills that respectively establish the assembly and parliament. The May elections to those bodies will predate the European elections in June that are the subject of the Bill.
Fourthly, we ran a model on the open list system and found, as the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, keenly pointed out last night, that one MEP can be elected in the same region, in the same election with, say, 400,000 votes, and another candidate in the same region, in the same election, can fail to be elected with a vote of, say, half a million. The public see that as nonsensical and offensive.
None of those reasons is capable of being disputed—at least, no one has ever made any attempt to dispute them on any occasion we have discussed the matter.
Perhaps I may give a word of quotation:
"Last Monday the other place voted on your Lordships' amendment and rejected it … There is no argument in favour of giving them a further opportunity to reconsider. Your Lordships will, I am sure, wish to reflect in the light of all the consideration and reconsideration already given to the issue whether this House wishes to continue to dispute this issue with"—
and I underline the phrase—
"the elected Chamber".—[Official Report, 22/7/96; col. 1181.]
The date? It was 22nd July 1996. The place? It was this House. Who spoke the words? It was the gospel according to John. It was not John the Baptist; not John the Apostle; not even John the Evangelist. It was John the Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
What did Mr. Ancram say in respect of the Northern Ireland system? He said:
"The strength of the system that we are proposing is that for the voter it requires only one cross to be put against one party".
The arguments have been fully deployed. I underline the grace and courtesy with which almost all your Lordships have spoken. Virtually no one has claimed the monopoly of all the wisdom in this world. So we can honourably disagree. I hope that we continue to do so on an amicable basis where we regard difference of view as being a virtue not the mark of the outcast.
We are coming to our moment of decision. There have been successive majorities in the House of Commons, another place, of 170, 180, 200 and, earlier today, 193. On no occasion in this House would we have lost without the hereditary vote—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is true. It may be disagreeable, but closing the eyes and hopping under the duvet does not make the disagreeable go away. I repeat that last night we lost by 63 votes. If the hereditary Peers had not voted we should have won by 36 votes. Those are the bleak and implacable facts to which I draw your Lordships' attention. The Commons
1356
have voted after full debate six times and we have had full debate—Heaven knows—and this will be the fifth vote.
All selections would have to start again. There would be chaos in the present arrangements. Your Lordships may think that a price worth paying; that is a matter for individual conscientious decision. The fact is that this House retains its present power to rule over the Commons. The question is clear. It will not go away. We have to face it. Is it to be the non-elected House which is supreme, sustained by hereditary principle, or at last—at last—in 1998, is the elected Chamber able to have this legislation which it has claimed from us with such authoritative and continuing majorities? That is the question. My mind is clear enough: power without mandate and without accountability is wrong and we need—we need—to resist that.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I certainly share one thing in common with the Minister. I was sitting in my place thinking that there are some people here I have never seen before and wondering who they were. So we share that.
Noble Lords: Name them!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I cannot remember their names, can I? They have just arrived here.
We have had an interesting debate. The Minister pleaded with your Lordships to give the Bill a safe passage. It can of course have a safe passage with my support, if we move to an open list system. At the beginning of the Bill's passage last November, even the Home Secretary was unsure about which of the systems available for the list we should use. It is not as though the Government have dug themselves in—and if they have it is their fault—on the closed list system.
The Minister mentioned Wales and Scotland. One of the interesting points is that the majority of the members of the parliaments in Wales and Scotland will be elected by first-past-the-post. That makes a significant difference, I suggest.
Of course the Minister had good fun quoting what I said after one of my defeats. I have had a few defeats in your Lordships' House. They were all much more expensive and when the party opposite defeated me they put out press releases claiming that it was a great triumph for common sense, democracy and all kinds of other things. They were very proud of those defeats. I did not like them very much, but I accepted your Lordships' right to defeat me. Indeed, often the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was in the Lobby voting against me.
I understand the noble Earl's arguments entirely. I would not argue with him. He has been very brave about his position on the issue. He warned us earlier that if, so to speak, push came to shove he preferred the closed list, much as he disliked it, to no proportional representation at all. I respect his position as I do the three former apparatchiks who have spoken. My noble friend Lord Garel-Jones always has my respect. He was an apparatchik when I was a junior Minister, so your

1357
Lordships can understand that I am quite careful about my noble friend. He has made his point as he is properly entitled and able to do. Your Lordships will have to judge.
I did not know the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, as an apparatchik; I knew him as a Speaker. He made the traditional point to your Lordships about whether or not they are entitled to ask again. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, asked me a few questions. He was one of the Whips who managed to defeat me on a few occasions. He asked: what is the difference this time? I believe that the difference this time is that we are talking about and discussing something which is at the very centre of our democracy: how people vote and whether or not the voters have the right to choose. I do not believe that there is any comparison with the War Crimes Bill. Bluntly, the changes we have received from another place are on the margins; they do not address the central issue of the form of the list.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that I was interested to note that his claim of authorship yesterday has moved today—
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept one very important difference between this Bill and the War Crimes Bill: that the War Crimes Bill was a matter of a free vote?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I said that I did not believe there was any comparison. The two issues are separate and one cannot make a comparison.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, yesterday claimed authorship of the Bill. Whether he regretted the style or content I was not sure, but today he decided that it was the Government's Bill after all. But there is no need to lose the Bill. As I said previously, we can have the open list. The Government, I suppose, at a last pinch can use the Parliament Acts.
I believe that this is a serious issue. All the issues that have been addressed in this important debate have been serious issues. Noble Lords are well able to make their own judgments about the matter. My judgment is that it is so centrally important to the way in which our people vote and decide when they go into the ballot box that your Lordships should stick by the opinion that the electors have a right to choose and not the party. I will ask the opinion of the House.
8.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 212; Not-Contents, 183.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Ampthill, L.

Addison, V.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Ailsa, M.

Annaly, L.

Aldington, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ashbourne, L.

1358

Astor, V.

Hereford, Bp.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hesketh, L.

Attlee, E.

Higgins, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Home, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hood, V.

Bell, L.

Hothfield, L.

Beloff, L.

Howe, E.

Belstead, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Biffen, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Blackwell, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Blaker, L.

Inglewood, L.

Blatch, B.

Iveagh, E.

Blyth, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Boardman, L.

Jeger, B.

Bowness, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Killearn, L.

Bradford, Bp.

Kimball, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Kingsland, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Lawrence, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Leigh, L.

Buscombe, B.

Limerick, E.

Butterworth, L.

Listowel, E.

Cadman, L.

Liverpool, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Long, V.

Carlisle, Bp.

Lucas, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Luke, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lytton, E.

Carnock, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Chadlington, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Chalfont, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Chesham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mancroft, L.

Colwyn, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Courtown, E.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cox, B.

Middleton, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cranborne, V.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Cross, V.

Monson, L.

Cuckney, L.

Moran, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mottistone, L.

Davidson, V.

Mountevans, L.

Deedes, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denham, L.

Moynihan, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Munster, E.

Derwent, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Napier of Magdâla, L.

Downshire, M.

Naseby, L.

Dudley, E.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Dundonald, E.

Norfolk, D.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Norrie, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Northbrook, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Northesk, E.

Elles, B.

Norton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Fookes, B.

Norwich, Bp.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Gage, V.

Onslow, E.

Gisborough, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Glenarthur, L

Oxfuird, V.

Greenway, L.

Palmer, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Haddington, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Peel, E.

Harlech, L.

Pender, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Phillimore, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

1359

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Stewartby, L.

Poole, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Prior, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Stafford, E.

Rathcavan, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Rawlings, B.

Swinfen, L.

Reay, L.

Tebbit, L.

Renton, L.

Teviot, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Thatcher, B.

Renwick, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Trumpington, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Ullswater, V.

Saatchi, L.

Vivian, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Waddington, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Wakefield, Bp.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Wakeham, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Warnock, B.

Sandford, L.

Waverley, V.

Sandwich, E.

Weinstock, L.

Seccombe, B.

Westbury, L.

Sharples, B.

Wilcox, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Windlesham, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Wolfson, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Young, B.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Addington, L.

Dubs, L.

Ahmed, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Alderdice, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Alli, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Amos, B.

Ezra, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Avebury, L.

Falkland, V.

Bach, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Feversham, L.

Barnett, L.

Freyberg, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Bath, M.

Geraint, L.

Berkeley, L.

Gilbert, L.

Bethell, L.

Glentoran, L.

Blackstone, B.

Goodhart, L.

Borrie, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Bragg, L.

Goudie, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Grantchester, L.

Burlison, L.

Gregson, L.

Burns, L.

Grenfell, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Calverley, L.

Grey, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hacking, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Hamwee, B.

Chandos, V.

Hanworth, V.

Christopher, L.

Hardie, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Haskel, L.

Cooke of Thorndon, L.

Hayman, B.

Crawley, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Hollick, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

David, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Hooson, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hoyle, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Hughes, L.

Dearing, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Desai, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Dholakia, L.

Islwyn, L.

Dixon, L.

Jacobs, L.

Donoughue, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

1360

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

Rea, L.

Redesdale, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Judd, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Richard, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Russell, E.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Lockwood, B.

Sawyer, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Longford, E.

Serota, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Sewel, L.

Ludford, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Shepherd, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Simon, V.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

McNair, L.

Southwell, Bp.

McNally, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Maddock, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Taverne, L.

Meston, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Mishcon, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Molloy, L.

Thornton, B.

Monkswell, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Tordoff, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Uddin, B.

Newby, L.

Varley, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Nicol, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Ogmore, L.

Warner, L.

Paul, L.

Weatherill, L.

Peston, L.

Whitty, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Wigoder, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Puttnam, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Winchester, Bp.

Randall of St Budeaux, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Razzall, L.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
9.1 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, this Bill has now been lost for this Session. However, it will be introduced in the next Session under the procedures of the Parliament Acts. Even so, your Lordships will understand that, to hold the June 1999 European elections under this system, the Bill would have to receive Royal Assent by mid-January of next year. That can only happen with the co-operation of the opposition parties. If that co-operation is not forthcoming, the Government will still use the Parliament Acts to secure the Bill's enactment. However, as I am sure your Lordships understand, this will mean that the new system could not come into effect until the year 2004.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for clarifying the situation, particularly when her right honourable colleagues in another place attempted to make it clear

1361
beyond peradventure before this evening's vote that the Bill would be lost if your Lordships decided to vote in the way that they have in fact voted.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the Bill has been lost in this Session, but it was clear that the noble Baroness's right honourable friend intended us to believe that the legislation would not be reintroduced under the Parliament Acts.
We have clearly noted what the noble Baroness has said. We are aware of the limitations on the rights of this House—limitations set out very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Shore—and I hope that we will behave accordingly when the Bill is reintroduced.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, the Home Secretary said in another place earlier today that the Government remained committed to the Bill. For that reason, we very greatly welcome the statement made by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House about the Government's intentions for the next Session.
1362
For our part, whatever votes there may have been and whatever hesitations we have previously had, we will give it full support at every stage.
I have one further comment to make and I say it to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition in this House. We shall waste parliamentary time. We shall be seen to be going back over business discussed time and time again. If the Conservative Party had behaved more wisely during the final stages of the Bill, and particularly today, it would have been for the honour of the House and to the advantage, though I might not like it, of the Conservative Party itself.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Carter: My Lords, in moving that the House do now adjourn, perhaps it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I say that the House will meet at three o'clock tomorrow for Starred Questions and for Prorogation. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes past nine o'clock.